Difference between revisions of "Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods"

From Urban Arena Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 13: Line 13:
 
==Do you want to learn more about this intervention?==
 
==Do you want to learn more about this intervention?==
  
Take a look at the detailed case study on the [[Resilience Lab case | '''Resilience Lab case''']] that has inspired this scenario.
+
Take a look at the detailed [[Resilience Lab case | '''Resilience Lab case''']] that has inspired this scenario.
  
 
This intervention fits under the approaches:
 
This intervention fits under the approaches:

Revision as of 06:53, 26 June 2020

Imagine a city where residents of moderate means can fully enjoy the neighborhood they are living, collectively engaging in community projects that strengthen social relations and improve urban infrastructure.

In this case, persistent social problems related to health, living conditions and education are likely to have been identified early on by local residents, social workers as well as municipal actors. But what can be done to address poverty and lack of equity? A response may be initiated by civil society organizations. Especially those already engaged in local community projects and who are familiar with the context may call on municipal support to address these issues. Consequently, an urban regeneration project may be conceptualized by the civil society organizations and the municipality. The good cooperation and a common interest between those two bodies would be crucial.

The project is especially likely to be facilitated if it aligns with municipal orientations. Indeed, to counter decreasing public subsidies for social intervention, local public authorities tend to rely on the engagement of local dwellers to conduct urban regeneration projects. In such a set up, much freedom is likely to be granted by the municipality to local project proponents which could trigger the experimentation of innovative participatory tools and methods. It may include workshops enabling residents to collectively envision a desired neighborhood, reflect and discuss on options and learn about self-organization.

However, such an innovative intervention might face obstacles as it emerges. For instance, the project proponents may be confronted with mistrust and scepticism about the participatory process and its outcomes. Whereas previous regeneration projects implemented in disregard of the local community may have undermined the residents’ trust in such interventions, municipal actors could be suspicious about the effective outcomes of participatory methods.

These obstacles may be overcome by means of the institutional work done by the project proponents, including a better understanding of the local history, context and dynamics as well as the creation of trust among different actors. When successfully developed, such an intervention should enhance community building as well as establish new relationships based on cooperation and mutual trust between citizens and municipal actors.

These governance arrangements being successfully developed and experimented by the project proponents, including the municipality, could be replicated in other neighborhoods. Eventually, this may be the basis for a new participatory and inclusive approach to local urban governance.

Do you want to learn more about this intervention?

Take a look at the detailed Resilience Lab case that has inspired this scenario.

This intervention fits under the approaches:

It addresses some drivers of injustice: