HQE2R Guide Du Quartier _participation

March 25, 2018 | Author: susCities | Category: Sustainability, Sustainable Development, Governance, Green Building, Empowerment



DELIVERABLE 14http://hqe2r.cstb Sustainable renovation of buildings for sustainable neighbourhoods Contract n° EVK4-CT-2000-00025 Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice October 2003 Philippe Outrequin, La Calade Celia Robbins, UWE Ove Mørck, Cenergia Catherine Charlot –Valdieu, CSTB HQE2R is a project co-financed by the European Commission within the programme Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (‘City of tomorrow’), which aim is to elaborate methods and tools destined to local 1 communities and their partners to help them in their urban renewal projects. Sustainable renovation of buildings for sustainable neighbourhoods Contract n° EVK4 – CT – 2000 – 00025 Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice October 2003 Philippe OUTREQUIN E-mail: [email protected] La Calade, France Celia ROBBINS E-mail: [email protected] UWE, U.K. Ove MORCK E-mail: [email protected] Cenergia, Denmark CSTB, France Catherine CHARLOT – VALDIEU E-mail: [email protected] With specific contribution by: For the appendix: Jan ZIECK E-mail: [email protected] For the bibliography: Nicoletta ANCONA E-mail: [email protected] Ambit, Netherlands Quasco, Italy 2 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Contents Abstracts.......................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Summary of the HQE2R European project and methodology .......................11 1.2. Where are we in the HQE2R process and methodology? ..............................12 1.3. What about the content of this deliverable ?..................................................14 2. PARTICIPATION AND THE REGENERATION PROCESS ....................... 16 2.1. Preconditions for participation .......................................................................16 2.2. Participation in different types of regeneration process...............................17 2.2.1 - Generative and Participative Programming (Programmation Générative et Participative: PGP) ..................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 - Regeneration led by a social agenda : participation structure for the New Deal for Communities, Bristol, UK...................................................................................................... 23 3. PARTICIPATION IN THE HQE2R NEIGHBOURHOODS ........................... 26 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................26 3.2 The participation context for HQE2R partner countries..................................26 3.3. Case studies from the HQE2R neighbourhoods.............................................27 3.3.1 - Frederiksberg – Copenhagen - Denmark................................................................. 27 3.3.2 - Quartier Viscose – Echirolles - France...................................................................... 28 3.3.3 - La Roseraie – Angers - France ................................................................................. 30 3.3.4 - Mimont- Prado- Republique – Cannes - France ....................................................... 31 3.3.5 – Anzin ......................................................................................................................... 32 3.3.6 - Loebtau – Dresden - Germany.................................................................................. 33 3.3.7 - Melegnano - Italy ....................................................................................................... 34 3.3.8 - Cinisello Balsamo - Italy ............................................................................................ 35 3.3.9 - San Leonardo, Porta Mulina – Mantova - Italy.......................................................... 36 3.3.10 - Bon Pastor – Barcelona - Spain .............................................................................. 37 3.3.11 - Manresa - Spain ...................................................................................................... 38 3.3.12 - Raval, Ciutat Vella - Barcelona ............................................................................... 39 3.3.13- Community at Heart, Barton Hill - Bristol - United Kingdom..................................... 40 3.3.14 -Vlissingen - RSG area .............................................................................................. 41 3.4 Summary and discussion .................................................................................44 4. APPROACHES TO PARTICIPATION ........................................................ 47 4.1. Sociological perspectives on participation methods ....................................47 4.2. Methods to guide the whole participation process........................................48 4.2.1 - Future Workshop ....................................................................................................... 48 4.2.2 - Scenario workshop .................................................................................................... 49 4.2.3 - Planning Cell (Planungszelle): .................................................................................. 50 4.2.4 - Planning for Real ....................................................................................................... 51 4.2.5 - Campaign “Village Idea“ ............................................................................................ 51 4.2.6 - Advocate Planning..................................................................................................... 52 4.2.7 - Participatory Learning and Action ............................................................................. 52 3 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 4.2.8 - Information – neighbourhood newsletters .............................................................. 53 4.3. Tools for individual events ..............................................................................54 4.3.1 - Surveys ................................................................................................................... 54 4.3.2 - Participatory survey technique................................................................................ 54 4.3.3 - Citizen meetings ..................................................................................................... 55 4.3.4 - Citizen Hearing. ...................................................................................................... 56 4.3.5 - Interviews with residents......................................................................................... 57 4.3.6 - Constructive evaluation........................................................................................... 57 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.................................................................. 60 5. 1. Recommendations .........................................................................................60 5.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................60 5.3. Further reading on participation (annotated bibliography) ...........................62 Appendix 1..................................................................................................... 78 Communication and participation procedure............................................. 78 from the marketing perspective................................................................... 78 4 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Memorandum: the HQE2R approach and the findings of the project “Je refuse l’idée qu’il y a d’un côté la lumière et de l’autre les ténèbres, l’homme et la femme, moi et l’autre, le bien et le mal. Je cherche un lieu où ces contradictions puissent être résolues. C’est une quête sans illusion »1 - Murale, Mahmoud Darwich, édition Actes Sud 1.1. The objectives of the HQE²R project “Sustainable Renovation of Buildings for Sustainable Neighbourhoods” or HQE²R is a project partly funded by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework R&D Programme. The project started in September 2001 and will continue until the end of March 2004. Co-ordinated by the CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment), France, it combines research and demonstration aspects with the co-operation of 10 European research partners and demonstration partners (local authorities or social buildingowners) working upon 14 neighbourhoods2. The objective of the project is to develop a new methodology or approach together with the necessary methods and tools to promote sustainable development and the quality of life at the urban neighbourhood level. HQE²R aims at providing decision aid tools for municipalities and their local partners, focussing on neighbourhood inhabitants’ and users’ concerns. With its integrated approach, it aims at providing a framework, which can be generally applied to European cities. The project uses case studies as neighbourhood models for which the tools are elaborated and in which the approach or the different tools can be tested. The elements taken into account in the development of this approach towards sustainable development and its tools are: • • • • Improvements in the quality of the buildings and non built elements, which are closely linked with needs expressed by the actors concerned (users), especially as regard improvements in comfort and reductions in the costs-in-use and maintenance of residential and non-residential buildings (energy savings, reduced water consumption, optimisation of the use of raw materials). Improvements in the quality of life through urban development, which respects the environment: reduced urban sprawl, more effective use of public spaces, and the creation of cycle-ways, pedestrian areas and green spaces. Developing coherence and synergy between the neighbourhood levels and the conurbation. Encouraging work in partnership and building the capacity of the local community to achieve meaningful participation. Controlling costs and applying management methods, which allow all categories of actors to share expenses. Controlling urban sprawl and commuting by managing the economy and environmental impact of space use and also by managing mobility and the use of public transport at the scales of the neighbourhood, the town and the conurbation. 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 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 1 5 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 sustainable development. It is a question of providing operational tools for a concrete analysis and evaluation, which are open to public (and private) debate and to action. 1.2 - The HQE2R approach and the expected project results Today cities are being rebuilt, buildings are being rehabilitated, and neighbourhoods revitalised. To assure sustainability, this regeneration must go beyond technical solutions, taking social trends, changes in behaviour, environmental and economic development into account. To define concrete action plans, sustainable development requires an iterative way of achieving a decision, because of the necessity of taking the various principles of sustainable development into account all together at once. As the market law only takes into account economic factors, and principally only in the short-term, sustainable development requires sustainable development principles: the integration of the long-term, global impact of decisions on environmental and social factors, with less hierarchical forms of participation than usual market practices. The HQE2R methodological framework for sustainable neighbourhood analysis and development is structured as an ideal regeneration neighbourhood projects into 4 phases: a decision phase, an analysis phase - identifying priorities, definition, discussion, an assessment of scenarios phase and finally the setting up of the action plan for the neighbourhood). The methodological framework is furthermore based on 6 sustainable development principles at the city scale, and then a system of 21 sustainable development targets under 5 main objectives (see the list next page) and backed up by a set of 51 key issues with their 61 indicators for the neighbourhood and its buildings (ISDIS system). THE HQE²R APPROACH TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 : DECISION 1. Identification of problems (social, environmental, technical) that need actions 2. Strategic decision for sustainable regeneration of the neighbourhood PHASE 2 : ANALYSIS 3. Inventory based on the 21 targets and the integrated SD indicators system (ISDIS) 12. Monitoring and evaluation of the project : SD monitoring indicators Participation of residents and users Partnership (public / private) Local Governance 4. Shared SD diagnosis of the neighbourhood (potential, dysfunction, cohesion) 11. Projects upon the neighbourhood with SD specifications 10. Projects for Sustainable Buildings (new & existing) with SD specifications 9. Urban planning regulations including SD recommendations 7. Evaluation of the scenarios against SD targets (INDI, ENVI, ASCOT) 5. Strategic priorities for the neighbourhood and definition of objectives for SD 8. Action plan for the neighbourhood 6. Generation of scenarios (to identify options for SD action) PHASE 4 : ACTION and EVALUATION Source: HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr) PHASE 3 : DECIDING UPON THE ACTION PLAN SD: Sustainable Development 6 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 Definition of 6 SD principles at the city scale Choice of 5 SD objectives, 21 SD targets, 51 SD key issues and indicators (at the neighbourhood and buildings scales): the ISD ID system Development of a shared SD diagnosis method enabli ng the identification of territorial SD stakes* Elaboration of assessment and monitoring indicators for projects and neighbourhoods, regarding SD Recommendations to improve and to promote inhabitants’ and users’ participation : - to identify and collect their needs - to improve procedures and practices -Recommendations for briefing documents taking into account SD for new and existi ng buildings - Recommendations for non – built elements Source: HQE2 R project (http:hqe2r.cstb.fr) Recommandations to integrate SD in urban planning documents Elaboration of decision aid tools to evaluate scenarios or potential urban planning projects (“design contract” for example) SD Sustainable Development * See the scheme «The shared SD diagnosis method for setting priorities» 7 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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; participation in neighbourhood regeneration • • - - • • • recommendations for improving 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 • Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 • • briefing documents or guidelines for non built elements in a neighbourhood; a guideline for the management of sustainable neighbourhood regeneration projects. 1.2. Where are we in the HQE2R process and methodology? The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted unanimously by the 178 States represented in 1992, evokes in one of its 27 principles the participation of citizens as a fundamental aspect of sustainable development. The tenth principle states: “the best way to consider environmental questions is to ensure the participation of all the citizens concerned, at the appropriate level. At the national level, each individual must have access to information relative to the environment held by public authorities, including information relative to dangerous substances and activities in their communities, and be able to participate in the decision process. The states must facilitate and encourage the public in becoming more concerned and participating by putting information at their disposal. Comprehensive access to judiciary and administrative actions, namely redress and appeals, must be ensured.” The HQE2R approach (and process) is directly concerned with the participation methods in use in each of the partner countries. Current good practice demands that regeneration projects must take full account of social dynamics, as major a component of sustainable development (also taking into account the environment and economic development). The involvement of residents and users in the life of their districts and of their cities gives great benefit to local social dynamics. Participation at the centre of the HQE2R approach: 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 HQE R: Towards a methodology for sustainable neighbourhood regeneration (Deliverable 10 short version) HQE²R THE HQE²R APPROACH TOW ARDS SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT 2 PHASE 1 : DECISION CSTB – La Calade with contribution by ICIE, IOER, Quasco and UWE PHASE 2 : ANALYSIS 3. Inventory based on the 21 targets and the integrated SD indicators system (ISDIS) 1. Identification of problems (social, environmental, technical) that need actions 2. Strategic decision for sustainable regeneration of the neighbourhood 12. Monitoring and evaluation of the project : SD monitoring indicators Participation of residents and users Partnership (public / private) Local Governance 4. Shared SD diagnosis of the neighbourhood (potential, dysfunction, cohesion) 13 11. Projects upon the neighbourhood with SD specifications 10. Projects for Sustainable Buildings (new & existing) with SD specifications 9. Urban planning regulations including SD recommendations 7. Evaluation of the scenarios against SD targets (INDI, ENVI, ASCOT) 5. Strategic priorities for the neighbourhood and definition of objectives for SD 8. Action plan for the neighbourhood 6. Generation of scenarios (to identify options for SD action) PHASE 4 : ACTION and EVALUATION Source: HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr) PHASE 3 : DECIDING UPON THE ACTION PLAN SD: Sustainable Development 13 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 1.3. What about the content of this deliverable ? This report is concerned with the process, methods and practice for collecting information from the residents and users, i;e. of participation by residents in urban or neighbourhood regeneration projects. We use the scale of participation developed in the HQE2R Deliverable 15 to analyse a range of participation methods for collecting information and discuss their application in the regeneration process. The participation scale is also applied to the 14 HQE2R case studies, to aid an understanding of participation in different European cities. We propose which methods might be applied in order to improve participation in the case study neighbourhoods. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - 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. We thus represent participation on a three-dimensional diagram: THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION PROJ ECT PHASES Monitoring to long term Implementation From short term Decisions To Global Diagnosis From Local Identification of problems Co c er ion rm fo In ion at ar Aw s es en C s on io at ult n Em w po en erm t ion at on er ucti op d C o p ro Co PARTICIPATION STEPS Source: CSTB, La Calade for HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr) Source: CSTB – La Calade for the Brochure HQE²R n° 13 C.Charlot-Valdieu and P. Outrequin, Brochure HQE2R n°1: HQE2R: Towards a methodology for sustainable neighbourhood regeneration, May 2003 3 15 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 2. PARTICIPATION AND THE REGENERATION PROCESS 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. 2.1. Preconditions for participation • Insitiutional learning We should remember at all times that participation is a two-way process. It is not possible to achieve any level of participation without commitment on the part of public agencies to adapt their processes to it and to take account of the consequences. • Capacity building It is often not sufficient for public agencies to offer the opportunity to participate. Resident involvement beyond the level of consultation or responding to surveys requires ongoing capacity building and support for volunteers. This might include training in advocacy, community development or presentation skills. Practical support in the form of childcare, transport and refunding expenses is also necessary. 