Participatory Planning by Ramiro Aznar Ballarín

Introduction

Disenchantment with democratic politics has never been more pronounced (Bellamy,

2008). Citizens speak of growing disillusionment with government, based on concerns about

corruption, lack of responsiveness to the necessities of the poor and absence of a sense of

connection with elected representatives (Gaventa, 2002). In contrast, in the last decades there

has been a clear shift toward the so called ‘politics of inclusion’ (Roseland, 2000), in which

community participation is one of their major expressions. Citizen participation, according to

Arnstein (1969: 216), is “the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently

excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately in the future”.

In urban politics and spatial planning, there has also been a clear change of paradigm

from the classical traditions based on economic, physical and policy analysis to a more

collaborative planning (Healey, 1997). In this regard, Davidoff and Gans, for instance, saw

planning as a tool which citizens could use in demanding a more democratic pluralistic polity

from the clutches of dominant elites (Davidoff, 1965; Gans, 1969; both saw in Healey, 1997).

More importantly, as Lyons and colleagues (1991) pointed out, participation development

should be understood as “an end in itself” instead of just “a mean to”. In this regard, Cornwall

and Gaventa (2001) suggest that citizen participation is an on-going process developed within

both physical places and conceptual spaces. The latter indeed are interfaces between citizens

and the state and serve as intermediaries who can enhance responsibility as well as

responsiveness on all sides. In addition, they state that each space is itself socially and

politically located, and therefore, carries ‘tracks and traces’ of previous socioeconomic, political

and environmental relationships, resources and knowledge. Using this interesting metaphor, it is

possible to create a virtual landscape (Figure 1) made by highly multi-tiered layers and shaped

by a wide variety of external and internal forces.

It is clear that the first stratum of the landscape to take into account is the local

environment. In fact, this layer is seen as primordial substrate which can represent values and

opportunities for human use but also has certain limitations and even prohibitions to certain of

these uses (McHarg, 1992). Another different stratum of the landscape can be the flows of

1
knowledge. Namely, information as well as misinformation is a source of power in the planning

process (Forester, 1982). In this respect, understanding the gaps and focuses of information is

viewed as crucial in order to disentangle how relations of power work to structure the planning

process. In addition to knowledge, others two cartographies based on gender and age issues

can be added to our model. On the one hand, women, many critics argue, are those most likely

to lose out in apparently “participatory planning” (Mayoux, 1995; Cornwall, 2003). Young

people, on the other, are rarely consulted too during urban planning processes, despite the fact

that they are highly affected by such decisions because they are the most frequent users of

public space (Dennis, 2006). More and more dimensions can be incorporated to our landscape,

but maybe the last mantle which would cover the whole scene of participation is the daily life

decisions which the residents of the city make (José Aznar, personal communication).

Finally, it is important to highlight that these layers are not isolated, and on the contrary, they

are highly connected.

Figure 1 Wright’s (1992) adaptive landscape made by organisms’ performance in relation to their genetic

pool. In this particular metaphorical territory, evolution is understood as local hill climbing; in fact as

participation is traditionally understood –Arnstein’s ladder, for instance– (source:

www.carloetal.blogspot.com/).

The final space of participation resulted from the spatial and temporal interaction

between layers is, therefore, a manifold with hyperdimensional peaks and valleys. Participation

2
processes can be understood in two different ways, on the one hand, the traditional approach

may picture participation as local hill climbing (Arnstein, 1969; Smyth, 2001 saw in Steinmann

et al., 2004). Therefore, a sustainable community could only be achieved at the top of the

nearest peak, where the economic, environmental and social dimensions are in balance

(Campbell, 1996). In the present work, on the other hand, participation development is

understood as the opposite dynamic, namely, downhill sliding rather than hill climbing.

