DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards Better Participatory Planning: Guide to Place-Making

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards Better Participatory Planning: Guide to Place-Making Towards Better Participatory Planning: Guide to Place-making Master thesis in Spatial Planning Utrecht University Faculty of Geosciences Katarzyna Iwińska Student ID: 5894824 Under supervision of: Prof. Dr. Stan Geertman Department of Human Geography and Planning 2 Prologue and acknowledgments The journey through the thesis often felt like a journey without an and, similarly to place- making processes. It seems however that this particular journey has been accomplished, nevertheless, with great amount of lessons learned in the last couple of months. Having left Warsaw to study in Utrecht I knew I want to focus on participation in the planning field, the social side of urban development has always been my core focus. I did not know about place- making field though and having discovered it, I have a feeling of being in the right place of planning. Thanks to the conducted interviews I had an opportunity to meet great people, with open minds and open hearts, supporting others in changing their urban environments. One of the talks also lead me to start an internship at Stipo company, which I am currently enjoying to a great extent and discovering everyday new aspects of place-making but also the methods and strategies needed to work in the field. It also gave me an opportunity to participate in the Placemaking Week conference held in Amsterdam, with over 450 participants from all around the world. This experience showed me how many different projects are happening in those, often distant countries, yet all of them focusing on local places and local communities. The amount of energy and contacts gained during this week will stay with me hopefully for many more years. It is a shame that I got the chance to do the internship only in the last phase of writing the thesis, it seems there is still a lot to be explored. I would like to thank everyone who supported me through this, often bumpy journey. I would like to thank my supervisor, Stan Geertman for offering guidance and supervision in the last, too many months. I would like to thank my family also, without whom this whole year in the Netherlands would never happen. Last but not least, I would like to thank my boyfriend Olek, who was during all these months listening to my struggles and moanings and giving courage and motivating to finalize the below thesis. 3 Abstract Planning field has been evolving at a fast pace towards much more decentralized structure. Move from government to governance, initiatives originating within the civil society and many drawbacks of traditional participation indicate that there is a need for different approaches to be researched. One of them is place-making, a movement stemming from the opposition towards top-down, expert based urban development. Until now, there have not been many papers analysing the movement, therefore in the thesis it is analysed in-depth in order to see how can it can be of benefit to participatory planning practices. Initially, a literature review was carried out to comprehend the existing knowledge on place-making. After, through conducted interviews with organizers and participants of the processes, a better picture of the process and cases in the Netherlands was obtained. Place-making process aims at redeveloping places with the use of local community and while appreciating local existing assets. It puts a great emphasis on activation and empowerment of the users of the place, to allow for better collaboration in the later stage of the process and ultimately transfer of lead to the users. Furthermore, it encourages creation of places in a sustainable way; via collaboration among diverse actors from the area, both from public, private and civic sphere. Lastly, place-making adds further steps than only gathering ideas, such as programming and managing of the place by local users, who feel the mental ownership of the place. 4 Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 8 1.1. Research questions ...................................................................................................................... 11 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 12 2.1. Participatory planning ................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.1. Advantages of participatory planning .................................................................................. 12 2.1.2. Disadvantages of participatory planning ............................................................................. 13 2.1.3. Path towards self-organization ............................................................................................ 15 2.2. Project driven versus place and community driven approach ................................................ 15 2.2.1. Planning Professionals ......................................................................................................... 17 2.3. Place-making origins ................................................................................................................... 18 2.3.1. Around ‘place’ theme .......................................................................................................... 20 Trends in public space development .............................................................................. 21 2.3.2. Project for Public Spaces establishment .............................................................................. 21 2.4. Place-making definition .............................................................................................................. 23 2.4.1. Place-making content .......................................................................................................... 24 Creating better places ..................................................................................................... 26 2.4.2. Process ................................................................................................................................. 