Professional Documents
Culture Documents
cstb
DELIVERABLE 14
Participation by
neighbourhood
residents and users:
methods and practice
October 2003
Participation by neighbourhood
residents and users:
methods and practice
October 2003
2
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Contents
Abstracts.......................................................................................................... 8
Appendix 1..................................................................................................... 78
Communication and participation procedure............................................. 78
from the marketing perspective................................................................... 78
4
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
The aim of HQE2R project is thus to allow local authorities to implement regeneration
action plans in their neighbourhoods and renovation of their buildings towards
1
I refuse the idea that there is a side for the light and another one for the darkness, the man and the woman, me and the
others, the good and the bad ones. I look for a place where contradictions can be solved. That is a quest without illusion.
2
See the list of the partners in Appendix or at the end
5
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
4. Shared SD
diagnosis of the
neighbourhood
(potential,
12. Monitoring and
dysfunction,
evaluation of the
Participation of residents and users cohesion)
project : SD
monitoring Partnership (public / private)
indicators
Local Governance 5. Strategic
priorities for the
neighbourhood and
definition of
11. Projects upon objectives for SD
9. Urban planning
the neighbourhood regulations including
with SD SD recommendations
specifications
7. Evaluation of
6. Generation of
10. Projects for the scenarios
scenarios
Sustainable Buildings against SD
8. Action plan for (to identify options
(new & existing) with targets (INDI,
the neighbourhood for SD action)
SD specifications ENVI, ASCOT)
PHASE 4 : ACTION and EVALUATION PHASE 3 : DECIDING UPON THE ACTION PLAN
6
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
The HQE2R project results are specific tools for local communities and for their local
partners (see also the diagram below):
- The choice of 6 sustainable development principles at the scale of the city and a
definition of sustainability for the neighbourhood scale.
- The definition of an overall methodological framework with 5 main global
sustainable development (SD) objectives, their 21 targets, 51 key issues or sub
targets and then 61 indisputable indicators at the neighbourhood and building
scales (the ISDIS system).
- A shared SD diagnosis method for SD (with an integrated analytical grid for the
previous inventory) adapted to the neighbourhood scale.
- Evaluation tools for scenarios or neighbourhood projects as decision aid tools for
assessing different scenarios before the final action plan for the neighbourhood is
chosen (3 models with the support of 3 analytical grids):
3 models:
- INDI (INDicators Impacts) a model of sustainable regeneration impact using
indicators and allowing the development of different environmental and
sustainable development profiles
- ENVI (ENVironmental Impact)
- ASCOT (Assessment of Sustainable Construction & Technology Cost), a
model of global cost of energy efficient technologies from an environmental point of
view at the building scale.
- Recommendations for improving participation in neighbourhood regeneration projects.
- Recommendations for taking SD into account in urban planning documents (for each
partner country).
- Recommendations for specifying sustainable development in the building process
- Recommendations for specifying sustainable development for non built elements
- Indicators for the different phases of a project state indicators, pressure indicators
and then monitoring indicators.
RESULTS OF THE HQE²R PROJECT:
an approach with methods and tools
for sustainable neighbourhood regeneration
-Recommendations
for briefing Elaboration of decision aid tools
documents taking Recommandations to to evaluate scenarios or potential
into account SD for integrate SD in urban urban planning projects (“design
new and existi ng planning documents contract” for example)
buildings
- Recommendations
for non – built
elements SD Sustainable Development
Source: HQE2 R project (http:hqe2r.cstb.fr) * See the scheme «The shared SD diagnosis method for setting priorities»
7
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Abstracts
ENGLISH ABSTRACT
This document is concerned with the practices of involving residents in the regeneration of urban
neighbourhoods. It builds on the Deliverable 15 of the HQE2R project, which described the national
legislative context for participation in each of the project’s partner countries. Deliverable 15 also developed
a ‘Scale of Participation’ based on three dimensions (nature, content, timing).
The first aim of this document is to describe how resident participation has been addressed in each of the
project’s case-study neighbourhoods, and to reflect on these in the light of the Scale of Participation.
The second aim is to present short descriptions of a sample of participation methods that could be used to
enhance participation in the case study neighbourhoods and others engaged in a regeneration process.
These main parts of the document are set in context by briefly describing the HQE2R project, and
discussing the nature of participation in different types of regeneration process.
The document concludes with the observation that practice varies widely across Europe and it would be
inappropriate to give detailed recommendations. However, the document focuses on two methods which
presents participation as a continuum and progressive process. This is supplemented by a discussion of
questions raised by regeneration practitioners at a conference held by the project partnership.
FRENCH ABSTRACT
Ce document recense les pratiques de participation des habitants et usagers des quartiers dans les projets de
renouvellement urbain. Il complète l’analyse présentée dans le deliverable 15 sur le cadre législatif et
réglementaire de la participation d’une part et sur les pratiques (notamment dans le cadre d’Agendas 21
Locaux) d’autre part. Il s’appuie sur l’échelle de participation HQE2R à trois dimensions (nature de la
participation - depuis l’information jusqu’à la co-production de projets – participation dans le phasage du
projet et sujets retenus pour la participation :) également présentée dans le deliverable 15.
L’objet de ce document est de présenter différentes pratiques utilisées dans les quartiers pilotes ou test du
projet HQE2R au regard de l’échelle de participation HQE2R, puis de décrire différentes méthodes qui
permettent d’encourager ou de favoriser la participation des habitants et usagers d’un quartier au fur et à
mesure des étapes d’un projet de renouvellement urbain. Le document insiste notamment sur certaines
méthodes qui permettent d’impliquer les habitants selon un processus continu et progressif.
Ce document se termine sur les questions évoquées par les participants à la conférence européenne de
Copenhague de Mars 2003 dont un des thèmes majeurs était la participation des habitants.
DEUTSCH ABSTRACT
Der folgende Text befasst sich mit der Praxis der Bewohnerbeteiligung in der Stadterneuerung in Europa.
Er baut auf dem Bericht (“Deliverable”) 15 des HQE²R-Projektes auf, das den Rechtsrahmen für die
Bürgerbeteiligung in jedem der am Projekt beteiligten Staaten darstellt. Deliverable 15 entwickelte
ebenfalls eine “Beteiligungsskala”, die auf Arnsteins “Stufen der Bürgerbeteiligung” basiert.
Die Beschreibung der Umsetzung von Bürgerbeteiligung in den Fallstudien des Projektes und ihre
Reflexion im Sinne der “Stufen der Bürgerbeteiligung” ist das Thema des ersten Teils des hier
vorliegenden Berichts. Der zweite Teil beinhaltet eine Übersicht von Beteiligungsmethoden, die dazu
beitragen können, die Beteiligung im Stadterneuerungsprozess zu verbessern. Diese beiden
Hauptbestandteile des Textes werden mit der Methodik des HQE²R-Projektes verknüpft und diese kurz
dargestellt. Es werden ebenso die verschiedenen Aspekte von Beteiligung im Rahmen von
Stadterneuerungsprogrammen unterschiedlicher europäischer Staaten diskutiert.
8
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Es ist festzustellen, dass die Beteiligungspraxis in den unterschiedlichen Staaten sich so weit von einander
unterscheidet, dass es nicht sinnvoll erscheint, detaillierte Empfehlungen für alle Staaten gleichermaßen zu
geben. Stattdessen erscheint es sinnvoller eine Checkliste mit Aspekten bereitzustellen, die im
Beteiligungsprozess Berücksichtigung finden sollten. Ergänzt wird der Bericht schließlich durch eine
Auseinandersetzung mit aktuellen Fragestellungen zur Bürgerbeteiligung, die von an der praktischen
Umsetzung von Stadtentwicklungsmaßnahmen Beteiligten bei einer vom Projekt durchgeführten
Konferenz aufgeworfen wurden.
DUTCH ABSTRACT
Dit document behandelt het betrekken van de bewoners bij de renovatie van stadswijken. Het is gebaseerd
op deliverable 15 van het HQE2R project waarin de nationale wettelijke context wordt beschreven voor de
participatie (inspraak) in elk land van de projectpartners.
In deliverable 15 is ook een “participatieschaal” ontwikkeld gebaseerd op drie dimensies (aard van de
participatie, informatie en timing).
Het eerste deel van dit document is de beschrijving van hoe bewonersparticipatie in elk van de projectcase
studie is vormgegeven en hoe dit geprojecteerd kan worden op de participatieschaal.
Het tweede deel is de presentatie van enkele korte omschrijvingen van participatie methodes die gebruikt
kunnen worden bij de versterking en/of verbetering van de participatie bij de projectcase studies en andere
betrokkenen bij een renovatieproces. Deze hoofdonderdelen worden behandeld in het kader van een korte
beschrijving van het HQE2R project en de aard van de participatie bij verschillende soorten
renovatieprocessen.
Het document besluit met de constatering dat de praktijk in Europa sterk varieert en dat het daarom niet
relevant is om gedetailleerde aanbevelingen te doen. Aandacht wordt gegeven aan twee methodes die
representatief zijn voor participatie als een continu en progressief proces. Dit wordt aangevuld met de
gegevens uit de discussie door betrokkenen vanuit de praktijk tijdens de conferentie in Kopenhagen, maart
2003, welke georganiseerd werd door de partners van het HQE2R project.
DANISH ABSTRACT
Dette dokument beskæftiger sig med fremgangsmåder til involvement af borgere i byfornyelse. Det bygger
på Deliverable 15 i HQE2R projektet, der giver rammerne for den nationale lovgivning for hvert af de
lande, der deltager i projektet. I Deliverable 15 udvikledes også en skala for borgerdeltagelse baseret på 3
områder (art, indhold, tidspunkt i processen).
Dette dokuments formål nr. 1 er at beskrive, hvorledes borgerdeltagelse er blevet behandlet i hvert af
projektets case-studies af bykvarterer, endvidere at vurdere disse set i lyset af skalaen for beboerdeltagelse.
Det andet formål er at præsentere en kort beskrivelse af udvalgte fremgangsmåder, som kan bruges til at
øge borgerdeltagelsen i bykvarterer. Disse hovedafsnit i dokumentet er indsat i en sammenhæng ved en
kort beskrivelse af HQE2R projektet, og ved en diskussion af arten af borgerdeltagelse i forskellige typer af
byfornyelsesprocesser.
Dokumentet afsluttende konklusion er, at praksis varierer meget fra land til land i Europa, og det ville være
uhensigtsmæssigt at give detaljerede anbefalinger. Dokumentet fokuserer imidlertid på 2 metoder, som
arbejder med borgerdeltagelse som en varig og fremadskridende proces. Dette suppleres af en diskussion af
spørgsmål, der er rejst af deltagere på en byfornyelseskonference, der blev afholdt af partnerne i projektet.
ITALIAN ABSTRACT
Questo documento riguarda le attività di coinvolgimento dei residenti dei quartieri nei processi di
riqualificazione urbana. Completa l’analisi presentata dal progetto HQE2R nel Deliverable 15 che descrive
9
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
il contesto legislativo nazionale sulla partecipazione in ognuno dei paesi partner del progetto e nel quale
viene anche sviluppato il concetto di Scala di partecipazione mediante un diagramma tridimensionale:
carattere e modalità della partecipazione, fase di confronto e dibattito sul contenuto dei progetti, scopi finali
e tempistica.
L’obiettivo di questo documento è in primo luogo spiegare come la partecipazione dei residenti sia stata
condotta all’interno dei quartieri pilota del progetto HQE2R ed inoltre presentare esempi e metodi di
approccio che possano incoraggiare e favorire la partecipazione di abitanti ed utenti in un processo di
riqualificazione urbana, seppure in diversi contesti.
Il documento si conclude osservando che tali pratiche variano largamente nei vari paesi europei. Pertanto
non vengono date dettagliate raccomandazioni, ma si focalizza l’attenzione su quei metodi che presentano
la partecipazione come un continuo processo in evoluzione, richiamando gli argomenti discussi alla
conferenza svoltasi a Copenhagen a marzo 2003 nell’ambito del progetto HQE2R, incentrata sul tema della
partecipazione.
CATALAN ABSTRACT
Aquest document recull diferents experiències de participació per part dels residents i usuaris en els
projectes de renovació urbana de barris, completant l’anàlisi presentat en el deliverable 15 sobre el marc
normatiu de la participació ciutadana i les pràctiques, emmarcades generalment ens processos d’Agenda 21
locals. El document recull l’escala de participació HQE2R a tres dimensions (tipus de participació, des de
l’informació a la coproducció dels projectes, abast d’aquesta i el moment en la que es produeix) que
s’esmentava ja en el deliverable 15.
L’objectiu d’aquest document és el de presentar les diferents pràctiques utilitzades en els barris pilots del
projecte en base a aquesta escala de participació, a més de descriure els diferents mètodes que han de
permetre enfortir i afavorir la participació dels residents i usuaris d’un barri al llarg del procés de renovació
urbana. El document insisteix sobretot en certs mètodes que permeten implicar els ciutadants en un procés
continuat i progressiu.
Aquest document es completa amb les consideracions expressades pels participants a la conferència
europea de Copenhague del març de 2002 la qual tenia com a un dels temes principals la participació
ciutadana.
SPANISH ABSTRACT
El presente documento recoje las diferentes experiencias de participación por parte de los residentes y
usuarios en los proyectos de renovación urbana de barrios, completando el análisi presentado en el
deliverable 15 sobre el marco legislativo de la participación ciudadana y las prácticas, encuadradas
generalmente en los procesos de Agenda 21 locales. El documento recoje la escala de participación HQE2R
a tres dimensiones (tipo de participación – des de la información a la coproducción de proyectos-, el
alacnce de ésta y el momento en que se produce) que ya se comentava en el deliverable 15.
El objetivo de este documento es el de presentar las diferentes prácticas utilizadas en los barrios piloto del
proyecto en base a esta escala de participación, además de describir los diferentes métodos propuestos para
fortalezer y mejorar la participación de los residentes y usuarios de un barrio a lo largo del proceso de
renovación urbana. El documento insiste sobretodo en ciertos métodos que permiten implicar los
ciutadanos en un proceso continuado y progresivo.
Este documento se completa con las consideraciones expresadas por parte de los participantes en la
conferencia de Copenhague de marzo de 2002 la cual tenía como uno de los temas principales la
participación ciudadana.
10
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
1. INTRODUCTION: PARTICIPATION
IN THE HQE2R PROCESS
1.1. Summary of the HQE2R European project and methodology
Today cities are being reconstructed, buildings are being rehabilitated, and neighbourhoods revitalised.
To assure sustainability, this rehabilitation must, besides technical solutions, take social trends,
changes in behaviour, environment and economic development into account. In the HQE2R project 14
neighbourhoods and 10 research institutes in 7 European countries are co-operating to provide
methods and tools for use by local municipalities and their partners: government agencies, planners,
landlords, local citizens and other users in sustainable urban renewal projects.
The project is partly financed by the European Commission Programme for Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development (City of Tomorrow) and is lead by CSTB.
The objective of the project is to develop a new methodology together with the necessary tools to
promote sustainable development and the quality of life at the crucial and challenging level of
urban neighbourhoods
As far as developed until now, the HQE2R methodological framework for sustainable neighbourhood
analysis and development is structured into 4 phases (an inventory, an analysis - identifying priorities,
definition, discussion and assessment of scenarios and finally setting up an action plan for the
neighbourhood). It is furthermore based on a set of 21 sustainable development targets under 5 main
objectives and backed up by a set of indisputable indicators and 3 new assessment tools.
In detail the main results of the work done until now are:
• the choice of 6 sustainable development principles for the city scale,
• the definition of 5 main global Sustainable Development (SD) objectives with 21 targets at
the neighbourhood and buildings scales, and the definition of sustainability for the
neighbourhood scale;
• a shared diagnosis for SD method (with an integrated analytical grid for the previous
inventory) adapted to the neighbourhood scale;
• SD indicators at the built environment and urban scales:
- state indicators for the buildings and neighbourhood diagnosis,
- a system of 51 key issues (ISDIS) linked to the 21 SD targets with their 61 SD Indicators to
assess the sustainability of the neighbourhood,
- monitoring indicators for the different projects upon the neighbourhood (and for the city),
- a model of indicators (INDI model) as a decision aid tool for the elaboration of the SD profile
of the neighbourhood and for assessing the different scenarios before choosing the final
action plan for the neighbourhood;
• recommendations for improving participation in neighbourhood regeneration
projects (non built elements);
• recommendations for taking into account SD in urban planning documents (for each
partner country);
• 3 assessment models as decision aid tools for choosing the best renewal project for a
neighbourhood: 2 at the neighbourhood scale: the INDI model with SD indicators, the ENVI
model which assess the environmental impacts of the different scenarios and the last one at the
building scale, the ASCOT model about global costs;
• briefing documents for sustainable buildings renovation and construction.
11
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
The approach of the partnership is that participation should be at the centre of the approach (see
overall approach diagram below). It is a guiding principle of the methodology that the appropriate
level of participation should be sought at each stage, and that the aim should be to progress through
the three dimensions described above.
The wide variety of practice across Europe calls for a degree of pragmatism both in the completion of
the project and in the final recommendations. In the completion of the city case studies, the research
teams are guided by the local context in determining the appropriate level of resident participation.
The project will explore whether it is possible to make recommendations that will apply to all
European countries. Some of the questions that will be addressed include;
- Is there a minimal level of participation at which it is possible to speak about sustainability?
- Is it possible for participation to be effective and efficient at any level of participation, i.e. can
information becomes consultation, can that consultation become empowerment and then
empowerment lead to co-operation ?
- Is it possible to improve the participation procedures and to propose any methodology for
that?
12
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
HQE²R
HQE R: Towards a methodology for sustainable neighbourhood regeneration (Deliverable 10 short version)
THE HQE²R APPROACH TOW ARDS SUSTAINABLE
2
NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT
4. Shared SD
diagnosis of the
neighbourhood
(potential,
12. Monitoring and
dysfunction,
evaluation of the
Participation of residents and users cohesion)
project : SD
monitoring Partnership (public / private)
13
indicators
Local Governance 5. Strategic
priorities for the
neighbourhood and
definition of
11. Projects upon objectives for SD
9. Urban planning
the neighbourhood regulations including
with SD SD recommendations
specifications
7. Evaluation of
6. Generation of
10. Projects for the scenarios
scenarios
Sustainable Buildings against SD
8. Action plan for (to identify options
(new & existing) with targets (INDI,
the neighbourhood for SD action)
SD specifications ENVI, ASCOT)
PHASE 4 : ACTION and EVALUATION PHASE 3 : DECIDING UPON THE ACTION PLAN
13
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
The HQE2R scale of participation (cf deliverable 15) is developed from Arnstein’s ladder of
citizen participation, and uses the following definitions:
- Coercion: Residents are given no access to decision making. Information is withheld,
or used to direct behaviour according to the interests of the local authority. Equates to
‘manipulation’ and ‘therapy’ in the Arnstein ladder.
- Information: Information is transmitted to the recipients of a service or
redevelopment to keep them up to date with decisions. There is no dialogue and
residents have no access to decision making.
- Awareness raising: Information is given to residents with the aim of helping them to
understand the issues and objectives of the regeneration programme from the point of
view of the local authority. In the case of a sustainable development project (e.g.
recycling or energy conservation), this might include education about the purpose and
relevance of the initiative they are being asked to co-operate with. Residents do not
have access to decision-making, although the presentation of good quality information
is a pre-requisite of developing participation.
- Consultation: Residents’ opinions are sought to inform the decision makers, who
might take these views into consideration, but are under no obligation to do so. Typical
forms of consultation include questionnaires and public meeting. The contribution that
consultation can make to participation is entirely dependent upon the weight given to
responses by the authorities, it can thus be very disempowering for residents. A
frequent problem is that consultation occurs too late in the regeneration process to
affect major decisions. Early consultation thus has greater potential.
