Participatory planning: Final session

Transkriptio

1 Marketta Kyttä & Maarit Kahila Department of Built Environment Spatial Planning and Transportation Engineering research group Participatory planning: Final session

2 Let s present the PAPs in groups max 5 persons/ group 5 min per person choose one PAP to be presented to all

3 The chosen PAPs 5 min per person

4 The attitude survey resultstotally agree Totally disagree The knowledge utilized in participatory planning should be scientifically valid and reliable** The knowledge utilized in participatory planning should be produced as a local knowledge building process*** It is important that the knowledge is contextually specific*** It is important that the knowledge is generalizable*** is important that the participants represent a random sample of the wider audience ** It is important that the local associations are well represented*** Active participants typically are just concerned about their own interests (nimbyism)* If active participants are not seen as normal enough participants, who then can participate? ns. A planner should be concerned about the common good*** Pre course test Post course test There is not really such a thing like a common good*** Traditional methods like public hearings and focus group meetings are best methods for participatory planning ns. New technology methods like online tools and social media are best methods for participatory planning*** Planning law provides planner a good framework to organize participation** Participants should be encouraged to self-organize participation*** Best participatory planning process in formal and well organized ns. Best participatory planning process in informal and spontaneous ns. The focus should be in the fair participation process *** The focus should be in the fair outcome*** Participatory planning should focus on detailed planning level ns. Participatory planning should focus on all levels of planning, also general and regional planning*** Participatory planning should be a deliberative process that truly includes participants also in the decision making and actual planning*** Experts and politicians are the ones who can make the final decisions and the actual planning**

5 Reflect your personal attitudes towards public participation 1

6 Reflect your personal attitudes towards public participation 2 I am a bit afraid of the future, because it is even clearer now that planners have to be some sort of superhumans, knowing how to make plans, taking everything into account and understanding other peoples point of views and communicating with them in a way that does not lead into a war. But if I ever get a job where I am a planner myself, I definitely will try to emphasize the vitality of participation and public engagement, because then the final parts of the planning process will be much more enjoyable.

7 Reflect your personal attitudes towards public participation 3 If take a look the survey, the most important differences are attached to question 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22. Participants should be encouraged to self-organize participation, earlier I thought that participatory things are organized well enough. In fact, participants have to be more active by themselves. Also, the focus should be both in the fair outcome and in the fair participation process. Earlier I thought that participatory planning should be mainly focus in the local level, but now I think it should be focused also in general and regional planning where the main guidelines for the land use are defined. For the last question, I thought that experts and planners are the ones who made the final decisions but now I have started to think that participants should be involved also to the decision making more that their opinions are considered. Common spaces and areas that are used by separate groups should be determined together not just by the authorities. It is absolutely certain that, as a tool, public participation decreases amount of conflicts that arise during the planning process, and the earlier this tool is introduced the less angry citizens we get. Even when not everything goes as people wish, they still know that their voice has been heard. After finishing my own Participation Plan I can say, that I prefer a high level of participation, but I am struggling a little bit with the implementation. On the one hand I am sure, that a lot people will be motivated to participate on the planning process, but on the other hand I do not know if the responsible persons like planner and politicians will be willing to give off this responsibility. Moreover I am not sure, if it is possible to start with a participation level of Collaborating, even when the residents have never worked in such a planning process. Maybe it is better to start on a lower participation, convince the all the responsible persons, that this is the best way for the city and increase the level of participation with every new project.

8 Reflect your personal attitudes towards public participation 4 Kurssilla opin tapoja, joilla muutokset voidaan saavuttaa. Kurssin kantava teema oli yhteistyön tekeminen. Sen edellytyksenä on, että kaikki suunnitelman osapuolet asetetaan samalle viivalle. Kuulemistilaisuudet pitäisi muuttaa rennommiksi keskutelu- ja tapaamistilaisuuksiksi, joissa osalliset kokisivat tulevansa paremmin kuulluiksi ja ymmärretyiksi. Myös suunnittelijat nähtäisiin inhimillisempinä, kun he eivät piiloudu pelkästään asiantuntijan roolin taakse tai osallisilta kokonaan. Kun kaavat laadittaisiin yhteistyössä, valitusten tekeminen olisi tavallaan turhaa: murheet ja huolethan huomioitaisiin ja selvitettäisiin tapaamisissa, eikä niitä tarvitsisi yksitellen puida jälkikäteen. Tämä kuitenkin edellyttää sitä, että osalliset saisivat aidosti osallistua suunitelman laatimiseen, ja heidän sanallaan olisi painoarvoa. Kurssin alussa suhtautumiseni maankäytön vuorovaikutteiseen ja osallistuvaan suunnitteluun oli hyvin kriittinen. Olin sitä mieltä, että vaikuttaminen tapahtuu lähinnä valittamalla tehdyistä päätöksistä. Kurssin aikana tutustuttuani paremmin osallistumis- ja arviointisuunnitelmiin, tutkimuksiin, lakiin, kuntien käytäntöihin sekä muuhun aiheeseen liittyvään materiaaliin, käsitykseni on hieman muuttunut.

9 Course evaluation 80 % PAP 10 % active participation in classes 10 % individual reflections PAP evaluation criteria Creativity/ novelty Integration to theoretical literature Coherency of the PAP Contextual fit

10 Finally Let s fill the feedback survey Go to

11 Now Have a wonderful springj