27 Place governance ........................................................................................................... 28 2.4.3. Types of place-making ........................................................................................................ 30 2.5. Disadvantages and challenges of place-making ........................................................................ 32 2.6. Synthesis ....................................................................................................................................... 34 3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 36 3.1. Research methods ........................................................................................................................ 36 3.1.1. Participant Observation ....................................................................................................... 36 3.1.2. Interviews ............................................................................................................................ 37 3.2. Limitations and generalisation ................................................................................................... 39 4. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 40 4.1. Place-making versus participatory planning ............................................................................ 40 4.1.1. Literature synthesis .............................................................................................................. 40 4.1.2. Empirical findings ............................................................................................................... 41 Participation – in all phases of the process .................................................................... 42 Design follows, from liveability to loveability .............................................................. 42 Outside-in approach ....................................................................................................... 43 Reverse city involvement ............................................................................................... 45 Cyclicality versus linearity ............................................................................................ 47 4.1.3. Process ................................................................................................................................. 49 Proactive research and involvement .............................................................................. 50 Place game ..................................................................................................................... 55 Place management team ................................................................................................. 58 Creating conditions for self-organization ...................................................................... 58 4.2. Success and failure factors of place-making ............................................................................. 60 5 Prerequisites ................................................................................................................... 61 Organizers ...................................................................................................................... 63 Scale ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • E-Participation: a Quick Overview of Recent Qualitative Trends
    DESA Working Paper No. 163 ST/ESA/2020/DWP/163 JANUARY 2020 E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends Author: David Le Blanc ABSTRACT This paper briefly takes stock of two decades of e-participation initiatives based on a limited review of the academic literature. The purpose of the paper is to complement the results of the e-government Survey 2020. As such, the emphasis is on aspects that the e-government survey (based on analysis of e-government portals and on quantitative indicators) does not capture directly. Among those are the challenges faced by e-participation initiatives and key areas of attention for governments. The paper maps the field of e-par- ticipation and related activities, as well as its relationships with other governance concepts. Areas of recent development in terms of e-participation applications are briefly reviewed. The paper selectively highlights conclusions from the literature on different participation tools, as well as a list of key problematic areas for policy makers. The paper concludes that while e-participation platforms using new technologies have spread rapidly in developed countries in the first decade of the 2000s and in developing countries during the last 10 years, it is not clear that their multiplication has translated into broader or deeper citizen participation. Be- yond reasons related to technology access and digital skills, factors such as lack of understanding of citizens’ motivations to participate and the reluctance of public institutions to genuinely share agenda setting and decision-making power seem to play an important role in the observed limited progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Revised Framework for Participatory Planning in the Context of Risk
    sustainability Article Towards a Revised Framework for Participatory Planning in the Context of Risk Paola Rizzi 1,* and Anna Por˛ebska 2 1 Department of Architecture, Design and Urban Planning, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy 2 Faculty of Architecture, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Kraków, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 April 2020; Accepted: 7 July 2020; Published: 9 July 2020 Abstract: Community participation is widely acknowledged to be crucial in both mitigation and reconstruction planning, as well as in community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) and community-based disaster mitigation (CBDM) processes. However, despite decades of experience, an efficient framework that is acceptable for all actors and suitable for all different phases of the process—ranging from planning to post-disaster recovery—is lacking. The examples presented in this paper shed light on the different dynamics of participatory design processes and compare situations in which participatory design and community planning were introduced before, during, or after a disastrous or potentially disastrous event. Others emphasize the consequences of participation not being introduced at all. Analysis of these processes allows the authors to speculate on a revised, universal model for participatory planning in vulnerable territories and in the context of risk. By emphasizing intrinsic relations of different elements of the process, particularly the responsibility that different actors are prepared—or forced—to take, this article offers insight towards a framework for post-2020 participatory planning. Keywords: participatory design; design for risk reduction (DRR); disaster mitigation (DM); risk awareness; resilience 1. Introduction 1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME Participatory Planning in Education. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris (France). OECD
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 107 653 SP 009 280 TITLE Participatory Planning in Education. INSTITUTION Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris (France). PUB DATE 74 NOTE 369p. AVAILABLE FROMOECD Publications Center, Suite 1207, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.V., Washington, D.C. 20006 ($13.50) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$18.40 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS *Educational Coordination; Educational Needs; *Educational Planning; *Educational Policy; *Educational Strategies; Foreign Countries; Participation; School Planning ABSTRACT This three-part book is part ofa series exploring educational policy planning, published by theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Education Committee. The articles in this collectivn resulting froma January 1973 conference, focus on pedagogical and organizationaldimensions. The first part of the book presentsa review of the conference discussions, as well as its agenda andan orientation paper on participatory planning. Part two consists ofpapers which report experiments in participation and planning from thefield, with examples ranging from specific institutions to thenational level. The papers in part three, also basedon fieldwork, emphasize conceptual developments which suggest how planning mightbe seen as a participatory process. (Author/PB) PARTICIPATORY PLANNING IN EDUCATION HEALTH. US DEPROITMENT OP IIIMPCATION I WILPARS PERMISSION TU REPRODUCE THIS COPY- NE1714AL 'willow*, RIGHTED MATERIAL AS SEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATION SEEN REPRO THIS DOCUMENT HASRECEIVEO FR Duce° EXACTLY AS ORIGINGIN
    [Show full text]
  • U R B a N LIFE And
    URBAN LIFE and URBAN LANDSCAPE SERIES CINCINNATI'S OVER-THE-RHINE AND TWENTIETH-CENTURY URBANISM Zane L. Miller and Bruce Tucker OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS Columbus Copyright © 1998 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Miller, Zane L. Changing plans for America's inner cities : Cincinnati's Over-The-Rhine and twentieth-century urbanism / Zane L. Miller and Bruce Tucker. p. cm. — (Urban life and urban landscape series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8142-0762-6 (cloth : alk. paper).—ISBN 0-8142-0763-4 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Urban renewal—Ohio—Cincinnati—History. 2. Over-the-Rhine (Cincinnati, Ohio)—History. I. Tucker, Bruce, 1948­ . 11. Title. III. Series. HT177.C53M55 1997 307.3'416'0977178—dc21 97-26206 CIP Text and jacket design by Gary Gore. Type set in ITC New Baskerville by Wilsted & Taylor Publishing Services. Printed by Thomson-Shore. The paper in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1992. 98765432 1 For Henry List of Illustrations ix Acknowledgments xi Introduction: Why Cincinnati, Why Over-the-Rhine? xv Prologue: 1850s-1910s 1 PART ONE ZONING, RAZING, OR REHABILITATION Introduction: From Cultural Engineering to Cultural Individualism 9 1 Social Groups, Slums, and Comprehensive Planning, 1915-1944 13 2 Neighborhoods and a Community, 1948-1960 29 PART TWO NEW VISIONS AND VISIONARIES Introduction: Community Action and
    [Show full text]
  • History & Theory of Planning
    History and Theory of Planning Why do we do what we do? What is planning? a universal human activity involving the consideration of outcomes before choosing amongst alternatives a deliberate, self-conscious activity School of City and Regional Planning, Georgia Tech Primary functions of planning improve efficiency of outcomes optimize counterbalance market failures balance public and private interests widen the range of choice enhance consciousness of decision making civic engagement expand opportunity and understanding in community School of City and Regional Planning, Georgia Tech What is the role of history and theory in understanding planning? planning is rooted in applied disciplines primary interest in practical problem solving early planning theories emerged out of practice planning codified as a professional activity originally transmitted by practitioners via apprenticeships efforts to develop a coherent theory emerged in the 1950s and 60s need to rationalize the interests and activities of planning under conditions of social foment the social sciences as a more broadly based interpretive lens School of City and Regional Planning, Georgia Tech Types of theories theories of system operations How do cities, regions, communities, etc. work? • disciplinary knowledge such as economics and environmental science theories of system change How might planners act? • disciplinary knowledge such as decision theory, political science, and negotiation theory • applied disciplines such as public administration and engineering School of City
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Jul 2 0 1978
    PARTICIPATORY DESIGN, TIME AND CONTINUITY: The Case of Place By Nicolas John Messervy B.Arch., Carnegie-Mellon University 1972 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Architecture in Advanced Studies and Master of City Planning at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June, 1978 i A Signature of the Author Department of Urban Studies and Plannin'g 6 May 30, 1978 Certified by i Kevin Lyncl% Professor of City Design Thesis Supervisor Accepted by AssocifVe Professor Ralph Gakenheimer, Chairman Departmental Committee on Graduate Students Copyright 0 Nicolas John Messervy MASSACHUTSETS INSTITUTE OF TECHiNOLOGY JUL 2 0 1978 URARIES Room 14-0551 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph: 617.253.2800 MITL'ibrries Email: [email protected] Document Services http://libraries.mit.eduldocs DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable flaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort possible to provide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied with this product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services as soon as possible. Thank you. The images contained in this document are of the best quality available. ii. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN, TINE AND CONTINUITY: The Case of Place By Nicolas John Messervy Submitted to the Departments of Urban Studies and Planning and Architecture on May 30, 1978, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of Master of City Planning and Master of Architecture in Advanced Studies. Abstract This thesis considers the influence of "time" and "continuity" on citizen participation efforts and suggests ways in which participatory planning models might be al-.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Rural Spatial Planning Based on a Virtual Globe-Based 3D PGIS
    International Journal of Geo-Information Article Participatory Rural Spatial Planning Based on a Virtual Globe-Based 3D PGIS Linjun Yu 1, Xiaotong Zhang 2, Feng He 3,*, Yalan Liu 1 and Dacheng Wang 1 1 Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, China; [email protected] (L.Y.); [email protected] (Y.L.); [email protected] (D.W.) 2 China National Engineering Research Center for Human Settlements, Beijing 100044, China; [email protected] 3 School of Urban and Environment, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming 650221, China * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-13629431746 Received: 9 November 2020; Accepted: 18 December 2020; Published: 21 December 2020 Abstract: With the current spatial planning reform in China, public participation is becoming increasingly important in the success of rural spatial planning. However, engaging various stakeholders in spatial planning projects is difficult, mainly due to the lack of planning knowledge and computer skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the development of a virtual globe-based 3D participatory geographic information system (PGIS) aiming to support public participation in the spatial planning process. The 3D PGIS-based rural planning approach was applied in the village of XiaFan, Ningbo, China. The results demonstrate that locals’ participation capacity was highly promoted, with their interest in 3D PGIS visualization being highly activated. The interactive landscape design tools allow stakeholders to present their own suggestions and designs, just like playing a computer game, thus improving their interactive planning abilities on-site. The scientific analysis tools allow planners to analyze and evaluate planning scenarios in different disciplines in real-time to quickly respond to suggestions from participants on-site.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City's High Line: Participatory Planning Or
    New York City’s High Line: Participatory Planning or Gentrification? Ariel B. Alvarez, McNair Scholar The Pennsylvania State University McNair Faculty Research Advisor: Melissa W. Wright, Ph. D Professor of Geography and Professor of Women Studies College of Earth and Mineral Sciences The Pennsylvania State University Abstract In the last fifty years, participatory planning methods have been utilized by practicing urban planners because they emphasize citizen involvement and equitable representation of disempowered community members. This paper analyzes the degree to which the nonprofit organization and self-proclaimed community group Friends of the High Line facilitated citizen input during remediation of an abandoned elevated freight-car railway, the High Line, into a public park in West Chelsea, New York City. Findings suggest that the High Line is an atypical example of a community driven urban revitalization project and that the participatory planning model may need to be redefined when applied to affluent communities. Introduction The innovative and sleekly designed public High Line park running from Ganesvoort St. to West 20th St. in Manhattan, New York was once considered to be nothing more than an unsightly relic of New York City’s industrial past. Property developers viewed the elevated idle freight car line as a hindrance to potential economic development for the neighborhood while most West Chelsea residents paid little attention to the massive metal structure that had simply morphed into the mundane, industrial urban landscape (High Line History 2010). However, once discussion about demolishing the High Line began amongst members of the Chelsea Property Owners, a group seeking to develop real-estate below the railway, and the former New York City Giuliani administration, two West Chelsea community residents Robert Hammond and Joshua David initiated a grassroots nonprofit organization known as Friends of the High Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Planning for Sustainable Communities
    Participatory Planning for Sustainable Communities Contents The Research Team........................................................................................................1 Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................2 Preface .............................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary and Recommendations ...............................................................3 Glossary...........................................................................................................................6 Abbreviations..................................................................................................................9 Chapter 1: Changing the culture and learning from others ....................................10 Chapter 2: How the research was done......................................................................14 Chapter 3: The case studies.........................................................................................19 Chapter 4: Why is participatory planning needed?..................................................36 Chapter 5: When does planning become participatory and a form of mediation?42 Chapter 6: What models are there for mediation and negotiation and who are the participants? .................................................................................................................47 Chapter 7: How do you do participatory planning?.................................................52
    [Show full text]
  • Public Participation in Urban Development: Case Studies from Cincinnati, Ohio
    Public participation in urban development: Case studies from Cincinnati, Ohio A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Geography of the College of Arts and Sciences by Susan L. Jakubowski B.A. Washington and Jefferson College M.A. University of Cincinnati 25 March 2014 Committee Chair: Colleen McTague, Ph.D. ii Abstract Public participation, a means by which citizens can influence local government in the decision making process, is commonly employed in American cities. Public participation is conceptualized as a significant element of democracy and as such, it is subject to impact in both practice and theory by changes in political ideology. Using three case studies of public participation in urban development projects in Cincinnati, Ohio, this research explores the way that participation strategies have evolved along with and in response to changes in political ideology. The results of these studies are then evaluated within a historical theoretical framework of public participation and indicate that contemporary strategies may not be adequately accounted for by traditional theorizations of participation. The results further indicate that concepts such as empowerment and the public should be expanded within the participatory framework to include the more recent ways in which they have manifested. iii Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Unifying Themes 9 Chapter 3: Marching to
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Manual on Participatory Approach
    Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Department for Forestry Development (DFD), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), Socialist Republic of Viet Nam TECHNICAL MANUAL ON PARTICIPATORY APPROACH Technical Manual Series on the Feasibility Study on the Forest Management Plan in the Central Highland in Socialist Republic of Viet Nam December 2002 Japan Overseas Forestry Consultants Association (JOFCA) Pasco Corporation Contents List of Figures ……………..…………………………………………………………….. ii List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………..…… ii List of Boxes …………………………………………………………………………….. ii 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………. 1 2 What is RRA? ………………………………………………….. 2 2.1 Evolution ………………...……………………………………………….….. 2 2.2 Definition and attributes ……………………………………...……………… 3 2.3 RRA and other participatory approaches …………………………..…..…... 5 2.4 Application of RRA and PRA ………………………...……………………... 9 2.5 Strength and weakness of the RRA/PRA approach ….…………...………..... 9 2.6 Danger of RRA and PRA …………………………………………………..... 11 2.7 Prerequisites for success of RRA/PRA approach …………………...………. 12 3 RRA methods and approaches ………………………………... 14 4 Practical applications of RRA ………………………………… 16 4.1 Preparation for field practice …………….………………………………...… 16 4.2 Field practice ……………..……………..………….……………………..…. 20 4.3 RRA tools and how to use them ………………………………………...…… 20 (1) Secondary data collection ……………………………………………….. 20 (2) Semi-structured interview (Key informant interview) ………………….. 23 (3) Venn diagram (Institutional diagram) ……………………………………... 26 (4) Village
    [Show full text]
  • Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: a Literature Review and Framework
    Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework Renee Sieber Department of Geography, McGill University Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) pertains to the use of geographic information sys- tems (GIS) to broaden public involvement in policymaking as well as to the value of GIS to promote the goals of nongovernmental organizations, grassroots groups, and community-based organizations. The article first traces the social history of PPGIS. It then argues that PPGIS has been socially constructed by a broad set of actors in research across disciplines and in practice across sectors. This produced and reproduced concept is then expli- cated through four major themes found across the breadth of the PPGIS literature: place and people, technology and data, process, and outcome and evaluation. The themes constitute a framework for evaluating current PPGIS activities and a roadmap for future PPGIS research and practice. Key Words: community-based organiza- tions, geographic information systems, grassroots groups, PPGIS, social construction. t is an odd concept to attribute to a piece of software information to all relevant stakeholders presumably leads the potential to enhance or limit public participation to better policymaking. Third, as Wood (1992) argues, I in policymaking, empower or marginalize community this policy-related information can be analyzed and vis- members to improve their lives, counter or enable ualized spatially, and the resulting output (mainly maps) agendas of the powerful, and advance or diminish can persuasively convey ideas and convince people of democratic principles. However, that is exactly what has the importance of those ideas. Add to these reasons the happened with geographic information systems (GIS), sheer volume of spatial data from numerous disparate the social application of which has captured the atten- sources and across themes and scales as well as the in- tion of researchers in diverse disciplines including urban creasingly affordable and easy-to-use systems.
    [Show full text]