16 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 2.2. Participation in different types of regeneration process Across Europe there are many different models of regeneration practice, operating within different planning and development systems. Naturally, modes of participation must be adapted to the context within which they operate. Many models of regeneration are led by an agenda of physical improvement to the buildings and infrastructure of the neighbourhood. The French method of ‘Generative and Participative Programming’, (PGP) is an example of good practice for the building-led mode of regeneration, and is described in section 2.2.1. Programming, or programmation, is the process of developing a detailed brief and specifications for architectural and projects. As a professional activity mediating the relationship between commissioning bodies and their architects, this specific programming is specific to the French system, although its goals evidently overlap with project briefing processes in other countries. In some cases, regeneration is led by a social, rather than physical, agenda. Where physical redevelopment is not the focus of activity, participation must be broad and flexible enough to include a range of different types of project. In section 2.2.2, we briefly describe the participation structure of our UK case study, the ‘Community at Heart’ (CAH) neighbourhood in Bristol, which is an example of socially oriented neighbourhood regeneration. Both the PGP and the CAH approach are overall strategies for a participatory process, within which a variety of different methods might be used. An alternative perspective on participation is that of the developer. 2.2.1 - Generative and Participative Programming (Programmation Générative et Participative: PGP) The methodology presented is intended to promote not only an improvement in the quality of the uses and appropriation4 of projects relating to local operations, but also a democratic elaboration of such projects by means of a participative and concerted programming procedure. This procedure can involve three types of objects or scales, which constitute the subject matter of architecture and neighbourhood planning: public facilities and housing, operations to upgrade subsidized housing or public spaces, neighbourhoods and shops in major conurbations, small or even middle-sized towns. The first two procedures were developed at CSTB by M. Conan5 and M. Bonetti6. The third corresponds to the procedure proposed by Pierre Dimeglio (EPPPUR, IUP Paris). EPPPUR7 (Evolution, Projets, Pratiques, Projets Urbains) is an association set up in collaboration with the Paris town-planning institute (Institut d'Urbanisme de Paris: IUP) and 4 Jodelle Zetlaoui: "the concept of use seems too partial to evoke the relationships of individuals with a space: its connotation is extremely instrumental and consumerist, eclipsing the more emotional and symbolic dimensions relating to "dwelling places". It is therefore important to associate the concept of appropriation with it", in "Modalités d’application des démarches programmatiques concertées et participatives pour des projets de proximité", EPPPUR, October 2002, Study carried out for the Interministerial Delegation for Urban affairs, page 13 5 Michel Conan, "Method of design pragmatique en architecture", CSTB, 1989; "The method generative", CSTB, 1988 6 Michel Bonetti, I. Marghieri, P. Humblot, "Méthode de conception pragmatique en architecture", CSTB, 1989; "La méthode générativve", CSTB, 1988 17 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. By definition, the PGP aims to be both "generative" and "participative" 8: The generative procedure: generative programming involves entrusting to an operational group – a project leader, the architect/sociologist duo – an exploratory task which connects, in an iterative way, problems to be solved (uses, technical, economic, legal, etc.), spatial and technical proposals or intentions and developmental and architectural answers or possibilities. This process should make it possible to progressively adjust intentions in relation to uses and technical possibilities. The participative procedure: this is the expression of the power relationships between decision-makers and citizens, but also the maturing or expression of particular projects derived from the processes of information, communication, consultation and dialogue. - 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. 7 18 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 The PGP procedure is the result of the work of three groups: The decision-makers within the collective contracting authority (or steering group) include the contracting authority (a mayor or a person designated by the town council) and representatives of the local and central institutions concerned; this group should also include partners with local influence, such as associations. The task of this group is to debate intentions / proposals, designing and coordinating projects in order to achieve overall consistency and modifying the project according to changing demands and financial constraints. This group is the project's political decision-making hub. The introduction of residents into this group is not desirable. The group's legitimacy derives from its role as contracting authority (client) and in the case of a local authority, from the election of the town council and mayor. The Steering Committee expresses the general interest, free of pressure from any lobbies whatsoever. The programming team (architect, sociologist, manager, economist, etc.), along with the contracting authority (client) within the operational group, draws up the project and defines the problems of use associated with architectural proposals. The operational group also prepares the work of the other two bodies, producing outlines, scenarios, hypotheses, evaluations, etc. It also has to ensure communication and coordination with and between the two other groups. To do this, the operational team must have multi-disciplinary skills. The team can also be beneficially managed by a duo: two people with complementary skills, defined according to the project (skills are more important than professional status). Residents and users, maintenance staff, and visitors are grouped together in what is referred to as the transactional group. On the basis of their experience, these players have skills relating to uses; the task of this group is to give projects a concrete content. - - The contracting authority (client) plays a central coordinating role, belonging simultaneously to both of the collective contracting authority and the operational group. The generative and participative programming procedure is summarized in the table below, which may serve as a guiding thread9. The resident-participation procedure is implemented throughout the programming process: a) Participation in the diagnosis is achieved through two types of action: public meetings which bring together the collective contracting authority and the residents (and the entire transactional group), the "diagnosis on foot", which also associates associations and professionals. This phase also aims to find out more about the problems of residents. The authors of the PGP procedure are wary of the concept of need, which corresponds to a function to be fulfilled, leading to prescriptive programming approaches (for example, the construction of high-rise housing estates in the 1960's to fulfil an urgent need for housing). The functional approach tends to eclipse thinking about uses, conflicts of use, the schemes of the players involved, and to dissociate the specificites of a global problem to see only the standardized aspects, etc. In addition to the concept of need, the authors of the PGP raise the question of methods. The generative procedure represents a criticism (which we share) of the traditional linear procedure: Initial survey of residents and users to find out their needs at a time T, without any effect on the real decision but useful only to sound out opinion10. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - Survey of a few executives or representative people at the moment of programming in order to specify the programmer's orientations, without any guarantee of representativeness, possibly leading to suspicion and doubts among those who were not consulted. Asking residents and users about their "needs" renders any preliminary work on objectives and problems difficult. The objectives of sustainable development must be integrated into the sustainable development diagnosis. Using these objectives as an analytical grid, the consultant, working with the residents, has to bring out the district's problems. It is important to make a distinction between the initial identification of problems (social, environmental, economic, technical, etc.) requiring action to be taken, and the revelation of the strategic problems of the district and residents, derived from the shared diagnosis (identified in the HQE2R methodology as the district's risks and rewards). The "diagnosis on foot"11 The objective is to produce a common diagnosis of the potential of a situation or territory. It makes it possible to familiarize oneself with the field and with the viewpoints of the various players. The "diagnosis on foot" takes place in three phases: a field visit by groups of five or six people with diverse skills, the pooling of comments and observations the drawing up of a report which highlights the elements of the diagnosis and any questions which remain unanswered. - 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 The generative and participative programming procedure (Document EPPPUR/Ile St-DenisTable) PHASE 1: DIAGNOSIS (Nov-Dec 2001) PHASE 2: PROGRAMMING (Jan 2001 – Feb 2002) PHASE 3: OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND SECTORAL PROGRAMMES (Feb-May 2002) (20) Presentation to the CCA of the results of the participation workshop PHASE 4: ELABORATION OF THE URBAN PROJECT (June-Aug. 2002) (21) Discussion and validation by the CCA of the work of the workshops. Recommendations for the final report. (23) Validation of the final report (22) Writing and presentation of the final report "Urban project for the Ile St-Denis" (phasing and funding). COLLECTIVE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY (CCA) PROGRAMMING & DESIGN TEAM (EPC12) (1) Formation of the CCA. Agreement on a project and on the procedure for the study of the urban project for the Ile St-Denis, programming of the procedure. Initial problems and projects for study. (2) Public meeting: Project, presentation of the programming & design team and of the various stages in the elaboration of the urban project, surveys and forms of participation. (4) Analysis of trends (demographic, economic, social, built fabric, land-use). (5) Analysis of the risks and rewards, objectives and strategies of the various internal players (company managers, shopkeepers, associations etc.) and external players (community of conurbations, Conseil Général (council of a French département), Plaine de France, DDE, RATP, etc.) (6) Report on the diagnosis. (2) Public meeting CCA/residents. (3) "diagnosis on foot" with the CCA, associations and professionals. (7) Validation of the diagnosis by the CCA (10) Choice of topics and projects to be proposed to the participation workshops and user-groups. TRANSACTIONAL GROUP (8) Cursory survey of the residents by questionnaire (current situation, problems, intentions). Possibilities for participation in the different stages of the process (9) Pre-operational studies of projects indicated by the CCA (studies of a site's potential). (12) Summing-up of the results of the participation workshops and user-groups. (13) Sectoral programmes: housing, transport, employment, public services, culture and leisure activities, protection of sites and risks. (14) Visits to districts with elected officials/residents/professionals. Registration on plan.: (11) Participation workshops Topics and work on plans (17) Elaboration of the overall development programme and scenarios. (19) Elaboration of sectoral programmes. (15) User-groups. (16) Public meeting: presentation of the results of the summing up of the participation workshops. (18) Participation workshops: work on scenarios with the CCA and associations. (24) Presentation of topics and projects. Opinion of the residents. 12 Equipe de Programmation-Conception 22 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14 HQE R 2 2.2.2 - Regeneration led by a social agenda : participation structure for the New Deal for Communities, Bristol, UK 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 New Deal for Communities in Bristol: Community at Heart 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 14 DETR (1998) New Deal for Communities: Guidance for Pathfinder applicants, London, TSO. Community at Heart (1999) Community at Heart: New Deal for Communities Bristol, Bristol. 23 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 The Delivery Plan sets out eight outcome areas, attended by ten year targets: • • • • • • • • Employment and business Sustainable health and well-being Tackling crime Raising educational achievement Housing Community Services Arts, sports and leisure Tackling racism. • The Community at Heart Organisational regeneration through community empowerment structure; delivering 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’). Community at Heart (Bristol NDC) Organisational Structure Residentbased forums Executive Management Team Main Management Board Project Development Best Practice Group Project Appraisal Panel Program Management Sub-theme Groups Best Practice Management Program Development Finance Outcome Groups Multi-agency Groups PROJECTS Resident-led element NDC staff-led element 24 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Participation is tus central to the scheme on a number of different levels: • Community leadership; a small number of individuals are closely involved in the programme through board membership. These people commit significant amounts of time to the project, and have collective responsibility for its success. • Regular support for ‘outcome groups’ and specific projects; A larger number of residents participate regularly via the outcome groups, which discuss priorities and projects associated with different thematic areas. These participants make a major contribution to the iterative development of the initiative. Others volunteer on specific projects, often giving practical support, e.g. through youth work. • Mass participation through surveys, events, consultation and voting; Regular participants remain a minority of the population, although it is available to all. The views of the majority are sought through a range of means. A number of large scale surveys have been commissioned. These are supplemented through public meetings and events. People also have the opportunity to vote for their local board members. • Problems associated with the community-led approach At the time of writing, the NDC in Bristol is in the fourth year of a ten year programme. Participation has been sustained, although significant support and development is required. There is a turnover of volunteers as people cease their involvement through ‘burn-out’, or any number of personal reasons. There is thus always a need to keep attracting and supporting new volunteers. CAH is a major new presence within a small neighbourhood. The rapid development of a central government funded body has led to certain difficulties. Establishing, from scratch, a new organisation to deliver a complex range of projects is in itself a difficult task which has not always gone smoothly. The fact that the community has high expectations of it and demands transparency and accountability also has consequences. There have been accusations that CAH is employing too many people from outside the neighbourhood, and that too much money is going on organisational expenses, rather than on the residents themselves. Some residents have felt that the organisation is not delivering enough visible successes to justify the amount of funding it has. 25 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 3. PARTICIPATION IN THE HQE2R NEIGHBOURHOODS 3.1 Introduction This section offers a review of the process implemented by the HQE2R researchers to complete the inventory and diagnosis phase of the project, with an emphasis on the nature and extent of participation. Being influenced by both national and local contexts, the process varied from country to country and from one city to another. The shape of the process in each case study was determined by a multi-layered context with a number of contributing factors: • National laws and programmes The existence at the national level of laws and/or programmes advocating participation in the regeneration process is clearly a key driver in determining local action. • Culture and tradition Achieving effective participation is not as simple as passing laws or funding programmes. Implementation is strongly dependent upon the culture of national and local governance. • Local government practice in planning and regeneration Implementation will also be strongly influenced by local practice in planning and regeneration; the range of actors involved and whether the process enables public participation. • The specific regeneration context of the case study In addition to these levels of context, the scope of the HQE2R teams to act was determined by the specifics of each case study. The nature of the regeneration project being studied might make public participation in the inventory and diagnosis difficult (e.g. in the case of Vlissingen where the regeneration site was a derelict shipyard). Factors influencing participation in HQE2R included: whether local associations were active and had been involved in the regeneration process, whether the regeneration process was advanced or in its early stages, fears about raising local expectations that could not be met, resources, freedom of the HQE2R team to act within the constraints set by the local council. 3.2 The participation context for HQE2R partner countries In Deliverable 15, the HQE2R partners compiled a summary of the legal, regulatory and practice context for public participation in planning and regeneration in their respective countries. We have not conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of these national frameworks, but are able to offer some brief comments. In general, community participation is a more established part of local governance in Denmark, Germany and the UK. In these countries, it is more usual for communities to have the opportunity to participate at an early stage in the regeneration process. This opens up the possibility for the public to influence major decisions, rather than subsequent details. The UK case study is working with the New Deal for Communities regeneration programme, which is pioneering a radical approach to community- managed regeneration. This approach 26 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. 3.3. Case studies from the HQE2R neighbourhoods In each of the case studies, we briefly describe the current phase of the regeneration process, and the participation activities that have contributed to it. We then describe how these activities contributed to the HQE2R inventory and diagnosis, and participation activities initiated specifically by the HQE2R research teams. Each case study ends with a short reflection on participation in relation to the scale developed by the HQE2R team (section 1 of this report), and suggests which other methods from the catalogue (section 3 of this report) might be applied. 3.3.1 - Frederiksberg – Copenhagen - Denmark The overall regeneration program has been decided upon and a major part of the projects included in the programme have been implemented. Some projects are still to be validated and implemented. Local residents and groups have been involved in the process. At the very beginning of the process every household in the neighbourhood was invited to participate in the regeneration process. Households have been informed regularly about the process and the projects by direct mail. The process has been open for everyone to participate throughout, by means of public meetings and working groups. The different groups have formulated the overall programme and the designs of the individual projects in collaboration with council officers. • Participation in the regeneration programme 27 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. 3.3.2 - Quartier Viscose – Echirolles - France The process is at the stage of project definition for the Cite Viscose and the whole Western Sector of the city. Residents association and youth groups as well as many individual residents have been involved in the process. Consultation has taken place through a series of 5 thematic • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood workshops in order to gauge the expectations of the inhabitants : 1) leisure, sport, culture, 2): economic development, 3) youth and school, 4) housing, 5) centrality. Each of these workshops attracted 20 to 50 people, and each was held twice. Participation resulted in 28 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. The research team carried out the diagnosis of priorities for the social policy officers for the city and the conurbation, in partnership with the city’s urbanism councillor, the mayor of the city and the president of the conurbation. The social housing owner and central government representatives met with the partners to discuss the diagnosis. Residents groups and local people were not included in this part of the process. That will be done further because the neighbourhood diagnosis for SD must be linked to the Local Angenda 21 of the whole city and the Action plan for the neighbourhood has to be in coherence and within synergy with this Local Agenda 21. There is a discontinuity between the participation of people in giving their opinions and the participation of people to the final decision, which completely belongs to the elected people from the municipality. There was good participation from residents interested in the future of their city. A lot of work has been done by the municipal services for the Local Agenda 21 and it is difficult to do everything together… • Participation in the diagnosis • Other problems or issues • Cite Viscose : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context Participation in the Cite Viscose and the Western sector equates for the moment to consultation. The results of the workshops contributed to the preparation of the neighbourhood project by the local council. The city council decided to carry out a LA21 following a ‘charte d’ecologie urbaine’ from 1995, in which residents and associations were involved. The next level of participation for this neighbourhood would be to support resident empowerment and develop partnership working, with the goal of giving citizens more access to decision making. 29 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 3.3.3 - La Roseraie – Angers - France At the stage of definition of the regeneration project. Local residents and residents groups are involved through a range of interactions: • Public meeting • Permanent place to receive people and to give information in the neighbourhood (one day a week) • Register and mailings • Commissions and meeting • Personal appointments and meetings • Presentation of the project by files and documents • Video • DVD 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. The inventory was written by the research team with the help of a previous one done in a traditonnal way and paid by the municipality for giving to the 3 teams selected through a call for tender. The results of the 3 teams or the 3 scenarios were then presented and discussed in a lot a public meetings during summer 2002. • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood • Participation in the inventory Municipality officers Responsible officer for Urban Renewal Policy. A definition study was carried out by three teams (architect, urbanist) and the city was assisted by the research team to include the field of the SD in the analysis. Studies were presented to the city authorities then to the different local groups which held discussions about the different options and defined the main priorities for the project (cf above). Local politicians The Housing director and the Mayor were involved in the inventory. Residents groups & Individual residents The local traders’ association and the residents association were involved. Many responses were received to the register, and there was strong participation in a public meeting where the three definition studies were presented. The residents “voted” for their project and given their views on the best improvements to make. In total around 350 were involved in the process. Others Teachers, social workers, social housing owners. • Participation in the diagnosis Municipality officers and politicians Representatives were involved from a wide range of services; urban renewal, social policy services, education, housing, transport, youth, welfare and culture. The housing councillor also contributed. The first test of the INDI model (still as a prototype from La Calade and CSTB) was done upon this neighbourhood... This test allowed to finalize the model and helped for the choice of the indicators (before the discussion with all the research partners and the final European consensus...). Residents groups & individuals & others The views of all those consulted during the inventory were taken into consideration. 30 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 A lot of work was required to achieve this level of participation, partly because the neighbourhood is rather large, with 17,000 residents. • Other problems or issues • La Roseraie : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context Participation led to empowerment to reach a consensus among the population and among the political class. This led to the decision to immediately implement some new facilities including meeting centres and a launderette. Participation in this instance equates to empowerment. The next stage on the participation scale might be to foster partnership working between residents and the local council in the management of the new facilities that are being developed. 3.3.4 - Mimont- Prado- Republique – Cannes - France Definition, execution and approval of the housing renewal project are all currently under way. Meetings have been held with the retail association and residents association. Individual owner-occupiers who can benefit from subsidies to retrofit their housing or retail stores have also been involved. A permanent office has been opened in the neighbourhood to give information and advice to people about the overall renewal project for the neighbourhood as well as their own housing renovation project. The result of participation to date has been to take more account of parking and traffic problems. Participation to date equates to information. • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood • Participation in the inventory Municipality officers and politicians Representatives of the urbanism, environment, energy, water and transport services were involved in the inventory. They took part in meetings and provided information and reports (2 studies had been already paid by the municipal services: one to an architect about urban furniture and the architectural quality of the buildings, and one for a traditional inventory). Some meetings were held with “resources persons”. The environment and urbanism councillors took part in meetings. Residents groups and individuals About 20 members of the local traders’ association are working in partnership with the council to develop the local retail trade. Individual residents were not involved in the inventory, except through a questionnaire (elaborated by the research team) to fulfill when they came to the municipal office. Others Meetings were held and information exchanged with the social housing owner (who has very few housings in the neighbourhood) and the energy company (which has a great space inside the neighbourhood and which could sell this space to the municipality...). The diagnosis was discussed in partnership with the city’s urbanism service, and the environment and urbanism councillors. The neighbourhood has few resident’s associations, this would make participation exercises harder to initiate. • Participation in the diagnosis • Comments 31 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 • Mimont- Prado- Republique : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context The presence of a neighbourhood office represents good practice in the dissemination of information. The fact that there are few local associations indicates a need for development work in the neighbourhood, to identify and support the people who could act as local representatives. The use of Participative and Generative Programming (PGP) could ensure that local views are heard by decision makers throughout the regeneration process. The worging groups already suggested by the research team might also contribute to the empowerment of the local residents. 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. The diagnosis was completed in discussion with all these local actors. A public presentation was held in May 2003. So until now, we had only information… The area which is concerned has not yet any resident so it is rather difficult to imagine their participation at this first stage but the residents of the city centre who are already there must be informed of course but also listened... A call for tender has been organised in March 2003 with the inventory and diagnosis done by the research team and the research team was consulted for the choice of the project selected (during Summer 2003). The briefing document was structured according to the 21 HQE2R targets and to the main stakes of the diagnosis for SD and to the local SD objectives selected by the Mayor of Anzin and the conurbation responsible for this project. • Participation in the diagnosis • Other problems or issues • Anzin city centre : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context As in Angers, the real participation of inhabitants and users should be managed now with some public meetings about the project for this new area. A public inquiry should be managed soon. But the conurbation is in charge of this project so the municipality cannot do erething… 32 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 3.3.6 - Loebtau – Dresden - Germany Regeneration is seen as a continuous process. The borders of the formal regeneration area have been redefined recently. All the formal steps of the regeneration process need to be fulfilled once again taking into account the new borders and the changes occurred since the formal regeneration area was defined. Nevertheless the inventory for this new process might be seen in part as a validation/approval of the former actions (especially renovation of a large share of the buildings) Within the formal regeneration process there was a public meeting where all the residents and all other interested people were invited. There the private company which is in charge the implementation of the regeneration process explained the idea of this process. There has been intensive consultation between land owners and the company running the regeneration process. It is difficult to tell the direct effects of participation; the priorities stated by the residents in questionnaires correspond broadly with the priorities of the planning administration. The establishment of a subsidised job for a person working for the initiative of local business people in order to promote the area was due to the initiative of this group. The administration and especially the private company which is in charge of the implementation of the regeneration process does only the legal minimum, or to what it is politically forced to by a strong initiative of the people. • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood • Participation in the inventory Municipality officers and other agencies A broad range of public services supplied information for the inventory; Town Planning department and municipal statistical office of the City of Dresden, regional school department, local water supply company, environmental department (Dresden), department for environment and geology of the state of Saxonia, Ministry for environment and agriculture of Saxonia, police department (Saxonia), building inspection of Dresden-Cotta (borough of Dresden which Loebtau belongs to), local refuse disposal service, department for monumental protection (Dresden). Local politicians The chief of the local administration was interviewed. Residents groups Five interviews were held with representatives of local groups; the youth club, centre for elderly people, local business association and local church. These groups are have all worked with the local council in the policy areas relevant to their interests. Individual residents Five active members of the community were chosen, representing a cross section of the neighbourhood’s population. Semi-structured interviews were held with these representatives to gain qualitative data on life in the neighbourhood. The topics covered were based on the HQE2R analytical grid and the 5 objectives for sustainable development. The diagnosis was completed in discussion with the planning department of Dresden, taking the views of local associations and residents into account. The planning authority was cautious about carrying out participation that might raise expectations of residents that could not be met. The HQE2R research team were asked not to hold a neighbourhood workshop. • Participation in the diagnosis • Other problems or issues 33 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 • Loebtau : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context The extent of participation follows the regulations valid in Saxonia for the execution of the federal Building Code in special redevelopmet areas (“consultation” in the ladder of participation). Further steps are also possible but not mandatory (in Berlin e.g. the mandatory step equates to “consultation” in the ladder of participation but in practice it is mixed with elements of “partnership”). In Dresden these further stages are thus only developed when the people in the area strongly insist on a larger participation, as occurred in another part of Dresden (Dresden-Neustadt). But in our investigation area Dresden-Loebtau there was no strong initiative in this direction (which itself actually is an indication for a lack of community and part of the problem of the neighbourhood). As in Cannes, the lack of local associations is a sign that there is scope for developing local activity and supporting potential volunteers. 3.3.7 - Melegnano - Italy Most of the action plans still require development. To date, there has been progress on integration between rail and bus services. Some actions have been implemented in respect of reducing noise pollution from road and rail traffic. No residents have been involved to date. The municipality plans to involve local people in the future. The techniques to be used for participation are still under discussion, but the main options are: - showing the project proposals in a public conference (April/May 2003) - conducting a questionnaire survey with residents to help establish priorities (April 2003) - opening a new web page on the municipality’s website where it will be possible for local people to read news and submit their opinions abour HQE2R by E-mail (April/May 2003). The following municipality services contributed to the inventory; Registry Office, Town Planning Office, Environment Council Office, Social Services, Housing service, Ecology and Sport. With each of these there were exchanges in writing, and face to face interviews. The following agencies were also consulted; ASL (Sanitary Enterprise), MEA (Melegnano Energy and Environment), ARPA (Regional agency for Environment), Police, ALPSES Centre. No local politicians or residents groups were involved in the inventory. The HQE2R diagnosis was completed in discussion with officers and elected councillors from the Town planning office and the Environment council office. A local architect was consulted with regard to the energy plan. • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood • Participation in the inventory • Participation in the diagnosis • Melegnano : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context There are cultural and political constraints on participation in Italy, and these contribute to the fact that there is thus far no participation process in the neighbourhood. It was not seen as appropriate for the HQE2R team to initiate participation. The municipality perceives the following risks with respect to participation: a) Raising expectations which cannot be met, b) Disputes between the Municipality and residents. The proposal to invite comments via the council’s website is an innovative one, which will start to develop dialogue. In the local political culture, it will not be possible for residents to be 34 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 directly involved in decision making. If it wanted to improve participation however, the council might develop dialogue through a method such as Planning for Real, or Scenario Workshop. The limits of the consultation should be clearly defined, in order to avoid the problem of raising false expectations. 3.3.8 - Cinisello Balsamo - Italy The process has just started, the municipality is planning to present a programme to obtain financial support from the Italian national regeneration programme. Residents have not yet been involved, participation will only be initiated if the programme is awarded funding. The HQE2R team carried out a process of consultation on current conditions in the neighbourhood involving the following actors. • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood • Participation in the inventory Municipality officers: Technical officers, co-ordinator of the LA21 project (the LA21 project had only just started when the inventory was carried out). Much of the quantitative data came from the planning, environment, social welfare and registry offices. Technical officers were asked to provide available data (HQE2R indicators + specific indicators according to the local situation) and were asked to explain the situation in the neighbourhood according to each SD target of HQE2R. Local politicians were not involved in the inventory phase. Local residents groups: 1) Neighbourhood inhabitants group for “safety and security” issues, 2) Neighbourhood inhabitants group for “mobility” issues, 3) North-African women’s association of Cinisello. The geographical scope of each of these groups is larger than the case stdy neighbourhood.The North African women’s group represents the entire city of Cinisello. Membership of the other two groups is limited to the administrative area of Cinisello Balsamo. Structured interviews were held with a total of five representatives from these groups. Each of these groups has previously worked in partnership with the local council, on social welfare, community safety and social integration projects. Individual residents In addition to the community groups above, some 20 people were interviewed during a ‘walk through’ the neighbourhood. A group of school children between the ages of 6-14 years were also interviewed as part of a special project funded by the local council, ‘The sustainable city of children’. Discussions were held with the local priest, who is seen as a key person in the social life of the neighbourhood. Municipality officers The technical officers and A21 co-ordinators who had contributed to the inventory reviewed the results of the interviews and the indicator values. These were used as the basis of the diagnosis. As in Mantova, there was some divergence between the officers’ views and those presented by the inventory data. This resulted in the ‘unresolved questions’ in the diagnosis. Local groups, individual residents and the local priest The results of all the interviews with local people were fed into the process of the diagnosis, which was carried out by the research team and the municipality officers. • Participation in the diagnosis 35 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 • Cinisello Balsamo: Reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context It was very difficult to obtain information on existing resident’s groups and representative of these groups. Working in partnership and exchanging knowledge and information proved to be a challenge for the council officers, as they are not accustomed to working in this way. This shows the need for institutional development within the council, which is necessary before more participatory approaches can be implemented. The council may thus feel more comfortable with structured consulatation techniques such as the Citizen Hearing, the Planning Cell or Planning for Real. These techniques offer the opportunity for good quality consultation and would start to develop dialogue, without transferring decision making power to residents. The council should always be clear about the limits of what is up for discussion, and demonstrate that it has taken account of the citizens’ views. 