The Jamestown environmental analysis

Material Information

The Jamestown environmental analysis
Patten, Peter
Colorado Center for Community Development
Place of Publication:
[Denver, Colo.?]
[Center for Community Development and Design?]
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
2 volumes : illustrations, charts, maps ; 22 x 36 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Community development -- Colorado -- Jamestown ( lcsh )
Community development -- Environmental aspects -- Colorado -- Jamestown ( lcsh )
Land use -- Planning -- Colorado -- Jamestown ( lcsh )
Community development ( fast )
Community development -- Environmental aspects ( fast )
Land use -- Planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Jamestown ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Urban and Regional Planning (presently Master of Planning and Community Development), College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Peter Patten ; in cooperation with the Center for Community Development and Design, University of Colorado, Denver, College of Environmental Design and the Jamestown Board of Trustees, Jamestown, Colorado.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
09459086 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1979 .P388 ( lcc )

Full Text

... ... * i i
1 !
1 i 1
MAY 1979

1 9

I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to Ginny Chesney of the Boulder Community Design Center for her valuable contributions to this project in research and meeting preparations and participation. Thanks to Bill Parker of the Center for Community Development and Design (CCDD) for graphics assistance and Ronna Lee Widner, also of CCDD, for typing and report production. Special thanks to the people who volunteered their time and energy to speak to the study group: Steve Hanson, Boulder County Land Use Planner; Gail Hill, Environmental Planner for the Denver Regional Council of Governments; and Kevin Nichols, Community Planner, Center for Community Development and Design.
My deepest gratitude to the person who made it possible for this project to happen. Without the continuous ideas, support, encouragement > and guidance of Mark Murphy, Director of Sma11 Town and Rural Planning for CCDD, the Jamestown Envrionmental Analysis would not have happened.
Finally, this report is dedicated to the main participants in the project: The People of Jamestown who volunteered their time and energy to participate in the project. Special appreciation to Art Stewart for his persistent efforts in encouraging participation and his full-scale, continuous involvement in the project.

The Jamestown Environmental Analysis is documented in two parts. This document represents Part I and is concerned with the process with which the project was carried out in the community.
The technical product of the study, the environmental analysis itself, is contained in Part II. The reason for the separation of the documents into these two parts stems from the audience each is intended for. The process element is mainly aimed toward persons interested in community development and its interface with planning projects. The environmental analysis element serves primarily the Interest of Jamestown's citizens, others interested in the physical environment of the Jamestown area and those people concerned with environmenta1uplanning.
Following this two-part division of the study, the statement of problems involved in the study are as follows:
1) What process can be carried out in Jamestown in the short term to take action toward identifying and analyzing environmental issues and elements of concern?
2) What process, within a range of practical actual choices for pianning/community development can be carried out (in Jamestown or other similar situations) which effectively mixes and balances the functions and resulting beneficial consequences of both an educational, technical approach
to problem solving and a citizen input, participatory process in which development of community is a direct intended result?
3) What are the speclfi ic procedures of such a process i n
terms of commun icat i Ions between the planner/communi ity
developer and the citizens of the community?

li) How effective was the chosen approach as applied in Jamestown in terms of meeting certain criteria for eva1uat ion?
Jamestown, Colorado is a small community of about 200 people located about 8 miles directly northwest of Boulder, although because of its mountain location it is about a 25 minute auto drive from Boulder. As Boulder and other Colorado Front Range growth centers continue to grow rapidly and the nearby mountains become an increasingly appealing urban escape, growth pressures tend to rise in small, accessible towns such as Jamestown.
Jamestown's life cycle has been punctuated by the boombust syndrome of mining. In fact, Jamestown owes its birth in the mid-l800's to the spreading of the word of the finding of valuable minerals in Jamestown. Early in its history, the town boomed as gold, silver and fluorite were found in the hills around town. The minerals slowly depleted until the mines were no longer economically feasible. Jamestown then entered a stabilizing period while the tremendous growth explosions of urban and then suburban areas occurred across the country. Jamestown however, has remained relatively stable in its growth patterns. The project is an attempt to begin formulating a planning process within Jamestown so that they may guide anticipated growth from the Front Range urban centers as they wish, beginning with the opportunities and constraints of their physical environment.
The Jamestown area has a tremendously beautiful but delicate environment. It is characterized by dense forests of pine and evergreens, steep hillsides, narrow gulches and clear
mountain streams. The Jamestown Environmental Analysis is an attempt to inventory and analyze important opportunities and constraints of that environment for potential urban development. The project was not aimed at encouraging or discouraging growth, but rather to generally evaluate the areas where, if growth did occur, it could be accommodated without serious nega tive impacts on the physical environment.
The process to carry out the project in the community was to involve as many people as possible in the project and to give people an opportunity to contribute their information, opinions and sanctions. Thus, the people were to be integrally involved in the process and this was to be reflected in the technical product of the study (Part II).
1) To produce an environmental analysis of the Jamestown area using a map overlay technique so that areas of varying degrees of capability to absorb urban development are generally identified. To produce a map of urban suitability which incorporates the community's values towards the environmental elements involved.
2) To provide an opportunity for any citizen of the community to participate meaningfully in the environmental planning process.
3) To strengthen general awareness and importance of Jamestown' environment and the potential effects of unplanned growth.
lt) To allow the citizens' participation to play a major role in the content and outcome of the environmental analysis.

The study Is to Identify areas of most environmental concern and to limit the maps to these elements. Most of the technical research and information will be concerned with these identified elements of most importance. Other issues of interest which are not mappable but more action-oriented will be included (spin-off topics or current environmental issues) in the scope of the study if and when they arise.
The process chosen will be selected from several realistic alternatives as examined at the beginning of the study and will be evaluated in terms of its success in meeting evaluation criteria for interactive planning, rather than against the rejected alternatives' advantages and disadvantages.
1) COMMUNITY FAMILIARIZATION Occurred as a result of my involvement in a community self-survey in Jamestown in the
k months previous to project initiation in the community.
2) EXPLORATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Through extensive discussions with my supervisor on the community survey project as to possibilities for projects in Jamestown which could be of interest both to myself and potentially to the
community as well.
3) PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND PROJECT PROPOSAL After the problem was Identified a project proposal was prepared and presented to the Jamestown Town Board for their consideration as to whether it be a worthwhile project for the community and whether there would be sufficient community interest to carry out the project.
k) COMMUNITY ADOPTION OF THE PROJECT It was decided at the proposal presentation that the project was very worthwhile and they would adopt or endorse the project (they did so with a unanimous vote) and offered their assistance in carrying out the study.
5) PROJECT PROCESS RESEARCH This was an in-depth study of possible ways to carry out the project with respect to the type, amount and mechanisms of possible communications programs which the project could undertake (detailed in Chapter 2).
6) PROCESS ORGANIZATION After an approach for the project was chosen, the specific organization of how to carry it out was constructed.
7) PROJECT CARRIED OUT IN THE COMMUNITY This section is detailed in Chapter k.
8) PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS The project's action phase was a presentation by myself and the main participants from the community to the Town Board and the general citizenry. The presentation was a reflection of both the process undertaken and the content of the study.
The following chapter is an examination of a broad range of planned change efforts with a special emphasis on expert/ client relationships in each. The first two approaches are extreme positions which help define the three approaches of actual alternatives for the Jamestown Environmental Analysis.
Chapter 3 makes a choice for the study approach from Chapter 2's alternatives and lists the features of the approach which

make it the most desirable. Also included in this chapter are the criteria by which the approach will be evaluated in Chapter 5.
The concluding chapter evaluates the process in terms of study criteria and makes some suggestions for others attempting a similar process in other communities.
In Chapter ^, the reader discovers the application of the process in Jamestown in terms of the specific planning and happenings of each meeting.
P\&\-1 : f^bw oi

ex^icra fieri

-ftttni It ATI xa

ptW&n ^kJenfihcaiion and pitp/\nxflcn of /
^project pcc coal
^project Adaption



crtpuvhx'ho, 'i


ttrt&daflcr& action


In the search for a suitable process to conduct the Jamestown Environmental Analysis it was a necessary prerequisite to research a wide range of planned change efforts with special regard to the interaction and communication between the planner/ expert and the client/layperson. Since the objectives were to conduct a planning project with an emphasis on community participation, It was felt that an examination of a broad range of expert/client relationships would aid in identifying the realistic alternatives for the study which were to be found in between the extremes. Each approach will be discussed briefly with regard to its intended focus or ends sought, the basic phases of the approach and its general relationships between the actors involved in the process. The term actors is used here because several of the processes include the political sphere as a third actor along with the pianner/expert and the 1ayperson/cllent. Figures 2 and 3 exhibit the spectrum of approaches to planned change to be examined and some characteristics of their client/expert relationships.
Rational Decision-Making Approach
The rational decision-making approach is a widely held conception of how decisions ought to be made. It will be described here in its logical, rigidly programmed, systematized form that has become predominant in planned change approaches in the United States since World War II. It is the process most synonymous with the notion of a bureaucratic or elitist approach to decision-making. Rational decision-making focuses upon deriving the most logical, rational solution to a given problem statement.
As applied to planned change problems, rational decision-making generally follows these phases:

bdecXeA ftrfo&wer
Oftxng& fcffrvache& And' 1ter KeAA+iorv^iip^ Ct-v <5*5AD£> of £tupY 6Y wim TVP&- Of58 PCtAMUNICAnCfA eerwe^H erera AMD PUP W6 B&.-WMMfi* CDH*M4I6ATICM m&K AHC> cwmx ^ugHr cmtWJL-m&f- ueva-amd cmxe&o a? (feUW£AU iMfVT recMwcM. WbNuex&e' of ouet^X H feoutncr4 pxp^fyeM'nAL. jO^wuscx^e cf OLA&Urt IN 6cturm <^N£?f2A- U&/&L-Of ^mamwiiy afwk^ Process and Participation Ci ti zens Expert Used As An Info Resource By Commun i ty Low to Med i urn High Low to Med i urn High Very High
fi&ev&A 401XIN6H NPF&OKM Process and Problem Solution Mainly Citizens Expert Used As An Info Resource By Community Med i urn to High High Med i urn to High Med i urn to High Usually High
HW&pexwe- | 'fKAPrno^t-FIANNM61 AfTOH Problem Solution Poli t ic ians and Experts Cl lent React i ve to Expert1s Proposals Usually Low to Med i urn Low Usually High Usually Low Usual 1y Low to Med i urn
fJAflcKAl- fwnnim& Afrm KMWMAL / £&4e*0t4'M6iQt& Avwp&mz'ftm&cfoje- / fiAMM/M^I / 1 1
f \ fUANNlNfl
l -4 1 1-
ffa&W&A 4mnt\e* Hmvvrt
F^.3: Ocnhnam ck VhmeA Change, h^ttoche^

: m. 4-
I ISatim*! DzImm PtaKWn0
----- t?o\thcAl
--------6i-hWi inpuf'
---------- ooteWe* expert
i cp
Aurmw/e a\x&? o? f&cicrt
Pn^lwi-living fIvce^b

1) A problem Is Identified in the political sphere as being worth an attempt at the reduction of problematic conditions
2) Political representatives form goals and objectives to attain the desired state of affairs.
3) The above information is turned over to the planner/ expert who carefully weighs and analyzes alternative means. This process is often a systematization of quantifiable data Into a form whereby alternatives may be tested in a model simulating the environment into which the solution will be placdd.
M The alternatives most closely achieving the desired conditions are turned over to the politicians for final selection of a solution.
5) A solution is chosen in the political sphere. Usually the solution is the alternative showing the most promise of attaining the pre-determined, preferred ends.
6) The preferred solution is put into the form of an implementation or action program.
7) The solution's effectiveness may be evaluated or modified.
The rational model assumes a world knowable predominantly through positive, quantifiable, identifiable facts. According to this approach, truth and falsity are dependent upon scientifically proven facts, other Information is disregarded. It also assumes that both values and facts, and means and ends can be clearly distinguished.
Some of the variables involved are the accurate identification of the problem, the assets and time of the decision-makers,
the creativity and completeness of selected alternatives and the degree of sophistication and accuracy of the knowledge technology used (computers have played a major role in the past two decades).
There exists virtually no relationship between the persons toward whom the change strategy is aimed and the decision-makers in the rationalistic approach as defined (see Figure 3). In fact, the expert's client is usually the politicians for whom the work is being performed. Thus, the people affected by the decision are twice removed from the decision-making process.
The major effect of this situation manifests in the implementation or action phase when citizens are asked to comply and carry out the new program. The ineffectiveness of the programs has brought the rationalistic model under serious criticism in the United States as we experience an increasing emphasis upon the recognition of our pluralist democratic state. As Donald Littrell points out:
"A participating democracy is the superior method of conducting community affairs in that people tend to support what they have helped create. If citizens have had an opportunity to develop programs, ideas, or other projects they will usually work to carry them out." ^
Robert C. Anderson adds:
"Those who throw up their hands at the thought of popular participation, and are concerned about the possible outcome, should consider change efforts which have taken place without participation, and examine the questionable outcomes of such efforts." 1

The Community Approach
The community approach is most closely associated with what is generally referred to as community development. It is focused mainly upon the process which it utilizes to emphasize its three distinctive features, according to Lee Cary:
"1) popular or broad-based participation
2) community as an important concept, and
3) the holistic nature of concern." 3
The community approach seeks to create conditions for human development. It utilizes a person whose role is to enable and encourage human development. This community development worker, according to Li 11re 11,
"strives to motivate people to look at their environment to see how it might be enhanced or improved ... .By helping people to establish a community development process in an area, a process of human development is started." 1
The concern for participation strives for"open, popular and broad involvement of the people of the community in decisions that affect their lives." 5 Roland Warren believes participation means:
"the deliberate attempt by community people to work together to guide the future of their communities."
Thus, since participation is heavily emphasized and a major end to community development, it is obvious that the citizens
of the community have nearly complete control over the elements of the process and their results. While community development may use a rational model of problem solving in its process, the emphasis is not on problem solution, but the extent to which the process of sofution develops human potential.
Outside resource persons, or experts, may be introduced when alternatives are examines and information desired, but their contribution remains minimal and contingent upon the citizens' desires for the information. Littrell explains that outside resource people can hinder the community development process if they are not properly trained in community interaction techniques and practices. 7
The community approach is strong in increasing participation of people in decision-making and action, enabling a holistic view of local issues (versus a fragmented view), and bringing about changes which are understood, supported and carried out by the people involved.
However, one disadvantage which should be noted is that of the decreasing importance of locality responsibility with an associated rise in participation in interest-oriented small group projects. Indeed, Anderson notes that:
"while large numbers of people may be needed to help plan and carry out a door-to-door community self-survey, most community work can be carried out by small groups of competent people. Value does accrue to the individual in participation, but unless he sees the community value of his g participation, he will not participate for long."

Public Sector Comprehensive Planning Approach
This is the approach which is similar to a typical comprehensive planning process in a city or town with political representatives and a planning staff. This approach generally utilizes a rationalistic model for decision-making but includes at least a minimum of citizen input at certain pre-designated study phases. The focus of this approach is on selection of suitable solutions and programs to guide the physical and social environment toward a more desirable condition.
The major phases of a comprehensive planning process are as follows, according to Alan Black: 9
1. Preparation of the preliminary version of the plan by planning staff and commission.
2. Presentation of preliminary plan to the legislative body.
3. Lengthy period of debate by legislators and the public.
k. Adoption of the plan by the legislative body.
5. Publication and distribution of the final, adopted version of the plan.
6. Annual review of plan.
7. Major reconsideration of entire plan after 5-10 years.
8. Amendment of plan at any time.
Communication with citizens in this approach Is viewdd as predominantly a one-way provision of publicity and information about what has been done by the planning staff and planning commission (politleal sphere). Black describes his recommenda t ions:
"It would be wise to Involve citizens at an early point. Publicity should be given out from time to time. In some, places an ad hoc citizens' committee is formed to give the planner another sounding board and to communicate their ideas better to the public."
"Strenuous efforts should be made to attract public attention to the plan and to disseminate information on its proposals. Besides distribution of the preliminary plan document, other common means of public information should be utilized." '
Sherry Arnstein adds that informing:
". can be a most important first step toward legitimate citizen participation. But too often the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information from officials to citizens with no channels provided for feedback." ^
This emphasis upon informing citizens in a public relations type atmosphere causes problems of credibility, relevance and ineffective implementation. Indeed, citizen participation should be viewed as going well beyond a public relations policy. Grassroots levels of genuine community participation and democracy, designed to maximize the citizen's role in the planning and administration of successful change efforts are essential elements.


The Special Purpose, Problem-Solving Approach
This is an approach to community development which focuses on the "special problem" as the target for resolution. The community approach, in contrast, is more concerned with the holistic nature of concern--any need or concern of the community. The special purpose approach does not ignore the community approach's other features of broad-based participation and community as an important concept, but rather sees community development as:
"an expertise which employs scientific problemsolving methods to deal with the special kinds of problems and needs which,plague communities undergoing rapid change."
Further distinctions of this approach from the others are evident after a look at the key steps:
1) Problem Identification results from an awareness on the citizens' part who are affected by the problem. Thomas claims this must occur "to the extent that there is a growing discontent or desire to take some action toward its solution." ^
2) Mobilizing the Requisite Resources these are found mostly in the community but the search commonly goes to external sources. Thomas emphasizes the assets of human resources in the community:
"Being able to identify and mobilize the various kinds of human skills, energy, and imagination is as necessary to the process^ -as lining up the material resouces ." .
3) Program Planning every major sector of the community should be represented on the planning body to insure understanding of proposed plans. Also important here is the type of participation opportunity the people must have chances to criticize and make suggestions.
h) Program Activation variation in the individuals'
contribution are diverse but the fullest participation possible is the objective.
5) Evaluation should be performed in all steps and especially at the end so that lessons can be applied to subsequent efforts.
The special purpose, problem-solving approach assumes that men are "capable of uniting around an issue and devising a solution that accrues to the benefit of the largest number of persons." ^ The problem-solving method is assumed to be effective in solving specific problems, also. Research skills availability, information-dissemination skills and organizational ability are important elements in the problem-solving approach.
Thus, this approach is controlled by the citizens and uses experts as information sources to solve specific problems. Control of the process by citizens and full participation are factors which distinguish this approachfrom comprehensive planning and rational decision-making (in a bureaucratic setting). Community approaches differ in that they are concerned with any problems the community is experiencing, rather than a focus on a specific issue as a reason for the planned change effort.


Interactive/Transactlve Planning Approach
The interactive, or transactive approach has emerged in recent years as a means to expand communeiat Ions of planned change efforts from a traditional one-way information and/or public relations program into a tworway process of information and reaction in which all actors learn from the process. It focuses on the solution to a problem while emphasizing participation of citizens and other features of community development approaches. While the other approaches outlined have a characteristic group of either citizens or outside experts as the control group, interactive planning combines the outside expert/planner and citizens in a single guidance system.
Transactive planning has risen out of the realization that programs designed for the public without significant and meaningful citizen participation have been generally ineffective. Federal programs, especially those of urban renewal, have experienced the severe ramifications of non-involvement of the public sector. Major legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has recently aided the provision of opportunities for public input into the planning process. The growth of neighborhood planning and associated neighborhood organizations has also been a step toward greater participation in decision-making for the layperson. Basic plans include:
1) Problem Identification can occur from inside or outside of the community. If it occurs externally it is very important that there actually exists both an awareness and need for the project on the part of the citizens, otherwise lack of involvement and motivation can severely reduce the study's relevance or kill it outright. !
2) Resource Identification and Mobilization the planner plays an especially important role in this phase because of his familiarity with the centers of research where data can be collected. However; in the interactive
\heocsf onobsftAb
figwJ p
CX\tc\^, CtrrinVrtte'
* inhrmte' kncwl&iac-tk context
rzal&tic* a\\&(Y\obvJ£>
'flpnrte pru?n+\&z> \
?\h 8: Mcde\ of Hrav\wcfav& FbnmKia


approach, the experiential or personal knowledge of the citizens is considered to be Just as important to the study as the processed or theoretical knowledge.
3) Alternative Analysis relies heavily upon the citizens' knowledge because of their familiarity with what has worked or failed in the past, the operational details and feasibility judgements, and most Importantly their values and priorities. The planner's effectiveness in his role as an educator within the process Is reflected in the value and priority decisions which are made in this and the following stage.
4) Recommendation is a crystallization of effort and can be in the form of a recommendation for action, a campaign to inform the general public about study results, a statement of policy by relevant agencies concerning study Issues or a continuation or closure of the project. Interactive planning should be committed to the type of closure that encourages follow-up and/or continuation.
5) Evaluation and Modification is an important task for both planner and client. The planner Is concerned with both the process utilized and the resultant product or action. Relationships between the recommendations and process organization are important.
Some of transactive planning's variables are citizen awareness of the scope and urgency of the problem, the community's external and internal availability of resources, citizen participation, nature and scope of the problem and timing of the effort with respect to the community's place in its "stream" of planned change efforts.
Assumptions in this approach include that an educative impact can be made through participation, that both layman and professional can contribute relevance and credibility to the inter-
active process and that effective communications process can occur between the professional and citizen.
Thus, the transactive approach restructures the traditional client to planner relationship. It recognizes the value of both types of knowledge each can provide and attemtps to blend and balance the inputs into a single guidance system. John Friedmann is the principal advocate and originator of trans-active planning. '9 Friedmann recognizes the "widening gulf in communication between technical planners and their clients." He recognizes that planners too often choose a written form of communication directed toward impressing other planners rather than being truly responsive to and communicating with the client. On the other side, the language of clients is difficult to incorporate into the formalized vocabulary of the planners because:
". it is tied to specific operational contexts.
Its meanings shift with changes in the context, and its manner of expression is frequently as important as the actual words employed. This is probably the reason why planners prefer written to verbal communications."
Friedmann believes that:
"If the communications gap between planner and client Is to be closed, a continuing series of personal and primarily verbal transactions between them is needed, through which processed knowledge is fused with personal knowledge and both are fused with action."
Some of the drawbacks or precautions to this approach are the relatively small number of people who can effectively participate in the procedural phase of the process, the larger demands of time, resource acquisition skills and organizational abilities