- Empowerment: Empowerment of individuals and groups within a neighbourhood is a
precondition of effective participation. Communities cannot take an active part in their
own governance if they lack the skills, knowledge and organisational capacity to do so.
Development in this area is often referred to as ‘community capacity building’. This
point on the scale of participation might thus be seen as a developmental one which
helps communities to advance towards the higher levels of participation. Equally
important is the institutional change within local authorities that is necessary to enable
them to respect and respond to an expanded governance role for neighbourhood
residents.
- Co-operation: The upper portion of our participation sale is divided into three
sections, which equate with the ‘partnership’, ‘delegated power’ and ‘citizen control’
rungs of Arnstein’s ladder. Participation at this level is characterised by the
involvement of citizens in both process and decision. A key principle is that the local
authority should always be clear about the scope and limits of a participatory process;
which decisions or budgets are open for discussion, or can be managed by residents
and which cannot.
14
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
- Partnership: residents are involved in on-going joint working, as distinct from one-off
or periodic consultation. Project development is transparent and open to resident
representatives throughout. Decisions are negotiated between partners.
- Delegated power, or joint management: Local politicians delegate a specific area of
responsibility to residents, accepting that they will be tied by decisions taken outside
of their control. The participatory budget of Porto Alegre is a well-known example of
this mode of participation.
- Self-management: A project, service, budget or property (e.g. a social housing block
or estate) is managed directly and independently by the community.
The HQE2R analysis, developed in Deliverable 15, adds a further two dimensions to make the
link between participation, the project process and the range of topics included. Our hypothesis
is that, as resident participation develops, it will;
1. Occur throughout the project process, from early investigations and proposals to
implementation and evaluation,
2. Develop from focussing on relativley minor and local issues, to considering broader
concerns, and eventually global environmental issues.
Implementation
Decisions
To Global
Diagnosis
From Local
Identification
of problems
t
c ion ion es
s io
n en n
tio n PARTICIPATION
er at en at erm ra ctio
Co rm ar ult w e STEPS
fo on
s po op du
In Aw C Em C o p ro
Co
Source: CSTB, La Calade for HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr)
3
C.Charlot-Valdieu and P. Outrequin, Brochure HQE2R n°1: HQE2R: Towards a methodology for
sustainable neighbourhood regeneration, May 2003
15
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
We propose that participation should occur at as many stages of the regeneration process as is
possible within national laws and practices. The methods presented in chapter 3 of this report
should not therefore be looked at in isolation, but rather in the context of participation
throughout the regeneration process; individual methods are the building blocks for a
participatory approach.
If we consider the stages in the project process (as presented in our three dimensions of
participation diagram), we might describe broadly the type of participative activity suitable to
each stage:
• Establishing local issues and priorities (Diagnosis)
At this early stage the priority is to inform the community and gain a broad base of
participation. The appropriate methods are thus those that reach a large number of people;
dissemination of good quality information, awareness raising activities and events, surveys,
public meetings, participatory research.
• Project development, decision making and implementation
There is the possibility of several levels of participation here. Where possible, a small number
of residents might be involved in project management, developing detailed proposals in
partnership with public agencies. If this is not possible, resident advisory groups might feed
local views to the project managers (meeting throughout the process, not on a one-off basis).
Broader participation, in the form of a ballot or a consensus building exercise, might be
employed to aid decision making (e.g. voting on different options).
• Monitoring and evaluation
It is desirable, although realtively rare, to involve residents in setting the criteria against which
a scheme will be evaluated. Community-generated indicators are an example of good practice.
As with project development and decision making, participation in evaluation might occur on
two levels, through a resident advisory group, and through mass participation in response to
surveys and at public events.
16
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
the University of Paris XII. It aims to develop generative and participative programming
(Programmation Générative et Participative: PGP) as a method of ensuring the participation of
residents and users in urban projects.
Town-planning decisions are traditionally presented as the result of negotiations between the
central administration, local political power, technicians and society, within the framework of a
relatively simple process ranging from the preparation of the programme to the implementation
of the project and construction site, followed by its everyday management.
The place and the role of residents in these different stages are subject to many questions and
recommendations by law-makers and central and local administrations, although the
implementation conditions of this involvement is not always explained, particularly within the
framework of urban projects.
The proposed procedure is neither a joint effort, in which residents share responsibility with the
authorities, nor a direct democracy; but nor is it a formal consultation or dialogue, in which
nothing guarantees that the opinions, intentions or demands of residents will be taken into
account. The PGP breaks with traditional linear development processes, in which a project
manager proposes to a contracting authority (client) who has the proposed outlines and consults
the residents, etc.
7
EPPPUR's objective is to create the conditions for an encounter and comparison between the approaches of
architects, town planners, landscapers and specialists in the social sciences, who have hitherto built up
scientific approaches which are sometimes not very open to each other.
As the Paris town-planning institute (Institut d’Urbanisme de Paris), within the framework of its policy to
develop doctoral studies, would like to increase exchanges between academics and the many trades involved
in development thanks to the rise of professional itineraries and careers which bring together and alternate
training/research and practical town-planning, EPPPUR aims to deploy and support research into the concepts
of projects and urban landscapes, and into the modes of production and programming of space in general, not
to mention operational practices and procedures.
For several years, the Institutes researchers have been working in this direction, and intend to pursue it in the
following fields in particular:
• the design, implementation and evaluation of urban projects,
• representations, history, design and practices of urban landscapes,
• Generative and Participative Programming methods (PGP) in town-planning and
architecture: principles, application conditions, risks and rewards, resistance (limits to
classical forms of programming and design in town-planning and architecture,
implementation of new operational approaches based on participation, organization of an
iterative approach between the contracting authority, the transactional group, project
managers and constructive evaluation),
• research methods and survey techniques in urban studies (transversal to the three previous
topics).
8
September 2001 – Les méthodes de Programmations Génératives et Participatives en architecture et
en urbanisme – EPPPUR, Ecole d'Architecture Paris Malaquais, University of Paris XII, Val de Marne.
18
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
9
EPPPUR, Ecole d'Architecture Paris Malaquais, University of Paris XII, Val de Marne, L’élaboration
du projet urbain et la démocratie participative : le cas de l’Ile-Saint-Denis (1988-2001), candidature for
the participative democracy trophies, 26 October 2001.
19
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
b) The programme corresponds to the proposal phase. To draw up these proposals, resident
participation can take at least three forms:
- visits by day or by night make informal exchanges possible with residents, shopkeepers,
young people, etc.
- working groups: these groups are organized on the basis of of "transactional spaces", i.e.
according to the spaces which the district's residents and users may frequent, but with
different roles; the objective is not to define the needs of users or residents but to
understand not only the practices connected with facilities or spaces in a district or town,
but also the symbolic or emotional representations of certain spaces, as well as the
difficulties or obstacles encountered when using these spaces or facilities.
- participation workshops can take two forms: topic-based workshops and project
workshops:
- Topic-based workshops group twenty to thirty people who talk about a topic using the
following framework: "problems, dreams, solutions".
- Project workshops bring together people who work to draw up plans or projects.
Several groups coexist and a summary is drawn up in plenary session.
10
Usually individualized surveys which only bring out problems in a prospective or strategic way with
difficulty. The dissemination of ideas within a district is not rendered possible either, excepts for the
subsequent filters and depictions of the consultant and the contracting authority.
11
CSTB, Le diagnostic collectif rapide, study by Michel Bonetti and Patrice Séchet for the DHUHC
(French Housing Ministry)
20
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
c) The "search for solutions" phase is also an opportunity for meetings of users, public
meetings and participation workshops.
The project's final elaboration involves the presentation of topics and projects and the
gathering of residents' opinions.
21
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
12
Equipe de Programmation-Conception
22
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14 HQE R
The New Deal for Communities (NDC) is one of the area-based initiatives that contribute to
the UK Government’s regeneration programme. It targets money on small neighbourhoods
with the aim of improving job prospects, bringing together investment in people and buildings
and improving neighbourhood management and services (DETR 199813). The distinctive
features of the New Deal for Communities are; that it targets very small areas of between 1,000
and 4,000 households and that the range of projects that can be funded is flexible. Strategy is
set, and projects selected at the local level, the projects chosen tend to be a mixture of social
initiatives (e.g. education and training, crime prevention, youth activities, health promotion),
supplemented by physical investment. Neighbourhoods are awarded up to £50M to spend over
a ten-year period. The NDC is the latest generation in an evolving area of public policy. Over
the last decade, partnership working and community participation have become increasingly
central to the delivery of regeneration programmes in the UK. The NDC gives greater scope
for local control over decision making and resource allocation than has been seen before. The
funds under this programme are managed not by local authorities, but by locally appointed
management boards composed of neighbourhood residents and representatives of other
stakeholders. Partnerships are monitored by central government to ensure that they comply
with the overall aims of the programme and that their work is correctly administered.
The NDC was launched nationally by the Department of the Environment, Transport and
Regions (DETR) on 15 September 1998. Seventeen urban areas were invited to bid for the
programme, with the actual neighbourhoods being chosen at the local level. A number of
Bristol neighbourhoods were candidates: the selection process was devolved to representatives
of the candidate communities at a day event held in the autumn of 1998. Representatives
presented their ideas and discussed strengths and weaknesses, the final decision being reached
by a consensus. The nomination was awarded to ‘Community at Heart’ (CAH) a group of four
small neighbourhoods, Barton Hill, Lawrence Hill, Redfield and The Dings, to the East of
Bristol city centre.
A period of intensive work and community consultation followed the neighbourhood’s
nomination as Bristol’s candidate for NDC. The first task being to put forward an initial bid to
central government, followed by a detailed delivery plan. Final confirmation of the receipt of
£50M over ten years was given in January 2000. The Delivery Plan (Community at Heart,
199914) is the key document guiding the development of CAH. One of the key concerns of the
Delivery Plan is that there must be a flow of skilled local people with the ability to lead the
New Deal process. A total of £5M will be committed to capacity building through community
development.
13
DETR (1998) New Deal for Communities: Guidance for Pathfinder applicants, London, TSO.
14
Community at Heart (1999) Community at Heart: New Deal for Communities Bristol, Bristol.
23
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
The Delivery Plan sets out eight outcome areas, attended by ten year targets:
The CAH delivery mechanism is based around a management board, consisting of 12 locally
elected residents, supported by 8 representatives of key agencies including; Bristol City
Council, Bristol Regeneration Partnership, Avon Health Authority, the police and the
Employment Service.
The Management Board is at the head of the resident-led structure of Community at Heart.
Three sub-committees support the main Management Board with oversight of Programme
Management, Project Appraisal and Best Practice (‘Vision and Values’).
Project
Development
Best Practice Project Appraisal Program
Group Panel Management
Sub-theme
Groups
Multi-agency
PROJECTS Groups
24
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
25
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
theoretically allows community members to take all the major decisions in relation to the
regeneration of their neighbourhood. In Denmark, there is not a legal framework for this type
of community decision making, but it is considered good practice for community involvement
to be a key part of the regeneration process from the beginning.
By contrast in France and Spain, it is generally perceived that community involvement only
occurs after the main decisions about a regeneration project have been taken. In France a
number of recent laws are bringing participation closer to the centre of planning and
regeneration, although the mechanisms for implementing them are unclear and local councils
face a steep learning curve if they are to put them into practice.
In Italy, participation in public affairs (local politics, schools, roads, spending on public
housing) is largely mediated through representative democracy. Direct participation in these
matters is not the norm. This situation is perpetuated both through resistance from local
politicians and officers to opening up decision making processes, and through communities’
being unaccustomed and hesitant to engage. Active participation in Italy occurs mainly in
relation to specific housing blocks and their immediate neighbourhood, and is rooted in the
tradition of close-knit communities of extended families.
A key principle that has been articulated by all the HQE2R partners is that examples of
effective participation are dependent upon local circumstances. We might also assert that
the relationship between national laws and programmes, and the local implementation of
participation is a complex one. It is thus possible for participation to succeed in places where
it is not strongly supported by national legislation. Likewise, strong guidance from the national
government does not guarantee effective participation in cities and neighbourhoods. The key
factors in bringing about effective participation are a high level of social organisation
among the community, combined with openness and transparency on behalf of the
council or other regeneration agency.
27
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
In the Danish urban renewal law participation is mentioned as an important part of the renewal
process - it is considered that a holistic urban renewal process is not possible without
participation.
• Participation in the inventory
Municipality officers and other agencies
The following departments contributed information to the inventory; Environment, building
and planning, housing and real estate, roads and parks, land register, industry, different
services in the directorates of cultural and social services.
The local energy company and Statistics Denmark also supplied information.
Local residents, or resident’s associations were not involved in the inventory.
• Participation in the diagnosis
Municipality officers
Officers from the housing and real estate, environment, roads and parks, the general office of
the directorates of cultural and social services contribute to the diagnosis.
They are represented in a steering committee for the implementation of the regeneration
process and they join the relevant working groups where the priorities are being decided upon.
Local politicians
The municipal council – that means all the local elected politicians, but in particular the
politicians in the committee on residences and real estate.
They validate and decide upon the overall programme for the regeneration process and larger
projects. There has been informal informational meetings with the committee on residences
and real estate, individual politicians have joined the public meetings.
Residents groups
In general local groups of any kind and individual residents have been involved in the priority
setting through public meetings and working group meetings. Approximately 100 persons have
involved during the process.
• Frederiksberg : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other
methods could be used in this context
In terms of the scale of participation, the initiative has achieved participation and a degree of
empowerment. The citizens do not formally have the competence to make final decisions, as
the local authority has to validate the programme and the projects. But that is merely the legal
formality – the recommendations from the working groups are usually followed by the council.
The next stage on the participation scale would be one of the more advanced forms of
cooperation, i.e. devolved power or self-management. This would require an appropriate
political and legal framework, which would probably need to be decided at the national level.
It cannot be assumed that residents would demand this higher level of participation and
responsibility.
28
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
proposals from the residents to improve the transport system, quality of life, the school system,
housing and the quality of services and facilities.
• Participation in the inventory
Municipality officers
Officers from the Urbanism, Housing, Transport, Environment, Works, green spaces, social
services of the city contributed to the inventory through interviews. The research team also
analysed relevant studies and projects.
Local politicians
The inventory was presented to local politicians.
Residents groups and individual residents
The residents association, young peoples association, remote inhabitants and representatives
of different parts of the neighbourhood were involved. Workshops were held, attracting around
150 people. These enabled the exchange of information and led to empowerment for local
management of the neighbourhood (cleaness, dogs, waste, open spaces with a bad
maintenance, parking, safety. Small group meetings were held in local centres on a range of
themes.
Others
Social housing owners, local businesses (small and large shops), teachers, social workers, were
involved in thematic workshops. Also numerous services from the Conurbation, the
employment association (ANPE) and social associations (CCAS, PLIE). That was linked to the
Local Agenda 21 which is at its first beginning.
29
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Influence of national and local policy on the process: LAW SRU, Law on local democracy
(December 2002). There was a local will to develop participation to overcome exclusion,
which is in part caused by a lack of involvement in civil society. The will of the mayor and the
municipal team was important in deciding to implement a Local Agenda 21.
31
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
3.3.5 – Anzin
The regeneration process in the neighbourhood
The regeneration process of the city centre is linked to the new Master Plan for the whole city
and also to the Urban transport plan at the conurbation level with the implementatuon of a new
tram (TCSP). The conurbation is in charge of the management of the regeneration project and
not the city.
The regeneration projet is about an industrial (miner) brownfield in the city centre and the
stake is about the integration of this new area in the city center (buildings as well as residents
or inhabitants).
• Participation in the inventory
Municipality officers and other agencies
The research team met all themunicipal services and a lot of local (municipal as well as inside
the whole conurbation around Valenciennes) agencies.
Local politicians
The Mayor was an active member of the different municipal working meetings organised.
Residents groups
The residents were not involved in the inventory.
Retailed shops association
An inquiry was managed at the end of 2002 and the first beginning of 2003 in order to take
their wishes and views into account.
32
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
33
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
35
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
36
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
of these factors differed from the vision of the technical officers, and the ‘unresolved
questions’ in the diagnosis reflect this divergence of opinion.
Politicians
Councillor responsible for environment.
The councillor has reviewed the shared diagnosis and highlighted some “unresolved
questions” which have been approved by all the partnesr involved in the diagnosis.
Local residents groups, individuals and residents.
The same groups as for the inventory. The representatives of the LA21 topic groups
highlighted their expectation for the neighbourhood according to the 21 HQE2R target
(responding to structured interviews) and participated in the final decision about local priority
(taken during a meeting). The same applies for the individual residents and the priest.
37
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
38
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
39
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Residents groups
Two members of the local groups were involved in deciding priorities for the inventory.
• Comments
There are a lot of local resident’s groups representing different parts of the neighbourhood. As
it is a central neighbourhood with a lot of commercial activity, there are many commercial
associations, representing almost every commercial street. Sometimes they have more
influence on the municipality than the resident groups.
40
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
41
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Steering group
Project group
Inhabitants and
Media
42
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
5. The procedure for the definite Masterplan (steering group and policy organs)
The tasks and responsibilities are:
Members of the steering group: responsible for the communication between project
organisation and the political organs and the media
The project manager has the end responsibility for the communication between the project
organisation and: The steering group
All actors involved excluding administrative (policy) bodies
Media (in close consultation with the steering group)
Contact officials are responsible for the communication between the project organisation and
the official services and platforms. They always have to report to the project manager.
The contact officials are grouped in the working group “Communication”. Chairman is the
project manager. An information officer/spokesman is member of the working group.
Tasks of the working group:
Tuning of the different communication expressions
Supervising the different communication expressions (to fit into the strategy of the project
organisation)
All publications have to pass the working group
“Antenna” function for all (external) information related to the project
Supervising all communication for and by the project organisation. Information of
insufficient quality will be observed and corrected in close consultation with the
persons/bodies concerned.
After the Masterplan has been concluded the working group “Communication” will (amongst
others) initiate the following actions:
Development of procedures and quality requirements for communication-expressions (with
supervising task)
Drafting of a communication planning
Drafting of an information plan in which the format of decision documents and assignment
of duties are being elaborated.
”
That means that on the HQE2R participation scale the starting point for the discussions of the
initiators (mainly the municipality) can be pointed out as follows:
Coercion
Information
Awareness
Consultation
Present intention
Empowerment effort Ambit
Self-government
43
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
44
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14 HQE R
45
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
46
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14 HQE R
4. APPROACHES TO PARTICIPATION
The first section of this chapter introduces three sociological standpoints, which form the basis of
many approaches to participation. The second part of the chapter presents a catalogue of
participation methods. Again, we stress the point that many of these methods cannot deliver a
participatory approach in isolation, but must be part of a wider strategy. Furthermore, some
methods may be unsuited to certain national or local contexts, so we cannot advocate all as
universal ‘best practice’. To clarify their scope and application, each method is presented in the
following format:
- Purpose
- Description
- Conclusion
- Participation scale
- Process phase
This catalogue gives only some examples of the range of approaches available, it is
supplemented at the end by a list of references for further reading.
15
Michel Bonetti, "Recherche et intervention sociologique sur la requalification des grands ensembles, la
programmation générative", paper presented to the international conference on current research, CIRFIP,
Paris, 8-9 March 2001
16
see also a very famous author Scharpf: actor-centred institutionalism
47
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
ideological position (sustainable urban development is opposed, for example, to very liberal
schools of thought). This method promotes the introduction, prior to any discussion, of
objectives and targets which may appear trivial to residents although they are important in terms
of the principles of sustainable development. Sociotechnical thought must find a compromise
between an interventionist (planning-based) vision and the demands and expectations of local
players.
In the final analysis, these three schools of thought are complementary, giving rise to different
ways to take residents and users into account in renewal processes and urban projects.