Consequently, herein participation is more focused on the processes than on the results. What

is more, it is understood as an open dynamic process of a people adapting to, while

simultaneously changing, their landscape over time (Durack, 2001; Neuman, 2005). The

participatory landscape outlined above is dotted with tensions and obstacles, but also with

opportunities and challenges (Amin et al., 2000). In this respect, planners can play the role of

community guides through this complicated path. Further, in order to success, they should

consider that context and planning practices are socially constituted together (Healey, 1997)

and, what is more, no spaces for participation are neutral, but are shaped by the power relations

which both enter and surround them (Cornwall & Gaventa, 2001).

In this context, in the first section of this work will be discussed the possibilities of

Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PGIS) approach to construct and understand

the numerous layers and networks of our participatory landscape. PGIS, in fact, could be used

both to explore a particular collaborative space and the medium of its expression (Tallen,

2000). While in the second, two real examples of public engagement based on the idea of

participat ory planning as an open dynamic process are described. First, the “Favela-Bairro”

project of Río de Janeiro (Brasil) is described. This development which aims to provide the

necessary conditions that would enable favelas (slums or squatter settlements) to be seen as

neighborhoods of the city (Riley et al., 2001), has carried out for the last 20 years and it is a

good example because of its strong community engagement component. The second study

case is based on the “Tree City” project designed by Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau for the

Downsview Park in Toronto (Canada). The importance of this example relies on the

implementation of its indeterminate planning strategy which attempts to adapt the park within

the physical and social fabric through both ecological succession and participatory processes

(www.oma.eu/).

3
Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PGIS)

Peng (2001) states that to ensure meaningful participation of the public in the planning

and decision-making process, good communication channels and tools should be provided. In

regard to the latter, participation applications such as online surveys, online discussion forums,

and computer supported decision-making tools offer new opportunities for the citizen

involvement (Krek, 2005). Among them, it has demonstrated that Geographical Information

Systems (GIS) has a truly interesting potential for engaging communities in participatory

planning (Dennis, 2006). In fact, in the last years, as planning has become more complex and

increasingly dependent on information and communication technology instruments, the

application of GIS within planning practice has increased because of the tremendous growth in

accessible and affordable geodata and the shift of its nature from being primarily technology-

driven to being more user-driven (Geertman, 1999 saw in Geertman, 2002).

Figure 2 An example of how a resident can draw her housing preferences within a particular environment.

In this particular case the layers of the landscape are composed by six layers which range from streams

and water bodies to outbreaks of West Nile virus (Source: www.architectmagazine.com/).

4
 One of the most interesting initiatives in Participatory GIS (PGIS) is defined as Bottom-

Up GIS (BUGIS). In this approach, residents learn to manipulate GIS data to express their views

about planning issues, neighborhood meaning and future preferences (Tallen, 2000). BUGIS,

thus, can be used by participants as a spatial language tool based on local knowledge and

residents perceptions (Figure 2). As noted by Jane Jacobs, neighborhoods are really difficult to

define, even for their residents, “you never realize how complicated a neighborhood within a big

city is until you try to explain it” (1961: 540). In this regard, Elwood (2006a) found five different

types of spatial narratives about neighborhoods, conditions and capacities (needs, asset,

injustice, accomplishment and reinterpretation narratives) in the GIS-based maps designed by

two community organizations in a development project in Chicago. The interaction of these

geographies can create a particular participatory potential surface wherein can be detect

spaces of opportunity as well as spaces of need or deficit (Amin et al., 2000). In addition to

identify neighborhood potentials and problems, PGIS can make the discussion between

planners, authorities and residents contextual, more realistic and with technically supported (Al-

Kodmany, 1999). For this reason, it may eventually legitimize individual or community

expressions and proposals (Tallen, 2000).

Nevertheless, the benefits of using GIS in participatory processes must be also

tempered with a clear understanding of its intrinsic limits, drawbacks, and biases. Firstly, GIS

cannot be made to substitute for the wide array of ways in which residents express their views

about their environment (Tallen, 2000). In fact, PGIS should be complemented with more

traditional ways of participation as well as new mechanisms of public engagement such as

artists’ freehand sketching or computer-based photo-manipulation (Al-Kodmany, 1999).

Secondly, it is known that there are some financial, temporal and technical barriers that can

impede access to use of GIS (Elwood, 2006b). Concretely, GIS technology needs high quality

of computer equipment and also time and willingness to understand how the software works. In

this respect, for most citizens the personal benefit of getting involved in planning activities and

learning how to use a PGIS application is usually little and the costs of participation is rather

high (Krek, 2005). Finally, and more importantly, it is been stated that PGIS can both empower

and marginalize (Brodnig & Mayer-Schonberger, 2000 saw in McCall, 2003). In fact, McCall

(2003) points out that information accrues to those already with most resources, thus further

5
accumulating their power. Moreover, he states that the ‘value-neutral’ of GIS applications is a

myth, and thus, it all depends on what it is being used for, and on who is controlling it. In fact,

planning is thus a social process through which ways of thinking, ways of valuing and ways of

acting are actively constructed by all the participants (Healey, 1997). Consequently, GIS

planners and facilitators which take part in participatory processes should recognize that they

should participate wisely rather than irresponsibly.

6
Study Cases: Favela-Bairro and Tree City

Favela-Bairro

The favelas of Rio de Janeiro have been part of the city’s landscape for over a century.

They are recognized as one of the most visible manifestations of urban poverty and as a symbol

of the inequalities between the rich and the poor (Riley et al., 2001). These “hand-made cities”

(Magalhães, 2002 saw in Andreatta, 2005) were built based on several factors such as

excellent location on the city morros (hills) and proximity to public transport stations, jobs, and

local business (Andreatta, 2005). The nature of the relationship between the formal city and

favelas have changed from initial indifference, to rejection, to a more sympathetic and tolerant

attitude (Soares & Soares, 2005).

Figure 3 Favela de Manghinos before (left) and after (right) the works of Favela Bairro (source:

www.jauregui.arq.br/).

In this context, the Favela-Bairro project (Figure 3) launched in 1994 by the Municipal

Government of Rio de Janeiro with the financial support of the Inter-American Development

Bank (IDB) has attempted to integrate favelas socially and physically into the urban fabric

7
(Peter, 2007). Some of the measures undertaken were provision of water supply and sewers,

regulation of lands, and the stabilization of hill slopes. Nevertheless, it has been said that the

most important factor of the project relies on the citizen involvement (Conde & Magalhães,

2004; Andreatta, 2005). Furthermore, the program was most successful were community

organization was strongest, where active leaders were politically aware and therefore more

independent in relation to the government (Conde & Magalhães, 2004). In this sense, however,

the programme does not fulfill its potential to act as a catalyst for broader processes of

democratization which are essential to ensure long-term substantive poverty reduction (Riley et

al., 2001).

For the purpose of this essay, it is important to highlight the developments carried out

by the architect Jorge Mario Jáuregui. According to Montaner (2008), Jáuregui with the

collaboration of other architects and social scientists, has designed a complex participatory and

open system which allows them to locate and understand each particular favela, thus

discovering its potentials, namely, both its needs and deficits and its opportunities. He has

compared the Jáuregui’s system with the natural behavior of a “rhizome” in which each specific

project growth (as a “fruitbody”) in relation to the environmental, social and physical context.

Respecting the environmental characteristics, nature and culture of each area was indeed the

motor that enabled Favela-Bairro to become as a democratic undertaking of far-reaching social

importance (Conde & Magalhães, 2004). In addition to Brazil, similar programs of

neighborhood regeneration based on proximity can be found in Chile (www.quieromibarrio.cl/)

and other South-American countries.

Tree City

Rem Koolhas and Bruce Mau’s Tree City proposal for the Downsview Park in Toronto

can be the most direct expression of indeterminate planning (Durack, 2001). In fact, they won

the international competition with a strategy, not a design. This was based on using trees, the

park’s primary urban component, as the catalyst of urbanization. In their own words, “landscape

elements will be planted incrementally over time as funding permits, gradually building up the

8
park’s mass into a flexible patchwork of clusters separated by open undesignated areas”

(www.oma.eu/).

Figure 4 Computer-based visualization of the William Baker Neighbourhood within the Downsview Park

(source: www.downsviewpark.ca/).

In these undesignated areas were the focus of the Parc Downsview Park Inc.'s (PDP's)

development plan in which five sustainable neighborhoods (Figure 4) were designed by the

work of both professionals and public consultation (www.downsviewpark.ca/). Moreover,

Koolhaas and Mau proposed that the park could be financially sustained through an evolving

cycle of implantation and speculation (www.oma.eu/). As a result, it has been established that

the park must be self-financing (no government funds or tax-payer dollars are attributed to the

support of the park), therefore, although most of the lands will remain under the ownership of

PDP, one third of the lands are contemplated to be sold or leased to appropriate partners in

order to sustain the park (www.downsviewpark.ca/). It will probably take several years before

we can evaluate the wisdom of this proposition, but in terms of participatory urban development,

accepting indeterminacy and choice could be better than settling an immutable outcome.

Another example of indeterminate planning based on processes rather than a fixed

design can be found in two projects of a young group of Spanish architects called “Cómo crear

historias” (“How to create stories”, http://comocrearhistorias.com/). On the one hand, “La

9
reversible huerta lúdica” (“The reversible leisure garden”) is an interesting story in which the

restoration of a public space is carried out by a constant feedback of the participants of

workshops which are hold within the own building! “5 Km de agua enredada” (“5 Km of

entangled water”), on the other, is a two-fold symbiotic organism between professionals and

residents as well as the building and water.

10
Conclusions

In this work it has been suggested a participatory landscape as a space of possibilities

as well as challenges. Its surface is dotted with peaks and valleys, but also with small holes and

ridges. In this regard, every irregularity represents a potential for participatory processes.

Concretely, citizen engagement in planning development herein is envisioned as a process of

adapting to rather than avoiding or climbing these multidimensional obstacles. In this sense,

Participatory GIS (PGIS) could be the tool and the medium with which citizen can walk their own

territories. On the one hand, PGIS as a spatial language can use local knowledge and

residents’ perception to sketch a surface imbedded with specific and operational potential. On

the other hand, there are some barriers, drawbacks and important biases that is crucial to

tackle. In fact, PGIS is a powerful tool which can empower some social groups, but at the same

time, marginalize some others.

In this context, the on-going participatory processes can be illustrated, for example, by

the rhizomatic nature of the work of J.M. Jáuregui in the Favela-Bairro development, wherein

each favela project grows according to its local culture, and physical and natural environment.

Further, sometimes it will be impossible to foresee how the social, economic and environmental

milieu will evolve, and hence, the wisest solution can be found in an indeterminate open-ended

planning as Koolhaas and Mau’s proposal for the Downsview Park.

Finally, urban planners, and especially GIS professionals, can play a role of

intermediaries or facilitators between authorities, community organizations and citizens in order

to explore the complexities of their collaborative spaces, and therefore, generating different

spatial narratives according to their perceptions, aspirations and needs. As a result, as noted by

Rem Koolhaas (1994), it will be possible to “irrigate” their landscapes with potential, thus

maximizing the inherited opportunities and creating new ones for the future generations.

11
References

Al-Kodmany, 1999. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning

and design: process, implementation and evaluation. Landscape and Urban planning 45, 37-45.

Amin, A., Massey, D., & Thrift, N. 2000. Cities for the many not for the few, Bristol, Policy, 48 p.

Andreatta, V. 2005. Favela-Bairro, un nuevo paradigma de urbanización para asentamientos

informales. Cuadernos internacionales de tecnología para el desarrollo 3, 1-8.

Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizens participation. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners 35(7), 216-224.

Bellamy, R. 2008. Citizenship. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York,

133 p.

Campbell, S. 1996. Green cities, Growing cities, Just cities? Urban planning and the

contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3),

296-312.

Conde, L.P. & Magalhães, S. 2004. Favela-Bairro: rewriting the History of Rio. Río de Janeiro:

ViverCidades, 158 p.

Cornwall, A. & Gaventa, J. 2001. Bridging the gap: citizenship, participation and accountability.

PLA Notes 40, 32-40.

Cornwall, A. 2003. Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory

Development. World Development 31(8), 1325-1342.

Dennis, S.F. 2006. Prospects for qualitative GIS at the intersection of youth development and

participatory urban planning. Environment and Planning A 38, 2039-2054.

12
Durack, R. 2001. Village vices: The contradiction of new urbanism and sustainability. Places

14(2), 64-69.

Elwood, S. 2006a. Beyond Cooptation or Resistance: Urban Spatial Politics, Community

Organizations, and GIS-Based Spatial Narratives. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 96(2), 323-341.

Elwood, S. 2006b. Critical Issues in Participatory GIS: Deconstructions, Reconstructions, and

New Research Directions. Transactions in GIS 10(5), 693-708.

Forester, 1982. Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association ?,

67-80.

Gaventa, J. 2002. Introduction: Exploring Citizenship, Participation and Accountability. IDS

Bulletin 33(2), 1-11.

Geertman, S. 2002. Participatory planning and GIS: a PSS to bridge the gap. Environment and

Planning B: Panning and Design 29, 21-35.

Healey, P. 1997. From Collaborative Planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. In:

Bridge, G. & Watson, S. 2002. The Blackwell City Reader, Blackwell, 579 p.

http://comocrearhistorias.com [saw at 13/04/2010]

Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. Random House, 624 p.

Koolhaas, R. 1994. Whatever Happened to Urbanism. In: Koolhaas, R. & Mau, B. 1995. S, M, L,

XL, Monacelli, New York, 969 p.

13
Krek, 2005. Rational Ignorance of the Citizens in Public Participatory Planning. Paper published

in the conference proceedings of CORP, Vienna.

Lyons, M., Smuts, C. & Stephens, A. 2001. Participation, Empowerment and Sustainability:

(How) Do the Links Work? Urban Studies 38(8), 1233-1251.

Mayoux, L. 1995. Beyond naivet: women, gender in equality and participatory development.

Development and Change 26, 235-258.

McCall, M.K. 2003. Seeking good governance in participatory -GIS: a review of process and

governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International

27, 549-573.

McHarg, I. 1992. Design With Nature. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 198 p.

Montaner, J.M. 2008. Sistemas arquitectónicos contemporáneos. Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 223

p.

Neuman, M. 2005. The Compact City Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25,

11-26.

Peng, Z. 2001. Internet GIS for public participation. Environment and Planning B: Panning and

Design 28, 889-905.

Peter, G.D. 2007. Favela-Bairro ¿Un programa sostenible? Máster en Ciudad y Arquitectura

Sostenible, Módul 7, ETSA, Universidad de Sevilla.

Riley, E., Fiori, J., & Ramirez, R. 2001. Favela Bairro and a new generation of housing

programmes for the urban poor. Geoforum 32, 521-531.

14
Roseland, M. 2000. Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic,

and social objectives. Progress in Planning 54, 73-132.

Soares,F. & Soares, Y. 2005. The Socio-Economic Impact of Favela-Bairro: What do the Data

Say? Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C., 45 p.

Steinmann, R., Krek, A., & Blaschke, T. 2004. Analysis of Online Public Participatory GIS

Applications with Respect to the Differences between the US and Europe In: UDMS 2004, 24th

Urban Data Management Symposium. Chioggia, Italy.

Tallen, E. 2000. Bottom-Up GIS. A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory

planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(3), 279-294.

Wright, S. 1932. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution.

Proc. Sixth Int. Congr. Genet. 1, 356-366.

www.architectmagazine.com [saw at 11/03/2010]

www.downsviewpark.ca [saw at 13/04/2010]

www.jauregui.arq.br [saw at 5/04/2010]

www.oma.eu [saw at 13/04/2010]

www.quieromibarrio.cl [saw at 5/04/2010]

www.carloetal.blogspot.com [saw at 18/04/2010]

15