Community Engagement in Urban Experiments: Joint Effort for Sustainable Urban Transformation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2023.22.09Keywords:
community engagement, urban experiments, collaborative governanceAbstract
The increasing complexity of urban regeneration issues has recently made multi-stakeholder collaboration an important part to solve policy problems. While residents form an important part in a variety of collaborative governance processes, approaches used are often criticized as too formal, and lacking more inclusive participation. Therefore, new informal mechanisms of collaboration are sought, to ensure a more effective engagement and representation of population groups. Although community-led participation is the approach that leads to a more effective collaborative process, issues of power and inequality are a challenge in many places in planning practice [13]. Ways of civic empowerment, communication, and negotiation provide participants with transformative learning opportunities so that not only their arguments change but also the participants of the participation process themselves [6]. In order to test urban development ideas, the notion of "urban experiment" has been developed in recent years as a recognized and effective approach. The urban environment is viewed as a creative laboratory for testing the implementation of diverse initiatives and innovations [8]. The inner-city neighbourhoods in many cities are struggling to ensure vitality and liveability, thus these areas often represent a widespread location of urban experiments. In addition to these questions, the problem of community representation manifests itself in many inner cities. The potential to transform city centre streets and vacant areas into user-friendly urban spaces and the impact of those transformations on the city’s livability were recently tested by Riga municipality. Urban experiments varied in scale and form, resulting in street pedestrianization, urban gardens, and other temporary initiatives, which allowed more space for walking and cycling, street sales, social events and other activities. Thus, the aim of this article is to explore processes of testbed planning with regard to the role of community participation in the designing, implementing, and analysing phases of the experiment. After presenting the findings, the article concludes with a discussion on factors that influence public participation in collaborative governance including communication, the balance of interests, and the degree of resident involvement in decision-making.
References
AlWaer, H., Rintoul, S., Cooper, I. An investigation into decision-making and delivery activities following design-led events in collaborative planning. Archnet-IJAR, 2021, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 752–773. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-10-2020-0246
Bertolini, L. From “streets for traffic” to “streets for people”: can street experiments transform urban mobility? Transport Reviews, 2020, vol. 40, no. 6, p. 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1761907
Booher, D. E., Innes, J. E. 2002. Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2002, vol. 21, no. 3, p. 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301
Boonstra, B., Boelens, L. Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research and Practice, 2011, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2011.579767
Bovaird, T. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 2007, vol. 67, p. 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x
Brand, R., Gaffikin, F. Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory, 2007, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 282–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207082036
Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.x
Caprotti, F., Cowley, R. Interrogating urban experiments. Urban Geography, 2017, vol. 38, no. 9, p. 1441–1450. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1265870
Evans, J., Karvonen, A., Raven, R. The experimental city: New modes and prospects of urban transformation. In: The Experimental City, ed. J. Evans, A. Karvonen, and R. Raven. London: Routledge, 2016, p. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315719825
Evans, J., Vácha, T., Kok, H., Watson, K. How cities learn: From experimentation to transformation. Urban Planning, 2021, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 171–182. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3545
Finn, D. DIY urbanism: implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 2014, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.891149
Geipele, S., Kundzina, A., Pudzis, E., Lazdins, A. Evaluation of Community Involvement in Participatory Process – Lessons Learned in the Baltic Sea Region. Architecture and Urban Planning, 2020, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 56–65. https://doi.org/10.2478/aup-2020-0009
Healey, P. Creating public value through caring for place. Policy and Politics, 2018, vol. 46, no. 1, p. 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14817306640776
Hill, S., Lorenz, D., Dent, P., Lutzkendorf, T. Professionalism and ethics in a changing economy. Building Research and Information, 2013, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.736201
Hipp, J., Bird, A., van Bakergem, M., Yarnall, E. Moving targets: Promoting physical activity in public spaces via open streets in the US. Preventive Medicine, 2017, vol. 103, p. S15–S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.014
Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Loorbach, D. Tales of transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York City, U.S. and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, vol. 231, pp. 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.043
Iveson, K. Cities within the city: Do-it-yourself urbanism and the right to the City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2013, vol. 37, no. 3, p. 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12053
Jabareen, Y. “Do it yourself” as an informal mode of space production: conceptualizing informality. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 2014, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.884975
Jankauskaitė-Jurevičienė, L. Assumptions of the Concept of Spatial Justice in the Theory and Practice of Urban Planning Processes. Architecture and Urban Planning, 2022, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 111–119. https://doi.org/10.2478/aup-2022-0011
Karvonen, A., van Heur, B. Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2014, vol. 38, no. 2, p. 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12075
Kronsell, A. Mukhtar-Landgren, D. Experimental governance: the role of municipalities in urban living labs. European Planning Studies, 2018, vol. 26, no. 5, p. 988–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1435631
Lakševics, K., Šteinerts, M., Zalāns, K., et al. Vasaras ielas eksperiments Tērbatas ielā. Tērbatas ielas iedzīvotāju, uzņēmēju, apmeklētāju un tiešsaistes aptaujurezultāti. Latvijas Universitāte, 2020. 117 p. Available from: https://sus.lv/sites/default/files/media/faili/aptauja_terbatas.pdf
Lindenau, M., Böhler-Baedeker, S. Citizen and stakeholder involvement: A precondition for sustainable urban mobility. Transportation Research Procedia, 2014, vol. 4, p. 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.026
Marcheschi, E., Vogel, N., Larsson, A., Perander, S., Koglin, T. Residents’ acceptance towards car-free street experiments: Focus on perceived quality of life and neighborhood attachment. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2022, vol. 14, 100585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100585
Marvin, S., Silver, J. The urban laboratory and emerging sites of urban experimentation. In: The Experimental City, ed. J. Evans, A. Karvonen, and R. Raven. London: Routledge, 2016, p. 47–60. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315719825
Rapoport, E. The boundaries of experimentation in sustainable urbanism. In: The Experimental City, ed. J. Evans, A. Karvonen, and R. Raven. London: Routledge, 2016, p. 77–87. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315719825
Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, P., Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., de Jong, M. Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies, 2019, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1393047
RDPAD, 2020. Diskutē par Tērbatas ielas eksperimenta rezultātiem. Available from: https://www.rdpad.lv/diskutepar-terbatas-ielas-eksperimenta-rezultatiem/
Rydin, Y., Pennington, M. Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, 2000, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830050009328
Savini, F., Bertolini, L. Urban experimentation as a politics of niches. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2019, vol. 51, no. 4, p. 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19826085
Schliwa, G., McCormick, K. Living labs: Users, citizens and transitions. In: The Experimental City, ed. J. Evans, A.Karvonen, and R. Raven. London: Routledge, 2016, p. 163–178. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315719825
Schneider, F., Fjendbo Jensen, A., Daamen, W., Hoogendoorn, S. Empirical analysis of cycling distances in three of Europe’s most bicycle-friendly regions within an accessibility framework. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2022, vol. 17, no. 7, p. 775–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2022.2095945
Shih, Ch.-M., Treija, S., Zaleckis, K., Bratuškins, U., Chen, Ch.-H., Chen, Y.-H., Chiang, Ch.T.W., Jankauskaitė-Jurevičienė, L., Kamičaitytė, J., Koroļova, A., Lee, H.-Ch., Lektauers, A., Mlinkauskienė, A.Digital Placemaking for Urban Regeneration: Identification of Historic Heritage Values in Taiwan and Baltic. Urban Planning, 2021, vol. 6, no. 4: Towards Digital Urban Regeneration: Embedding Digital Technologies into Urban Renewal Processes and Development, p. 257–272. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i4.4406
Soga M, Cox DT, Yamaura Y, Gaston KJ, Kurisu K, Hanaki K. Health Benefits of Urban Allotment Gardening: Improved Physical and Psychological Well-Being and Social Integration. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017, vol. 14, no. 1, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14010071
Spano, G., D’Este, M., Giannico, V., et al. Are community gardening and horticultural interventions beneficial for psychosocial well-being? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, vol. 17, no. 10, 3584. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103584
Stauskis, G. Re-pedestrianising open spaces through optimising mobility in urban landscape: great importance of the small detail. Landscape Architecture and Art, 2018, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 56–63. https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2018.13.06
Torrens, J., Schot, J., Raven, R., Johnstone, P. Seedbeds, harbours, and battlegrounds: On the origins of favourable environments for urban experimentation with sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2019, vol. 31, p. 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.11.003
Truong, S., Gray, T., Ward, K. Enhancing urban nature and place-making in social housing through community gardening Urban forestry and urban greening, 2022, vol. 72, 127586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127586
VanHoose, K., Rivas de Gante, A., Bertolini, L., Kinigadner, J., Büttner, B. From temporary arrangements to permanent change: Assessing the transitional capacity of city street experiments. Journal of Urban Mobility, 2022, vol. 2, 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100015
Van Hoose, K., Savini, F. The social capital of urban activism: Practices in London and Amsterdam. City, 2017, vol. 21, no. 3–4, p. 293–311.
Von Schonfeld, K.C., Bertolini, L. Urban streets: Epitomes of planning challenges and opportunities at the interface of public space and mobility. Cities, 2017, vol. 68, p. 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.012
Waes, A. V., Nikolaeva, A., Raven, R. Challenges and dilemmas in strategic urban experimentation An analysis of four cycling innovation living labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021, vol. 172, 121004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121004
Walker, G. The role for ‘community’ in carbon governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2011, vol. 2, no. 5, p. 777–782. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.137
Wendler, J. Grassroots experimentation: Alternative learning and innovation in the Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin. In: The Experimental City, ed. J. Evans, A. Karvonen, and R. Raven. London: Routledge, 2016, p. 150–162. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315719825
Wolfram, M. Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities, 2016, vol. 51, p. 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011
Yang, Y., Wu, X., Zhou, p., Gou, Z., Lu, Y. Towards a cycling-friendly city: An updated review of the associations between built environment and cycling behaviours (2007–2017). Journal of Transport & Health, 2019, vol. 14, 100613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100613
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Landscape Architecture and Art
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.