Session 5 Participatory Planning at Local Level (Micro Planning)
Participatory Planning (2010)
-
Upload
ramiro-aznar-ballarin -
Category
Documents
-
view
162 -
download
1
Transcript of Participatory Planning (2010)
1
Participatory Planning by Ramiro Aznar Ballarín
Introduction
Disenchantment with democratic politics has never been more pronounced (Bellamy,
2008). Citizens speak of growing disillusionment with government, based on concerns about
corruption, lack of responsiveness to the necessities of the poor and absence of a sense of
connection with elected representatives (Gaventa, 2002). In contrast, in the last decades there
has been a clear shift toward the so called ‘politics of inclusion’ (Roseland, 2000), in which
community participation is one of their major expressions. Citizen participation, according to
Arnstein (1969: 216), is “the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently
excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately in the future”.
In urban politics and spatial planning, there has also been a clear change of paradigm
from the classical traditions based on economic, physical and policy analysis to a more
collaborative planning (Healey, 1997). In this regard, Davidoff and Gans, for instance, saw
planning as a tool which citizens could use in demanding a more democratic pluralistic polity
from the clutches of dominant elites (Davidoff, 1965; Gans, 1969; both saw in Healey, 1997).
More importantly, as Lyons and colleagues (1991) pointed out, participation development
should be understood as “an end in itself” instead of just “a mean to”. In this regard, Cornwall
and Gaventa (2001) suggest that citizen participation is an on-going process developed within
both physical places and conceptual spaces. The latter indeed are interfaces between citizens
and the state and serve as intermediaries who can enhance responsibility as well as
responsiveness on all sides. In addition, they state that each space is itself socially and
politically located, and therefore, carries ‘tracks and traces’ of previous socioeconomic, political
and environmental relationships, resources and knowledge. Using this interesting metaphor, it is
possible to create a virtual landscape (Figure 1) made by highly multi -tiered layers and shaped
by a wide variety of external and internal forces.
It is clear that the first stratum of the landscape to take into account is the local
environment. In fact, this layer is seen as primordial substrate which can represent values and
opportunities for human use but also has certain limitations and even prohibitions to certain of
these uses (McHarg, 1992). Another different stratum of the landscape can be the flows of
2
knowledge. Namely, information as well as misinformation is a source of power in the planning
process (Forester, 1982). In this respect, understanding the gaps and focuses of information is
viewed as crucial in order to disentangle how relations of power work to structure the planning
process. In addition to knowledge, others two cartographies based on gender and age issues
can be added to our model. On the one hand, women, many critics argue, are those most likely
to lose out in apparently “participatory planning” (Mayoux, 1995; Cornwall, 2003). Young
people, on the other, are rarely consulted too during urban planning processes, despite the fact
that they are highly affected by such decisions because they are the most frequent users of
public space (Dennis, 2006). More and more dimensions can be incorporated to our landscape,
but maybe the last mantle which would cover the whole scene of participation is the daily life
decisions which the residents of the city make (José Aznar, personal communication).
Finally, it is important to highlight that these layers are not isolated, and on the contrary, they
are highly connected.
Figure 1 Wright’s (1992) adaptive landscape made by organisms’ performance in relation to their genetic
pool. In this particular metaphorical territory, evolution is understood as local hill climbing; in fact as
participation is traditionally understood –Arnstein’s ladder, for instance– (source:
www.carloetal.blogspot.com/).
The final space of participation resulted from the spatial and temporal interaction
between layers is, therefore, a manifold with hyperdimensional peaks and valleys. Participation
3
processes can be understood in two different ways, on the one hand, the traditional approach
may picture participation as local hill climbing (Arnstein, 1969; Smyth, 2001 saw in Steinmann
et al., 2004). Therefore, a sustainable community could only be achieved at the top of the
nearest peak, where the economic, environmental and social dimensions are in balance
(Campbell, 1996). In the present work, on the other hand, participation development is
understood as the opposite dynamic, namely, downhill sliding rather than hill climbing.
Consequently, herein participation is more focused on the processes than on the results. What
is more, it is understood as an open dynamic process of a people adapting to, while
simultaneously changing, their landscape over time (Durack, 2001; Neuman, 2005). The
participatory landscape outlined above is dotted with tensions and obstacles, but also with
opportunities and challenges (Amin et al., 2000). In this respect, planners can play the role of
community guides through this complicated path. Further, in order to success, they should
consider that context and planning practices are socially constituted together (Healey, 1997)
and, what is more, no spaces for participation are neutral, but are shaped by the power relations
which both enter and surround them (Cornwall & Gaventa, 2001).
In this context, in the first section of this work will be discussed the possibilities of
Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PGIS) approach to construct and understand
the numerous layers and networks of our participatory landscape. PGIS, in fact, could be used
both to explore a particular collaborative space and the medium of its expression (Tallen,
2000). While in the second, two real examples of public engagement based on the idea of
participat ory planning as an open dynamic process are described. First, the “Favela-Bairro”
project of Río de Janeiro (Brasil) is described. This development which aims to provide the
necessary conditions that would enable favelas (slums or squatter settlements) to be seen as
neighborhoods of the city (Riley et al., 2001), has carried out for the last 20 years and it is a
good example because of its strong community engagement component. The second study
case is based on the “Tree City” project designed by Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau for the
Downsview Park in Toronto (Canada). The importance of this example relies on the
implementation of its indeterminate planning strategy which attempts to adapt the park within
the physical and social fabric through both ecological succession and participatory processes
(www.oma.eu/).
4
Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PGIS)
Peng (2001) states that to ensure meaningful participation of the public in the planning
and decision-making process, good communication channels and tools should be provided. In
regard to the latter, participation applications such as online surveys, online discussion forums,
and computer supported decision-making tools offer new opportunities for the citizen
involvement (Krek, 2005). Among them, it has demonstrated that Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) has a truly interesting potential for engaging communities in participatory
planning (Dennis, 2006). In fact, in the last years, as planning has become more complex and
increasingly dependent on information and communication technology instruments, the
application of GIS within planning practice has increased because of the tremendous growth in
accessible and affordable geodata and the shift of its nature from being primarily technology-
driven to being more user-driven (Geertman, 1999 saw in Geertman, 2002).
Figure 2 An example of how a resident can draw her housing preferences within a particular environment.
In this particular case the layers of the landscape are composed by six layers which range from streams
and water bodies to outbreaks of West Nile virus (Source: www.architectmagazine.com/).
5
One of the most interesting initiatives in Participatory GIS (PGIS) is defined as Bottom-
Up GIS (BUGIS). In this approach, residents learn to manipulate GIS data to express their views
about planning issues, neighborhood meaning and future preferences (Tallen, 2000). BUGIS,
thus, can be used by participants as a spatial language tool based on local knowledge and
residents perceptions (Figure 2). As noted by Jane Jacobs, neighborhoods are really difficult to
define, even for their residents, “you never realize how complicated a neighborhood within a big
city is until you try to explain it” (1961: 540). In this regard, Elwood (2006a) found five different
types of spatial narratives about neighborhoods, conditions and capacities (needs, asset,
injustice, accomplishment and reinterpretation narratives) in the GIS-based maps designed by
two community organizations in a development project in Chicago. The interaction of these
geographies can create a particular participatory potential surface wherein can be detect
spaces of opportunity as well as spaces of need or deficit (Amin et al., 2000). In addition to
identify neighborhood potentials and problems, PGIS can make the discussion between
planners, authorities and residents contextual, more realistic and with technically supported (Al-
Kodmany, 1999). For this reason, it may eventually legitimize individual or community
expressions and proposals (Tallen, 2000).
Nevertheless, the benefits of using GIS in participatory processes must be also
tempered with a clear understanding of its intrinsic limits, drawbacks, and biases. Firstly, GIS
cannot be made to substitute for the wide array of ways in which residents express their views
about their environment (Tallen, 2000). In fact, PGIS should be complemented with more
traditional ways of participation as well as new mechanisms of public engagement such as
artists’ freehand sketching or computer-based photo-manipulation (Al-Kodmany, 1999).
