Participatory concepts and frameworks are increasingly gaining popularity and prominence in urban planning and have been oversubscribed across the globe. This is a widespread acknowledgment that residents should be defining the physical development agenda of their physical and social spaces. Laura Puttkamer argues that- “People should be the heart of any planning process and without them, planning is considered null and void.” Despite this global recognition of the importance of participatory planning, very few local authorities in the US and globally are putting this into action, especially participatory budgeting. In rare cases where participatory planning is being done, it is unclear whether the intent of employing the public in decision making, is that the local authorities acknowledge its importance or rather, it is just ticking boxes. Moreover, is the process effective and who does it serve? Because of this, I have always sought to understand to what degree the planning process represents participation, a call for empowerment and engagement of citizens, or merely a passive process by local governments.
What is Participatory Planning?
Participatory planning was introduced in the planning field in a bid to address the loopholes that emanated from the traditional planning theories, namely the Rational Comprehensive Model and the Disjointed Incrementalism Approach (Fisher, n.d). Here decisions took a quasi-top down approach and public policy experts made key decisions without any public consultations. By definition, Participation refers to the quantity, quality, and diversity of input of stakeholders into government decision-making. Another school of thought defines it as the involvement of the entire community in the strategic and management process of urban planning, thereby giving rise to community-level processes. Additionally, it can be referred to as citizen participation, community engagement, public participation, and so forth. In tokenistic participatory planning, there is a deliberate gesture to involve a minority group in order to present a facade of equality. The theory is based on the idea that by involving at least 20% of the minority, justice is attained. Tokenism is normally used by local authorities, governments, and companies to present a ‘seemingly’ inclusive approach. In some instances as the name suggests, a token or prize is included for participating.
Why Participatory Planning?
Decentralized planning is believed to overcome the limitations associated with centralized planning, which in most cases range from plans that do not fit well with the needs of the community or tensions between communities and their governments. It’s important to note that urban land-use planning is a predominantly political activity that reflects the public interest. It is therefore an effective way for citizens to collectively manage the city and protect their interests. In most cases, participation fosters a progressive relationship between governments and the public through effective communication of the land use intentions. This enhances political interaction between citizens and government and enhances the legitimacy of the planning process.
The Paradox
In my exploration of participatory planning in land use development, I have come to realize that the participatory approach in the municipal planning sphere has turned out to be institutionalized as a method of ‘good planning practice’ and that democratic ideologies have become progressively acknowledged as means for harmonizing and rationalizing various interests and concerns. This raises the question of whether this planning approach is a way of creating a platform for people excluded from development not only to participate in making decisions but also to evaluate levels of local government transparency and accountability.
It is undoubtedly true that participation is a best practice that gives power to the residents. However, how do we measure the level of influence that a participatory process has when the final decision still remains with the decision-makers? What guarantees or statutory obligations exist to enforce that the views of the public are incorporated into the development processes. I also question the expert knowledge gap that might exist between the public and the planners with regards to the opinions that might exist for a particular urban transformation project. In this case, planners and technicians might be in a better place to decide what is best for the community; something the community might not perceive.
Mhairi Aitkin emphasizes that ‘engaging with the opinions and knowledge of members of the public is more problematic than simply setting up encounters or opportunities. Rather it requires a more fundamental change in the ways by which expert and lay knowledge are perceived within society’. Without proper checks; the process could be a false exercise rather than a commitment to the ideology of civic engagement.
In addition to the uncertain nature of participating, research shows that in the US participation in local government remains low with only 19% of Americans recently surveyed contacted their local elected officials over a 12-month period, while about a quarter reported attending a public meeting. More so, active participants in the process are often homeowners – primarily white, middle class, and well–educated. Data also shows that newer and younger residents tend not to participate and feel that they do not have the time to do so. Having observed this as well at a Manhattan Community Board meeting, I interrogated the actual meaning of public opinions and why citizens are unwilling to participate. I came to the conclusion that people will only actively participate in issues that have a direct impact on them and that only a few voices are included in decision making. Moreover, some community members just don’t know how to effectively participate and where to do so. How then do we promote the voices of minority groups that might be intimidated to raise their voices and participate or have work-schedules that limit their availability to attend meetings set for traditional 9-to-5 jobs.? How do we ensure everyone is aware of the opportunities to air out their voices and where? I recommend the following:
- Publication notification of meetings and activities in mainstream media and in places where people are able to see and engage. This can be through social media, interactive posters around the neighborhood, and scheduled text messages or mailing lists to the residents.
- Use of contemporary survey and opinion canvasses or virtual design charrettes by sending links to citizens to complete or setting up polls on social media pages. This will promote engagement from people who might be unable to physically engage with community activities but are directly affected by the issues at hand.
- Strengthening the role of civic society, residential associations, and interest or identity-based groups. Participation in the smaller groups might be more efficient and these groups may present their views as a collective to the municipality as opposed to an individual. They act as advocates and middlemen between the municipality and the residents.
- Promoting neutral inviting spaces for participation by creating an open and welcoming atmosphere in the consultation process. This promotes the inclusion of all people despite background, class, and political affiliation. Also, there should be no disparity with regard to the importance of contributions.
My recommendations are not at all comprehensive, but I believe local governments globally could do well in promoting meaningful participation if they look into them. Participatory planning must be seen as a tool for advancing effective governance and addressing the needs of the public.
Cover Image Source: NY.Curbed.com