48
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Realisation phase: Here the aim is to give priority to criticism and utopia. Where are the actual
problems and what is the realistic thing to do? In this phase it is important to set up task groups
obliged to continue working with the decisions. Further it is a good idea to follow up upon these
groups’ work.
The future workshop is a democratic work model aiming to stimulate the participants’ creative
resources. This can help strengthening the co-operation and network in the local community. The
participants become aware of new possibilities and relations and in this way it helps
strengthening the debate and reflections of a group.
Conclusion
This is an interesting method which has inherent exciting perspectives and which can help to
identify problems as well as visions. There is no preparation work nor does it require any
qualifications in order to participate.
Participation scale: Consultation
Process phases: Analyses, decision, implementation, monitoring
49
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
This method requires extensive preparation from both the organisers and the participants.
Conclusion
An existing method which can be used in order to create a dialog between citizens, politicians
and administration. Maybe especially for participants thatare already engaged in the environ-
mental debate and are expected to be able to relate constructively to the drawn up scenarios.
Participation scale: Consultation
Process phases: Analyses, decision, implementation, monitoring
50
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
51
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
17
Pretty, J., Gujit, I., Thompson, J., Scoones, I., Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainers Guide,
London, IIED.
52
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Description
PLA rests on three pillars, all of which are essential for it to be authentic. Firstly the attitudes
and behaviour of the external agent should be respectful, reflecting a genuine belief in the
capacity of beneficiaries to come up with appropriate assessments and solutions for their
situation. Secondly they should share their skills and power as facilitators, not directing change
as experts. Thirdly PLA consists of a range of mainly visual techniques based on mapping,
diagramming and matrices, but also using drama or any culturally appropriate method. The tools
and techniques are intrinsically participative, playful and creative, thus well suited to analysis of
environmental and design problems.
In using the tools, PLA gives participants the freedom to establish their priorities through a
facilitated discussion, in contrast for example to the traditional questionnaire, which seeks a
response to a set of priorities fixed by the commissioning body. By encouraging the participant
to take a more active role in the consultation, and stimulating follow-up action in response to the
issues raised, PLA contributes more generally to community capacity building. The following
are two examples of the many PLA techniques possible. They can be used with groups of
varying sizes.
The discussion starter, an image or model (for example a housing block or city street) is used as
the central focus of a discussion. It should be a complex and emotive scene posing the
‘problem’ (e.g. an image of a litter-strewn subway) and not the ‘solution’ (e.g. a planner’s smart
drawing of a foot bridge). The facilitator asks a series of open questions to elicit observation,
feelings and ideas, with some guidance letting the group determine the direction of the
discussion. As with most PLA tools placing emphasis on the image ensures a shared point of
departure, where as using words creates different mental images in people’s heads, though they
may assume common ground. A discussion starter also encourages participation by reducing
focus on the facilitator.
Preference ranking/matrix scoring, these methods use a matrix to compare and contrast a
number of options or criteria, which, for instance, may have been thrown up by the discussion
starter. This can be done using easily available resources, for instance lengths of string on the
floor or table, or using large sheets of paper. In preference ranking, each item is compared
against the others until they are ranked from highest to lowest. In matrix scoring, items are
compared against criteria selected by the group through a facilitated discussion. Both of these
methods involve a graphic representation of peoples’ concerns, which can then be prioritised.
Conclusion
PLA introduces the important principle of equality between the commissioning authority and
the ‘researched’, that should be considered in all such interactions.
Participation scale
A consultation method that also aims to empower participants and lead to autonomous action.
Process phase
Could be used throughout the process.
53
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Description
A regular newsletter is a good way to inform people of the progress of a regeneration project in
their area. Circulating information about this, and about the everyday life of the neighbourhood
can also help build community capacity and be a vehicle for awareness raising about
environmental issues. Involving residents in the production of the newsletter will add to its
value. People will be interested to read what their neighbours have to say, rather than always
receiving ‘top down’ information from the authorities. Many people are interested in media and
journalism, making this a good way to attract volunteers. The degree of control given to
residents, whether they have editorial power, or are only invited to contribute articles, will
depend on the local context.
Conclusion
A method with potential for spreading information, developing participation and local skills.
Participation scale
Information, with potential to contribute to empowerment if local people are involved.
Process phase
The information flow should continue throughout the process.
4.3.1 - Surveys
Purpose
Surveys are the most commonly used method for gaining information about residents’ views.
They are thus not a participation tool, but only a consultation tool. Their value in developing
participation and local skills can be improved if local people are employed to carry out the
survey, and if local people are involved in deciding on the questions.
Description
Surveys usually take the form of written questionnaires, which are conducted face-to-face, by
telephone, or by post. They usually aim to reach a high proportion of the population.
Conclusion
Surveys are important, because they are generally the only way to get a response from the
majority of residents. They should be used with care, however, because the repeated use of
surveys can lead to cynicism if people do not see evidence of their views being listened to. The
purpose of each survey should be made very clear.
Participation scale
Surveys are the crudest form of consultation, because they are not interactive. However, if local
people are employed in completing them, they gain value through developing employment
skills.
Process phase
At the early stages of identifying local issues (diagnosis), might also be used for evaluation.
54
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Description
The technique was developed through the UK case study of HQE2R, where the researchers
wanted to gain information on local views, but believed that questionnaires had been over-used,
and did not with to add to the numerous public meetings being held in the area. This alternative
seeks to be less intrusive and more responsive. ‘Open air’ sessions were held, where passers-by
were attracted by a display of photographs of the neighbourhood. If people chose to stop, the
researchers held and informal interview with them. Neutral questions were used, so that people
spoke about their own concerns, rather than responding to fixed questions (as is the case with
most surveys). The results were recorded in the form of notes, which could then be analysed
according to different topics. This approach was developed from the principles of Participatory
Learning and Action (PLA), described in section 3.2.14.
Conclusion
A useful consultation technique, which has the potential to engage people who do not attend
public meetings.
Participation scale
Consultation.
Process phase
At the early stages of identifying local issues (diagnosis), might also be used for evaluation.
55
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
56
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
18
For example, Brigitte Guigou, Generative Urban Sociology Laboratory, CSTB
19
Source: Eric Daniel-Lacombe, in collaboration with Michel Conan, "Evaluation de la qualité d’usage
des groupes scolaires. Morceaux choisi d’une expérimentation", DGUHC, 1986.
Eric Daniel-Lacombe, Jodelle Zetlaoui, "Pratiques de programmation des conducteurs d’opération dans
le cadre de la réalisation de groupes scolaires", DGUHC, CSTB, 1998
57
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Description
The procedure can be broken down into four phases:
1) the division of the facility into transactional spaces
2) a critical examination of the facility's architectural plans
3) a critical tour of the facility
4) the interpretation of users' accounts of observed situations of use.
58
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
59
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
3. Are there limiting factors within the local community to improving participation?
• Distrust of authority (to be addressed through good communications, transparency and
good management)
• Lack of local associations (to be addressed through development and support)
• Lack of skills (to be addressed through use of appropriate participation techniques,
through training for community leaders)
4. Given a consideration of the current situation, and limiting factors, what sort of participation
does this regeneration programme aim to achieve?
5.2. Discussion
In March 2003, the HQE2R partnership held a conference in Copenhagen, of which participation
was a major theme. From the discussions held at the conference, a range of questions and
challenges emerged, reflecting the concerns of participants from towns in 9 European countries.
Some of these questions are reproduced here, with the aim of showing how the participation
scale (see Introduction) and the checklist (above) might be used to address them.
60
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
It is often feared that participation will have a negative effect by raising unrealistic hopes of
residents about what can be achieved in their area. This is a valid concern, but it should not be
used as a justification for limiting participation. The HQE2R scale of participation shows that
information, awareness raising and consultation are the first steps towards a participatory
process. If these activities are conducted successfully, the local council should have the
opportunity to clarify the scope of the process. A number of points must be made clear at the
earliest opportunity;
• what is and is not possible in terms of the regeneration of the area
• which decisions the community has the chance to influence
• which parts of the process, if any, will be controlled by the community
• what are the financial constraints
• how the local council will take account of the participation – transparency.
The first question in itself suggests a bias towards favouring the legitimacy of professionals;
they ‘understand’ the issues, while residents only have ‘perceptions’ of them. Challenging this
type of viewpoint is central to the ‘institutional learning’ that we identify in section 2.1 as a
precondition of participation, which is also discussed in the final section of the HQE2R
Deliverable 15. In order for participation to succeed, professionals and politicians must
recognise the legitimacy of local views; residents of an area are the people best placed to
understand its problems. If mutual respect is developed, then conflict is less likely to arise.
Experts cannot claim to have a monopoly on the understanding of concepts, such as sustainable
development, with a strong social element. They can, however, monopolise the language of
sustainable development. It is thus the responsibility of the professional to ensure that the
language they use is accessible to all. Professionals should also be open to the possibility that
‘amateurs’ have an understanding of sustainability issues that is expressed in an entirely
different vocabulary.
There are undoubtedly areas of professional expertise which will not be shared by the majority
of local people, in design, construction and other technical fields. If elements of these activities
are to be opened up to participation, the professionals should again ensure that residents are
provided with the information they need, in accessible language.
61
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Clearly, a participation process should aim to involve all the groups that will be affected by the
regeneration in question. The agency managing the process should have a good knowledge of
the demography of the neighbourhood. It is probable that special efforts will have to be made to
involve ‘hard to reach’ groups, including young people. For ideas on how to do this, readers
should refer to section 4 of this document, and our bibliography. Those managing a participation
process should be aware that many traditional consultation techniques are unlikely to attract a
broad cross-section of people.
The person or group responsible for taking decisions based on the outcome of participation will
always have to use their judgement. This judgement should be informed by a knowledge of the
participation process, who was involved in different elements of it, and who was not involved.
The participation process may result in conflicting demands, and there may be groups or
individuals involved with competing claims to legitimacy. A comprehensive participation
process is complex, it will involve many different people in different types of events and
activities. It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate whether such a process was truly
representative of the population. The most important thing is that a genuine and appropriate
effort is made to engage with all groups within the neighbourhood.
The aim of this paragraph is therefore that of providing an additional tool - a sort of guideline -
for those who want to experience a shared planning procedure in order to facilitate the
participation approach. Or simply, it can be considered a useful framework for those who are
62
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
interested in going deeper on these topics, in a concrete way, going beyond the theoretical and
legal approach.
This paragraph provides a general bibliography, even if it is not intended to be exhaustive and it
can always be updated, first of all following territorial areas - the countries participating in the
HQE2R project - and then dividing the documents in General references (to focus the attention
on the methodology research on the theme of participation) Detailed references, experiences
(dealing with projects and researches promoted by other subjects in the same field, as concrete
experiences and methodology adjustment to the practice) Web references (WebPages where it is
possible to find additional data, and download other documents etc.).
The next sections give further references to different published texts in Europe, not strictly
related with the HQE2R partners, several texts about experiences carried on in the USA and
finally a Websites survey.
In general the selected texts are published after 1980 (excepted a few important publications)
also because the oldest texts are usually mentioned by the most recent one’s.
UNITED KINDOM
• General references
- John F. CHARLEWOOD TURNER Housing by people: towards autonomy in
building environments - introduction by Colin Ward. - Marion Boyars, London -
New York 1991.
- B. CHECKOWAY (editor) Strategic Perspectives on Planning Practice, Lexington
Books, Lexington 1986.
- D. DAY “Citizen Participation in the Planning Process: an Essentially Contested
Concept?”, in Journal of Planning Literature, n. 3, 1997.
- J. ELLIOTT Action Research for Educational Change, Allen and Unwin, London
1991.
- J. FRIEND, A. HICKLING Planning under Pressure, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford 1997 (second edition).
- J. HOLSTON “Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship”, in Architectural Design,
monographic issue "Architecture & Anthropology", 1996.
- Ch. LINDBLOM Inquiry and Change. The Troubled Attempt to Understand and
Shape Society, Yale U.P., New Haven, London l990.
- S. J. MANDELBAUM “Communitarian Sensibilities and the Design of
Communities”, in Planning Theory, n.10-11, 1994.
- Patsy HEALEY Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies,
MacMillan, Basingstoke, London 1997.
- P. REASON Human Inquiry in Action. Developments in New Paradigm Research,
Sage, London 1988.
- P. REASON Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage, London 1994.
- Gerald D. SUTTLES The man-made city: the land-use confidence game in
Chicago, The University of Chicago press, Chicago, London c1990.
- Graham TOWERS Building democracy: community architecture in the inner cities,
UCL, London 1995.
63
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
• Web references
- New Economics Foundation Participation Works! 21 techniques of community
participation for the 21st century.
A guidebook, with examples and contacts for a range of innovative techniques.
Includes many participatory techniques that focus on dialogue. Many examples of
visual techniques and games. E.g.: Citizens juries, Community appraisals Future
search, Local sustainability model, Participatory theatre. Taken from:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?pid=16
- Faiths, Hope and Participation Celebrating faith groups’ role in neighbourhood
renewal. Taken from:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/Faiths,%20hope%20and%20participati
on.pdf
FRANCE
• General references
- A.A.V.V.Territoires et pratiques de démocratie locale, Celavar (Comité d'Etude et
de Liaison des Associations à Vocation Agricole et Rurale), Mairie-Conseils, Parcs
naturels régionaux de France 2001.
- A.A.V.V. La prise en compte de l’usage (actes du séminaire du 7 octobre1999),
2000.
- ADELS - Association pour la Démocratie et l’Éducation locale et sociale Les
habitants dans la décision locale, Territoires 2000.
- Michel BONETTI La programmation générative des opérations de réhabilitation,
Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1990.
- Michel BONETTI, Michel CONAN, Barbara ALLEN Développement social
urbain. Stratégies et méthodes, L’Harmattan, 1991.
- Michel BONNET (editor) Les maîtrises d’ouvrages en Europe: évolutions et
tendances, Vol. 4, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 2000.
- Centre de Recherches Administratives Politiques et Sociales, Centre Universitaire
de Recherches Administratives Politiques de Picardie La démocratie locale.
Représentation, participation et espace public, actes du colloque d’Amiens des 5 et
6 février 1998, PUF, 1999.
- Florent CHAMPY L’architecte, le sociologue et l’habitant, Plan Construction et
Architecture, 1997.
- Bruno COLIN Action culturelle dans les quartiers, culture et Proximité, 1998.
- Michel CONAN La programmation générative, Centre Scientifique et Technique
du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1988.
- Michel CONAN Méthode de conception pragmatique en architecture, Centre
Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1989.
64
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
65
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
• Web references
- Éric Daniel-Lacombe, Jodelle Zetlaoui De la programmation générative à
«l’évaluation constructive». L’exemple de la production des équipements publics.
Taken from: http://www.univ-paris12.fr/iup
ITALY
• General references
- Comune di Roma Manuale di autoprogettazione per piccoli interventi di
riqualificazione dell’ambiente urbano, Roma 1999.
- Comune di Roma Periferia, sviluppo sostenibile, metodi di progettazione
condivisa. Il ruolo della progettazione partecipata nei programmi di sviluppo
urbano, Roma 1999.
- M. BOOKCHIN Democrazia diretta. Idee per un municipalismo libertario,
Eleuthera, Milano 1993.
- Fausto CURTI, Maria Cristina GIBELLI Pianificazione strategica e gestione dello
sviluppo urbano Alinea, Firenze c1996.
- Gian Franco ELIA, Roberto FAENZA Urbanistica e comunicazioni di massa: la
partecipazione in Francia, Franco Angeli, Milano c1981.
- John FORESTER Pianificazione e potere: pratiche e teorie interattive del progetto
urbano (Planning in the face of power), epilogue by Dino Borri, Dedalo, Bari 1998.
- Mauro GIUSTI Urbanista e terzo attore: ruolo del pianificatore nelle iniziative di
autopromozione territoriale degli abitanti, L'Harmattan Italia, Torino c1995.
- F. GOVERNA Il milieu urbano. L'identità territoriale nei processi di sviluppo,
Franco Angeli, Milano 1997.
- KHAKEE “Scenari partecipativi per lo sviluppo sostenibile: temi metodologici”,
Urbanistica, n. 112, gennaio-giugno 1999.
- Raymond LORENZO La città sostenibile - Partecipazione, Luogo, Comunita’,
Eleuthera, Milano 1998.
- Alberto MAGNAGHI, S. DE LA PIERRE [et al.] Il territorio degli abitanti:
società locali e autosostenibilità, Dunod-Masson, Milano c1998.
67
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
68
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
• Web references
- Commissione urbanistica partecipata e comunicativa dell’istituto nazionale di
urbanistica (editor) Cultura e prassi della partecipazione nella pianificazione delle
città e del territorio. Taken from:
http://www.planum.net/partecipazione/clip/dossier-final.PDF
- List of projects and pratical examples.
Taken from: http://www.irs-online.it/pubbli/ric_poli.htm
- http://www.focus-lab.it/en/research/partecipation.php
- http://www.progettarepertutti.org/index.asp
DENMARK
• General references
- Ida Elisabeth ANDERSEN, Birgit JAEGER Involving Citizens in Assessment and
the Public Debate on Information Technology, TMV, University of Oslo 1997.
- I.E. ANDERSEN, L. KLÜVER, R. BILDERBEEK, O. DANIELSEN “Feasibility
study on new awareness initiatives. Studying the possibilities to implement
consensus conferences and scenario workshops”, European Commission, DG,
Interfaces III, Brussels 1995.
- See also DBT (1999) and EU Innovation Programme (1999).
- I.E. ANDERSEN, S. STRIPP, R. BILDERBEEK, J. GEURTS “The local
information society, development and descriptions of possible scenarios for the
assimilation of the new information technologies by the European society in the
next decades”, EU Innovation Programme, European Commission, DGXIII,
Brussels 1996. See also EU Innovation Programme (1999).
- Wiebe E BIJKER Dutch, Dikes and Democracy, Technology Assessment Texts no
11, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby 1993.
- M. ELLE Byøkologiske Fremtidsbilleder (Scenarios on urban ecology), Danish
Board of Technology, Copenhagen 1992. See also EU Innovation Programme
(1999).
- S. JOSS “Danish consensus conferences as a model in participatory technology
assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and
Danish public debate”, Science and Public Policy, 25(1), pages 2-22 (1998).
- Ministry of Environment Byøkologiske anbefalinger”, Betaenkning fra det
rådgivende udvalg om byøkologi (Urban ecology recommendations), Ministry of
Environment, Copenhagen 1994.
- Eva SØRENSEN, Allan DREYER HANSEN, Carsten GREVE Demokrati i
forandring (Democracy in Change), Projekt Offentlig sektor, Copenhagen 1996.
- This article is a revised and updated version of an article which was first published
in Science and Public Policy, October 1999, Vol. 26, No. 5, PP331-340.
69
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
• Web references
- DBT, Danish Board of Technology: http://www.ing.dk/tekraad/
- E. ANDERSEN, B. JAEGER Danish participatory models Scenario workshops
and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Taken
from:
http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue6/andersenjaeger.htm
GERMANY
• General references
- Saul ALINSKY Anleitung zum Mächtigsein: ausgewählte Schriften, Lamuv-
Verlag, Bornheim-Merten 1999.
- Matthias BARTSCHER Partizipation von Kindern in der Kommunalpolitik,
Lambertus-Verlag, Freiburg 1998.
- Ariane BISCHOFF, Klaus SELLE, Heidi SINNING Informieren, Beteiligen,
Kooperieren: Kommunikation in Planungsprozessen. Eine Übersicht zu Formen,
Verfahren, Methoden und Techniken, Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und
Planungsliteratur, Dortmund 1996 (second edition).
- Claudia BRUNSEMANN, Waldemar STANGE, Dieter TIEMANN - edited by
Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk und Aktion Schleswig-Holstein - Land für Kinder. In
Kooperation mit dem Schleswig-Holsteinischen Landkreistag und dem
Städteverband Schleswig-Holstein. (Ministerium für Frauen, Jugend, Wohnungs-
und Städtebau des Landes Schleswig-Holstein), Mitreden - Mitplanen - Mitmachen
: Kinder und Jugendliche in der Kommune, Berlin 1997.
- Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung: Urban Development and Urban
Policy in Germany, Bonn 2002.
- Wolfgang GESSENHARTER, Warum neue Beteiligungsmodelle auf kommunaler
Ebene? Kommunalpolitik zwischen Globalisierung und Demokratisierung. In: Aus
Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament. B 50 / 96; p.
3-13, 1996.
- Gerhard de HAAN, Udo KUCKARTZ, Anke RHEINGANS-HEINTZE:
Bürgerbeteiligung in Lokale Agenda 21-Initiativen. Analyse zu Kommunikations-
und Organisationsformen; Opladen: 2000.
- Heike HERRMANN Institutionalisierte Öffentlichkeit, Bewohnerbeteiligung oder
Alibi? Die Funktion von initiierten Stadtteilforen. In: Monika Alisch (publisher),
Stadtteilmanagement: Voraussetzungen und Chancen für die soziale Stadt, Leske +
Budrich, Opladen 1998.
- Wolfgang HINTE Mit Bürgern gemeinwesenbezogen arbeiten: Perspektiven und
Visionen. In: Wolf Rainer Wendt Zivilgesellschaft und soziales Handeln:
70
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
71
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
• Web references
- www.wegweiser-
uergergesellschaft.de/politische_teilhabe/modelle_methoden/beispiele
- www.ehrenamt.de/sec4/item3a.htm#vorwort1
NETHERLANDS
• General references
- Daniel KATZ, Robert L. KAHN The Social Psychology of Organizations,
Hardcover 1978.
- Ministry of VROM and Foreign affairs (NL) Milieu en Ontwikkeling - Agenda 21
(Results of Rio 1992).
- NOVEM Energy-saving policy in municipalities GEA (1992) - BANS,1998-2001.
- Rijkshogeschool IJsselland Communicatie en Milieubeleid, College Reader 1998.
- SAMSON / Van ENGELEN-De FERRAN, De KNECHT etal. Handboek Energie
& Milieu, 1997-2001.
- SDU Handboek Wet Milieubeheer - Praktijkboek voor bedrijf en overheid, 2000-
2001.
- A.P. SLUMP / AMBIT Communicatie als energiebesparingsmiddel, Twente
University 1994.
- SMO/W. BREEDVELD Wat Burgers Beweegt, 1993.
- SMO / W.J. de RIDDER Communicatie, 1994.
- J.C.M. VEENMAN Buurtgerichte Voorlichting en Energiebesparing, 1986.
- J.L. ZIECK Communicatie en Techniek, 1987.
- J.L. ZIECK Energy saving effectiveness by communication, 1999.
- J.L. ZIECK / University of Amsterdam Consumerism and the introduction of
district heating systems/1980 (Consumerism means the program to promote
72
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
• Web references
- http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite
SPAIN
• General references
- Anna BALLETBO PUIG “Articulación y coordinación de los trabajos”, Jornadas
sobre la actividad parlamentaria en torno a la situación jurídica, política,
económica, social y cultural de la mujer. – Madrid, Congreso de los Diputados,
1985.
- Jordi BORJA SEBASTIA’ Descentralización y participación ciudadana, Instituto
de Estudios de Administración Local, Madrid 1987.
- Jordi BORJA SEBASTIA’ “Espagne : la décentralisation par la participation”, In
Territoires : correspondance municipale n. 312, November 1990.
- Pedro LORENZO Metodología de intervención socio cultural, analisis urbanísticos,
intervención urbanística, 1985.
- Josep Maria MUNTANYOLA La Participació en l'arquitectura de la ciutat:
instruments per a una animació sòcio-cultural, Llars Mundet , Barcelona 1984.
- A. NAYA et al. (editor) La Barcelona dels barris, FAVB, Barcelona 1999.
- M.J. RODRIGO (editor) Contexto y desarrollo social, Síntesis, Madrid 1994.
- Miguel SANCEZ MORON La Participación del ciudadano en la administración
pública, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid 1980.
- F. TONUCCI La ciutat dels infants, Barcanova, Barcelona 1997.
• Web references
- http://www.diba.es/flordemaig/oafm/cpc/index.htm
Centre per la Participació Ciutadana.
73
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
• General references
- European Commission Community involvement in urban regeneration: added value
and changing values, Office for official publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg c1997
- European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions
Innovations for the improvement of the urban environment: a european overview,
EFILWC, Dublin c1993 (generale)
- S. JOSS “Participation in parliamentary technology assessment: from theory to
practice”, in N. J. Vigand Hpaschen (editors) Parliaments and Technology: the
Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, State University of New York
Press, New York.
- S. JOSS, J. DURANT (editors) Public Participation in Science: the role of
consensus conferences in Europe, Science Museum, London 1995.
- James G. MARCH, JOHAN P. OLSEN Rediscovering Institutions, The Free Press,
New York 1989.
- Igor MAYER Debating Technologies, A Methodological Contribution to the
Design and Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis, Tilburg University Press,
Tilburg 1997.
- R. E. SCLOVE Democracy and Technology, Guilford Press, New York - London
1995.
- R. E. SCLOVE Using democratic design criteria in participatory technology
assessment, 1997 (unpublished).
• Web references
- EU Innovation Programme, DGXIII (1999) in
http://www.cordis.lu/innovation/home.html with self-training hypertext and CD
multi-media slide show, in 11 European languages.
- Fleximodo (1999), http://www.cittadellascienza.it/fleximodo/fleximodo.html is
under development and will be gradually updated from the Fleximodo project.
This site offers all the necessary information and the ready-to-use package of tools
to organise in your city a local European Awareness Scenario Workshop on one or
more of these subjects: Urban Ecology, Urban Mobility, Urban Information and
Communication, Urban Regeneration.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
74
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
75
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/particip/information/links.html
Useful links about: Participation WWW sites, Organisations, networks and participatory
projects, Pratical manuals - full texts.
The Eldis - Participation page is a comprehensive listing of major Participation
resources online with description of organisations, site content, contact details -
Practical manuals - Major www sites - Bibliographic sources - Organisations and
networks - Discussion lists.
http://www.bestpractices.org
This searchable database contains over 1600 proven solutions from more than 140
countries to the common social, economic and environmental problems of an urbanizing
world.
http://www.planum.net/editorial.htm
A proposal for an on-line European Journal of Planning.
http://www.iap2.org/index.html
International Association for Public Participation.
http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/case-examples/index.html
76
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
A selection of Case examples illustrating specific issues and provide insights for project
design and development.
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/public.htm or:
http://www.cityoftucson.org/planning/public.htm Several documents about Planning
activities in Tucson.
77
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Appendix .
Communication and participation procedure
from the marketing perspective
Communication procedure towards
the inhabitants and users participation
Written by Jan ZIECK, Ambit
78
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
I. Introduction
Definition
Participation in a process is taking an active part in the development of that process and
recognise yourselves in the end product.
Justification
It is general understood that in urban planning and changing processes persons and institutions
involved have to be informed and have to participate in the developing process.
Consumer protection
Looking to the individual as a consumer of urban space the basic rights are (1975: Council of
European Communities):
The right to protection of health and the right to safety
The right to protection of economical interests
The right to compensation
The right on information and on education
The right on representation
“We will listen to and include the needs of the inhabitants and users and
take into account the local context”.
Key objectives
To reach the set target in the most efficient way
To organise an effective communication
To bring social and economical costs of communication or caused by lack of
communication to a most efficient level
To obtain an atmosphere of willingness and acceptance around the project by realising and
open communication of unavoidable limitations thus avoiding unreachable expectations and
disappointments
To avoid negative group processes
79
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Costs
Communication and the organising of communication/participation have to be financed mostly
out of the project budget, however, to be justified out of:
the rights of the consumers/users
optimised effective communication costs can reduce the total project costs
A rough indication is given in the next illustration:
sc
pc
cc
Communication intensity
Communication number of contacts
The graphic is just indicative but it should be noticed that there is an optimum. So increasing
investments in communication does not automatically lead to better results.
II. Considerations
In this chapter general schemes are presented to define starting points for the approach of
participation in urban rehabilitation programmes.
80
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
- Comprehensibility of a message
COMMUNICATION DISTANCE
Interference
SENDER RECEIVER
(municipality) (inhabitants/users)
. - Task (education/participation)
.- Objective .- Interests
.- (Future) expectations
.- Social needs
FEED-BACK
81
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
"Environment"
(general administration/agency/consumer organizations, line of
business organizations, influential private actors, public utility,
municipality).
Target/Planning/
Budgetting/ communicationplan target groups
Organization knowledge/contacts
expertise/information desk
Publicity
Direct marketing
Rewards
contest elements
Testing
Commissioning
Specifications
regulations Quality Control
So (3): In the urban rehabilitation process you cannot avoid sometimes looking at it as a
product put into a market. That makes it possible to use existing tools (formulation ethic
starting points!) and makes a cost reduction possible. Transparency and open
communication/participation cannot rule away the necessity to define a goodwill-strategy and
take the organisational measures to meet that.
And (4): It is very important to draw up an inventory/investigate in a general way the attitude
of the “consumers” of the urban space. Their attitude is influenced by their personal
82
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
background and the society. Counteracting (consumerism) power is induced by being ignored
(so communicate and give possibility to participate), feeling inability, discontent and
discomfort.
So (5): There are always powers (communication pressure) working on the market. Receiving
no feedback does not mean agreement. Exceeding a certain threshold value gives a counter
reaction that has no relation anymore to the relevant incident and can be very costly for the
project. Active communication is under all circumstances a necessity including monitoring of
the feedback.
Decision-making model
In the dialogue between the actors it is often said that the ultimate decision only depends on the
price (payback period). In figure 3 it is shown that other motives play a role in the decision
making process (economical/social aspects).
COMMUNICATION
Pay-back period
Image/prestige
Financing
DECISION
MAKING
Comfort
83
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Government
One co-ordinated message
Government
company
Municipality
SME’s
Utility company
Etc.