Secondly, it is known that there are some financial, temporal and technical barriers that can
impede access to use of GIS (Elwood, 2006b). Concretely, GIS technology needs high quality
of computer equipment and also time and willingness to understand how the software works. In
this respect, for most citizens the personal benefit of getting involved in planning activities and
learning how to use a PGIS application is usually little and the costs of participation is rather
high (Krek, 2005). Finally, and more importantly, it is been stated that PGIS can both empower
and marginalize (Brodnig & Mayer-Schonberger, 2000 saw in McCall, 2003). In fact, McCall
(2003) points out that information accrues to those already with most resources, thus further
6
accumulating their power. Moreover, he states that the ‘value-neutral’ of GIS applications is a
myth, and thus, it all depends on what it is being used for, and on who is controlling it. In fact,
planning is thus a social process through which ways of thinking, ways of valuing and ways of
acting are actively constructed by all the participants (Healey, 1997). Consequently, GIS
planners and facilitators which take part in participatory processes should recognize that they
should participate wisely rather than irresponsibly.
7
Study Cases: Favela-Bairro and Tree City
Favela-Bairro
The favelas of Rio de Janeiro have been part of the city’s landscape for over a century.
They are recognized as one of the most visible manifestations of urban poverty and as a symbol
of the inequalities between the rich and the poor (Riley et al., 2001). These “hand-made cities”
(Magalhães, 2002 saw in Andreatta, 2005) were built based on several factors such as
excellent location on the city morros (hills) and proximity to public transport stations, jobs, and
local business (Andreatta, 2005). The nature of the relationship between the formal city and
favelas have changed from initial indifference, to rejection, to a more sympathetic and tolerant
attitude (Soares & Soares, 2005).
Figure 3 Favela de Manghinos before (left) and after (right) the works of Favela Bairro (source:
www.jauregui.arq.br/).
In this context, the Favela-Bairro project (Figure 3) launched in 1994 by the Municipal
Government of Rio de Janeiro with the financial support of the Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB) has attempted to integrate favelas socially and physically into the urban fabric
8
(Peter, 2007). Some of the measures undertaken were provision of water supply and sewers,
regulation of lands, and the stabilization of hill slopes. Nevertheless, it has been said that the
most important factor of the project relies on the citizen involvement (Conde & Magalhães,
2004; Andreatta, 2005). Furthermore, the program was most successful were community
organization was strongest, where active leaders were politically aware and therefore more
independent in relation to the government (Conde & Magalhães, 2004). In this sense, however,
the programme does not fulfill its potential to act as a catalyst for broader processes of
democratization which are essential to ensure long-term substantive poverty reduction (Riley et
al., 2001).
For the purpose of this essay, it is important to highlight the developments carried out
by the architect Jorge Mario Jáuregui. According to Montaner (2008), Jáuregui with the
collaboration of other architects and social scientists, has designed a complex participatory and
open system which allows them to locate and understand each particular favela, thus
discovering its potentials, namely, both its needs and deficits and its opportunities. He has
compared the Jáuregui’s system with the natural behavior of a “rhizome” in which each specific
project growth (as a “fruitbody”) in relation to the environmental, social and physical context.
Respecting the environmental characteristics, nature and culture of each area was indeed the
motor that enabled Favela-Bairro to become as a democratic undertaking of far-reaching social
importance (Conde & Magalhães, 2004). In addition to Brazil, similar programs of
neighborhood regeneration based on proximity can be found in Chile (www.quieromibarrio.cl/)
and other South-American countries.
Tree City
Rem Koolhas and Bruce Mau’s Tree City proposal for the Downsview Park in Toronto
can be the most direct expression of indeterminate planning (Durack, 2001). In fact, they won
the international competition with a strategy, not a design. This was based on using trees, the
park’s primary urban component, as the catalyst of urbanization. In their own words, “landscape
elements will be planted incrementally over time as funding permits, gradually building up the
9
park’s mass into a flexible patchwork of clusters separated by open undesignated areas”
(www.oma.eu/).
