Difference between revisions of "Limited citizen participation in urban planning"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"Limited citizen participation in urban planning" as a driver of injustice refers to | "Limited citizen participation in urban planning" as a driver of injustice refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions. | ||
==General introduction== | ==General introduction== | ||
When citizen participation is not encouraged, supported and sought out in a meaningful way, sustainability planning interventions risk being a reflection of top-down priorities that represent and enhance the status quo in terms of both sustainability and injustice. The question of participation does not only concern the availability of structures in place to accommodate input from local communities and stakeholders, but also the openness and potential of these structures with regard to inclusivity and impact (i.e. what are the different collectives represented, what is the depth of participation and how much are participation outcomes taken into account?) (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Fainstein, 2014; Kotsila et al., 2020) | |||
[[File:7-Limited-Citizen-Participation.jpg|600px]] | |||
==Manifestations and types of injustice== | |||
Inclusive participation can be hindered in both centrally/state-managed projects and in community-based initiatives around urban sustainability, when, for example, existing inequalities are not acknowledged in their design. One of the most common observations in this regard is that people cannot afford to “pay into” bottom-up projects or cannot dedicate time away from work or their dependents. Direct participation processes demand commitment and time, so a diversification of participation options, including monetary compensations and childcare options to facilitate participation, can achieve more inclusive outcomes (procedural & representational justice) (i.e. through email, in organized workshops, and digitally through participation apps). | |||
It is often the case that the most vulnerable groups are those excluded from processes that will dictate their outcome upon them and without accounting for their needs, vulnerabilities, identities, or preferences (recognition justice). In the fight for social justice and anti-gentrification, those involved in grassroots movements are often “low income, marginalized people struggling to survive day to day,” making bottom-up efforts potentially “exhausting personally for individuals with other everyday life commitments to take care of” (responsibility and intersectional justice). | |||
Participation is often cast in terms of stewardship and volunteerism around urban sustainability (Connolly et al.2013). Community-initiated projects (e.g. urban gardens, repair shops, food sharing networks) support urban sustainability objectives in different ways but count on the long-term unpaid work of activists and engaged individuals. Although many of such initiatives strive for expanding the sphere of the commons, and thus produce a counter-narrative to neoliberal ideologies, reliance on such participation might run the risk of shifting responsibility from the public sector to the people, and of privileging the participation of some (more available, more accessible) groups over others. Limited participation and citizen engagement or stewardship with urban planning processes is also observed to be an issue in research and innovation projects that aim to enhance or promote co-creation through inclusive processes of knowledge sharing. Some of these challenges and obstacles include the short timelines of research projects and the pre-defined methods and processes that these will follow. | |||
| Line 16: | Line 21: | ||
==Illustration== | ==Illustration== | ||
<b>Participatory budgeting in Amsterdam Indische Buurt</b> | |||
In 2011, after an exchange program with an NGO in Brazil, the Centre for Budget monitoring and Citizen participation (CBB) was founded in the Indische Buurt, in the Eastern district of Amsterdam. This consists of 1) a community-initiated stream that practices budget monitoring and formulates its own priorities, and 2) a municipality-initiated stream which uses an online application that provides financial data information to the public, at the level of the neighbourhood. As the TRANSIT project reports, these contribute to budget transparency and accountability at local level as well as participatory decisions on which neighbourhood projects to prioritize. | |||
[Source: | However, in 2013, according to one of the project interviewees the CBB decided to let go of the “human rights” perspective in their discourse and aims (see this interview).It meant that city authorities had more flexibility in adapting the participatory budgeting initiative in the context of austerity policies. This, arguably, stripped the initiative of its more radical potential for making social and environmental justice a priority. Linking also with issues of unfit institutions, this removal of “human rights” approach was claimed to have worked in favour of upscaling of the initiative in cities across the country. | ||
In the case of the Indische Buurt budget monitoring has changed the way the district plan was developed: in co-creation with citizens. In 2015 a resolution was accepted in the local district council stating that in 2017 20% of the local budget should fall under the responsibility of residents (see this interview). In terms of procedural justice, concerning the initiative itself, involved stakeholders mentioned that participation in the activities was characterized by only a few people who had the time to engage in the process and persevered in understanding financial documents. Even though efforts were made to make the reading and understanding of the budget as easy as possible, it still seemed to be an ‘elite’ that participated. This raised questions whether the group was or should be representative. Someone feared this process was used as a legitimization for already made decisions, while another felt that s/he contributed to decision making. | |||
[Source: TRANSIT project] | |||
[[File:xx.png|400px|thumb|left|Photo by The Hague Academy for Local Governance. Inclusive citizen participation in decision-making processes promotes democracy and is crucial to the success of sustainability initiatives. Above, a diverse group of participants from different countries, sectors, and levels of government, discuss experiences and challenges at the Citizen Participation and Inclusive Governance course in the Hague.]] | |||
==Ways forward== | ==Ways forward== | ||
| Line 30: | Line 42: | ||
==References== | |||
[[Category:Drivers]] | [[Category:Drivers]] | ||
Revision as of 12:10, 3 September 2020
"Limited citizen participation in urban planning" as a driver of injustice refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions.
General introduction
When citizen participation is not encouraged, supported and sought out in a meaningful way, sustainability planning interventions risk being a reflection of top-down priorities that represent and enhance the status quo in terms of both sustainability and injustice. The question of participation does not only concern the availability of structures in place to accommodate input from local communities and stakeholders, but also the openness and potential of these structures with regard to inclusivity and impact (i.e. what are the different collectives represented, what is the depth of participation and how much are participation outcomes taken into account?) (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Fainstein, 2014; Kotsila et al., 2020)
Manifestations and types of injustice
Inclusive participation can be hindered in both centrally/state-managed projects and in community-based initiatives around urban sustainability, when, for example, existing inequalities are not acknowledged in their design. One of the most common observations in this regard is that people cannot afford to “pay into” bottom-up projects or cannot dedicate time away from work or their dependents. Direct participation processes demand commitment and time, so a diversification of participation options, including monetary compensations and childcare options to facilitate participation, can achieve more inclusive outcomes (procedural & representational justice) (i.e. through email, in organized workshops, and digitally through participation apps).
It is often the case that the most vulnerable groups are those excluded from processes that will dictate their outcome upon them and without accounting for their needs, vulnerabilities, identities, or preferences (recognition justice). In the fight for social justice and anti-gentrification, those involved in grassroots movements are often “low income, marginalized people struggling to survive day to day,” making bottom-up efforts potentially “exhausting personally for individuals with other everyday life commitments to take care of” (responsibility and intersectional justice).
Participation is often cast in terms of stewardship and volunteerism around urban sustainability (Connolly et al.2013). Community-initiated projects (e.g. urban gardens, repair shops, food sharing networks) support urban sustainability objectives in different ways but count on the long-term unpaid work of activists and engaged individuals. Although many of such initiatives strive for expanding the sphere of the commons, and thus produce a counter-narrative to neoliberal ideologies, reliance on such participation might run the risk of shifting responsibility from the public sector to the people, and of privileging the participation of some (more available, more accessible) groups over others. Limited participation and citizen engagement or stewardship with urban planning processes is also observed to be an issue in research and innovation projects that aim to enhance or promote co-creation through inclusive processes of knowledge sharing. Some of these challenges and obstacles include the short timelines of research projects and the pre-defined methods and processes that these will follow.
Illustration
Participatory budgeting in Amsterdam Indische Buurt
In 2011, after an exchange program with an NGO in Brazil, the Centre for Budget monitoring and Citizen participation (CBB) was founded in the Indische Buurt, in the Eastern district of Amsterdam. This consists of 1) a community-initiated stream that practices budget monitoring and formulates its own priorities, and 2) a municipality-initiated stream which uses an online application that provides financial data information to the public, at the level of the neighbourhood. As the TRANSIT project reports, these contribute to budget transparency and accountability at local level as well as participatory decisions on which neighbourhood projects to prioritize.
However, in 2013, according to one of the project interviewees the CBB decided to let go of the “human rights” perspective in their discourse and aims (see this interview).It meant that city authorities had more flexibility in adapting the participatory budgeting initiative in the context of austerity policies. This, arguably, stripped the initiative of its more radical potential for making social and environmental justice a priority. Linking also with issues of unfit institutions, this removal of “human rights” approach was claimed to have worked in favour of upscaling of the initiative in cities across the country.
In the case of the Indische Buurt budget monitoring has changed the way the district plan was developed: in co-creation with citizens. In 2015 a resolution was accepted in the local district council stating that in 2017 20% of the local budget should fall under the responsibility of residents (see this interview). In terms of procedural justice, concerning the initiative itself, involved stakeholders mentioned that participation in the activities was characterized by only a few people who had the time to engage in the process and persevered in understanding financial documents. Even though efforts were made to make the reading and understanding of the budget as easy as possible, it still seemed to be an ‘elite’ that participated. This raised questions whether the group was or should be representative. Someone feared this process was used as a legitimization for already made decisions, while another felt that s/he contributed to decision making.
[Source: TRANSIT project]
Ways forward
Links to projects
This driver links to the following research projects: