Public Participation Planning

Public Participation Planning The purpose of this Literature Review is to establish a theoretical framework for my research proposal, specifically the theoretical aspects associated with public participation and collaborative planning. It aims to analyse and assess the various articles books and journals published and researched to date, while also identifying potential gaps in the research, which could be addressed by my research proposal. The literature review will take the form of an assessment of the emergence of public participation, the different types of participation and decision making models, followed by an analysis of the merits of collaborative planning as a tool for facilitating public participation within a development plan process. 2.2What is meant by participation? Although the merits of public participation have only begun to gain credence in recent times, the idea itself has been around for quite a while and literature on the subject can be found spanning back a number of decades. Public Participation has been defined as citizen involvement in making service delivery and management decisions (Langton, 1978). More recently it has been defined as ‘the process through which stakeholders influence and share control over priority setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods and services (Kende-Robb, 2005). Sanoff argues that it is advocated to reduce citizen cynicism toward government, build stakeholder consensus in government and enhance administrative decision-making. There remains a strong sense that the proper objective of participation is to ensure the ‘transformation of existing development practice, and more radically, the social relations, institutional practices and capacity gaps which cause social exclusion. This was central to many of the approaches to participation over the years including the community development approach from the 1940s to 1960s; political participation in the 1960s and 1970s; alternative development from the 1970s to the 1990s; social capital from the mid 1990s to the present and participatory governance and citizen participation from the late 1990s to the present day (Hickey Mohan, 2004). Other traditional participation mechanisms include public hearings, citizen forums, community or neighbourhood meetings, citizen advisory groups, individual citizen representation and focus groups (Wang, 2001). The focus on increasing public participation and citizen involvement in policy making has only begun to have a visible effect in recent times. It has been stated that direct, active citizen involvement in policy making has not always been a goal of civilised societies (Putnam, 1995). The reason is, to some extent a result of the enlarged role in society played by government bureaucracies (Davidoff, 1965). Habermas however states that individuals should be able to freely share their views with one another in a process, which closely resembles true participatory democracy. He states that the public sphere is â€Å"a discursive arena that is home to citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action† (Habermas, 1981). By allowing every person the same opportunity to participate in discourse, Habermas hopes to eradicate the prejudices which limit marginalized groups from fully attaining their rights in a democratic society. The difficulty with recent models of participation is that citizens are more often reacting to plans rather than proposing what they see as appropriate goals for future action. This is certainly the case in Ireland, where participation is almost always reactive in nature. However, in the last decade this has begun to change and public participation is becoming an established part of planning and policy decision-making practice (Cameron Grant-Smith, 2005). Participation Versus Consultation Even though the term ‘participation is used to describe public involvement in policy and decision making, it must be recognised that there are various levels at which a person may participate and in many cases what is referred to as public ‘participation is not in fact participation at all. In the late 1960s, Sherry Arnstein developed an 8 rung ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation with each rung corresponding to the extent of the citizens power in influencing a final outcome (Arnstein, 1969). Arnstein developed this Ladder while involved in developing processes for citizen participation in planning and renewal projects in America (see figure 1). At the bottom of the ladder are rungs 1 (Manipulation)and 2 (Therapy). Both are non participative and the aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is deemed best and the job of participation is to achieve public support by public relations. Rungs 3 (Informing), 4 (Consultation) and 5 (Placation) demonstrate slightly higher levels of tokenistic participation, however too frequently the emphasis is on a one-way flow of information with no channel for feedback. Rung 6 (Partnership) can be described as meaningful participation, as power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. through joint committees. It is at this partnership level that the collaborative planning model aims to operate. Rungs 7 (Delegated Power) and 8 (Citizen Control) affords ‘have-not citizens the majority of decision making seats or full power and is the holy grail in terms of citizen participation. Figure 1: If participation is to be real and effective there must be dialogue between the different stakeholders and between those who have power (those at the top of the ladder) and between those who have little or no power (those at the bottom of the ladder). There must be a two way flow of information between the parties involved. However there is no dialogue in consultation which is what has traditionally been considered ‘participation in a development plan process in Ireland. The planning authority consults the public normally after a plan has been prepared by seeking feedback through public meetings and public comment. ‘Participation in Ireland essentially consists of proposal and response the planning authority proposes a plan for a community and members of the public respond through making a submission. This submission is often made without any direct contact with officials in the planning authority so in effect there is no dialogue of any form, thereby illustrating that what is refered to as ‘participation in a development plan process in Ireland is in fact consultation. However, with public participation now becoming central to National, European and International policy, as well as being an important aspect of the sustainable development discourse, such tokenistic participation is no longer adequate. The introduction of the Planning and Development Act 2000 has resulted in a requirement on planning authorities to produce their statutory plans through a process that involves greater public input at the earlier stages. They are now required to develop a somewhat more participatory approach to planning than was previously the case. The Aarhus Convention, which took place in 1998, and the 2003 Public Participation Directive which followed on from the convention, also provide members of the public with opportunities for early and effective participation on plans or programmes relating to the environment. The increase in emphasis on public participation has meant that alternative models of planning need to emerge to facilitate and respond to this increas e and the collaborative planning model is one such response. 