on the planner, maintaining high levels of citizen interest and involvement throughout the process and the relatively slow pace of the process before action Is taken (in regard to our swiftly moving, action-oriented society).
Donald W. Littre11, The Theory and Practice of Community Development (Columbia: University of Missouri, Extension Division, 1970), page 5.
Robert C. Anderson, "Our Educational Model of Participation Examined," Journal of the Community Development Society, Fal1 1970, page 83.
Lee J. Cary, "The Community Approach," from Approaches to Community Development, National University Extension Association and the American College Testing Program,
1973, page 9.
Littrel1, page 3.
Cary, page 11 .
^ Roland L. Warren, The Community in America (Chicago:
Rand McNally, 196377" page 20.
^ Littrel1, page 26.
Anderson, page 81..
Alan Black, "The Comprehensive Plan," from Principles and Practices of Urban Planning (Washington D.C.: International City Managers' Association, 1968), pages 368 370.
^ Black, page 368.
^ Black, pages 368 369.
Sherry R. Arnstein, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:*,
July 1969, page 2l8.
As advanced by Richard Thomas in "The Special-Purpose Problem-Solving Approach," Approaches to Community Development National University Extension Association and The American College Testing Program, 1973, pages 39 50.
page *2.
page *2.
page U2.
page *1,
Arnstein, page 220.
As advanced in John Friedmann, Retracking America A Theory of Transactive Planning (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973)
Friedmann, page 171.
Friedmann, page \~jk. Friedmann, page 177.

Interactive planning was chosen for the Jamestown Environmental Analysis. This approach was considered to bear the characteristics which enabled study objectives to be met and which I, as the planner, valued the most. Some of these characteristics or features are:
1) Interactive planning allows for a two-way communication process where both planner and citizen educate and react. This sets up an environment where mutual learning and understanding take place. Important personal relationships beyond the usual planner/client relationship are sought and this allows the planner to learn from the client's personal knowledge and the client from the planner's technical expertise. John Friedmann says that:
"In this process (of mutual learning), the knowledge of both (planner and client) undergoes a major change. A common image of the situation evolves through dialogue; a new understanding of the possibilities for change is discovered. And in accord with this new knowledge, the client will be predisposed to act."
2) An interactive approach allows for the focus on a specific study and problem-solving process. It can be focuses very easily bn a pre-determined project, working toward recommendation and/or action as a result.
3) Communications as an interdependent part>of the technical planning program. Communications results shape the work program by identifying major concerns and issues of the people. Xhese become elements of the study and are very Important because It aids in prioritizing studies, minimizes information gaps near the study conclusion and helps decide which issues should be thoroughly investigated.

**) Communications occur throughout the whole study process, rather than at pre-designated study phases. Input all the way through on the citizens' part is important. Also, continuous communications helps the planner to analyze and determine how to "weight" certain information he has collected to maintain accurate data and study credibility.
5) Planner credibility is established by making the effort to communicate extensively and meaningfully with the client. As mentioned above, the study results are definitely more relevant because the information and data utilized has undergone scrutInization of both planner and client.
6) Possibly most important is the capacity of the interactive approach to allow value Judgements to structure study tesults. The whole problem of outside experts imposing decisions on people only with the use of technical, processed knowledge has manifested to the point where this information must be structured and yield, at least partially, to people's values. Guidance systems
of planned change will reflect the actual desires of the people only when value judgements are imposed and play an integral part of decision-making.
Of the available alternatives, interactive planning comes closest to alleviating some of the problems of more typical change efforts. Indeed, John Friedmann believes transactive planning can help. He sees transactive planning as an effective response to the inefficiency of the present guidance system in America. Some of the major problems in the system are an extraordinarily high degree of centralization in the power to make effective decisions; actions are initiated far from their ultimate points of impact, and "the fact there is relatively little feedback of meaningful information to the centers of action." ^ He goes further,
"The other aspect of a progressively unresponsive guidance system is a population that Is progres-ively less and less the master of its destiny, whose lives are subject to random impersonal forces that no longer seem to be intended or controlled by anyone. America is becoming a non-participant society. Its people have little understanding of their own environment. Being so remote from control over events, the non-particI pant subject finally ceases even to care." 3
1) Was a two-way communications process achieved?
2) Was technical information successful communicated via various techniques so that it was fully understood by the citizens?
3) Were people's personal and experiential knowledge incorporated into the study?
k) Were issues of concern and importance to the community seriously included in the study?
5) Was citizen participation realized at sufficient levels throughout the process to make the study relevant and generally reflective of the community's values7
6) Did mutual learning take place? Was the citizens' awareness of the problem heightened? Did the planner learn from the citizens' knowledge?

7) Was there a willingness to act or make recommendations on the study's results?
8) Did study results realistically reflect the participants' va1ues?
9) Was there a genuine need in the community to warrant examination of the problem studies? (Since it was identi fied externally to the community)
John Friedmann, Retracking America A Theory of Transactive Planning (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973), page 185.
Friedmann, page 191-3
Friedmann, page 192.


It was decided by the planner (myself) to set up a series of meetings in which a small group composed of citizens and the planner would work through the environmental analysis together, each contributing our respective types of knowledge to the study.
The study group was initially formulated by asking for names arid phone numbers of interested people at regular meetings of the Town Board, beginning with the December meeting where the project was initially proposed and accepted. The potential group was expanded by asking the people who were interested to identify others who also might be interested.
In assembling the study group a cross-section of the various sectors of the town population was sought. A particular emphasis was placed upon attaining the participation of as many of the members of the Town Board as possible, since they were the principal decision-makers and power holders of the community. All of the names obtained were followed up with phone calls informing them of the time and place of the first meeting Also, a sign was posted in the general store in town publicizing the intended effort and asking for interested participants.
A basic format for the elements to be included in each meeting was outlined from an examination of the criteria for evaluation Translation of the criteria into objectives for each meeting resulted in the realization that the following five elements or features should be designed into each meeting:

1) An educational or awareness-heightening element.
2) A reactive or feedback element.
3) A period of discussion and verbal interaction.
i) Progress on the study product (McHargian-type environmental analysis).
5) A period where issues of importance as identified by the group (not necessarily related to fulfilling number four) would be addressed.
It's obvious that five different activities need not be designed to meet each of the five different features. A single activity could, conceivably, accomplish as many as three or even four of the elements. The following is an outline of the meeting design, a summary of happenings at the meeting, and an evaluation for each of the six meetings which took place up to the point of this writing.
1) Make this a generally easygoing, organizational meeting where the group begins to know and feel comfortable with each other.
2) Establish the purpose, objectives and importance of the project.
3) Discuss project design and methodology.
*4)1 Identify environmental assets and constraints of Jamestown as seen by group participants.
5) Identify other environmental issues and problems of importance to the townspeople.
The meeting began with introductory remarks and a background of myself as a planner and my involvement in Jamestown during the previous months. After others identified themselves I began by saying what I felt was a possible product of the study and how we might proceed toward that end. A time flow chart was utilized as a graphic aid. I continued explaining why I felt a study of this nature was important using some ideas from a book on a citizens' environmental council in Virginia.
(I handed out copies of excerpts from the book at the end of the meeting). Then I asked each person why such a study was important to them. A good deal of time was spent on this introductory segment as it was felt very important to establish the purpose and objectives of the study for all participants.
The process of identifying environmental issues and elements of importance was next. Each person was asked what they noticed about Jamestown's environment that was nice, what were the assets? After these were recorded on large sheets of paper taped to the wall, and discussed a little, the other side of the issue was raisedthe environmental hazards were talked about and recorded. Throughout this process I asked some questions so that I maximized my learning experience and, at the same time, allowed them to reflect further upon their physical environment.hoping that awareness might be heightened.
I also encouraged them to put some of the information

down on the maps so they would get used to putting information on and reading maps.
As this process materialized, there arose a series of questions about town boundaries, multi-jurisdictional control of land in and around town and the relationship of mining to water quality and quantity. These issues identified by the people were discussed and | continued to ask a lot of questions to keep discussion lively.
At the conclusion, some research tasks were divided up between the group members and myself to begin to work on answers to some of the questions which came up.

There was a normal mild nervousness and tension occur-ing on the part of both myself and the group at the beginning of the meeting. I was nervous because of the fact that the problem had been externally (from the community) identified and I was uncertain oyer the interest which might not be shown and the number of people who would attend. ( was pleased that there were seven people which proved to be a good number for small group interaction.
The initial nervousness deteriorated as we began discussing the purpose and importance of environmental concerns and things started to go smoothly. The importance of environmental protection seemed to be fairly well established as we began to identify and record environmental features. This was slow at first but interest and discussion accelerated as I asked questions to elicit their ideas. The group seemed to be becoming at ease and Interested.
It was particularly encouraging that some of the participants volunteered to research some of the items which
brought up. This encourages further involvement and begins a commitment toward the project.
One aspect which bothered me a little until I came to a further realization, was that of the group's interest in things which had nothing to do with the goals of my project. Sometimes the discussion would get way off the subject (In my terms) and this would distress me.
After giving this considerable thought afterward, I realized that simply getting folks out and participating was an important part of the study. The discussion shouldn'twalways be restricted to furthering the information for the environmental analysis. Thus, I determined that it would be beneficial on all accounts to make these concerns an integral part of the study and encourage all the participants to pursue these issues.
The group at this point was wel1-representative of the town as there was a mix of young and old, Town Board members and laypeople.
1) Review the first meeting's results and re-emphasize the purpose and objectives of the study.
2) Address questions of: what are the steps and elements of an environmental analysis? and how does such an analysis fit into a land use planning process?
3) Explain Ian McHarg's overlay technique for environmental planning (which the group will use).

h) Begin to look at the impacts, consequences and causes of environmental deterioration.
5) Hear reports on research results.
6) Review the list of environmental assets and constraints from last meeting with further discussion and expansion of the list.
7) Identify a suitable study area for the project.
Because I immediately noticed there were four people there who had not been at the first meeting, I started out by having everyone introduce themselves. Definition and explanation of the project followed, repeating what had been said at the first meeting, but also adding some more clarification In a written form. A four-page handout from the book Caring for the Land by Bruce Hendler was distributed. This showed how to do an environmental resources inventory and how it fit into a comprehensive planning process. It also had a good graphic on the overlay technique and helped explain that further.
A review of the environmental pros and cons from the first meeting was then taken up. Some additions and refinements were added to the list. I asked about some areas or elements which I thought might be important but weren't on the list and received some good feedback.
Research reports were delivered and some excellent discussion occurred in this segment of the meeting. These reports were from myself and other group members, also. Some of the best overall interest and participation thus far in the study occurred during these discussions of various topics. Everyone seemed to be evolving a deeper
interest in the this point. Some of the topics covered here were environmentally related and some weren't.
The last part of the meeting was a presentation of some material from Caring for the Land. This was a graphic display of pages copied from the book and put onto large sheets of paper. Only environmental elements pertaining to Jamestown were used as the focus here was on the re-s suiting Impacts of disregarding the environment versus the beneficial side of respecting and using environmental assets.
This meeting went generally very well. It was advantageous to review and re-emphasize the purpose of the project and the reasons for environmental protection.
This will be repeated several more times as it should be, especially when new members are present.
As mentioned above, there occurred a high level of participation and interest with excellent interaction between me and the folks and also the folks themselves, especially when current questions and issues were discussed .
This is still an early phase of the study and is still relatively heavy on the educational element. This is desirable in the early stages so that the group's collective knowledge builds up to the stage where serious, intelligent questioning and input is required to balance the technical information and when value judgements are made at the conclusion.
Attendance was the same as the first meeting but there were several new members present. Still, activity and

discussion didn't suffer from this changeover.
The presentation of material from Caring for the Land could have been more effective in a different format. Several things contributed to the relative failure of this presentation: lack of time (and of a long meeting), small size of graphics with relation to the group (they had to get up out of their chairs to see the drawings), lack of any situational tie-in to Jamestown (although the subjects were picked for Jamestown's situation) and possibly not enough preparation of the verbal presentation. I decided after the meeting that I had the right concept in terms of information but it needed adifferent type of format and more relation to actual things in Jamestown to make It effective. This was achieved in the next meet i ng.
1) Have Steve Hanson from the Boulder County Land Use Planning Department talk on comprehensive planning, land use regulations and controls and answer questions.
2) Present a slide show using material from Caring for the Land and slides taken in Jamestown.
In response to the general desire of the group at the second meeting, Steve Hanson was obtained and gave a good talk on the comprehensive planning process and then defined
some various land use control systems. Steve talked for about a half an hour and then it was opened up to questions. A particularly good session took place here with Steve offering his help in tackling some of the town-county relationship problems which were identified. This was a segment devoted to an educational element which addressed an issue or area of importance to the folks (es they identified in the previous meeting).
The second half of the meeting retained an educational context with the slide show presentation. This was an attempt at improving the effectiveness of some of the same information from the end of the 2nd meeting. In developing planning communications, especially environmental planning, it's very important to relate the conceptual knowledge to the situational. This is a direct attempt at blending the expert's knowledge (technical, theoretical) with that of the client (experiential, personal). The slide show was assembled with a picture of a graphic from Caring for the Land showing, for example, the effects of a mined-out area left ;as a scar. There were a couple of sentences of the explanation of the effects with each graphic. This would be shown .and explained and then be followed by a picture of a similar area in Jamestown, transferring the idea into the people's own experience. Ail areas of environmental importance to Jamestown, as the group had defined, were covered, and then some (that the planner felt was applicable). The siide show was intermittently interrupted on purpose for reactions, comments and questions to involve the folks as much as possible. As opposed to the presentation attempted at the second meeting, considerable time and effort went into this show's preparation.
Steve Hanson's talk was beneficial and appreciated. Some problems and uncertainties between the town and the county

were cleared up. I felt good about his talk as I was able to meet the group's request of learning about land use controls and general planning. Steve was happy to help out and became interested in the project himself, as he stayed for the slide show and helped answer some questions.
The slide show was a particularly successful and helpful activity. I was pleased with the way it came out and I believe it was very effective In raising the environmental awareness of the citizens. I was complimented after the meeting on the show and later was informed that it was brought up at the Town Board meeting that this had been an outstanding presentation.
This meeting retained an effective educational emphasis so that the people would be more able to handle the upcoming meetings emphasizing reaction and, ultimately, value judgements. The first three meetings really addressed identification of the issues, educational materials addressing these issues and the purpose of the project. Getting the folks to become more interested through their direct participation was important also so that participation levels would remain constant .throughout the study. There were six people at this meeting, all of them had attended at least one previous meeting. Participation was constant and enthusiastic.
1) Present for comments, changes and reactions the initial set of maps with the information accumulated up to this point.
2) Utilize the services of Gail Hill, Environmental Planner for Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) to explain the background, sources and methodology of the environmental information to be presented.
3) Get into extensive interactive discussion on the content and accuracies/inaccuracies of the maps.
Gail Hill was basically running the meeting in that she would begin by presenting a map of a particulr element and describing its source and methodology. Many of the maps we had were from Gail's office so she was very well versed In this information. After Gail made a brief talk on the map's background, discussion was opened wide on the map's contents. We were saying to them that this is the information that's out there in the various agencies that collect it, now, how does this compare with what you know through your experience?
It was felt that this type of a process would result in maps substantially more accurate than if the information was merely taken to be 100% true. It was also a good opportunity to help people relate better to and understand mapped information.
Each map was subjected to this scrutinization process until we got through all of them.
Participation dropped off by another person and there were only five present. However, one positive aspect was that a particular group member possessing a huge knowledge of Jamestown's past and present, especially in relation to mining, was present for this exercise. So

even though we may not have had large-scale participation, we definitely had quality information and connections provided.
The lower turnout bothered me a bit because of who had dropped out--all the younger folks. As I was hoping to retain a cross-section of the community all the way through, this was a little distressing. I realized that there were problems in increasing competition from spring activities and also that there is usually a low point in participation somewhere and that this was probably it.
On the positive side, I was very pleased with what actually happened. Gail did very well with the presentations of the maps and educating everyone as to their origin, etc. There was strong participation and feedback at this meeting. Many of the maps triggered discussion and were significantly altered in response to the people's knowledge. There was a tendency of the folks to trail off the subject at times, getting into events of the olden days. This was basically beneficial, especially for the interaction between townspeoplemaybe part of the reason why they came out. I was confronted with the problem not unfamiliar to planners and community developers of how and when to swing the conversation back toward the topic at hand. Gail helped out on this a little and the desired feedback was eventually obtained.
This was an important meeting in terms of the relevancy and accuracy of the study's product. It is of high priority in an interactive process to allow for the qualification, mixing and balancing of the planner's and client's knowledge. And, although the turnout was not especially high, I felt we came out with some
exdellent map revisions and higher quality information. I also found out how much more information needed to be collected with some good leads as to sources for that information.
1) Go through an exercise of examining all the information collected and known about each environmental element (that the group was studying) and formulating value judgements on these elements.
2) Introduce some new information found which would aid In the development of these value judgements,
3) Establish an understanding of the reason behind and importance of these value judgements and how it fits in with what we've done all along.
The meeting started out with me explaining why these elements should be subjected to value judgements and how the exercise would work. I handed out a matrix chart which listed the elements to be dealt with listed on the left and the possible environmental impacts of the neglect of proper utilization or protection of the elements on the top. The boxes were filled in with circles representing a low, moderate or severe impact. On the far right of the chart was space to fill in two different value judgements for each element. This chart was to be the last item

looked at when each item was discussed, and then the value judgements made.
The first value judgement was based upon the information for that element, how severe should the restrictions in>-Jamestown be: low, moderate or strict. After each element was thoroughly discussed, new Information presented, the revised map examined and the environmental impact chart checked out, each person would mark the chart as to how strict they thought It should be regulated in Jamestown. These ratings were mostly for obtaining the general degree of strictness which a policy formulated for that element should take according to the study group. These could then be put into a recommendation for mat for the Town Board.
At the conclusion of this first value judgement for each element, each participant was then asked to judge each element in regard to Its relative importance against all the other items. These values were for the purpose of applying varying degrees of importance to each map in the overlay process. The difference between the two value judgements is that someone could feel that steep slopes should be moderately restricted in town policy but in relative importance to the other constraints, they might feel it is quite important.
Explaining the difference between the two types of value judgements proved difficult. It was a somewhat fine distinction and I'm afraid I wasn't all that clear and concise in my explanation. However, after a period of time and numerous differently worded explanations, the group was set to go.
The exercise proved to be quite valuable in an educative as well as reactive sense. There were a lot of questions
comments and discussion, especially when we got to the environmental impact chart that I had made out. This in-depth mental examination of all the impacts on the part of the folks had not been an intended part of the plan. It was encouraging and revealing that some of my oversights, misconceived value judgements and obvious mistakes were identified and triggered discussion.
One error on my part was reading too fast from a handout that everybody had In front of them. This was excerpts from a Colorado Geological Survey document containing some good Information on some of the elements discussed. In my anxiousness to try to get through all of the items (we eventually were successful in doing that at this meeting) I was reading too fast and it wasn't sinking in. I slowed down and I think it was well appreciated.
It might have been beneficial, also, to write out an explanation of the two value judgements, explaining their differences and giving examples.
This meeting really produced some good exchange of the two different knowledge types, making applications of the general knowledge to Jamestown. It also was quite a bit more interactive than I had thought it would be. I had it planned mostly toward meeting study goals (I needed the information for the maps) and it actually resulted In covering just about all of the fine meeting features.
Particularly gratifying and helpful In terms of study relevance was the turnout--8 people. All of them except for one had been to at least two previous meetings.
This meant that the maximum number of continuous project participants were present. Thus, the value judgements expressed were extremely representative of the study group's feelings. It's also gratifying in that interest seems to be building at this point, an important indicator of the overall strategy's effectiveness.

6TH meeting
1) Present and discuss results of the value judgement exercise from the previous meeting.
2) Have Kevin Nichols, Community Planner with the Center for Community Development and Design, talk about land use controls and regulation, systems with an emphasis on protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
3) Have the group come to a decision on where to go from here in terms of recommendations and/or actions.
We first talked about the results of the value judgement exercise as each person received p handout of those tabulated and averaged results. I explained how I had tabulated it and categorized the elements for the overlay maps, according to the results. Considerable discussion occurred here as I also presented the question of how to word the various categories of restriction on the composite map. This was also a value judgement because the terminology could range quite a bit: from "no building in these areas at all" to "areas of most concern to the study group." As the group was not formed to be a specific policy making body and for other reasons, the latter phrasing was chosen.
As the discussion naturally swung around to ways to regulate the elements and how to let developers know what would be required of them, Kevin Nichols was introduced and made his presentation. Kevin gave an excellent overview of five or six various land use control systems ranging from zoning to permit systems. Kevin'is talk was
in response to a desire expressed by the group to hear some more on these regulations with specific regard to environmental protection. One particular Town Board member who had not attended any other meetings was recruited for this meeting by myself because of his interest in developing a land use regulation system in Jamestown.
It should be noted here that it is almost certain that Jamestown will enter into a large-scale comprehensive planning process next fall with the direction and help of the Center for Community Development and Design.
This is part of the reason for the interest in growth management systems within this project. A question and answer period immediately followed Kevin's presentation. One of the more important results of Kevin's talk was that it enabled the clarification of the difference between general areas of environmental assets and constraints like the analysis had identified and site planning considerations (which Kevin explained). The discussion and learning about growth management and controls of environmentally sensitive areas also serves the function of allowing the group members to see how the immediate project can be carried on (where can we go from here? what's next?).
The final part of the meeting was a discussion and consensus on exactly what was to be done from here. Possible options for action were presented and discussion opened. Much of the excellent discussion was put into the context and related to the upcoming comprehensive planning effort. The questions of what have we done? and what information have we gathered? were addressed to help the decision-making especially for the board member who hadn't been to any previous meetings but was quite involved, interested and active at this meeting. It was decided to do a presentation of the project for the remaining members of the Town Board (there were four out of seven present) and the general citizenry. This presentation would be performed by all the members of the group, not just the planners, as it was ffelt that the project belonged to al l those who participated and that

they all had a stake In what occurred. A date was determined for the presentation and another meeting was arranged before that date to assemble and work on the presentation and also to strategize the large-scale publicity effort which was determined to be necessary so that others would know about the project. There will be a discussion and announcement of the intended effort to do a comprehensive plan at this meeting.
I feel that this meeting can be termed a resounding success and by far the most gratifying of all. The importance, genuine interest and concern placed upon the presentation and further action leading right into a comprehensive plan is more than I had hoped for. I guess this could be one of those extremely rare "ideal" meetings, where the organizer always possesses and strives for that ideal in preparation, but It hardly ever turns out 1 ike that.
Another positive note for this meeting was attendance:
9 people, the biggest of all the meetings. All of the folks had been steady participants and it happened that the true "core" of people which had developed throughout the five previous meetings were present at this one. This, most likely, had an effect on the willingness and determination to take action as a group which had definitely gone through an interactive experience.
I received a definite but unarticulated feeling from the people that this study was very important to them and that we ought to keep it going and tel I others about what we've found out. There seemed to exist a real sense of 'we've been through an experience together and we feel it's important to get others invovled from the community.
Experiencing this myself made me very pleased with the project and allowed me to take an in-depth look at what had happened with respect to what my expectations had been. The former definitely went much further than the latter.


It is obvious that each person who was involved throughout the study would have a different idea on what happened and how they were affected. Everyone perceives things differently so that should be kept in mind when reading the following evaluation from the planner's point of view.
The evaluation will be structured according to the criteria at the end of Chapter 3- These questions will be answered from my point of view and then some remarks on variations or improvements will be made. The chapter ends with some concluding remarks.
1) Was a two-way communications process achieved?
There is really no doubt that this was achieved in every meeting. Certain meetings contained more of an exchange than others but the meeting design was successful in including both educational and reactive communications.
2) Was technical information successfully communicated via various techniques so that it was fully understood by the citizens?
Careful attention was paid to this point by several methods. Bringing in speakers who had experience in citizen communications, handing out materials which were picked for their verbal clarity and limited technical jargon, extensive use of graphic communications and taking the time and effort to explain the why, where and how of technical information were all methods of enabling a better understanding;of technical Information. Although some of the expert's knowledge was questioned and altered, I think these:methods were successful in communicating the material.

3) Were people's personal and experiential knowledge incorporated into the study?
This was achieved throughout the study as it is a major goal in interactive planning. The personal knowledge played a major role in structuring environmental elements to be studied in the analysis and later it was extremely important in shaping both the content of the maps and the background information for the maps. The people were considered to be and were utilized as an important resource in the study.
The ramifications of this on participation will be discussed in criteria 5 and 9-
It) Were issues of concern and importance of the community seriously included in the study?
This is an integral part of the process, especially in the earlier stages. Such things as a mine re-opening with a future real estate development proposal, location of town boundaries, jurisdictional land controls, uranium mining and radioactivity levels and general land use controls were examined in various stages throughout the study. All of these items came out of group discussion and were not originally brought up by the planner. The meetings were designed to address these issues with new information as discovered by both planner and citizens.
5) Was citizen participation realized at sufficient levels throughout the process to make the study relevant and generally reflective of community values?
The number of people at each meeting was as follows:

l 7
2 8
3 6
k 5
5 8
6 9
The relationship of number of meetings attended to number of people is shown below.
2 3 A
An estimate of persons targeted, or those who knew of the project is kS people. This was accomplished mostly through publicity at Town Board meetings and phone calls by myself and one of the group members. A sign was also posted in the general store for each meeting but this had, most likel an insignificant effect on the results. It should also be emphasized that this project was initiated outside the communi ty.
There were 15 people who came to at least one meeting. Average meeting attendance was 7.17 people, with 7 people

coming to at least four of the six meetings. Thus, 33,3% of the targeted population participated in at least one meeting with 15.6% of the target in continuous participation throughout the project.
When a community development project uses the targeting type of publiciity, it's expected that 10% will participate, In the Jamestown Environmental Analysis, the figure was 33-3%, with an ongoing participation of 15.6%. These figures should again be underscored by the fact that the norm figures, or expected numbers are for projects initiated within the community. This represents *'a really very good participation level" ^ according to T. Michael Smith, Director of the Center for Community Development and Design, Indeed, these numbers point out the success of the efforts to involve people and the sustained interest of the participants.
Although several of the younger members (early 20's) of the group dropped out of the study midway through it is still felt that the group was representative of the community as a whole. The age of the core group ranged from about mid-30's to mid-70's. There were 3 members of the Town Board in the core of seven. Also indicative of the participation was that I wasn't the only person recruiting for the project. Several of the group members aided the effort by publicizing and encouraging others both at Town Board meetings and via telephone calls.
6) Did mutual learning take place? Was the citizens' awareness of the subject heightened? Did the planner learn from the citizen's knowledge?
My overall feeling is that the people learned quite a bit. One indicator of this is the way the value judgements broke down on the environmental elements. It was felt by myself and other outside experts that the flash flood hazard was
the most important environmental constraint with steep hillsides being next. The folks judged these elements exactly in this order at the end of the study. Another indicator of mutual learning was the manner and content of the questions and reactions to things under discussion.
As the study progressed these became more and more directive and sophisticated, especially when we examined my environmental impact chart (5th meeting).
I can definitely say that I learned a great deal about Jamestown's environment and also other things related to the town. I can honestly say that the study would not have been nearly as relevant and meaningful had we not plugged-in the people's knowledge. Some of the other things I learned a lot about were the town's history, the people's backgrounds, environmental planning in general, and the strategies and implications of community development.
7) Was there a willingness to act or make recommendations on the study results?
At the end of the 6th meeting, the possible options were outlined to the study group, These were only suggestive in nature and covered a lot of various actions (including no action). The discussion was opened and it was extremely advantageous to have a certain Town Board member present who had not attended any previous meetings because he knew a little about the project and really wanted to know more. He suggested that other Board members and townspeople would also probably be interested and should be informed due to the fact that we had done some very valuable studies.
The rest of the group, representing the real "core" participants, agreed. They felt a presentation was necessary because of the valuable information and because the town