Figure 4 Computer-based visualization of the William Baker Neighbourhood within the Downsview Park
(source: www.downsviewpark.ca/).
In these undesignated areas were the focus of the Parc Downsview Park Inc.'s (PDP's)
development plan in which five sustainable neighborhoods (Figure 4) were designed by the
work of both professionals and public consultation (www.downsviewpark.ca/). Moreover,
Koolhaas and Mau proposed that the park could be financially sustained through an evolving
cycle of implantation and speculation (www.oma.eu/). As a result, it has been established that
the park must be self-financing (no government funds or tax-payer dollars are attributed to the
support of the park), therefore, although most of the lands will remain under the ownership of
PDP, one third of the lands are contemplated to be sold or leased to appropriate partners in
order to sustain the park (www.downsviewpark.ca/). It will probably take several years before
we can evaluate the wisdom of this proposition, but in terms of participatory urban development,
accepting indeterminacy and choice could be better than settling an immutable outcome.
Another example of indeterminate planning based on processes rather than a fixed
design can be found in two projects of a young group of Spanish architects called “Cómo crear
historias” (“How to create stories”, http://comocrearhistorias.com/). On the one hand, “La
10
reversible huerta lúdica” (“The reversible leisure garden”) is an interesting story in which the
restoration of a public space is carried out by a constant feedback of the participants of
workshops which are hold within the own building! “5 Km de agua enredada” (“5 Km of
entangled water”), on the other, is a two-fold symbiotic organism between professionals and
residents as well as the building and water.
11
Conclusions
In this work it has been suggested a participatory landscape as a space of possibilities
as well as challenges. Its surface is dotted with peaks and valleys, but also with small holes and
ridges. In this regard, every irregularity represents a potential for participatory processes.
Concretely, citizen engagement in planning development herein is envisioned as a process of
adapting to rather than avoiding or climbing these multidimensional obstacles. In this sense,
Participatory GIS (PGIS) could be the tool and the medium with which citizen can walk their own
territories. On the one hand, PGIS as a spatial language can use local knowledge and
residents’ perception to sketch a surface imbedded with specific and operational potential. On
the other hand, there are some barriers, drawbacks and important biases that is crucial to
tackle. In fact, PGIS is a powerful tool which can empower some social groups, but at the same
time, marginalize some others.
In this context, the on-going participatory processes can be illustrated, for example, by
the rhizomatic nature of the work of J.M. Jáuregui in the Favela-Bairro development, wherein
each favela project grows according to its local culture, and physical and natural environment.
Further, sometimes it will be impossible to foresee how the social, economic and environmental
milieu will evolve, and hence, the wisest solution can be found in an indeterminate open-ended
planning as Koolhaas and Mau’s proposal for the Downsview Park.
Finally, urban planners, and especially GIS professionals, can play a role of
intermediaries or facilitators between authorities, community organizations and citizens in order
to explore the complexities of their collaborative spaces, and therefore, generating different
spatial narratives according to their perceptions, aspirations and needs. As a result, as noted by
Rem Koolhaas (1994), it will be possible to “irrigate” their landscapes with potential, thus
maximizing the inherited opportunities and creating new ones for the future generations.
12
References
Al-Kodmany, 1999. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning
and design: process, implementation and evaluation. Landscape and Urban planning 45, 37-45.
Amin, A., Massey, D., & Thrift, N. 2000. Cities for the many not for the few, Bristol, Policy, 48 p.
Andreatta, V. 2005. Favela-Bairro, un nuevo paradigma de urbanización para asentamientos
informales. Cuadernos internacionales de tecnología para el desarrollo 3, 1-8.
Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizens participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 35(7), 216-224.
Bellamy, R. 2008. Citizenship. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York,
133 p.
Campbell, S. 1996. Green cities, Growing cities, Just cities? Urban planning and the
contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3),
296-312.
Conde, L.P. & Magalhães, S. 2004. Favela-Bairro: rewriting the History of Rio. Río de Janeiro:
ViverCidades, 158 p.
Cornwall, A. & Gaventa, J. 2001. Bridging the gap: citizenship, participation and accountability.
PLA Notes 40, 32-40.
Cornwall, A. 2003. Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory
Development. World Development 31(8), 1325-1342.
Dennis, S.F. 2006. Prospects for qualitative GIS at the intersection of youth development and
participatory urban planning. Environment and Planning A 38, 2039-2054.
13
Durack, R. 2001. Village vices: The contradiction of new urbanism and sustainability. Places
14(2), 64-69.
Elwood, S. 2006a. Beyond Cooptation or Resistance: Urban Spatial Politics, Community
Organizations, and GIS-Based Spatial Narratives. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 96(2), 323-341.
Elwood, S. 2006b. Critical Issues in Participatory GIS: Deconstructions, Reconstructions, and
New Research Directions. Transactions in GIS 10(5), 693-708.
Forester, 1982. Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association ?,
67-80.
Gaventa, J. 2002. Introduction: Exploring Citizenship, Participation and Accountability. IDS
Bulletin 33(2), 1-11.
Geertman, S. 2002. Participatory planning and GIS: a PSS to bridge the gap. Environment and
Planning B: Panning and Design 29, 21-35.
Healey, P. 1997. From Collaborative Planning: shaping places in fragmented societies . In:
Bridge, G. & Watson, S. 2002. The Blackwell City Reader, Blackwell, 579 p.
http://comocrearhistorias.com [saw at 13/04/2010]
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities . Random House, 624 p.
Koolhaas, R. 1994. Whatever Happened to Urbanism. In: Koolhaas, R. & Mau, B. 1995. S, M, L,
XL, Monacelli, New York, 969 p.
14
Krek, 2005. Rational Ignorance of the Citizens in Public Participatory Planning. Paper published
in the conference proceedings of CORP, Vienna.
Lyons, M., Smuts, C. & Stephens, A. 2001. Participation, Empowerment and Sustainability:
(How) Do the Links Work? Urban Studies 38(8), 1233-1251.
Mayoux, L. 1995. Beyond naivet: women, gender in equality and participatory development.
Development and Change 26, 235-258.
McCall, M.K. 2003. Seeking good governance in participatory -GIS: a review of process and
governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International
27, 549-573.
McHarg, I. 1992. Design With Nature. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 198 p.
Montaner, J.M. 2008. Sistemas arquitectónicos contemporáneos . Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 223
p.
Neuman, M. 2005. The Compact City Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25,
11-26.
Peng, Z. 2001. Internet GIS for public participation. Environment and Planning B: Panning and
Design 28, 889-905.
Peter, G.D. 2007. Favela-Bairro ¿Un programa sostenible? Máster en Ciudad y Arquitectura
Sostenible, Módul 7, ETSA, Universidad de Sevilla.
Riley, E., Fiori, J., & Ramirez, R. 2001. Favela Bairro and a new generation of housing
programmes for the urban poor. Geoforum 32, 521-531.
15
Roseland, M. 2000. Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic,
and social objectives. Progress in Planning 54, 73-132.
Soares,F. & Soares, Y. 2005. The Socio-Economic Impact of Favela-Bairro: What do the Data
Say? Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C., 45 p.
Steinmann, R., Krek, A., & Blaschke, T. 2004. Analysis of Online Public Participatory GIS
Applications with Respect to the Differences between the US and Europe In: UDMS 2004, 24th
Urban Data Management Symposium. Chioggia, Italy.
Tallen, E. 2000. Bottom-Up GIS. A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory
planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(3), 279-294.
Wright, S. 1932. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution.
Proc. Sixth Int. Congr. Genet. 1, 356-366.
www.architectmagazine.com [saw at 11/03/2010]
www.downsviewpark.ca [saw at 13/04/2010]
www.jauregui.arq.br [saw at 5/04/2010]
www.oma.eu [saw at 13/04/2010]
www.quieromibarrio.cl [saw at 5/04/2010]
www.carloetal.blogspot.com [saw at 18/04/2010]