2.4Participation in Physical Planning Decision Making There has been much debate about the most effective methods of facilitating citizen involvement in policy formulation and decision-making. A useful approach that provides a basis for analysing processes of decision-making in planning is that developed by Innes and Booher (2000) and this will be discussed first, followed by an analysis of other participatory models of decision making that have emerged in recent times. The Innes and Booher approach identifies four different models of decision making technical/bureaucratic, political influence, social movement and the collaborative model as well as identifying when and where each model works best, which ultimately depends on the levels of diversity and interdependence present (see diagram). Source: (Innes and Booher, 2000) The technical/bureaucratic model works best where there is neither diversity nor interdependence among interests. A bureaucratic system is set up to implement known policy and the technical analyst is associated with rationality and bureaucracy. Technicians and bureaucracies essentially respond to a single set of goals and decision maker, and the typical practice is one where analyses are not focussed on interdependencies. Within this model, the focus of planning is on the achievement of the most efficient mechanism for reaching easily defined and identified needs. The political influence model works best where there is a high diversity of interests, however there is normally a low interdependence of interests, as each individual is focussed on their maximising their own interest only. In this model there tends to be a political bargaining approach that seeks to get an adequate number of interests to agree to a particular course of action in order for it to work. The social movement model recognises the importance of high levels of interdependence among a coalition of interests and individuals, but which does not deal with the full diversity of interests. Collaboration therefore is seen as the model that deals best with both diversity and interdependence ‘but is typically the least-used and least-institutionalised of the four models (Innes and Booher, 2000). Both the technical/bureaucratic model and the political influence models of planning and decision making, as proposed by Innes and Booher, reflect the lower levels of participation as identified by Arnstein, with the ‘convincing nature of the technical/bureaucratic model comparing significantly with need to ‘educate and ‘cure participants on Arnsteins tokenism rungs. The technocratic approach to planning which was the dominant planning model for much of the twentieth century has been severely criticised for its failure to adequately incorporate the values and interests of stakeholders into the decision making process. This criticism of technocratic planning was fuelled by the growing protests of stakeholders over expert-formulated plans in areas such as natural resource management, environmental regulation, transportation, and urban renewal, that were clearly contrary to the interests of large segments of society (Gunton and Day 2003). Planning theory responded to t he criticism and limitations of the technocratic approach by acknowledging the role of goals and objectives identified through democratic political processes (political influence model) to set the framework in which plans were prepared (Davidoff 1965). Planners, previously experts under the technocratic umbrella were relegated to determining optimal means to achieve politically set goals within this new participatory environment. The unresolved question in this new goals-based planning theory was how the goals should be determined. The initial and somewhat vague response was that goals should be determined by citizen participation in the planning process, however it was not clear how this was to be achieved (Gunton and Day 2003). Dahl suggested that pluralism was another vehicle that would allow individual citizens to have their concerns voiced in government, a concept developed by Davidoff in the 1960s interlinked with the idea of the planner as an advocate for the under-represented (Dahl, 1989). Unlike the ‘advocacy planning that Davidoff proposes (different planners acting as advocates for different interests), most city and town planning is performed by a single planning authority which develops plans, which it feels will best serve the welfare of the whole community, not of individual interest groups (LeGates and Stout, 2000). Davidoff argues that different groups in society have different interests, which would result in fundamentally different plans if such interests were incorporated into these plans. The articulate, wealthy and powerful groups have the skills and resources to influence plans to take account of their own interests while the poor and powerless do not. Advocacy Planning introduces the idea of planners acting as advocates, articulating the needs of the poor and powerless, the same way as a lawyer represents a client (Davidoff, 1965). The problem with advocacy planning, however, is that it did not provide a framework for resolving disputes among competing interest groups and therefore cannot be seen as an adequate method for dealing with the various conflicts that are emerging in modern day planning. Dahl sees pluralism as a situation where individuals join interests groups that represent their needs and wants. These interests groups then come together to debate their competing viewpoints and create a collective public policy that should reflect the common good. The more interest groups that exist, the greater the conflict, and the greater the likelihood that decision making will reflect that common good (Dahl, 1989). However, Lowi on the other hand argues that pluralism often fails to represent the collective good, and instead represents the needs and wants of