Citizen Participation and Urban Planning

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