needed to begin to prepare and "gear up" for the upcoming comprehensive plan.
It was at this point that I told the group that I felt the project was theirs as well as mine and that it wouldn't be desirable if only I presented the project to the others.
I assured them that they knew just as much about what had happened as I did and that I would give them help if they were interested in participating in such a presentation.
This received a very warm response in that everyone agreed and said they would be glad to participate. It was decided that we ought to extensively publicize the presentation in the community to get people out and participating. We set up a meeting date for the presentation and a preliminary meeting in two weeks to assemble the show and strategize the publicity campaign.
Equally rewarding was the enthusiasm existing for the comprehensive plan in the near future. It was as if this study was triggering the impetus and momentum for the plan and people were willing to make a longer-term commitment.
8) Did study results realistically reflect the participants' values?
The 5th meeting was designed to elicit values for the study in two different ways. The composite map of land suitability (See Part II) reflected the values of the study group by going through an exercise designed to establish the importance of each environmental element to each individual.
These were tabulated and the results structured the composite map.
The other value judgement was more a recommendation to the Town Board in terms of how strict the element should be regulated in Jamestown. This was done within the exercise above and as documented in Chapter k under 5th meeting.
This type of individual scoring and then averaging proved to be a better system than attempting to arrive at verbal group consensus. There simply wasn't time to attempt such a long process such as consensus making. The results did accurately reflect the group's feelings as these were discussed and reaffirmed at the outset of the 6th meeting.
9) Was there a genuine need in the community to warrant examination of the problem studies?
This was a question of considerable concern for two months -from the time I proposed the project until about the third meeting. When the participation became consistent both in raw numbers and in high quality I was somewhat relieved and reassured that the study was relevant and that the need for the project did exist. The strong participation experienced in the latter part of the project (5th and 6th meetings) especially reinforced the need for the study. The willingness to take significant action at the end also shows that there was a genuine concern and need for the project.
The exercise of revolving leadership could've been utilized in the study and might've given the participants more control and more stake in the project. I felt that I might've controlled things a little too much, probably because this was a master's degree thesis and I had to get certain steps accomplished at certain times. I had to follow a schedule. If I had relinquished some of my control and handed it over to others it Alight've gone a different way in regard to some of the subjects taken up by the group. However, we might not have accomplished the really valuable product that has come

out in terms of the overlay analysis.
Another thing which could've been done is a hard-core recruiting process for new members at several points along the way. This might have increased participation levels and evolved into more of a general community development approach in the long run. This type of recruiting would be more suited to a non-interactive approach when one attempts to expand a basic nucleus, or core, into large-scale participation.
An improvement might have occurred if the participants were more involved in data gathering and researching. This is difficult for people who work full-time and simply don't have the time. This was attempted in the early phases but with limited resultes because of the time restriction. However, several of the group members did come up with some good information they had collected.
In summary, I wouldn't have done very much differently. There were no major problems encountered along the way and the results are more than rewarding. The interactive approach was extremely successful in the Jamestown Environmental Analysis and really demonstrated how planning projects can be creatively and successfully carried out in the community. The technical project need not suffer in this manner, but rather, I believe is significantly improved. Moreover, and equally important, is the beneficial impact upon the community which this process allows to occur.
I feel the approach blends the advantages of planning and community .development into a superior guidance system for planned change, and that the Jamestown Environmental Analysis is a very good case in support. My concluding remark is best verbalized by Wilford G. Winholtz:
"Irt the future, we may well wonder at the naivete of the planning profession in isolating itself from the people for so long through a 'technical' approach to problems which can only be solved through the involvement of the citizens in the community." ^
Personal communication with T. Michael Smith, Director -Center for Community Development and Design, University of Colorado Denver, May 3, 1979-
Wilford G. Winholtz, "Planning and the Public," Principles and Practice of Urban Planning (Washington D.C.: International City Managers' Association, 1968), page 582.

April 18, 1979
Mr. Mark Murphy
University of Colorado at Denver
Center for Community Development & Design
Bromley Building
1100 14th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Dear Mark:
The Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Town of Jamestown, Colorado wish to express their appreciation for the Jamestown Household Survey which was conducted this fall and winter by Peter Patten, Mark Thomson and yourself.
Not only did the opinion survey provide the Board with the desired knowledge of the thoughts of the community, but more importantly it aroused the Interest of the citizens in the problems facing the Town.
The Board feels that the success of the survey was due in large part to your involving so many of the citizens in the process of designing the survey in the several planning sessions.
The Town is also appreciative of the work currently in progress in Jamestown by Pater Patten and Jenny Chezny. The people who have taken advantage of the Environmental Study sessions have become better informed about environmental limitations to growth In the area and the Town will profit from this knowledge.
Sincerely yours.
P. 0. Box 163 Jamestown, CO 08455
May 9, 1979
Mr. Mark Murphy
University of Colorado at Denver
Center for Community Development & Design
Bromley Building
110 14th Street
Denver, CO U0202
Dear Mark:
The Town of Jamestown would like to be considered for additional services from you and your students at the Center in working toward a Comprehensive Plan for the town.
As you know a considerable amount of environmental information about the Jamestown area has been assembled by Peter Patten and Jenny Chezny. Additionally a group of Jamestown citizens have been much involved in the Environmental Study Group conducted by these two in connection with Peter's Masters Degree Thesis.
The Jamestown Board of Trustees decided that they would like to capitalize on this information and group interest in designing some constructive guidelines for future development, under your supervision. They have asked me to advise you of their decision. I hope that we can be Included in your busy schedule.
Arthur C. Stewart Trustee

Arnstein, Sherry R., "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:1*, July I969.
Friedmann, John, Retracking America: A Theory of Trans-active Planning (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973.)
Goodman, William I. (ed.), Principles and Practice of Urban PIanning (Washington, D.C.: International City Managers'
Assoc iat ion, 1968).
L i 11 re II, Donald W., The Theory and Practice of Community Development (Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri, Extension Division, 1970).
Long, Henry B. (ed.), Approaches to Community Development, National University Extension Association/American College Testing Program, 1973-
McKee, Dennis, Darrell Powers and John Wilhm, Commun i ty Development Procedural Model (Kansas City, Missouri: Kansas Department for Economic Development, 1976).
Warner, Katharine P., "Communication of Environmental Information," Environmental Analysis for Land Use and Site Planning, by William M. Marsh (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1978).
Warner, Roland L., The Community in America (Chicago: Rand McNally 6 Co., 1973).