Citizen participation is one of the most controversial topics
in urban planning and design (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216). It involves the local
community in the decision making process in order to gather ideas from people
who actually live in the area. Citizen participation is often confused with
citizen control (Arnstein, 1969, p.216). Nevertheless, citizen participation is
a broad categorical term which consists of levels of distribution of power
between stakeholders and decision makers (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216-217). In lower
levels of community participation, citizens have very little or no influence on
decision making and are given an illusion that their words have been heard
(Arnstein, 1969, p. 218). Respectively, in higher levels of community
participation citizens have a chance to negotiate with power holders and have
remarkable influence on urban planning proposals and projects (Arnstein, 1969,
p. 221-223).
Involving the local community in the decision making can
have valuable benefits for urban planning. Firstly, citizen participation in government decision
making enables power holders to learn from citizens and enhances informing.
Secondly, participation program builds trust between citizens and government
which in turn allays anxiety among community. Finally, participation program
gives government legitimacy of decisions when some control over planning
process is given to community. (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004, p. 56)
On the other hand, citizen participation programs may
include disadvantages. According to Irvin and Stansbury (2004), citizen
participation programs may take time and the program is pointless if the
community decides to abandon the urban plan proposal. Further, poor
participation programs may backfire on government, generating dissatisfaction
with the power holders among citizens. Lengthy participation programs may also
be costly in financial and social terms: a bad outcome of the participation
program can be politically impossible to repeal (p. 58). For instance, Community
participation programs can lead to isolation of ethnic minorities or other
groups (Harvey, 1997). In addition, community activism is oftentimes built around
very narrow concerns which could complicate negotiations between parties inside
community and between government and community (Harvey, 1997). Lastly, citizens
cannot be involved in decision making when hurried actions are required (Harvey,
1997).
Despite the risks discussed above public planning processes
are becoming more common in the future thanks for promoters of public
participation. For instance, International Association for Public Participation
(IAP) is a global organization that promotes and improves practice of public
participations in relation to stakeholders that affect public interest all over
the world. Its first core value is that ‘Public participation is based on the
belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in
the decision-making processes. Furthermore, technology plays a key role in
future public participation. Faga (2006) observes that the internet provides an
outstanding opportunity to provide information and involve public across
cultures and ages in decision making. She argues that public is now in control
over urban planning and planners should respond to community’s needs and
desires (p. 197-198). Faga (2006) provides examples of online based public planning
processes that enabled to support hundreds of thousands of planning documents
including Imagine New York Project (p. 195-197).
However, the University of Southern California (USC) takes
online participation further than Faga could have imagined. USC’s new freely downloadable
city planning game BRICK allows players to design neighborhoods. BRICK is a
simulation of real world community which gathers data of players’ planning and
design decisions. The data is supposed to be exploited in LA2050, city planning
project for Los Angeles. (USC News 5
September 2014)
Indeed, BRICK is a unique chance to involve anyone to the
urban planning process. Is this the future of urban planning? I am keen to hear
your comments. Have a look at the video!
References
Arnstein, S, 1969, ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, vol. 35, n. 4, pp. 216-224
BLOCK Proposal
MyLA2050, 2014, online video, 30 July, created by J. Sanchez, viewed 15
September 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZVtljIILth8
Engel, A, 2014, ‘Turning video gamers into urban planners’, USC News, 5 September 2014, viewed 15
September 2014 < https://news.usc.edu/68048/turning-video-gamers-into-urban-planners/>
Faga, B, 2006, Civic
Theater of Community Participation for Architects, Landscape Architects,
Planners and Urban Designers, Wiley
Harvey, D, 1997, ‘Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form’, Transforming Cities, Routledge
International Association for Public Participation, Core
Values, viewed 15 September 2014 < http://www.iap2.org/?page=A4>
Irvin, R & Stansbury, J, 2004, ‘Participation in
Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?’ Public
Administration Review, vol. 64, n. 1, pp. 55-65