special interest groups (Lowi, 1979). Davidoffs idea of pluralism is slightly different from Dahls, in that citizens or interest groups should go one step further and produce an alternative plan to what he sees as the ‘unitary plan prepared by the planning authority, and the advocate planner can be central to the process by representing certain interest groups. A final model, often referred to as alternative dispute resolution, also emerged as a way of engaging stakeholders in the development of plans by allowing stakeholders to negotiate a consensus agreement to resolve the dispute (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). However the alternative dispute resolution does not appear to provide a satisfactory model either, as it is reactive in responding to disputes that have already arisen instead of proactive. In essence, this limits its effectiveness as a planning tool. It is evident therefore that to date, the existing models of decision making have had limited success with regard to facilitating public participation. However as our societies and communities are now becoming more diverse and less homogenous than ever before it would seem an alternative model is required to facilitate and acknowledge these changes. 2.5The Collaborative Planning Model Innes and Booher (2000) note that in situations where there is a clear interdependence between stakeholders interests and there exists a high diversity of such interests that a different model of planning and policy making is needed. This model is known as collaborative planning. It emerged as a distinct planning paradigm in the 1990s and is a logical extension of alternative dispute resolution (Gunton and Day 2003). ‘The collaborative model is about stakeholders co-evolving to a common understanding, direction and set of heuristics†¦. It is only the collaborative model that deals both with diversity and interdependence because it tries to be inclusive and to explore interdependence in the search for solutions. It does not ignore or override interests, but seeks solutions that satisfy multiple interests. For complex and controversial issues in rapidly changing and uncertain contexts issues that there is public pressure to address collaboration among stakeholders is likely to be the best approach indeed the only approach that can produce a satisfactory result. (Innes and Booher, 2000, p21) This model is a new framework for planning which proposes that spatial planning activity move from the traditional narrow, technical and procedural focus towards a communicative and collaborative model for achieving common purposes in the shared spaces of our societies (Healy, 1997). For Healy, collaborative planning seems not to be an end in itself, but a path to â€Å"co-existence in shared spaces.† Like Innes and Booher, Healy also believes that a collaborative approach can be successful only where there is a variety of stakeholders interests, because if all the interests are the same then no dialogue is required. Healys version of collaborative planning emerged after she analysed the shortcomings of conventional forms of governance and styles of planning, namely economic planning, physical development, public administration and policy analysis, advocacy planning, neo liberalism and utilitarianism. The conceptual base for collaborative planning as Healy sees it, consists of two theoretical strands, an ‘institutionalist sociology and ‘communicative dialogue. The institutionalist theory states that spatial planning processes need to be judged by the quality of the process, i.e. the way the decision is made is just as important as the actual decision. It also seeks to identify and analyze forms and relations of power between people, beyond that of class and categories. The communicative approach offers a way forward in the design of governance processes for a ‘shared world and takes an ethical commitment to enabling all stakeholders have a voice. It deals with the design of governance systems and practices, focusing on ways of fostering collaborative, consensus building processes. This approach outlines a number of necessary components for a collaborative model to be successful. Consensus building practices are important, as they help to ensure that no stakeholder finds a particular outcome intolerable. It is important that an individuals position at the top of the ladder is not maximized at the expense of the individual at the bottom; there should be equality. It recognizes three forms of reasoning instrumental/technical (the mechanisms for public decision making), moral and emotive/aesthetic. It argues that there has been a predominance of the first, at the expense of the other two. Within the public sphere, moral and emotive reasoning must be afforded an equivalent status, to achieve balance. There is also a need for recognition of the growing cultural differences that there now is. She also points out that polices and processes need to be designed to relate to the experience of globalization and multi-cultural societies, as older planning practices do not take these into account. Leadership is not about bringing stakeholders around to a particular planning content but in getting people to agree and ensuring that, whatever the position of the participants within the socio-economic hierarchy, no groups interests will dominate (Healy, 1997) Another approach to collaborative planning is that which emerges from the work of John Forester, an American planning theorist, who focuses on the communicative role of the planning analyst. His view is that planners within organizations do not work instrumentally towards the achievement of clearly distinguishable ends. Instead he sees the role of the planner to: ‘†¦work instead toward the correction of needless distortions, some systematic and some not, which disable, mystify, distract and mislead others: to work towards a political democratization of daily communications. (Forester, 1989, p.21) Forester also states that: ‘†¦problems will be solved not only by technical experts, but also by pooling expertise and non-professional contributions too; not just by formal procedure but by informal consultation and involvement; not mainly through formally rational management procedures, but through internal and external politics and the development of a working consensus; not by solving an engineering equation but by complimenting technical performance with political sophistication, support building, and liaison work (p. 152) Forester therefore recognizes the communication and negotiating elements of planning, as well as its technical elements. He also recognizes the political nature of planning and the extent to which the planner is engaged in value laden political action. 2.6Strengths and Weaknesses of Collaborative Planning Advocates of collaborative planning cite many advantages of the collaborative model relative to other models of planning. Firstly, the chances of reaching a decision on a plan are a lot higher, because stakeholders are incorporated in the process from the outset to help reach a solution, rather than remaining as critics outside the process (Gunton and Day 2003, Susskind et al. 2000). Secondly the dynamic interaction of the stakeholders is likely to produce a plan that is in the public interest as more alternatives are generated and the consensus decision rule ensures that the mutual interests of all parties are at least partially catered for in the plan (Frame et al, 2004). Thirdly, the plan produced at the end of the process has a greater chance of being implemented, because stakeholders who might otherwise attempt to block the implementation have developed the plan and will help implement it because they have a stake in the outcome. Finally, collaborative planning helps to create à ¢â‚¬Ëœsocial capital among the stakeholders, improving their skills, knowledge and stakeholder relationships which last beyond the process of creating a plan (Gunton and Day, 2003). However, the collaborative planning model also has its critics and a number of weaknesses and challenges to the approach have been identified. Firstly, collaborative planning is founded on the principle of stakeholders negotiating with one another to agree on an outcome. In some cases, more influential and powerful stakeholders will avoid or undermine the process by using delaying tactics, or pursuing alternative means to achieve their objectives if they do not like the outcome of collaboration (Frame et al, 2003). Secondly, the need to achieve consensus may encourage stakeholders to seek second best or vague solutions when they cannot reach the best possible agreement (Gunton and Day, 2003). Cooper and Mckenna (2006) and Fainstein (2000) also state that the need to achieve consensus has meant that participatory exercises often concentrate on issues where agreement is more likely to be achieved and avoids those which are likely to cause difficulties. Thirdly, the time and resources r equired to organise a process around large group of diverse stakeholders is quite substantial. This is compounded by the potential lack of support or interest from planning officials who are unwilling to delegate the decision-making responsibilities to outside stakeholders (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000, Fainstein, 2000). Also, established statutory fora comprising of local elected representatives are relatively neglected, while project staff must spend huge amounts of time, energy and money organising and servicing local public meetings, stakeholder meetings, public surveys and follow up consultation exercises. This often leads to a situation where projects become characterised by ‘consultation paralysis, a condition where nothing can be done because yet someone else must be consulted or re-consulted (Cooper and McKenna, 2006). Finally, relying on stakeholders that have little or no specialised training may lead to the exclusion of important scientific information in the decisi on making process, thus resulting in poor decisions being made. Fainstein (2000) also cites what she sees as a number of other weaknesses with the collaborative planning approach including: Action/implementation is often a problem, because parties in the process are not honest about their intentions and purposes It ignores the role of the powerful and their capacity to impede the implementation of agreed actions The process is usually too drawn out and resource hungry If the planner/expert acts as facilitator only, new and creative thinking can be stifled and only those that are incrementalist in nature will emerge There is evidence that experts acting on their own often come up with better solutions than stakeholders operating in a collaborative process It is evident from the above that collaborative planning approaches have many strengths and weaknesses, however it would appear that the potential benefits to the community from using such an approach outweigh potential negatives. COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IN IRELAND In the past number of years, there have been many attempts to develop models for community development and planning that aim to achieve higher levels of participation than previous models. Such models include the ADOPT model, the Bantry Bay Charter and Integrated Area Planning (IAP) to name but a few, while the Village Design Statement (VDS) could also be considered as an attempt at achieving higher levels of participation through a more collaborative approach. The ADOPT model, which was pioneered by Ballyhoura Development Ltd, is aimed at providing local area-based communities with a framework for participation in community development at a local level. The model also aims to tackle the lack of co-operation within the community sector, and weak research and planning by communities who are participating and contributing to local planning and development activities. It seeks to develop a strong community representative structure, an umbrella group that brings together representatives of the various bodies and groups within the community to ensure that activities are not being duplicated and that real needs are being addressed. This umbrella structure, along with the training and capacity building that the model promotes, supports communities and their representatives to play a meaningful role in partnership functions with Stage agencies and other bodies (Pobal, 2003). The Bantry Bay Charter was a project initiated by Cork County Council with the main objective being to develop a model and strategy for successful coastal zone management. By developing a stakeholders charter it was possible to develop an agreed approach to the management and development of the Bantry Bay area. In doing so, the process brought together the different stakeholders and interest groups of the area, as well as the agencies involved in regulating and developing the area. The Charter is based on the understanding that the regulatory agencies need to work in partnership with the local community for the successful management and development of the area. It explored the use of consensus, where all those who are stakeholders work together, to develop a single agreed approach to its development. Similar to these models is a model of collaborative planning developed by Tipperary Institute (TI), a third level education institution specialising in the area of Sustainable Rural Development called Integrated Area Planning. Integrated Area Planning is a concept that first emerged through the 1999 Urban Renewal Scheme, introduced by the Irish Government and which involved a more targeted approach to the award of urban renewal incentives. This model is multi-focused and is based on the premise that development of an area should emerge from a broadly based not take place in isolation but should emerge from a broadly based Integrated Area Plan (IAP), taking into account the social, environmental, economic and cultural needs of a community. Integrated Area Planning has been defined by TI as an empowering, practical and participatory process to collect, analyse, and compile information while developing the skills and structures needed to prepare and implement an inclusive and multifacet ed plan for a defined geographical area. The development of the IAP model was influenced to a great extent by planning theorist Patsy Healy and central to the model is the requirement for consensus to be reached on all issues before the process can be moved forward. The IAP model contains many key steps, which must be carried out including: Contracting Phase Pre-Development Phase Data Collection Establishment of a Steering Group Capacity Building of the Steering Group Establishment of Visions and Objectives Establishment of task groups Drafting Stage Validation Approval Implementation Using the IAP model, TI became involved in a number of community planning projects in Ireland including: Crusheen Co. Clare, Kinvara and Eyercourt Co. Galway, Ferbane Co. Offaly, Hacketstown Co. Carlow and Kilmacthomas in Co. Waterford. In each of these cases, the communities, in partnership with the relevant authorities prepared plans for their areas. Two of the key stages in the process are establishing the steering group and task groups. The steering group is elected by the community and it is contains a representative from the various different stakeholders in the process. The steering group plays an important role in the whole IAP process as they are responsible for driving the process forward. The task groups on the other hand are smaller groups, which are made up of members from the community and statutory agencies. The task groups are responsible for carrying out research on particular topics, such as the environment, infrastructure etc and they then report back their finding s to the steering group. The IAP process is quite resource demanding and generally takes over 12 months to complete. CONCLUSION It is clear from the above that the issue of participation and the models, which attempt to facilitate it, are central to the planning and environmental fields in both Ireland and abroad. Some of the collaborative planning models that have been developed in Ireland have multiple aims, one of which is to impact on the statutory Local Area Plan process and outcomes, including those implemented in Kinvara, Ferbane, Hacketstown and Kilmacthomas. However having reviewed the literature it is evident that there has been a clear lack of research focussing on the assessment of such collaborative planning models in Ireland. In order to assess the extent to which the IAP model in Kinvara was successful, an examination of the entire process is required. To this end, the examination required will entail more than just the IAP process itself, but also its impact on the LAP process as well as an assessment of the level of implementation that has taken place to date. Bibliography: Arnstein, Sherry R., (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the Institute of American Planners, Vol. 35 (4), pp 216-24. Connick, S., Innes J., (2001) Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation, Working Paper 2001-08 Dahl R, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Davidoff, P, (1965) Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners DeSario, J. Langton S, (1987) Fainstein, S.S. (2000). ‘New directions in Planning theory, Urban Affairs Review, Vol.35, Issue 4, March, pp.451-78 Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. (2003). Resolving Environmental Disputes through Collaborative Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, an

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Fight for Integration

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, â€Å"I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls,† (â€Å"goodreads†). His â€Å"I Have a Dream† speech took place in 1963 during the March on Washington. It was there that he established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history. Martin Luther King Jr. ’s American dream was that all men should have god-given rights and have equality. To achieve this American dream, Martin Luther King Jr. faced many obstacles to overcome discrimination. Before Martin Luther King Jr. chieved his American dream, there were many obstacles in the way; it was not all fun and games. The first one was the difficulty to convince African Americans because they believed that they should fight back against discrimination. The police were also another obstacle Martin had to face. During the civil rights movement, the police would use dogs and fire hoses towards the blacks to settle boycotts that were conducted. However, Martin would never use violence back. Another problem that he faced was prejudice ideas. Many whites had opinions about African Americans that kept opportunities for them very limited.Martin never let any of these obstacles stop him from achieving his dreams of equality. Through all the difficulties Martin Luther King Jr. had to face, his American dream never changed. Martin wanted all men to have god-given rights and equality. He had to prove to his own people, the police, and the rest of America that it was possible to stand up for themselves without being violent. With this belief, Americans realized that the white society was in the wrong when it came to discrimination and violence because African Americans were not harming anybody. This helped Martin’s dream become a reality.Work cited: Quote by Martin Luther King Jr. † goodreads. Otis Chandler. 28 Aug. 1963. Thur. 8 Nov. 2012. Haberman, Frederick.  "Martin Luther King-Biography. † Nobleprize. org. Les Prix Nobel. N. d. Web. 6 Nov. 2012. Roland, Allen. â€Å"Martin Luther King/ The Voice That Can’t Be Silenced. † Thepeoplesvoice. ord. n. d. 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 6 Nov. 2012. â€Å"Quote by Martin Luther King Jr. † goodreads. Otis Chandler. 28 Aug. 1963. Thur. 8 Nov. 2012. Carson, Clayborne. â€Å"Life. † Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History. Ed. Colin A. Palmer. 2nd. Ed. Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. 1239-1243. Gale U. S. History In Context. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.

Why Chniatown Should Be Conserved

Introduction As part of the Singapore heritage society, I believe that Chinatown should be conserved and should not be replaced by yet another integrated resort. Our Society is dedicated to the preservation and promotion of Singapore history, heritage and identity. We have held many projects to raise awareness of Singapore history and cultural heritage. Chinatown has and will always be a place with much historical value and a part of Singapore limited heritage. According to the dictionary, heritage indicates the characteristics, properties or quality that one inherits at birth.It is also he nation's mark of history, such as stately buildings, countryside, cultural traditions, that are seen as the nation's wealth to be inherited by future generations. Chinatown has been a part of Singapore and a part of our home since the early days when the early immigrants came to Singapore, being one of the few heritages that we are still able to keep hold of. Despite being rather small in size, th is little plot of land is the exact land that our forefathers stood on as they contributed to make Singapore what it is today.But with Singapore fast growth rate and overwhelming need to develop rather, it is not surprising that its historical heritage is being considered to be demolished to make way for the new. Conservation We wish to conserve Chinatown, as it allows us to be connected to our past. Our heritage reminds us of where we started from and of how we managed to progress from being a small fishing village to the bustling city that we are now, giving us a sense of direction in where we are heading to as a nation.Preserving our cultural heritage also goes a long way in explaining our rich cultural, political, social and educational values to the future generations. It is a lesson and an experience in which our forefathers handed down to us so that we can learn from their mistakes and successes, in hope that our nation will continue to grow into a better society. Our heritag e is very valuable and can even be considered as a form of â€Å"national wealth† that has been passed down to us.After receiving this honor and responsibility, we as the children of this nation, should play our part Just as our forefathers did and continue to pass this precious historical gem down for future generations to personally experience and remember our history. National Identity This year, Singapore has Just gained 48 years of independence, and we have successfully created an identity for ourselves that makes us as Gingersnaps more proud of our country and its accomplishments.A national identity is important to its country as it affects Singapore psychological defense, this would determine if Gingersnaps will stay to fight or abandon Singapore when faced with obstacles. The term ‘National identity is a person's sense of belonging to one's state or nation, a feeling one shares with a group of people, regardless of one's citizenship status. An identity is not an inborn trait but is slowly built up as a direct result of the presence of the similarities in people's daily lives, such as national symbols, language, the nation's history, culture and many others.For Singapore, one of these aspects is the Singapore multi-religious backgrounds, Singapore started off with majority of the population being immigrants from countries such as Europe, China, Arabia, India, Amelia and Penman, who came to Singapore in the early sass. While they came to Singapore in hope of finding a better future, they shared their religion to the rest of he country too. Although Chinatown started off as a Chinese settlement, but it contributes significantly to Singapore multi-religious identity as it houses many different religious buildings temples, churches and mosques.An example is the oldest Hindu temple in Singapore, the Sir Marianne which was built in 1827. During colonial times, it served as a refuge for new immigrants and acted as the Registry of Marriages for Hin dus. Today, in addition to its religious services and functions, the temple promotes various social, cultural and educational activities. Festivals such as Thematic (Fire walking ceremony) and Navigator are also celebrated there every year. The Thematic is an important ceremony to the Hindu culture, as it celebrates the honor of Draping who walked through a bed of fire and came out as fresh as a flower, proving her purity.Demolishing these religious buildings for the sake of the Integrated Resort will not only disrupt religious services, but it will also cause Singapore to lose part of its identity and history. Thus we believe that Chinatown should be conserved as it helps to build a unique Identity for Singapore. Festive Seasons During the Chinese New Year period, Chinatown is also the place that Gingersnaps first head to look for their Chinese New Year goodies and clothes.This has become a habit and tradition that most Gingersnaps abide by. At the same time, they are able to enjoy the Chinese New Year atmosphere as the place Chinatown during Chinese New Year, would be decorated with many stunning street lights. This bustling with people time of the year is when Chinatown finally regains its former glory, to the time when Chinatown was bustling with life, with hawkers selling all manners of things long the streets and people squeezing through the crowd to get their hands on the cheapest goods.It is also during times like these when families get together, no matter old or young to purchase items such as new traditional costumes, shoes, decorations, goodies in preparation for Chinese New Year. Chinatown then becomes a place that is unique and original as it allows the people to spend time together without the need to spend much money or for any technology, allowing them to bond. Memories Chinatown is a place where memories and shared experiences are being made.Even ill today, there are still people who have been living there since they were young and have built many memories about their childhood days there. Upon asked if she had any special memories in Chinatown, one of our interviewees, the owner of a textile shop, replied that â€Å"When I was young I used to spend most of my time in the shop. As my parent's watched the shop, me and my brother would study there. At times, we would also meet up with the other little kids there to play and run about the playground nearby. When asked why she chose to open a shop in Chinatown, she been with us for 3 generations. This shop meaner a lot to our family, as though it is our very own child. It also stores a lot of our memories as a kid. † Chinatown is also known as the ‘elderly district' and most of the people who stay there are actually elderly who have been living there since young. To them, Chinatown is the place where they feel at home, where they all their memories were made. These friends that they make slowly become more like their families than mere neighbors; taking care of each other and entertaining one another.Among the 25 people we interviewed, 85% of them agree that Chinatown should be conserved as it possesses lot of historical value and that from the many years living there, they have created many enjoyable memories there and do not want to ever lose them. However, if a third integrated resort were to be built here, all these experiences and precious memories would be lost and forgotten as generations pass as though they too have faded away from existence. Skills and Passion Chinatown is a place where people can showcase their skills and passion.In Chinatown, there are many little stores that sell traditionally hand-made local delicacies and clothing that are now hard to find in Singapore society. There are many tailors sewing Chicagoans, a traditional Chinese costume that are worn by Chinese females since the early days. These clothes are very significant to Singapore past as it is also one of the few artifacts the has been passed down from th e past to the current present. These Chinese costumes also remind us of how Singapore was in the past, and through the colors and decorations, we are able to bring out the colorful culture and heritage of our country's past.Also, there are many hawkers making their own buns through the traditional methods. Not only goes this allow the people to showcase their skills, this also allows them to survive in the Singapore context despite the tough competitions with famous chain-shops. This is at the same time beneficial to Singapore as it helps Singapore to increase their Job employment rates and allows the people to have the chance to chase after their passions in life despite their financial statuses.However, if the integrated Resort were to be built on Chinatown, this would cause many people to become Jobless and thus unable to support their families. Similarly, their passions can only be buried along with the rest of Chinatown. Tourists According to a research, destinations excelling in their cultural heritage are more likely to be on traveler's consideration list. Among the many respondents from 20 different countries, 57% of them agree that history and culture are strong influences on their choice of holiday destination, with only 15% of the people disagreeing to this statement.Conforming to this, Chinatown has been rated as one of the top ten attractions in Singapore due to its strong historical value and its colorful vibe. Due to our struggle towards progress after gaining independence on August 9 1965, we eve already demolished many of our memorable infrastructures in order to make way for the new, furthermore, only having 48 years of independence, Singapore does not have many places with much historical value.Hence, if we demolish Chinatown, we might be at a risk of having a sharp decrease in tourist rates, which may also not be as appealing to the tourists as compared to the uniqueness of Chinatown. From the opinions of most of the people we interviewed, most of them also agree that another integrated resort would only be redundant as we already have two other integrated resorts, them being Marina Bay Sands and Resort World Santos. Meanwhile, Chinatown is unique as there can only be one of it throughout the whole of this lifetime.If we demolish it, we would be losing it forever and we would never be able to build it and its priceless history again. A trip to Chinatown will also be more fruitful for the tourists. According to the theory of knowledge, the two main ways to gain knowledge is through experience and reasoning. Chinatown many historical infrastructure, vibrant atmosphere and heritage centre, allows them to reasonably experience the background and heritage of Singapore. Through this experience, it allows us to gain something more valuable than money, the power of knowledge and understanding upon visiting it.However, the Integrated Resort would only promote entertainment, such as gambling and shopping. Thus, by conserving Ch inatown , not only are we able to increase Singapore tourism rates and boost our economy, it also allows the tourists to benefit greatly from the experience and learn more about our culture and heritage. Land Scarcity Building an Integrated Resort over Chinatown would not only cause a lack of housing or the people who are currently living in Chinatown, but also with Singapore plan to increase the population from about 5. 8 million to 6. Million by 2030, this unbalance between the land use for entertainment purposes and the land used for housing purposes would create a serious problem for the people, such as overcrowding due to the lack of space. With over 5 million people currently living within the 710 km area of land, Singapore has been ranked the second most densely populated country in 2012. Singapore is already facing a problem with the lack of land and building more housing areas would not be an easy take. In addition, if an Integrated Resort were to be built in Chinatown, the residential areas in Chinatown would be lost, which would be a disadvantage to Singapore.Land scarcity is a dire situation and it may lead to unhygienic living spaces, which would make it easier for pests such as mosquitoes to breed. As Singapore is a tropical country, we are very prone to dengue's. From the 16-22 June 2013, there was a total of 82 dengue outbreaks within that single week, and from the start of January to 13/08/2013, there has already been 6 unfortunate victims who have passed away due to dengue fever. From this, we can tell the severity of Dengue Fever in Singapore, and with the unhygienic environment, this would lead to a higher risk of the people having Dengue Fever.Hence, not only will Chinatown help in the heritage of Singapore, but it will also help in the land constraint problem Singapore is facing currently. Conclusion In conclusion, I strongly feel that we should conserve Chinatown as it is part of our home town and heritage. It reminds Gingersnaps of how far Singapore has progressed from being Just a free port all the way to being the central trading port of people who lived, worked and visited Chinatown in the chophouses, temples and mosques. Chinatown is a place that holds the memory and identity of Singapore.

The Supply Chain Management And Logistics Of Fashion...

This report aims to study the supply chain management and logistics of fashion retailer, Zara, to boost customer value. The concept of sustainability and competitive advantage is considered with other business models and compared with successful and unsuccessful company. The study is compared with the supply chain management and business strategies of Zara with Dell and Zara with Myers. Introduction Zara was founded and established 1975 by Spanish born Amancio Ortega Gaona. The actual store dealt with the products of the manufacturing company Zara, was an outlet for cancelled orders of women’s night wears and lingerie. These have made a strong foundation for realizing the association between producer and retail trade (Ferdows et al, 2003). Major priority of Zara and its parent group Inditex, is customer and a demand centric supply management (O’Marah Hofman, 2010). Though Zara is a global multi-national company, but it is a subsidiary of Inditex which is world’s biggest apparel retailer. The Inditex group owns more than 100 textile companies. Zara is the flagship brand of Inditex, captivating maximum sales (Gallaugher, 2008). PESTEL Analysis of Zara PESTEL analysis and Five Forces Model analysis made to determine internal and external environment and its competitive advantage. Detailed analysis has revealed tough competition with Zara and its main contenders are Gap, Benetton, and HM battling for market stake. In 2008, Inditex paved its way to reach the top of success andShow MoreRelatedThe Supply Chain Management And Logistics Of Fashion Retailer2264 Words   |  10 Pages Executive Summary This report aims to study the supply chain management and logistics of fashion retailer, Zara, to boost customer value. The concept of sustainability and competitive advantage is considered with other business models and compared with successful and unsuccessful company. The study is compared with the supply chain management and business strategies of Zara with Dell and Zara with Myers. Introduction Zara was founded and established 1975 by Spanish born Amancio Ortega Gaona.Read MoreSupply Chain And Logistics Management Of Fashion Related Retailer Company2360 Words   |  10 PagesExecutive Summary: The following article will mainly focus on aspects of supply chain and logistics management of fashion related Retailer Company named Zara which is expected to boost the value of customers and sustainability concept is considered to be added benefit to the Zara Company. The advantage is mainly because of Zara company’s designing models that are related with business and they are compared with benefits and disadvantages with other companies which have seen success and also highlightRead MoreSupply Chain And Logistics Management Of Fashion Related Retailer Company2248 Words   |  9 PagesExecutive Summary: The following article will mainly focus on aspects of supply chain and logistics management of fashion related Retailer Company named Zara, which is expected to boost the value of customers, and sustainability concept is considered to be added benefit to the Zara Company. The advantage is mainly because of Zara company’s designing models that are related with business and they are compared with benefits and disadvantages with other companies which have seen success and also highlightRead MoreCase study: ASOS and Topshop1547 Words   |  7 Pagesfor supply chains of ASOS and Topshop Word counts: 1273 11th March 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦3 2.0 Overview and Demographics 2.1 ASOS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦4 2.2 Topshop †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦4 3.0 Supply Chain 3.1 Supply Chain of ASOS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 5 3.2 Supply Chain of Topshop †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 7 4.0 Conclusion †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦9 5.0 Bibliography †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..10 1.0 Introduction ‘Fashion industryRead MoreEnvironmental Factors Impact Retail Industry933 Words   |  4 Pages2014). For example, as the holiday season comes close, all retailers are working hard to make sure their customers can get what they need and want. Consequently, the trend of trade must goes up constantly. However, countless goods may stack at the ports as a result of high cargo volume; retailers cannot deliver the product to buyer on time. In fact, the main role of industry is adding worth and selling merchandise (Stevens, 1989). So retailers need to control the flow of material from suppliers, thenRead MoreA Note on Reverse Logistics1584 Words   |  6 PagesReverse logistics involves the reuse of products and materials. Unlike its logistics counterpart, reverse logistics involves relates to the use of materials from the point of consumption to the point of origin. Reverse logistics is particularly useful within the retail industry as consumers often return merchandise that doesn t meet customer specifications. In many of these instances, the company must have procedures in place to process returns in both a timely and orderly fashion. Reverse logisticsRead MoreThe Effect of E-Commerence on Supply Chain Management and Marketing in the Fashion Industry3136 Words   |  13 Pages‘Electronic commerce and the Internet are fundamentally changing the nature of supply chains, and redefining how consumers learn about, select, purchase, and use products and services’ (Sreenivas, 2007) According to Barnes and Lea-Greenwood (2006) and Berger (n.d), mass-communication has allowed consumers greater access to information and consequently the performance gap between companies can no longer be hidden. With the introduction of e-commerce, how consumers behave and what they demandRead MoreZara Postponement Strategy1702 Words   |  7 Pagestheir supply chain operations to gain control of product variety proliferation. Zara is one of the most successful fast-fashion chains in the world, which is famous for its ability to keep itself up to date with fashion trends and the incredibly short time to introduce new products. In order to react quickly to fashion changes and consumer demand, Zara maintains extremely efficient supply chain operations. By properly designing the product structure and the manufacturing and supply chain processRead MoreZar A Critique Of A Business Case Essay1269 Words   |  6 PagesCRITIQUE OF A BUSINESS CASE. 1.Excecutive summary. Operations management is in regard to all operations within the organization responsible for creating goods and services that organizations pass to their customers. This function is at the heart of all organizations, giving the means of achieving their aims and reason for their existence. These activities include: managing purchases, inventory control, quality control, storage and logistics. A great deal of focus in operations is on efficiency and effectivenessRead MoreAbercrombie Fitch Co. Essay939 Words   |  4 PagesAbercrombie Fitch Co. (AF) is a fashion retailer that sells casual apparel, personal care products, and accessories to customers across North America, Europe, and Asia. The financial and the consulting industry in the tertiary sector of the economy generate revenue through providing services, knowledge, and skills. Unlike these industries, AF is a retailer that generates revenue through selling its products. AF has two subsidiaries brand, Hollister Co. and Abercrom bie Kids, which operate not