So (9): The use of municipal data to inventory “small” actors to communicate with and to make
use of automatic processing (cost-effective and less faults) are strongly recommended. The
84
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
guarantee for privacy is a must (general data to be processed in a black-box and framing of an
ethical protocol?)
So (10): The mailing process is an important means in the communication process and often
marks the start of a project. An active follow-up of the mailing is a must. Attention must be paid
to a possible use of other, strongly developing, communication means (e-mail; interactive
techniques; use of cable TV).
Starting document
Action 1: The municipality takes the initiative with the project-organisation to draft a starting-
document with the project objectives, the communication/
participation objectives and with the operative directions. This results in an assignment to the
project organisation to design a communication strategy and make a first estimate of costs and
benefits.
Organisation structure
Action 2: The project organisation is developed (see as a possible structure scheme 5: annex).
The appointment of a responsible person makes it possible to organise a one-face structure
towards “the receiver-side” (see scheme 6: annex: organisation structure
communication/participation).
A first note of a listing of all actors involved and their interests and motives, must be drafted
(market research, questionnaire, interviews, open meeting).
85
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Working document
Action 4: The communication manager must now formulate first ideas about the necessity of
organising “the receiver-side”, inventory existing representative organisations and the possible
use of existing (municipal) communication channels.
Action 6: The proposals must now follow a procedure to obtain approval and commitment. This
process is mostly a political affair.
1. Project objective(s)
2. Communication and participation objectives
3. (Amended) communication strategy
4. Limitations (budget/activities)
Remark: up till this moment participation is only limited to the main actors in the field (project
team, large organisations/industry and real estate owners). Legal participation procedures must
be included in the further communication plan development.
Communication means
Action 8: In the communication/participation plan a first selection of communication means can
be made by use of the data as given in figure 5 (summarised overview of communication
means).
From this point on the communication side of the project team is operative and they know
whom to contact and they know their own objectives and motives, interests and needs of the
actors involved.
A first round must follow for a mutual acquaintance on the hand of a well to be prepared agenda
with a further objective to get a feedback on the planned communication/ participation plan and
to hand over further project information with the planning.
The group of “future interests” actors is to be defined as far as possible. The instrument is the
analyses of the project objectives (developments directed to what target groups) with a possible
market research to form a panel, representative for these expected future inhabitants/users.
86
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
re
Means
ai
nn
ts
en
t)
t io
em
es
m rt sta ta
In uct n (v ten Qu
St h tu ls el
se
-m a t n
co pa fe ul
ai ion
un tru an on
le l ni ns
rti
/
st tio r s
ve
st ion er )
Te tur ma Co
Pu ct (w al)
In ma n (w ure
Ed a ve n)
La S )P ti
R ati ns l)
ct er pe
ad
e
a
e
b
l
it
l
uc cti rb
fo tio ch
bl on itt
ru ing ra
m
ew on (
r
In ma Bro
D sum /Co
c
(
o
r /
Actors
a
on s
In ngs
(C a rd
c
c
ru
(indirect)
c
i
li
r
r
ire
fo
ai
M
Representatives / Organisations Actor Status:
Inhabitants small owners Leaving the area
Inhabitants tenants Staying in the area
Panels - permanent
Consumer organisations - temporary other accommodation
Interest groups required
Small business / Services Future inhabitants / users
Business organisations/ Industry Other interest groups / Individuals
Chamber of Commerce
SME's organisations
Institutes / Associations
Real estate owners houses
Real estate owners others
Health / Sport associations
It is of high importance that the actors get well informed about the limitations of
their participation (costs/project and city objectives) to avoid disappointments
and cynicism.
1) A part of the communication workgroup must form a taskforce together with project
planners/technicians. The group must receive a clear assignment in accordance with the
project objectives and communication strategy. The members report to their own working
groups.
2) The project procedures must be adapted to the participation process. That means that
explanation/information must be presented and discussed. It is necessary that this process
results in a dialogue and that there is room for contribution under the general clear and
mutual accepted limitations.
87
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
3) It is necessary that the participation procedure will be adapted and co-ordinated with the
legal procedures and that the existing (municipal) communication lines will be used and/or
will be fitted in (co-ordination; one-voice; cost-effective).
External:
The participation group must invite (representative) actors to determine the required ways of
communication. In open meetings it must be decided (within the project strategy!) which
combinations of groups can be made and for the representatives from groups how the
communication with their groups will be organised (budget available?) and which objectives to
be considered.
The communication process will mostly be organised via mail (note e-mail, Internet, interactive
techniques and cable TV) and open meetings. Actions and answers must be watched and
stimulated via reminders, the objective of messages and meetings must always clearly be
defined. Meetings have to be seriously prepared (agenda). Open dialogues to be professional
conducted and prepared (use of questionnaires).
The participation process must be structured and fixed administrative procedures of (project)
documents and progress reports with feedback must be laid down, with a report procedure of
the results of the feedback.
Note that beforehand it must be clearly stated what the possible range of contribution into the
project means to avoid disappointments. A procedure for conflicts/complaints must be fixed
with deadlines for periods for conclusions/answers. Also activities must be started to instruct all
actors with the objective (to start a communication/participation process from an accepted
same “platform of information” and to gain first commitment).
In the participation process (excluding the actors in direct business orientated categories like
land property e.g.) a fixed strategy must be laid down for the following main interests of the
indirect actors:
(a) Actors leaving the area (free, forced, compensation?)
(b) Actors staying in the area
Permanent (causing of inconvenience during construction works, traffic problems,
damage risks, e.g.)
Temporary other accommodation required (compensation, temporary
accommodation, services, removing facilities, participation on rehabilitation works).
(c) Future inhabitants/users (participation on building design, shaping of the environment,
(public) transport, available services e.g.)
(d) Other interest groups/individuals (inconvenience during construction work,
consequences of the change of the neighbourhood/environment compared with the
present situation).
For cost efficient reasons it is recommended to use figure 5 and analyse the possibility of
combinations of activities.
The required organisation of the larger groups of indirect actors (mainly inhabitants, households
and SME’s) must be realised and mostly the project team must take the initiatives.
Representability and commitment from all concerned are required. In figure 6 (communication
scheme with groups) this situation has been expressed.
88
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Actor categories:
Leaving
Staying: permanent
temporary removing
Plenary
Directand
Direct andopen
open
consulting/meetings Project
Project
consulting/meetings
fixedstructures
structures communicationgroup
communication group
fixed
correspondence
correspondence
professional accompaniment
professional accompaniment
Participation
Participation
Mailings
Mailings
Cable
Cable TVTVlocal
localnews
news
Interactivetechnics/internet/e-mail
technics/internet/e-mail Conflicts/
Interactive
Hearings/open meetings complains
Hearings/open meetings
Walk-inevenings
Walk-in evenings
Education/Informationevenings
Education/Information evenings
Demonstrations
Demonstrations
© Ambit 2002
89
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
HQE2R methodology
Five main objectives
21 sub objectives
Indisputable indicators
Neighbourhood
Neighbourhood Basic
Basicneeds
needs
typology Project
Project and wishes
typology and wishes
Possible
Possiblegeneral
generalplenary
plenarysession/
session/
first inventory
first inventory
Local
LOCAL needs and
ISSUES wishes
Communication/
Communication/
Technical
Technicaldevelopment
development participation
participation
Legal Project
procedure
90
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
In Action 10 and datasheet scheme 7 (annex) the actor categories with their basic needs and
wishes have been described. Together with the local needs and wishes (to be framed into the
basic needs and wishes scheme) and after consulting the actors (individuals, groups,
representatives) the final strategy and plans can be drafted.
Actorgroup: …………
Local issues/needs/wishes
Ref. deliverable 14
91
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14 HQE R
urban development
1. Site Location
politics/ municipality social
2. Rough planning
economical Landuse/Rehabilitation/Demolishing-recycling
Quality/Planning/Budgetting
INITIATIVE
Legal bilatoral relation
3. Detailled planning
Actors, being social-economical Landuse/Rehabilitation/Demolishing-recycling
ground and/or object
proprietors 4. Property transfer
imago/prestige process
5. Building design
technical necessity
(state of building and
neighbourhood) 6. Building process
Private
infra-structural
development 7. Commissioning
safety
8. Management
Maintain process
others
C 2002 Ambit
•
92
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
• Scheme 1: The project process Selling
Financial economic
MANUFACTURER GOVERNMENT
PROJECT Marketing
DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY
Consumer rights
93
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
MUNICIPALITY Scheme 2: Configuration of powers on the market
Real Estate data
Object data (neighbourhood code/date of construction)
Cadastral data
(housing/owners associations)
Input
Data file
output
Priority Actors
dBASE
Project data
input
94
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
Schema 3: Data-processing of communicating process
LETTER
MAILING LEAFLET
LETTER REPLY CARD
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT DATE INFO-SESSION
REPLY CARD
NO REACTION 1st REMINDER
ANNOUNCEMENT LETTER
NO REACTION
CONFIRMATION
INFO-SESSION INFO FILE
FREE GIFT Returners from
SEVERAL LEAFLETS LETTER negative decision
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT
NO REACTION
FILE
ONE OR MORE QUOTATIONS
QUOTATION Returners from
ENERGY ADVICE LETTER
negative decision
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT
REPLY CARD
NO REACTION 3th REMINDER
NO REACTION
QUOTATION ONE OR MORE CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS
EVENTUAL GRANT ASSIGNMENT LETTER Returners from
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT REPLY CARD negative decision
95
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14 HQE R
The
EU
Linking-pin
system
(by Likert)
Steering
Committee
Management
team
Coordination team
© Ambit-2002
86
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
One-face principle
feedback
communication channels
message receipt notice awareness action
communication
/ participation
methods
actors organisation means
steering committee
coordination group Linking Pin System
workgroups
Communication centre
One face principle
communication
indirect actors strategy
representatives / organisations
plenary inhabitants small owners
individuals tenants
panels
consumer organisations
interest groups
small business / services
87
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
88
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB