In my book, titled "Public Participation as a Tool for Integrating Local Knowledge into Spatial Planning" (Springer 2017) I claim that the initial practical goals of public participation in planning are "the exposure of residents' local knowledge and the incorporation of that knowledge into the planning and decision-making processes".
Tal I agree with you when we consider public participation as a means to an end. That is what the title of your book tells, if I am not mistaken. But the other side of the coin need to be appreciated; public participation as an end by it self. This is for two reasons. Firstly, participation as a means to end could be reduced to consultative or manipulative types of participation, in which the outsiders (externals) make the ultimate decision. Secondly, participation as an end not only comply with the human right to development but also ensures sustainability of development programs. It ensures public ownership. Participation as an end needs an interactive type of public participation to structurally integrate local knowledge into learning process. Thus, yes it is possible to integrate local knowledge. Even beyond, importantly, it is also possible to co-produce new knowledge with local community. To this end, externals, researchers and other actors should first and for most respect local community and committed first to learn from them before sharing their knowledge.Such an approach will unlock the heart and minds of local community and ultimately strengthen synergy between externals and locals; enrich understanding and generates actionable knowledge.
Its their spatial plan, the need for public participation must be understood in the perspective of planning goals, needs and target. If the spatial is concerned with people desired to resolve and plan for the people.
Local people can influence shaping up plans and policies for their area but the participation process must be clearly defined and ownership be fully realised by the people. With devolution of powers through the Localism Bill few Neighbourhood plans are being developed in the UK. The residents, use their local knowledge, to shape policies/ plans that could become material consideration in determining future development within that area. See case studies here- http://mycommunity.org.uk/case_study/saxilby-with-ingleby-lincoln-influencing-future-development-protecting-rural-character/
Of course it is "possible." Why would you (or they) want to do it? Often planning consultations with the public are largely ignored when policies are actually made. SO, the goal should be to not only achieve involvement, BUT to find a way of assuring that the advice given is actually incorporated into the subsequent policy. THAT is the goal!
So why not consider totally bottom-up planning?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23523616_Tender_Mercies_Efficient_and_Equitable_Land_Use_Change
Article Tender Mercies: Efficient and Equitable Land Use Change
Yes.
It is not only possible, it is desirable.
Please read the paper Assessing user preferences on post-industrial redevelopment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2016, Vol. 43(5) 871–892. doi: 10.1177/0265813515599981
The problem with "bottom-up" planning is that those who are responsible for authorizing, financing, and implementing the "plan" are on the "top," and they usually selectively choose which aspects of the "plan" will actually be used, and which aspects of the "plan" will NOT! The more autonomous bottom-up planning is, the less likely it will actually see the light of day! IF bottom-up planners very carefully stay within the parameters that those on the top want, it may appear as if they have succeeded in their plans, BUT this is ONLY because they have been wise enough not to try and "kick the giant!" This is the kind of bottom-up planning that stands the best chance of succeeding, but to do it, those involved need to reign in exaggerated expectations!
Its the people who fund -pay taxes, the caretakers of these funds through public or government agencies must ensure that they do not loose the trust of people. The system of decision making must be evolved to incorporate the 'people's plan', the bottom up approach also ends up waiting for the top decision makers to give veto on the public decisions at large. The need for consensus and collaborative planning mechanism is required when the pressure to decentralize the decisions are more prominent. I agree these are desirable but the governance of today or the power structure does leave much chance to have a clear say. Opinion makers may differ but this how system functions.
As to the possibility of public participation, I think one important factor is whether or not people are organized. Many have shown that individuals are less interested in or less likely to participate in planning activities such as public hearings than their organizations such as NGOs or homeowners associations (HOA). When there are homeowners associations in the local area, they are more active in local planning activities. Then, a question remains open: how will the renters' interests be represented in public particiaption in planning? Should they be represented given their much higher mobility? Should they rely more on "exit" than on "voice"? Public participation is certainly a method for people to "voice" their preferences or knowledge on local affairs.
its the people that will face the consequences when challenges come up, so it is very important that their views are heard, understood and even carried out. this is called public participation in planning.
It is not only possible but purportedly the only way forward to give residents in city communities and neighbourhoods a voice. Take at look at the examples of Urban Rooms in the UK at https://urbanroomsnetwork.wordpress.com/
Also see Saxleby & Ingleby for an example of an active, community-led, neighbourhood development plan. http://www.saxilbyplan.co.uk/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India