3.3.9 - San Leonardo, Porta Mulina – Mantova - Italy The process is in its early stages, with the local council planning to develop initiatives to promote sustainable regeneration across the whole city of Mantua, based around a city-wide LA21 project. HQE2R is the only additional project being implemented in the San Leonardo Porta Mulina neighbourhood (i.e. there is no regeneration project here beyond that which is being applied to the city as a whole). • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood • Participation in the inventory Municipality officers Officers from the Technical services of the municipality contributed to the inventory. The LA21 project co-ordinator and co-ordinators of the LA21 topic groups were involved in defining the indicators. Qualitative information on users needs and wishes was provided by officers responsible for; social welfare, education and culture, registry office and the municipal police. Much of the quantitative data came from the planning, environment and registry offices. The task was greatly assisted in Mantova because there was a single contact person who co-ordinated data collection and sent formal requests to external agencies. These partners responded to a structured interview. The results of the interviews were presented within a grid and checked by the municipality officers and the local priest. These results formed the basis of the diagnosis. A meeting was held for officers who might be interested in the inventory and who could suggest data collection methods. Elected politicians The Councillor responsible for environment proposed some specific indicators during a meeting with all the partners involved and reviewed the final list of indicators of the inventory. Local residents groups Six representatives of the city-wide LA21 topic groups (“environment preservation”, “traffic and mobility”, “resources management”) were interviewed and proposed locally-specific indicators. Individual residents Around 20 people were interviewed during a walk through the neighbourhood. Others The local priest was interviewed, and reviewed the results of the other interviews. Municipality officers The same officers were involved as for the inventory. The technical officers reviewed the results of the interviews and the values of the indicators in order to reach their diagnosis. Some 36 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB • Participation in the diagnosis Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. There were no difficulties in gaining participation in San Leonardo, the process was aided because the research team was able to make use of the ongoing LA21 process. The only constraint was that most of the local residents groups were on the scale of the municipality, being involved in LA21 at that scale. • Other problems or issues • Mantova : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context Participation, and a degree of partnership working, has been initiated through the LA21 process. This will be a good foundation for developing dialogue through consultation techniques. 3.3.10 - Bon Pastor – Barcelona - Spain The council’s plans have been shown to the residents, the project has been approved and work will start soon. The Neighbourhood Association and the Social Centre have been involved. Meetings have been held between council officers and members of the Neighbourhood Association to discuss the plans and the future of the neighbourhood. These meetings are important, but residents are informed and interested to varying degrees and this can be a barrier to widespread participation. Municipality officers and politicians Information was gathered from the following agencies; Urbaser is the municipal enterprise of waste and cleansing services in Barcelona North, who gave some data about waste collected. Parcs i Jardins works on parks and gardens maintenance; they explained their future work in the parks of the borough. Idescat and Centre de Documentació Estadística are two administration departments that collect data of very different nature; information (demography, equipment, housing…) was extracted from its web pages. Staff from the Social Services Centre were also interviewed. Residents Residents from the Neighbourhood Association, the Bon Pastor Social Centre and the Youth Service were interviewed for the inventory. • Participation in the regeneration programme • Participation in the inventory Municipality officers and politicians The local housing office. • Participation in the diagnosis 37 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 • Bon Pastor : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context The level of participation reached in this programme is consultation. The legal requirement is for one period of consultation when the plan is being developed, and one after the plan has been approved. Both of these are rather short, and some residents are not able to take advantage of them because of a lack of information. Participation could thus be improved by extending the consultation period beyond the statutory minimum, and by providing better quality information to the residents. Plan development could be opened up to residents through participation methods such as the Future Workshop or Scenario Workshop. 3.3.11 - Manresa - Spain The Manresa’s old town regeneration case started before 2001 through the PAM – Municipal Action Plan-. In 2001, the PIRNA was approved –old town’ s rehabilitation integral plan-, which starts from a diagnosis, it proposes to obtain a model and to arrive to a strategy – it has got a similar scheme than the HQE2R- during a 10 years period. The PIRNA includes programmes for following, evaluation and participation. From the town council and the FORUM –municipal society which entrusts of the old town regeneration – have been elaborated the different plans, proposals and projects as a result of an open citizen meeting between all the implicated social agents: neighbours, traders, technicians, owners, surveys enterprises, people who works in the old town, entities and associations linked to the territory and citizens whom show interest for the future of Manresa. One part of the inventory information has been extracted for the research team, directly of the previous inventories before elaborated and inside PIRNA, by technicians and FORUM agents. The missing data of this previous inventory have been research by the project team by means of fieldwork inside the neighbourhood -interviews with the town council responsible, the FORUM responsible, architects, town planners, citizens… By means of PIRNA, has been obtained a diagnosis elaborated after one participation process with neighbours meetings, enquires, posters explaining the proposals, the implicated agents surgeries… The research team has compiled these work done, making their own diagnosis – having as a base the PIRNA diagnosis and the 21 Agenda references- and contrasting with the municipal responsible and the FORUM technicians. Previously the research team had been present in some neighbourhood meeting. • Participation in the regeneration process • Participation in the inventory • Participation in the diagnosis • Manresa: reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context The process followed in Manresa through the PIRNA includes a transversal programme of participation and of neighbourhood regeneration plan following. Inside this programme are included community invigoration plans, understanding that the community is formed by the population, entities and associations, local and autonomic administration and the disposed recourses. These invigoration plans research the establishment of links between the implicated agents in all the project phases and in the neighbourhood functioning following regeneration. The approach in Manresa includes consultation, and the involvement of residents in an iterative process of project development, which is a form of partnership working. Given that there appears to be a good level of dialogue between residents and the town council, it would be appropriate to use participatory consultation techniques such as planning for real, and to explore how partnership working could be developed with local associations. 38 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 3.3.12 - Raval, Ciutat Vella - Barcelona The operations are approved, and most are being implemented. The local groups, such as ‘The Resident Associations’, are involved in the definition of some projects, but only after the first ideas and concepts have been approved by the municipality. The municipality decide if the opinions of those groups are integrated to its projects or not. Sometimes the pressure exerted by these groups can force the municipality to change its plans. The groups took part in meetings and were consulted on designs. Other groups are informed and can give their opinions and recommendations. In general, individuals only participate when they want to solve a problem that affects them directly. Most of the time they do not have an overall view of the functions and the needs of the neighbourhood beyond their personal needs and problems. The individual residents only receive information in respect of neighbourhood renewal. They can participate in the local processes of Agenda 21 giving their opinions by answering some inquiries about needs and problems. Participation sometimes has an impact on decision making, but the ‘great’ decisions are always decided by the municipality. Not by politicians, but by the professionals (architects, economists, …) working there. On the other hand, sometimes the protest of citizens can avoid some projects and many times the projects are lightly adapted according to citizens’ requirements. The problem is that many times those groups of residents (in our neighbourhood some of them only represent a part of the neighbourhood, concrete streets, etc…) have a partial ‘’view’ of the problems, and defend their discreet problems. For the individual citizen: information (projects) or consultation (plans). For the groups, consultation. Mechanisms for plan development are prescribed by law, but participation is dependent on the social life of each neighbourhood. The impact of local policy is important. It depends on every neighbourhood that the residents can influence more or less in the decision processes. In the ancient or historical neighbourhoods where the social cohesion is ‘higher’ and the feeling of belonging to that territory is stronger, the residents are more motivated to supervise the operations. Municipality officers and politicians Officers of the social services, architecture and urbanism services, statistical services and environmental services contributed. The officers were interviewed and helped to collect public information. The local councillors for the environment and social affairs were also involved. Residents groups and individuals Resident associations, commercial associations and social groups all contributed. These were local groups belonging to the neighbourhood. A total of 6 members were interviewed. These have constant relationships with the municipality. The municipality has a specific adviser in charge of dealing with all the social and resident groups. Individual residents 50 individuals were interviewed. Others Architects, urbanists and planners were interviewed. • The regeneration process in the neighbourhood • Participation in the inventory Municipality officers and politicians Municipal planners, architects and social advisers contributed to the diagnosis through interviews and written documents. The local councillors for the environment and social affairs were also involved. 39 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB • Participation in the diagnosis Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Residents groups Two members of the local groups were involved in deciding priorities for the inventory. 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. • Comments • Raval : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context Participation of residents early in the process is the only way for them to influence major decisions, as opposed to minor details. This will only happen if the local council is more open in its procedures. It should be possible to avoid problems such as raising expectations, or risking conflict, by using a structured consultation method. 3.3.13- Community at Heart, Barton Hill - Bristol - United Kingdom The case study is of a ten year regeneration process, during which new projects are continually being initiated and implemented. The scheme is part of the UK government ‘New Deal for Communities’, which requires the establishment of a management board led by residents of the neighbourhood. In addition to community participation at this executive level, there is a great deal of effort to involve local people in all aspects of decision making, implementation and monitoring of projects. The aim is thus to empower local people to manage the regeneration process. Significant progress has been made towards achieving this, but the process is not without its problems. Community at Heart has established a large new organisation within a small neighbourhood, with approximately 50 members of staff, many from outside the neighbourhood. It is inevitably unable to satisfy all the residents expectations in the short term, and thus becomes a target for peoples’ dissatisfaction. There are also problems inherent in setting up new structures and systems, which must be inclusive and transparent, in a short time scale. At present, many residents of the Barton Hill neighbourhood do not feel that Community at Heart is acting on their wishes, despite the fact that there are local residents at the centre of the organisation. Much of the secondary data used for the inventory was collated from surveys of local people and businesses carried out by Community at Heart, and from quality of life indicators collected by the city council. This was completed by the research team following meetings with the Community at Heart manager with responsibility for sustainability and evaluation. Residents groups and individual residents The main piece of work for the inventory was a consultation with local people carried out by the research team, in partnership with one of the locally elected members of the Community at Heart management board. The consultation used open ended, participatory techniques. Researchers attended meetings of a number of local groups, including schools, church groups, elderly people’s groups and youth groups. There were also a series of sessions held outside the local shops, where individuals could come and talk to the researchers if they chose to. A total of 85 people contributed to the consultation process. • Participation in the regeneration process • Participation in the inventory 40 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 The diagnosis is an ongoing process that will continue through consultation events that Community at Heart is holding in the early months of 2003. At these events, the findings of the inventory will be presented to local people, and they will be invited to comment on them and also suggest ideas for how to measure sustainability in the neighbourhood. The culture of the organisation meant that it was inappropriate for the research team to work only with managers or professionals to decide upon sustainability priorities for the neighbourhood. The team has presented initial findings to Community at Heart managers, but it is seen as a necessity to go back to the community to finalise the diagnosis. Working with a new organisation such as Community at Heart presents opportunities, but also challenges, as it is not always easy to identify the most appropriate people to get involved in this type of work. However, the organisation is extremely supportive of the principle not only of participation, but of community leadership in decision making. • Participation in the diagnosis • Comments • Community at Heart : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods could be used in this context Residents have been empowered to take on a degree of self-management. However, this level of responsibility is accepted only by a small minority, and there is still much work to do in gaining the support and participation of the majority. Community at Heart is working in a policy context where a high degree of participation and empowerment is expected. The will is there, but gaining widespread participation is not easy and always requires development work and support. Improving participation in the neighbourhood depends on good and transparent management of the regeneration process, as well as good support systems for volunteers and ongoing community development. 3.3.14 -Vlissingen - RSG area In the beginning of January 2003 at least the owner of the Shipyard and the municipality reached a principal agreement (with one dissolving condition: the necessary financial contribution of the national government). The negotiations lasted several years and were indeed expected to be concluded in 1999/2000! All sorts of actions have already been started; one of them being the communication/participation process. First ideas are to follow the “Leidsche Rijn” communication idea (ref. deliverable 15), hereby repeated as follows: The Plan of Communication Steps, designed for the largest new built area in the Netherlands (Leidsche Rijn: 30.000 dwellings, 700.000 m2 office space and planned inhabitants per 2010/2015: 100.000) gives a good overview and is representative for local approaches. • “ The Leidsche Rijn Approach 41 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 This plan has been organised as follows: Steering group Project group Working group Communication Administration Private Inhabitants and Media Municipal Regional The plan comprises the following: Introduction Communication strategy Communication objective and inventory of actors Communication means Communication channels Costs Preconditions and “rules of the game” Communication per target group Relation to the Masterplan and the ground policy Communication per step Communication tasks and responsibilities Workgroup communication The communication phases (steps) are: 0. First draft of the communication plan. This plan will be drafted by the steering group and discussed in the municipal administrative and political organisation. 1. Programmes scenarios with routing 2. The spatial plan concept 3. Financial feasibility 4. The concept-Masterplan The steering group decides to publish the plans for presentation and comments. Presentation to the political organs (Raadscommissies, College van B & W and Gemeenteraden). 42 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - A large number of presentations to Official services Public utilities Actors on the market Inhabitants and interest groups Etc. The plan will be exhibited and the reports may be seen and distributed. Reactions, comments and recommendations are being collected and provided with recommendation for plan adaptation. The steering group decides on the recommendations. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 3.4 Summary and discussion The case studies demonstrate a variety of experience. This is summarised in the tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows the context for each case study, i.e. the participation ongoing as part of the regeneration process in the neighbourhood. Table 2 summarises the activities undertaken specifically for the HQE2R inventory and diagnosis. 44 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14 HQE R 2 Table 1: Participation of Residents in the Regeneration Process Neighbourhoods Publicity, leaflets, surveys, other Direct mailings to every household Local newspapers linked to the Local Agenda 21 Mailings, neigh’hood centre, DVD, video Neighbourhood centre Public meetings Working groups Responsibility for decisions + resources Comments: timing + impact of participation Frederiksbersg, Copenhagen Cite Viscose Echirolles La Roseraie Angers Mimont, Prado Cannes Anzin Loebtau Dresden Melegnano Cinisello Balsamo San Leonardo, Mantova Schelde Yard, Vlissingen Raval, Barcelona Bon Pastor, Barcelona Old Town, Manresa Barton Hill, Bristol Yes 5 themed workshops, held twice Yes Yes Up to the municipality and to the social owner only The council generally follows the residents’ ideas. Participation occurs throughout the process. Consultation contributed to the preparation of the neighbourhood project by the council. Yes Yes Yes Up to the conurbation No Survey of residents views Yes No LA 21 groups for the whole city. Meetings with residents groups Meetings with associations Yes N’hood centre, surveys, newspaper Yes Yes Yes, locally elected Board Local political will led to a process through which consensus was reached with residents. Meetings with retail and residents’ associations. Exchange of information. Information about the new Master Plan linked to the regeneration project Participation equates to the legal minimum in special regeneration areas. Lack of local social capital is a barrier. No participation to date. Proposals will be shown to residents in April/May 2003. Participation will only take place if the proposals gain funding from the government. The neighbourhood does not have a specific regeneration project. As there are no residents, consultation is planned with the whole town of Vlissingen. Account is taken of consultation, but the main decisions are usually taken by professionals. A partnership of residents and agencies manage the process. Broad participation is sought. 45 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Table 2: Participation in the HQE2R Inventory and Diagnosis Process Neighbourhoods Frederiksbersg, Copenhagen Cite Viscose Echirolles La Roseraie Angers Mimont, Prado Cannes Anzin Loebtau Dresden Melegnano Cinisello Balsamo San Leonardo, Mantova Schelde Yard, Vlissingen Raval, Ciutat Vella, Barcelona Bon Pastor, Barcelona Old Town, Manresa Barton Hill, Bristol Residents: input from previous consultations Yes Residents: consultation 2 initiated by HQE R team No Local politicians Municipality Officers Others No Yes Yes Yes No No Few but through their associations No Yes, interviews with 5 local people No Yes, local groups + individ’l interviews Yes, LA21 reps + individ’l interviews Mayor, urbanism councillor Mayor, housing director Environment and urbanism councillors At the conurbation level and the mayor Interview with chief of local administration Planning and Environment cllrs Environment, building, planning, housing, roads & parks, cultural, social, industry departments Environment, Urbanism, Housing, Transport, social services Urbanism, social, education, housing, transport, youth, etc. Urbanism, environment, energy, water, transport The Mayor and the Urbanism service from the conurbation Planning, statistics, environment buildings, refuse, monuments Registry, planning, environment, social, housing, ecology, sport Technical, LA21, planning, environment, social LA21, technical services, social, education, culture, registry Social housing owner, conurbation services Teachers, social housing owners Social housing owners, energy company, National government No Yes No No No Schools, water company, Saxony geology dept. Refuse & energy co.s, regional env. agency Local priest Police, local priest Environment councillor ? Yes Yes Yes Yes, 6 group reps, 50 individuals Yes, meetings with local associations Environment and social affairs cllrs Social services, architecture, statistics, environment Housing Catalan Government, Manresa Urban rehab. Company Quality of Life indicators team Yes, consultation with 80 people Neighbourhood Board member National evaluation of NDC programme 46 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14 HQE R 2 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. 4.1. Sociological perspectives on participation methods The expectations and problems of residents are often analysed by sociological studies and surveys, using methods which can be ascribed to several schools of thought, although sociologists often use a mixture of these different schools. The sociotechnical school, represented in particular by Crozier's analyses, for which the sociologist carries out an appraisal external to the players, leading to proposals which can subsequently be discussed with the players, who were involved in their elaboration. The interactionist school, which helps players to express their difficulties and expectations, testing their representations and trying to make them propose changes themselves. The sociologist participates quite broadly in expounding and constantly reformulating the proposed changes. The main objective of this school of thought is to help players to understand and express their difficulties, thus enabling contracting authorities to take these into account. The institutional analysis school analyses the role of organizations in the structuring of social and emotional relationships. These analyses make it possible to reveal conflicts as well as the roles of the various players. - - M. Bonetti of the CSTB15 feels that the last two schools of thought are insufficient in themselves, and that they should be seen as complementary16. The interactionist school does not allow modes of organization and working methods to be modified, and does not build projects which modify decision-making processes. Although institutional analysis makes it possible to modify the rules, as it involves the analysis of modes of regulation, it does not make it possible, in return, to modify the behaviour patterns upon which the success of many urban projects is based. Unlike the other two methods, the sociotechnical method can trigger more global studies which may perhaps promote thinking about sustainable development, which is to a certain extent an 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. 4.2. Methods to guide the whole participation process 4.2.1 - Future Workshop Purpose The future workshop is suitable when new initiatives are being started and when running projects has been stuck. So it can be used in both the identified phases of an improvement project. The future workshop is a creative method of work which opens up for the possibilities that every group can participate on equal terms. Depending on the number of participants in the future workshop there is an interaction between small groups and large assemblies concerning the implementation. Description In order to succeed with the future workshop it is important that the theme for the workshop is clearly worded so that everybody exactly knows what to discuss in each group. The process itself is managed by a foreman and a notetaker. All suggestions proposed during the sessions are written on large posters which are mounted on a wall. In the future workshop the inhabitants try to create a better future for their living area. For this purpose three phases are to pass through: firstly the participants are requested to express criticism in respect of their neighbourhood. As a next step they shall find images showing how it would look the best. Finally these two phases are to combine in order to what in reality can be done to eliminate the critical points and to change them for good. This working process should allow a private co-operation and creativity. Supporting the process there should be available uninvolved people as mediation between the participants. Finishing it is recommended to give a report on the solutions and to introduce them to the other inhabitants and to the authorities responsible for spatial planning. As an example the successful project of the adult education centre (Volkshochschule) in Freising can be instanced. There the participants were invited to produce ideas under the topic „ Freising – A Town with Future?”. The future workshop holds the following phases: Criticism: Here only verbal criticism is allowed. Of course the criticism has to fall within the frames of the future workshops’ theme. No criticism is too comprehensive no criticism is too small. All constructive suggestions and ideas are forbidden in this phase. The objective of the phase is to identify the problems and all problems are equally important. Utopia phase: Here the idea is to be constructive and to look ahead. Only positive contributions are allowed and thoughts as to whether the suggestions are actually practicable are not allowed. Thus sceptical objections are not allowed. The purpose of this phase is to collect all possible suggestions for improvements and changes and to set loose creativity. Nothing is too simple and nothing is too wild or unrealistic. 48 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 4.2.2 - Scenario workshop Purpose The method is very similar to the future workshop but different in the way that it uses different scenarios to inspire, qualify and provoke the participants. The method is good to create a constructive dialog between participants with different backgrounds – for example between citizens, public servants and politicians. The scenario workshop can be used for starting initiatives as well as for getting on with initiatives. Description The scenario workshop is a development of the future workshop and it contains the same phases but differ in the following points: • • Future scenarios are used which further the discussion and assure a common starting point. There can be an interchange between role groups and theme groups. (The role groups take their starting point in the participants’ background, the theme groups work crosswise with starting point in topics). Preparation is required. In advance the organisers have worked out a number of scenarios and it is assumed that the participants have read and understood the material before the workshop starts. • The phases which are examined have the same main title as the future workshop, however, the contents are more focused. Criticism phase: Here the participants criticise and relate to the future scenario they have been introduced to. Utopia phase: Here positive solution scenarios are being developed. Realisation phase: Here the work is about the concretisation of some of the visions to something practical. The scenario workshop ought to, as opposite to the future workshop, be based on key persons in connection to the current debate. Two work foremen and one notetaker are required in each group. 49 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 environmental debate and are expected to be able to relate constructively to the drawn up scenarios. Participation scale: Consultation Process phases: Analyses, decision, implementation, monitoring 4.2.3 - Planning Cell (Planungszelle): Purpose This technique, developed by the sociologist Peter C. Dienel, is targeted to make the citizens deal with problems of planning in order to create their living space as they imagine it is worth living. Description About 25 citizens for every planning cell are chosen by a systemetic random sampling in the age of 18 to 68. Afterwards the people are informed about the contents of the task and are asked to participate. In the case of agreement they get a contract of employment and a financial allowance to ensure their full engagement. This guarantees that the chance to take part is open to almost everyone – also to those who are in other respects not available because they have no time or are not interested in participation processes - and in this way the planning cell represents the population of the examined area. The treatment of the task in form of making suggestions, clues and valuations is done in smaller groups of about 5 persons and in co-operation with experts, who inform about the basement of the planning process, but do not influence. The working process is structured in different parts of the task with exactly defining how long every unit can last / takes time. In the end the participants represent the solutions in a “citizen’s expert report” that the administration gets at their disposal. The technique came to successful appliance in several planning processes e.g. in Cologne to work with the problem of drawing a new concept of usage of the district around the city hall Guerzenich and the reorganisation of the Hanover public transport system. Conclusion This is a valuable method for gaining detailed citizen input to specific planning proposals. It contrasts with many participation methods in drawing in people who may not usually be motivated to participate. It also establishes the principle of paying citizens for their participation, an idea which is growing in popularity as the demands on volunteers increase. Participation scale The planning cell is primarily a sophisticated form of consultation. The close work between citizens and planning experts however might be described as a form of partnership. Involvement is likely to be a valuable learning process for the participants, contributing to the skills and knowledge of their community. Process phase: project development. 50 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 4.2.4 - Planning for Real Purpose The technique of planning for real allows independently from the educational level of the participants to find out the needs of the citizens, because it contains playing elements. It was invented by Tony Gibson and originally meant to activate the pupils’ attention and to participate at school. But it is also capable for the designing of living areas in co-operation with the inhabitants. Description In planning processes the starting point can be a three-dimensional model of a whole living area or just a street where there are problems to remove or where there is something new to plan. With the help of cards the participants make aware of possible modifications. Everybody disposes of cards which they can place on the model – and in the end it can not be reconstructed who added which card on what place so that anonymity is assured. At the same time it enables all participants to put forward their ideas instead of only allowing dominant persons to form the result. Participants can be the inhabitants together with professional planners and members of the local administration. The opinions are exchanged on an equal level. The cards can picture buildings or can be lettered with words like “conserve“, “reconstruct“ and “knock down“. After having placed the cards the ideas will be discussed and the cards can be removed if necessary. Conclusion This way of creating environment appears to the people as interesting because the handling of the problem is visualised and close to everyday-problems and that‘s why it is also practical for people not used to behave within formal structures – e.g. for children. Participation scale Planning for Real is a creative and participatory consultation technique. If the process includes residents working together with officials and politicians, it may help to develop dialogue and partnership working. Process phase Planning for Real could be used at the analysis (diagnosis) phase, or during project development. 4.2.5 - Campaign “Village Idea“ Purpose ‘Village Idea’ is meant to activate residents to participate in the developing of their living area. Description After enabling the inhabitants of the village (or alternatively of a neighbourhood in a town) to meet and get to know each other, they can found working groups, in which they should analyse the situation of their living space. Therefore the advantages and disadvantages seen by the people need to be to taken into consideration which in order to find out the special image of the village. Using this the inhabitants in the working groups should elaborate a concept to enhance the circumstances and to create a new vision of their village. The results need to be published. This allows their public discussion. A round tour through the village should be arranged. Finally an improved concept can be developed which is helpful for further formal plans of the planning authority. 51 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Conclusion, participation scale ‘Village Idea’ combines a participatory consultation method with community capacity building. Process phase This method is relevant to the analysis (diagnosis) phase of local issues and priorities. The interest and capacity generated through establishing working groups should be continued and developed into the subsequent phases of project development. 4.2.6 - Advocate Planning Purpose This is a technique of participation invented by Paul Davidoff to support social disadvantaged groups of inhabitants in planning processes. Description The advocate is meant as an independent authority supporting the people and helping to understand and cope with planning processes and the problems within this process. Following this they try to put forward their attitudes in the planning process by working out suggestions together with the disadvantaged people how to improve their situation. In a slightly varied way this technique has been applied in Germany for about 30 years. A good example is the usage in Hanover in the preparing time for the exhibition EXPO 2000. Conclusion This methodology of participation is based on the idea that planning processes are never neutral, which is why it is important to put the focus also on the groups not being able to represent their interests themselves. But nevertheless these people should not be dictated but activated. Participation scale Advocate planning is tool for a consultation and empowerment. Process phase The advocate planner should represent their group throughout the project process. 4.2.7 - Participatory Learning and Action Purpose PLA, Participatory Learning and Action, is an approach that has been used extensively for capacity building and consultation in developing countries (Pretty et al, 199517) in contrast to traditional ‘top down’ approaches. It has evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), which was employed by development workers from the 1970s onwards to give timely, on-the-ground information to assist in the deployment of development funding. ‘PLA’ was a term coined in the mid ‘90s to emphasise that beneficiaries should be involved not only in assessing problems but in acting on their solutions. 17 Pretty, J., Gujit, I., Thompson, J., Scoones, I., Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainers Guide, London, IIED. 52 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. 4.2.8 - Information – neighbourhood newsletters Purpose Giving information to residents is clearly not a participation method, although it is widely accepted as the first step in developing participation. Clear, accesible and timely information is a basic requirement. Involving residents in the production of information can be a way to increase participation. 53 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. Tools for individual events 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. 4.3.2 - Participatory survey technique Purpose To generate qualitative information to supplement large-scale surveys. 54 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. 4.3.3 - Citizen meetings Purpose Citizen meetings are suitable for conveying information about, or good to get support for a specific project. Town meetings can also be suitable for passing the information that the starting up of a process resulting in a strategy for a neighbourhood development action plan is underway. The purpose of a citizen meeting is to reach many citizens at once, and further to get in direct contact with these. Description The procedure of a citizen meeting is to invite the citizens of the municipality to a meeting where politicians and the local authority inform of the activities about to start, in progress or the result of finished activities. Citizen meetings are not suitable for engaging or involving the citizens actively or to create a dialog or creative suggestions. Therefore, they are not specially suited in connection with the wording of specific suggestions to a particular activity or planning process. Here the demand is that the participants in the process engage actively in the dialog and that they are able to formulate which measures in their opinion will be an advantage for the social and environmental situations in the area. Conclusions Citizen meetings are not to be considered a relevant tool when a particular sustainable development strategy is to be developed and formulated. Citizen meetings could be relevant in connection with information on the start up of a process or when the result of the process is made public. Participation scale: Information Process phase: Analyses (early in this phase), implementation (after completion) 55 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 4.3.4 - Citizen Hearing. Purpose This method is suitable for identifying and reaching a concretisation of visions for a sustainable development strategy so it is suitable for the conceptualisation phase of an urban improvement project. If the citizens can be motivated it would also be suitable for a reshaping development. With a citizen hearing the purpose is “to strike two birds in one blow”: to get in contact with a large number of citizens simultaneously - and at the same time establish a form of commitment and creativity. It is a method where there is interchange between work in small groups - and discussions in plenum involving all participants. The participants are found through advertising in local media and by sending letters to a number of citizens chosen on basis of their age and geographic habitat. Description The procedure of a town hearing is that the participants of the hearing are divided into a number of workshops depending on the total number of participants. The opening of the hearing is devoted to participants’ brainstorming as to which challenges each especially are aware of. Then the participants of the hearing discuss which challenges in their opinion are most important and at the same time state their reason for this. This takes place in small groups with approximately 6 persons in each group. Each group has appointed a chairperson. When the group has decided, which 4-6 challenges they want to give priority to, the chairpersons from each group meet in order to decide which of the suggested challenges shall be treated further. The chairpersons must not choose more than a predefined number (for example:12) challenges in order to assure a relevant and clear discussion. When the chairpersons reach an agreement all the participants meet and all the chosen challenges are presented. Allotment of points to the challenges are given by the participants and again only some of the challenges will be discussed further. In the afternoon each group get their challenge for which they have to set their targets. Again all the participants are assembled and once again the challenges are presented now together with the suggested targets. The participants allocate points to the targets and by doing so they give assign priority to the targets. In the process a refinement is continuously going on and at the end it is send what the citizens have chosen to be the most important to focus on. The citizens’ recommenddations and evaluations are collected during the hearing - thus at the end of the hearing a catalogue can be written containing the challenges and targets which have been formulated in the course of the day. The results will be made public available so they can be inspected by the participants, politicians, the media and other interested parties. The possibility of getting really many responses is good, however, the decision to delegate out the groups’ results into smaller groups usually means that the suggestions to be presented at the final presentation are/can be marked by the attitude of a few persons. Another problem is that it calls for the commitment of a large number of persons for one whole day. Conclusion Citizen hearings are suitable if one wishes to reach/hear the opinion of a large number of citizens. The method is not overly time-consuming compared to the number of citizens one gets in contact with. Participation scale: Consultation Process phases: Analyses, monitoring 56 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 4.3.5 - Interviews with residents Purpose The objective of an interview survey is to reveal trends and to provide qualitative factors of evaluation or discussion. Description This method involves choosing a small sample of people who are well-integrated into local relational networks and who know the district well (some twenty or thirty people for a district of 3,000 residents). These people are interviewed in their capacity as residents of the district, speaking on their own behalf, and as people who can provide information about how other residents, with whom they are in contact, relate to the district18. It is extremely important to choose these people well, as their relational skills and their ability to express the questions and problems of the other residents are emphasized rather than their representativeness. Generally, these people are chosen from networks known to the contracting authority (client). The questionnaires generally deal with neighbourhood spaces and housing: dwelling spaces such as housing, indoor and outdoor collective residential spaces, nearby urban spaces and landscapes, etc. Other problems may come to light such as mobility, perceptions and representations of space, individual and family practices (sport, leisure activities, culture, etc.), residential histories, etc. Conclusion The advantage of this system is that these people can be mobilized very quickly, while the main disadvantage is that a large proportion of the discourse escapes sociological surveys. Interviews with key players can reveal a level of detailed information about local issues that it is impossible to gain from more superficial survey techniques such as questionnaires. They can help to explain and understand local conflicts and a variety of different viewpoints. Seeking the views of people who are active in the neighbourhood can also be a first step to building relationships with them and the groups they represent. Participation scale Consultation Process phase Analysis of issues and priorities (diagnosis). 4.3.6 - Constructive evaluation Purpose This method is derived from generative and participative programming and is applied to the rehabilition of public facilities. The method aims to define projects involving the rehabilition of public facilities, optimally integrating the demands and expectations of users19. 18 19 For example, Brigitte Guigou, Generative Urban Sociology Laboratory, CSTB 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. 1) The division of the facility into transactional spaces The facility studied is divided into several spaces, each of which is characterized by: different everyday practices; various component places; players whose roles within these places are defined by the nature of the facility. This division should make it possible to consider players and places. 2) A critical examination of the facility's architectural plans A graphic architectural document, a development project is subjected to a critical examination in order to find out how the space answers the questions asked. (See following table presenting examples of questions for a nursery school: range of questions relating to the use of space. Source: footnote) The answers provided may be directly added to the plan; they make it possible to compare schemes of overall design and use. The exercise is limited by the difficulty of working on a plan and by the lack of information inherent in the plan itself. Such a critical examination can allow the project manager to engage in dialogue with partners from outside the facility and also with the users of the space. Constructive evaluation: Sample questions The nursery school and its extensions : A critical examination of a plan: list of questions This list is not exhaustive and remains open to any suggestions 1. When wearing their slippers, should the nursery-school children walk in the corridor or in places where other people wear wet shoes when it's raining? 2. Is there a risk that workshop activities could escape the surveillance of teachers or auxiliary staff? 3. Do the cloakrooms have enough room to allow the children to put away their things and tie their shoelaces without falling over each other? 4. Is it possible to teach the children to use the toilets on their own? 5. Is there a risk that children sleeping during the early afternoon could be woken by the noise of other children playing in the neighbouring corridors or playgrounds? 6. Do the children have private spaces? 7. Do the teachers have storage space (especially in the exercise room) which can be accessed while continuing to watch the children? 8. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… etc. 58 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 3) A critical tour of the facility The visit to the facility should provide information about the practices observed and reported by users, which can prove to be very different to those imagined during the critical analysis of the plans. It should make it possible to convey the modes of use of spaces and fittings. On the other hand, the internal fittings are directly visible and the space is not necessarily used as planned. Each transactional space is visited and the users in each space are involved according to their role within the space studied. The critical visit involves three phases: - a free explanation of the activities of the people who use the space, - with the people encountered, a tour of the space which they use within the building in order to note all its particularities (difficulties or advantages), - an attempt to establish dialogue with the people encountered in each space. 4) The interpretation of users' accounts of observed situations of use. This involves preparing a summary of the situations of use encountered during the visit. The document should reflect the different approaches of users and express the author's understanding of the space. Conclusion This method provides a strong structure for linking the refurbishment of a building to the way in which people use it. In this it is reminiscent of post-occupancy evaluation (POE). Participation scale This is a well structured and focussed form of consultation. Process Phase This method would be used when the decision to refurbish the building had been taken, and the project was being developed. 59 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 5. 1. Recommendations Our case studies demonstrate a wide variety of practice throughout Europe. This reflects the findings of the HQE2R Deliverable 15 (on the web site) “Participation by residents and users: legal and regulatory context”, which are summarised in section 3.2. of this document. Differences in participation practice are not coincidental, but are the result of differing approaches to regeneration, and broader political and cultural traditions. We propose our scale of participation as a tool to help different neighbourhoods and cities to analyse their current practice. We do not believe it is possible to recommend a single approach to participation, but that each locality should analyse its current situation, and attempt to move forward from there. Based on the experience gained through our case studies, the HQE2R partnership has developed a checklist to follow when developing a regeneration initiative. We recommend that those managing, and those participating in regeneration initiatives consider the following checklist when applying the scale of participaiton to their neighbourhood. 1. Analysis of past practice and current plans according to the scale of participation. Bearing in mind that practice might be uneven, achieving better participation in some parts of an initiative than in others. • • • • • Checklist for developing participation in regeneration intitiatives What lessons have been learnt from past participation or consultation exercises? National policies or laws (difficult to change)? Local policies or practices (possible to change)? Local attitudes (possible, although perhaps slow to change)? 2. What are the limiting factors within the local council to improving participation? 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. Which participation methods might be suitable to improve participation in our locality? 6. What other sources of advice or support do we need? 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 • How to bring participation into the domain of local government? In many European countries, participation is firmly in the domain of local government. In countries where participation is not central to local government activity, both top-down and bottom-up pressure is needed to alter the situation. Change through legislation is likely to take time. Local associations and professionals might, however, apply bottom-up pressure on local councils in individual cases. In such situations, findings of European research projects such as this one may be useful in demonstrating the range of practice in different countries and pointing out the range of possibilities. How not to raise hopes which cannot be fulfilled? 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. • How to deal with conflict between ‘professional’ understanding and ‘amateur’ perceptions? How do we take Sustainable Development away from the ‘experts’ and recognise that it belongs to everyone? 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 • How to achieve a real representative participation? Is there a proper distribution of ages? How to associate young people with participation in a poor neighbourhood? 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 question of representation is complex, and is different in relation to different consultation and participation tools. For a quantitative tool such as a questionnaire survey or a vote, responses should be gained from a representative sample of the population., and it should be possible to calculate their statistical significance. Activities higher up the participation scale, however, are process-oriented and likely to involve a smaller number of people; their outcomes are not quantifiable in the same way. For these types of activities, the concept of ‘representativeness’ is more difficult; • It cannot be assumed that a person from a particular group represents the views of that group as a whole • For ongoing committees and working groups, it can be difficult to sustain participation, due to the demands placed on volunteers, and a degree of turnover is inevitable. It is unrealistic to expect such a group to fully reflect the demography of the neighbourhood. 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. 5.3. Further reading on participation (annotated bibliography) As it is commonly recognized, the notion of participation is a basic fundamental principle, included in many operating programs carried on especially by the United Nations in order to promote urban sustainable development, starting back from 1990. Although participation and consensual agreement are more and more conceived as the basis for a new planning methodology in the institutional framework of advanced economic systems and they are considered within the best planning practices carried on by UE nations, in some European countries this praxis is not yet consolidated or it is applied in a discontinuous and ineffective way. In many cases, both the possibility of a friendly use of shared planning procedures and the real understanding of what they mean are not homogeneously applied and the results of uncertain efforts may cause a general mistrust, involving both planners and politicians. Moreover a failure experience could cause uneasiness and the loss of credibility. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. • Experiences, detailed references R. GOETHERT, N. HAMDI (editors) Making Microplans: A CommunityBased Process in Design and Development, IT Publications, London 1988. 63 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB - - Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - A.R. HART Children’s Participation in Planning and Design, Earthscan, London 1997. E.T. STRINGER Action Research. A Handbook for Practitioners, Sage, London 1996. Nick WATES Action planning: how to use planning weekends and urban design action teams to improve your environment - compiled and edited by Nick Wates ; foreword by HRH the Prince of Wales - The Prince of Wales Institute of Architecture, London 1996. • 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 - Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - - - - - - Michel CONAN (editor) Perspectives pour la maîtrise d’ouvrage publique, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1995. Michel CONAN, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE L’expérience d’une ville nouvelle au service de l’amélioration des groupes scolaires, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), Paris 1995. Michel CONAN, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Craig ZIMRING Maisons de l’Étudiant - Ouvrage + Mémento, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1995. Michel CONAN, Patrice SECHER, Joëlle BORDET, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Jean-Dider LAFORGUE Memento-stock de programmation générative pour l’habitat des personnes âgées, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1989. Conseil d’État L’utilité publique aujourd’hui, La Documentation Française, 1999. Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE Évaluation de la qualité d’usage des établissement pour personnes âgées, DGUHC-CSTB, 1999. Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, with Michel CONAN Évaluation de la qualité d’usage des groupes scolaires. Morceaux choisis d’une expérimentation, Direction Générale de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de la Construction - Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1998. Maryvonne DE SAINT PULGENT Le syndrome de l’Opéra, Robert Laffont, 1991. Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville Une analyse des modes de participation des habitants et des acteurs sociaux dans la définition et la mise en œuvre au plan local, des actions menées au titre de la politique de la ville, Contribution n°5 au rapport sueur, 1997. Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville, Direction de l’Architecture et de l’Urbanisme Place des habitants et leur participation aux processus d’élaboration des projets urbains, 1997. Pierre DIMÉGLIO “Pour la programmation générative et participative des projets urbains”, Urbanisme, October 2001. Pierre DIMÉGLIO, Jean-Dider Laforgue “Intervention de projets urbains pour les habitants” in “Perspectives pour la maîtrise d’ouvrage publique”, Plan Construction et Architecture, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1996, pp.88-96. Jaques DONZELOT L’État animateur, Esprit, 1994. Jaques DONZELOT, Catherine MEVEL “La Politique de la Ville. Une comparaison entre les USA et la France. Mixité sociale, et développement communautaire”, 2001 Plus. Veille internationale n°56, May 2001, DRASTDGUHC. Philippe ESTINGOY, Michel RABATEL Montage et suivi d’une opération de construction, Le Moniteur, 1994. Fédération Nationale des Agences d’Urbanisme Participations des habitants aux projets urbains, 1997. Tarso GENRO, Ubitaran de SOUZA Quand les habitants gèrent vraiment leur ville, Charles Léopold Mayer. Jaques GODBOUT La participation contre la démocratie, Saint-Martin, 1983. Georges GONTCHAROFF 2001, L’Odyssée municipale - Tome 8 - La reprise en main de la politique par les citoyens ou la démocratie locale participative, ADELS (Association pour la Démocratie et l’Éducation locale et sociale) 2001. Georges GONTCHAROFF Connaissance des institutions publiques, L’Harmattan. 65 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - - - IAURIF Démocratie participative et aménagement régional, 4 volumes “Points de vue croisés”, April 2000, “Actes de la table ronde du 27 avril 2000”, August 2000, “Actes de la table ronde du 28 novembre 2000: construire un projet de territoire”, March 2001, “Une méthode de participation dynamique et ses applications aux projets renouvellement urbain, compte rendu de la réunion d’information du 7 juin 2001”, July 2001. Patrizia INGALLINA Le projet urbain, PUF. Jean-Dider LAFORGUE, Patrice SECHER Mémento dynamique sur les espaces semi privatifs, espaces collectifs, espace urbain et de voisinage, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1992. Françoise LUGASSY with Philippe DARD, Jaqueline PALMADE L’impossible participation, Centre de Recherche en Urbanisme, 1977. Jan Marc MADOSIO Après l’effondrement, L’Encyclopédie des Nuisances, 1999. Ministère Délégué à la ville La démocratie locale - Des pratiques en mouvement. Rencontre nationale des conseils de quartier et de la démocratie locale, March April 2001. Martine PATTOU Entre normes et usage, Plans construction et architecture, 1998 Michel RAGON L’architecte, le prince et la Démocratie. Vers une démocratisation de l’architecture? Albin Michel, 1977. Pierre ROSANVALLON La démocratie inachevée. Histoire de la souveraineté du peuple de France, Gallimard, NFR-bibliothèque des histoires, 2000. Ignacy SACHS Développer les champs de planification, Université Coopérative Internationale, Paris 1984. Patrice SECHER, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Jean-Dider LAFORGUE Rapport sur l’évaluation du programme SEPIA et de la méthode de programmation générative pour l’habitat des personnes vieillissantes, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1992. Jean-Pierre SUEUR Demain la ville, La Documentation Française, Tome 1, 1998. Dominique TESSIER “Activité en entreprise et conception de l’architecture”, Plan Construction et Architecture, 1992, pp.9-22. H. THOMAS La production des exclus. Politiques sociales et processus de désocialisation sociopolitique, PUF, Paris 1997. John THOMSON & Partners Atelier d’urbanisme d’Aubergenville - Compte-rendu des journées de participation du 10 au 24 novembre 1998, 1999. Jodelle ZETLAOUI L’universitaire et ses métiers. Contribution à l’analyse des espaces de travail - introduction by Robert Hérin, l’Harmattan coll. “villes et entreprises”, 1999. • Experiences, detailed references A.A.V.V. Actions culturelle dans la ville, Culture et Proximité, 2000. A.A.V.V. Actions culturelle dans les quartiers, Culture et Proximité, 1998. ADELS - Association pour la Démocratie et l’éducation locale et Sociale - (editor) Conseils de quartier - modes d’emploi, ADELS 2003 (second edition). Michel BONETTI, Joëlle BORDET, Brigitte GUIGOU, Jodelle ZETLAOUI Évaluation d’une opération de réhabilitation de logements HLM à Nangis (Seine et Marne), CSTB, March 1995. Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Jodelle ZETLAOUI “L’évaluation au service de la qualité d’usages des équipements publics: le métier de conducteur d’opération”, in Les métiers de l’urbanisme, Annales de la recherche urbaine n°88, December 2000, pp.39-48. 66 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB - Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - - Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Jodelle ZETLAOUI “Les maisons de l’Étudiant: quels projets de vie pour quels espaces”, in “Université en ville”, Urbanisme, MarchApril 2001, pp.68-72. Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, JODELLE ZETLAOUI Pratiques de programmation des conducteurs d’opération dans le cadre de la réalisation de groupes scolaires, Direction Générale de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de la Construction - Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), November 1998. Plan Urbanisme, Construction et Architecture La Formulation de la Commande Urbaine et Architecturale, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 30th novembre - 1 décembre 2000. Jodelle ZETLAOUI “Enjeux et obstacles à la prise en compte de l’usage en matière de constructions universitaires: Proposition d’une démarche d’évaluation au service de la qualité d’usages”, in Pourquoi évaluer a posteriori nos réalisation, Mission Interministérielle pour la Qualité des constructions Publiques - Institut de Programmation en Architecture et en Aménagement, 19 novembre 1999, actes dans la Lettre de l’IPAA, November 2000. • 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - Alberto MAGNAGHI La dialettica locale/globale per uno sviluppo locale autosostenibile, Firenze 1997, unpublished. Alberto MAGNAGHI, Raffaele PALOSCIA (editors) text by Mariarita ANDREOLA [et al.] Per una trasformazione ecologica degli insediamenti, Franco Angeli, Milano c1992 Francesco Domenico MOCCIA Collaborazione tra pubblico e privato nel recupero urbano: Pittsburgh 1945-1988, Clean, Napoli c1990. G. PABA “Sofferenza e competenza. Su alcuni dilemmi del rapporto tra bambini e città”, in La Nuova Città, n. 1, 1997/98. Gabriele PASQUI (editor) La costruzione del "locale" nelle politiche pubbliche del territorio, DAEST- Dipartimento di analisi economica e sociale del territorio, Venezia 1998. G. PELLICCIARI Pianificazione, ricerca, partecipazione. Un metodo per le politiche sociali, Franco Angeli, Milano 1992. Ignacy SACHS, edited by Maurizio FRABONI I nuovi campi della pianificazione (Déveloper les champs de planification), Edizioni lavoro, Roma c1988. Alberto ZIPARO Pianificazione ambientale e trasformazioni urbanistiche: problemi e metodi di integrazione delle procedure di bilancio di impatto ambientale nelle pratiche di piano (chapter 6 about participation), Gangemi, Roma c1988. • Detailed references, experiences AA.VV. La guida alle città sostenibili delle bambine e dei bambini, Ministero dell'ambiente, 1998. Luigi AMODIO (editor) Atelier del futuro: la metodologia European Awareness Scenario Workshop per promuovere la partecipazione nei processi di innovazione e sviluppo sostenibile, Cuen, Napoli c1999. (Please find enclosed: European Awareness Scenario Workshop: idee e strumenti per l'adattamento in Italia, edited by Gerardo de Luzenberger, 1999). John F. CHARLEWOOD TURNER L’abitare autogestito (Housing by people), con nota conclusiva per l’edizione italiana di Robi Ronza, Jaca Book, Milano 1978. J. ELLIOTT A. GIORDAN, C. SCURATI La ricerca-azione. Metodiche, strumenti, casi, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1993. LAMEDICA La progettazione partecipata: metodologie ed esperienze, Comune di Fano, Fano 1998. Giancarlo PABA Luoghi comuni: la città come laboratorio di progetti collettivi, Franco Angeli, Milano c1998. G. PABA “Progettare insieme. Partecipazione e comunità nella città di oggi”, in I confini della città, n. 21, 1996. Giorgio PIZZIOLO, Rita MICCARELLI L’arte delle relazioni, Alinea, Firenze 2003. Marianella SCLAVI Avventure urbane - Progettare la citta’ con gli abitanti, Eleutera, Milano 2002. Francesco TONUCCI La città dei bambini : un modo nuovo di pensare la città, Laterza, Roma - Bari 1996. - - 68 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - • 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. • Experiences, detailed references I.E. ANDERSEN, L.D. NIELSEN, M. ELLE, O. DANIELSEN “The scenario workshop in technology assessment”, paper presented at The Third European Congress on Technology Assessment, Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen 1992. - - - 69 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - I.E. ANDERSEN, L.D. NIELSEN, M. ELLE, O. DANIELSEN Byøkologiske øjebliksbilleder. Visioner, barrierer og muligheder for at handle, report from Danish project, Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen 1993. R. BILDERBEEK, I.E. ANDERSEN “Raising awareness among citizens: experience from European local scenario workshops on sustainable urban development”, EPTA Newsletter, 10 (1995). Toini S. FLORIS, Charlotte BIDSTED Brugerbestyrelser på tvaers - erfaringer fra kommuner og amter (User-boards across-experience from municipalities and counties), AKF Forlaget, Copenhagen 1996. • 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, LamuvVerlag, 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, Wohnungsund 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 Kommunikationsund 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 - - - - Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - - - - Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in eigenen und gemeinschaftlichen Belangen Lambertus, Freiburg im Breisgau 1996. Wolfgang HINTE Bewohner ermutigen, aktivieren, organisieren – Methoden und Strukturen für ein effektives Stadtteilmanagement. In: Monika Alisch (publisher), Stadtteilmanagement: Voraussetzungen und Chancen für die soziale Stadt, Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1998. Lars HOLTKAMP Bürgerbeteiligung in Städten und Gemeinden. Ein Praxisleitfaden für die Bürgerkommune; Berlin; 2000. Bernd KAMMERER (editor) Beteiligung von Kindern, für Kinder, mit Kindern, Emwe-Verlag, Nürnberg 2001. Ministerium für Stadtentwicklung, “Wohnen und Verkehr des Landes Brandenburg 1995: Bürgerbeteiligung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit bei der Weiterentwicklung industriell errichteter Wohngebiete: Instrumente Beispiele und Handlungsempfehlungen”, Schriftenreihe Heft N.17. Georg MÜLLER-CHRIST (publisher) Nachhaltigkeit durch Partizipation Bürgerbeteiligung im Agendaprozeß; Sternenfels; 1998. Marga PRÖHL, Heidi SINNING, Stefan NÄHRLICH, (editors) Bürgerorientierte Kommunen in Deutschland. Anforderungen und Qualitätsbausteine, Band 3: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven des Netzwerkes CIVITAS, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh 2002. Martin SCHLEGEL Städtische Lebensqualität auf dem Prüfstand - Die kommunale Umfrage als Element der Bürgerbeteiligung in: RaumPlanung (1997)76, S. 34-38. Gerd SCHMIDT-EICHSTÄDT Städtebaurecht, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1998 (3rd edition). Andreas SCHMITZ, Andreas PÄTZ Lebendige Städte bauen - Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der Gestaltung des öffentlichen Raumes - Ansatz, Ergebnisse und Evaluation des Prozesses in: RaumPlanung (2000)89, S. 67-71. Klaus SELLE Kooperatives Problemlösen. In: Stefan Brochnig, Klaus Selle (publisher) Freiräume für die Stadt: sozial und ökologisch orientierter Umbau von Stadt und Region, Bauverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden-Berlin 1993. Adelheit STIPPROWEIT, et al. Bürgerbeteiligung und Lokale Agenda 21 - Eine Fallstudie zur Lösung lokaler Umweltproblemen in: Pro Regio (2001)26-27, S. 3846. Anja WENDLAND Mitbestimmung oder Beteiligung im Laufstall? Zur Diskussion um Partizipation in der sozialen Stadtteilentwicklung, Kleine Verlag, Bielefeld 2002. Wolf RAINER WENDT Bürgerschaft und zivile Gesellschaft: Ihr Herkommen und ihre Perspektiven. In: Wolf Rainer Wendt Zivilgesellschaft und soziales Handeln: Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in eigenen und gemeinschaftlichen Belangen, Lambertus, Freiburg im Breisgau 1996. • Experiences, detailed references Foerderverein für Jugend- und -Sozialarbeit e.V. (fjs, no year given); PLANNING FOR REAL Ein ganzheitlicher Ansatz gemeinwesenorientierter Projektentwicklung; Einfuehrung in Arbeitsweise, Arbeitsmaterial und Methode; Dokumente zweier Workshops im September 1993 in Neubaugebieten von Berlin und Potsdam, fjs-Arbeitshefte, Schriftenreihe des Foerdervereins für Jugend- und sozialarbeit e.V., Bd. 6, Berlin. - 71 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - Helgrit FISCHER-MENZEL, Michael Wernecke Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Stadterneuerung. Beispiel: Karl-Theodor-Straße, Hamburg Schriftenreihe des BMBau - Stadtentwicklung. 02.020 Bonn, 1980. Detlef GARBE, Hubert Heimann Bürgerbeteiligung und Stadtentwicklung - Das Konzept der Stadt Solingen aben in: RaumPlanung (1992)57, S. 82-87. Oliver IBERT Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Bürgerbeteiligung - Erweiterte Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der Planungen zur Expo 2000 in Hannover in: RaumPlanung (1998)82, S. 145-150. Maria LÜTTRINGHAUS “Stadtentwicklung und Partizipation Fallstudien aus Essen Katernberg und der Dresdener Äußeren Neustadt”, Demokratieentwicklung N.17. Alexander Riesen, Christoph Hagen, Johannes Fulgraff Bürgergutachten als Instrument partizipativer Stadtplanung - Ein Praxisbericht aus den Städten Apolda, Meiningen und Nordhausen in: Standort 23(1999)2, S. 26-31. Barbara SCHATZ, Reinhard SELLNOW Ökologische Stadterneuerung Nürnberg Gostenhof-Ost in: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (1997)8/9, S. 543-556. Volker von TIEDEMANN, Ursula KLEIMEIER, Christian KOPETZKI, Hildebrand MACHLEIDT Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Stadterneuerung. Beispiel: Strategien für Kreuzberg Schriftenreihe des BMBau - Stadtentwicklung. 02.021 Bonn, 1980. • Web references www.wegweiseruergergesellschaft.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, 20002001. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 consumer interests including protection of the environment, restraints or abuse by business etc.; the policy or program of protecting the interests of the consumer). • Experiences, detailed references Gemeente Utrecht Jaarverslag 2000: Dialoog in de Stad. Gemeente Zoetermeer GEA Informatie Milieucommunicatie - doelgroep scholen, 1996. P.J. GOEDHART Zoetermeer - Lokale Agenda 21, 2000. KUKA Hannover (Kronsberg Umwelt Kommunikations Agentur 2000) Wohnen auf dem Kronsberg: Informationen für Hausbesitzer. KUKA Hannover Umweltkommunikation in der nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung, 1998. Projectgroep Leidsche Rijn: Stappenplan/Communicatieplan, 1994. • 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. • Experiences, detailed references Ayuntamiento de Bilbao Reglamento de Organización de los distritos y de la participación ciudadana : aprobado en sesión plenaria de 16-II-89, Ayuntamiento de Bilbao. Area de Relaciones Ciudadans y Descentralización, 1989. M. DOMINGO, M. BONET Barcelona i els moviments socials urbans. Barcelona, Mediterrània, 1998. • Web references http://www.diba.es/flordemaig/oafm/cpc/index.htm Centre per la Participació Ciutadana. 73 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB - - Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 GENERAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN EUROPE • 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 M. ELDEN Varieties of Participative Research, in A. Cherns [et al.] Communities in Crisis, Gower, Brookfield (Vt.) 1985. C. ARGYRIS, D. A. SRÖN, Participatory Action Research and Action Science compared: a Commentary, in W. F. WHYTE (editor), Participatory Action Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park (CA) 1991. Barbara BECKER, [et al.] Community Planning: An introduction to the Comprehensive Plan, Paperback. O.F. BORDA, M. A. RAHAMAN Action and Knowledge: breaking the Monopoly with Participatorv Action-Research, Apex Press, New York 1991. 74 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB - Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - Nancy BRAGADO, Judy CORBETT, Sharon SPROWLS Building livable communities: a policymaker's guide to infill development - prepared by the Center for livable communities, a Local government commission initiative - Local Government Commission, Sacramento (CA) 1995. John M. BRYSON, Barbara C. CROSBY Leadership for the common good: tackling public problems in a shared-power world, Jossey-Bass publishers, San Francisco c1992. B.CASSARRA Participatory Research: Group Self-directed Learning from Social Transformation, University of Georgia, Adult Education, 1985. Roger W. CAVES Land use planning: the ballot box revolution, Sage, Newbury Park 1992. David D. CHRISLIP, Carl E. LARSON Collaborative leadership: how citizens and civic leaders can make a difference - foreword by John Parr - Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1994. James L. CREIGHTON The public involvement manual, Abt Books, Cambridge (Mass.) c1981. Jack DE SARIO, Stuart LANGTON (editors) Citizen participation in public decision making - prepared under the auspices of the Policy studies organization. Greenwood press, New York 1987. Michael P. DURKEE [et al.] Land-use initiatives and referenda in California Point Arena (CA), Solano Press Books 1990. Merrelyn EMERY, Ronald E. PURSER The search conference: a powerful method for planning organizational change and community action, epilogue by Fred Emery, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (CA) c1996. Eben V. FODOR Better not bigger: how to take control of urban growth and improve your community, New Society, Stony Creek, Conn. 1999. John FORESTER The Deliberative Practitoner Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Paperback. John FORESTER Planning in the face of power, University of California press, Berkeley c1989. William FOOTE (editors) Whyte Participatory action research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park (CA) c1991. Jinny GRAVES [et al.] Walk around the block, Center for understanding the built environment, Prairie Village (Ks.) c1992. Nabeel HAMDI Housing without houses: partecipation, flexibility, enablement with a foreword by John F.C. Turner - Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York c1991. Bernie JONES Neighborhood planning: a guide for citizens and planners, APA, Chicago - Washington c1990. Bruce W. Mcclendon Customer service in local government: challenges for planners and managers, American planning association, Chicago - Washington c1992. C. Nicholas MOORE, Dave DAVIS Participation tools for better land-use planning: techniques and case studies - prepared by the Center for livable communities, a project of the Local government commission - Judy Corbett and Sharon Sprowls - Local Government Commission, 2nd ed., Sacramento (CA) 1997. - - 75 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 - John MONTGOMERY, Andy THORNLEY (editors) New directions for urban planning in the 1990s - in association with Planning practice and reseach Radical planning initiatives - Gower, Aldershot c1990. Douglas R. PORTER, Patrick L. PHILLIPS, Colleen GROGAN MOORE Working with the community: a developer's guide - sponsored by the executive group of the Development regulations council of ULI-the Urban land institute - ULI, Washington 1985. Lynda H. SCHNEEKLOTH, Robert G. SHIBLEY PLACEMAKING The art and practice of building communities, John Wiley, New York c1995 D.A. SCHON The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York 1991. R. Scott FOSLER, Renee A. Berger (editors) Public-private partnership in american cities: seven case studies, Lexington Books, Lexington-Toronto c1982. Frank S. SO, Irving HAND, Bruce D. McDOWELL (editors) The practice of state and regional planning, APA, Chicago (Ill.) c1986 (chapter. 12). S. Mark WHITE [et al.] Planning and community equity: a component of APA's agenda for America's communities program, APA, Chicago-Washington c1994. Nick WATES The Community Planning Handbook: How People Can Shape Their Cities, Towns and Villages in Any Part of the World, Paperback (USA). - WEBSITES - GENERAL INTERESTS 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.parnet.org PARnet (The Cornell Participatory Action Research Network), Cornell University. In "PARarchives". Searching "Youth, Participation, Action Research" it is possible finding 168 titles in English. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. www.un.org Official website of United Nations. 77 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. The Maslov Need Hierarchy for human needs: Physiological needs: the basic requirements for survival (food, clothing, shelter) Safety needs: requirements for some level of security, freedom from threat Social needs: the requirements to feel wanted, loved, cared for, to belong Esteem needs: the requirements for a sense of personal worth and identity, for status, for personal recognition, etc. Self-actualisation: the requirement for self-fulfillment, to become what one is capable of becoming. 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 Dimensions of participation/Governance (ref.: HQE2R Participation scale) Coercion Information Awareness Consultation Empowerment Self-government So the conclusion is: “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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 Communication costs (cc) Project costs (pc) Social/ quality costs (sc) 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. The project process In scheme 1 (annex) the process-flow is indicated with the motives leading to that process. Three main categories of actors are indicated: politics, proprietors and (other) private bodies and/or individuals. So (1): in the communication/participation process the motives, the project stage and the position of the actor play a deciding role (or: relating to costs, a restrictive role?) The simplified communication scheme In figure 1 the sender and the receiver are indicated. Communication-distance and “disturbing or loosing of contents” of the message are the important items, together with the state of ”synchronised minds” of the actors. 80 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 INTERNAL FACTORS - Image/Cultivation/Recognation - Direct communication lines yes/no - Comprehensibility of a message EXTERNAL FACTORS - Countervailing power COMMUNICATION DISTANCE Interference SENDER (municipality) . - Task (education/participation) .- Objective RECEIVER (inhabitants/users) .- Interests .- (Future) expectations .- Social needs FEED-BACK Figure 1: Communication scheme So (2): a message must be embodied in a communication strategy, the communication distance must be as short as possible (or: avoid anonymous actors and take care for a fair and same level of information of sender and receiver (instruction programme/strategy). Detailed communication scheme Figure 2 must be used as a summarised overview and be used as a reminder by the design of a communication plan. It has been based on a conception of producer (urban space) and consumer (urban space market). 81 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 "Environment" (general administration/agency/consumer organizations, line of business organizations, influential private actors, public utility, municipality). - General public relations - Design, building-up and guarding of positive image - planreputation Target/Planning/ Budgetting/ Organization communicationplan knowledge/contacts expertise/information desk target groups Market file first inventory indicators actors/targetgroups File - model function - model projects - prestige Knowledge and experience dissemination information/instruction Training Publicity Direct marketing ACTIONS media choice Rewards contest elements Testing Commissioning Specifications regulations Quality Control Figure 2: detailed communication scheme 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 background and the society. Counteracting (consumerism) power is induced by being ignored (so communicate and give possibility to participate), feeling inability, discontent and discomfort. Configuration of powers on the market In scheme 2 (annex) the powers of the different actor categories (government/ municipality; society; investor/developer/designer and consumer) meet on the (urban space) market and influence each other. 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). Figure 3: Decision making COMMUNICATION Energy saving Investment Pay-back period DECISION MAKING Financing Image/prestige Comfort Future expectations Idealistic motives So (6): Participation/communication is a necessity. Decision-making on lowest prices only, is not realistic. In this respect the quality of the project will be increased and the total project and social costs often reduced. The one-face principle Figure 4 shows that it is an absolute necessity to organise one voice in the communication process. Nothing leads to such an annoyance as to receive on different times, from different actors, different and uncoordinated messages. 83 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 The “one-face” principle towards the client Government Government company Municipality One co-ordinated message Consultant Intermediar Clients SME’s Utility company Etc. © Copyright Ambit 2002 Figure 4: The one-face principle towards the client So (7): Communication/participation must be organised to reach clearness in one co-ordinated message on logic moments, speaking with one voice. Also, however, the actors should take initiatives and assistance to organise the “receiver-side”. Motives are the reality to enable the communication in physical and feasible sense, spreading responsibility and hoping for (trusting in) a process of social cohesion that leads to active participation, and (8): make use of the existing (municipal) communication channels. Often the municipal organisation has a good communication network and a structure of suboffices in the neighbourhood nearby the actors. Data-processing of communicating process The opening of a communication (mailing) procedure to the numerous individuals (households: small house owners and tenants) must be carefully prepared. The use of municipal data and automatic processing of data are necessary (see scheme 3: annex). A limiting factor is the need to guarantee privacy. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 guarantee for privacy is a must (general data to be processed in a black-box and framing of an ethical protocol?) Flow scheme mailing In scheme 4 (annex) a mailing process is presented, which has proven itself in practice (Thermie-plus project Utrecht.NL). The procedure demands an active approach, which is unavoidable in the communication process towards participation. Anyhow, every communication/participation process to numerous participants starts with a mailing procedure. Attention, however, should be paid to the quick developing use of e-mail. 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). III. Applications/ method/ organisation General accepted is that communication/participation is a necessity for a successful project and a right of the consumers of urban space (inhabitants/users). The objectives have been formulated, while ten general points to be considered are presented. Further, the system should be one horizontal structure with “equal” actors (participating). However, to give a structure to the system we define the project team (with municipality as initiator) as the active (direct) part (supply-side) and the other parties concerned as receivers (indirect actors). Starting document Action 1: The municipality takes the initiative with the project-organisation to draft a startingdocument 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). Summarised communication strategy Action 3: The communication manager must first make an analysis to prepare the draft of the communication strategy. He has to make an inventory of all actors involved divided in: Present Actors Future Direct (project organisation) Indirect 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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 5: A first working document on communication/participation must be drafted with a general communication strategy projected on the (general) project objectives and modified to get the optimum project results with an estimation of costs and benefits. The activities must be given a budget. Action 6: The proposals must now follow a procedure to obtain approval and commitment. This process is mostly a political affair. After this a momentum has to be reached with four fixed points: 1. 2. 3. 4. Project objective(s) Communication and participation objectives (Amended) communication strategy 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. Detailed communication plan Action 7: A detailed communication plan/participation plan must be drafted, starting with an analysis of actors with their needs and interests. The following datasheet is recommended: scheme 7 (annex). It should be born in mind that there is a main division in the actor categories: the business oriented contacts and the “concerned ones”. Although the first category must be included in the plans (strategy, information) the second category is the objective for participation because the initiative lies by the project organisation/municipality. 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 Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Means Actors (indirect) Representatives / Organisations Inhabitants small owners Inhabitants tenants Panels Consumer organisations Interest groups Small business / Services Business organisations/ Industry Chamber of Commerce SME's organisations Institutes / Associations Real estate owners houses Real estate owners others Health / Sport associations Figure 5: Summarised overview of communication means The start of the process Action 9: Try to give an actual start on the project/the dialogue with the actors by e.g. a striking start event and try to get as much publicity as possible for this event. Such a start is strongly recommended, because it gives some sort of acknowledge to the project communication and the initiatives taken and the recognition of messages by the “receiver- side”. Further development is required to come to a participation level. This includes “transparency of the project”: project information and education/instruction (by preference to be organised via an independent ”third” party). It must be mutual agreed upon how to structure the participation process and how to structure horizontal co-operation and co-ordination (between different categories of actors). 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. The developed participation process Action 10: The participation process now has to be fully developed. This means that internal and external activities must now be fitted in an organisation structure: Internal: 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 ai li In ngs fo r / In ma Bro fo tio ch r In ma n (w ure st tio r s it r / In uct n (v ten Qu st ion er ) es ru ba t io Pu ct (w nn i o r it l) bl n ai ic (v ten re Ed a ) uc cti erb on al R ati ew on s ( ) ad (C a rd ve on s rti se D sum /Co m ire m en ct er pe La S )P ti t) to un tru an n ch ctu el e St ru ing ra s lem l c en Te tur ma Co ts le al ni ns co pa fe ul m rt sta ta / E icip tio tion -m a t n ai ion l Actor Status: Leaving the area Staying in the area - permanent - temporary other accommodation required Future inhabitants / users Other interest groups / Individuals M Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. In future special attention should be given to electronic communication because commitment can be (easier) built and the feedback is simplified. However, it should be born in mind that anonymous systems always tend to less understanding of problems of other groups/individuals and/or the project (So: direct contacts remain even more required). In larger projects it is recommended to open an information centre where people can freely walk in and out and ask questions. 88 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Actor categories: Leaving Staying: permanent temporary removing Actor group Actor group Future (formation of a representative panel existing contacts/market research) Others Plenary Opinion leaders Groups Groups Elected Elected representative representative associations associations Panels Panels Direct and open Direct and open consulting/meetings consulting/meetings fixed structures fixed structures correspondence correspondence professional accompaniment professional accompaniment Mailings Mailings CableTV local news Cable TV local news Interactive technics/internet/e-mail Interactive technics/internet/e-mail Hearings/open meetings Hearings/open meetings Walk-in evenings Walk-in evenings Education/Information evenings Education/Information evenings Demonstrations Demonstrations Project Project communication group communication group Participation Participation Conflicts/ complains © Ambit 2002 Figure 6: Communication scheme with groups 89 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 IV. Coherence methodology and communication procedure In figure 7 the basic coherence between the HQE2R methodology and the communication/participation is expressed. The scheme forms a starting point for the drafting of a communication strategy and further plan development. HQE2R methodology Five main objectives 21 sub objectives Indisputable indicators Neighbourhood Neighbourhood typology typology Project Project Possible general plenary session/ Possible general plenary session/ first inventory first inventory Basic needs Basic needs and wishes and wishes LOCAL ISSUES Local needs and wishes Technical development Technical development Communication/ Communication/ participation participation Legal Project procedure Figure 7: Cohesion methodology and communication strategy/plan 90 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 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. The use of the following datasheet is recommended: Actorgroup: ………… Organised/represented: yes/no, contact: ……….. Number of contacts: ……….. Basic needs and wishes Local issues/needs/wishes (refer to page 77/78) Ref. deliverable 14 Figure 8: Datasheet “needs and wishes” for the communication process 91 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14 HQE R 2 Initiative Motive urban development Plan- development/ Projectprocess 1. Site Location politics/ municipality social 2. Rough planning Landuse/Rehabilitation/Demolishing-recycling 3. Detailled planning Landuse/Rehabilitation/Demolishing-recycling 4. Property transfer process 5. Building design Actors, being ground and/or object proprietors social-economical imago/prestige technical necessity (state of building and neighbourhood) Private infra-structural development safety Quality/Planning/Budgetting economical INITIATIVE Legal bilatoral relation C 6. Building process 7. Commissioning 8. Management Maintain process others 2002 Ambit • 92 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB • Scheme 1: The project process MANUFACTURER PROJECT DEVELOPER Marketing Selling Financial economic GOVERNMENT MUNICIPALITY Social marketing Resulting power via inserted instruments (4P´s) c Social Laws, general policy, instruction/advice, directions and inspections a Resulting counterforce C1 by marktbalance (consumerism) * individual * collective * ad hoc. * organized a MARKET b b Progressive Ideas and perceptions Ethics Culture (marketing research) b c c1 a b Resulting power C1 Consumer rights SOCIETY Conservative Absorption area (threshold value by exceeding a reaction arises) CONSUMER OF URBAN SPACE 93 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB MUNICIPALITY Real Estate data Object data (neighbourhood code/date of construction) Scheme 2: Configuration of powers on the market Special projects Priority factors Actor profile Unique code: postal code/ housenumber BASIS Real Estate taxes Databank (address/name/status) Cadastral data (housing/owners associations) BLACK BOX Consumption data public utilities (energy/water/waste) Names/addresses Input Data file output Priority Project data dBASE input Actors Scheme 3: Data-processing of communicating process Participants © Ambit 2002 94 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Schema 3: Data-processing of communicating process LETTER MAILING SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT LEAFLET LETTER DATE INFO-SESSION REPLY CARD NO REACTION ANNOUNCEMENT LETTER CONFIRMATION INFO FILE INFO-SESSION FREE GIFT SEVERAL LEAFLETS SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT NO REACTION 2nd REMINDER 1st REMINDER NO REACTION Returners from negative decision REPLY CARD LETTER REPLY CARD NO REACTION FILE QUOTATION SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT NO REACTION 3th REMINDER NO REACTION QUOTATION SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT ONE OR MORE CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS EVENTUAL GRANT ASSIGNMENT Returners from negative decision ONE OR MORE QUOTATIONS ENERGY ADVICE LETTER REPLY CARD Returners from negative decision LETTER REPLY CARD NO REACTION NO REACTION 4th REMINDER Returners from negative decision fall off Scheme 4: Flow scheme mailing 95 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB Deliverable 14 HQE R 2 The Linking-pin system (by Likert) EU Steering Committee Management team Coordination team Work group 1 Work group 2 Work group 3 Work group 4 Work group 5 © Ambit-2002 Scheme 5: project organisation 86 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB One-face principle communication channels objective - strategy - plan - execution feedback message receipt notice communication / participation awareness action actors present future organisation direct actors project organisation matrix structures means steering committee coordination group Linking Pin System workgroups Communication centre One face principle indirect actors communication strategy individuals representatives / organisations plenary inhabitants small owners tenants panels consumer organisations interest groups small business / services business organisations / industry chamber of commerce SME’s organisations institutes/ associations real estate owners houses others health / sport associations/culture/social institutions groups © Ambit 2002 Scheme 6: Organisation structure communication/participation 87 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB methods Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R 2 Actorgroup Number of contacts Leaving the area Status of the actor Organised Staying in the area Yes Future inhabitants Other interestgroups No Required / users and neighbours yes / no Permanent Temporary other Representation Representation accommodation required general accepted poor accepted For each actorgroup the following datasheet should be completed: Actorgroup: Number of contacts: Discription of interests: Discription of needs: Contacts / data inputs / sources: Individual contacts required: Representative organisations: yes no / contacts: Formation of a representative organisation required: yes no: Strategy and actions required for reaching an acceptable level of communication/participation: Existing communication channels (municipality contacts): Scheme: 7 Datasheet actor 88 La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
Copyright © 2022 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.