Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sandin, Gunnar
Data de Publicação: 2020
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3445
Resumo: In all planning processes, including those we label participatory, there are neglected parties. Even when co-produced decisions, equity objectives, or common initiatives are at hand, some actors are likely to be less listened to, or they are never even recognised, hence, ‘perfect’ participation does not exist. Nevertheless, participatory objectives continue to be an important resilience factor in attempts to make—and architectonically shape—new built environments, based as much in concerned parties’ wishes and knowledge of local circumstances, as in the repertoire of traditional professional solutions and political or profit-driven exploitation. This article makes a sample survey on land-use oriented planning and its capacity to include concerned parties, ranging from total neglect of residents to formalised government-steered participation and more spontaneous or insurgent community-driven attempts to communicate a wish. Two basic questions with ethical implications are here raised concerning how planning communication is grounded: Who is invited into dialogue, and what kind of flaws in the establishment of communicational links can be found? These questions are discussed here as examples of ethical dilemmas in planning concerning previously analysed cases in Sweden with an initial reflection also on known cases in India, Germany and Australia. Communicational mechanisms such as ‘dialogic reciprocity’ and ‘successive translational steps’ are especially discussed as areas of possible improvement in participatory practices.
id RCAP_cbd594bacd7b915d9b5fa373da5d2f5e
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3445
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planningarchitecture; citizen participation; dialogic communication; land use; public consultationIn all planning processes, including those we label participatory, there are neglected parties. Even when co-produced decisions, equity objectives, or common initiatives are at hand, some actors are likely to be less listened to, or they are never even recognised, hence, ‘perfect’ participation does not exist. Nevertheless, participatory objectives continue to be an important resilience factor in attempts to make—and architectonically shape—new built environments, based as much in concerned parties’ wishes and knowledge of local circumstances, as in the repertoire of traditional professional solutions and political or profit-driven exploitation. This article makes a sample survey on land-use oriented planning and its capacity to include concerned parties, ranging from total neglect of residents to formalised government-steered participation and more spontaneous or insurgent community-driven attempts to communicate a wish. Two basic questions with ethical implications are here raised concerning how planning communication is grounded: Who is invited into dialogue, and what kind of flaws in the establishment of communicational links can be found? These questions are discussed here as examples of ethical dilemmas in planning concerning previously analysed cases in Sweden with an initial reflection also on known cases in India, Germany and Australia. Communicational mechanisms such as ‘dialogic reciprocity’ and ‘successive translational steps’ are especially discussed as areas of possible improvement in participatory practices.Cogitatio2020-11-12info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3445oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3445Urban Planning; Vol 5, No 4 (2020): Built Environment, Ethics and Everyday Life; 227-2372183-7635reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3445https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3445https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3445/3445Copyright (c) 2020 Gunnar Sandinhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSandin, Gunnar2022-12-20T10:59:41Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3445Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:21:51.968602Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
title Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
spellingShingle Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
Sandin, Gunnar
architecture; citizen participation; dialogic communication; land use; public consultation
title_short Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
title_full Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
title_fullStr Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
title_full_unstemmed Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
title_sort Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
author Sandin, Gunnar
author_facet Sandin, Gunnar
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sandin, Gunnar
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv architecture; citizen participation; dialogic communication; land use; public consultation
topic architecture; citizen participation; dialogic communication; land use; public consultation
description In all planning processes, including those we label participatory, there are neglected parties. Even when co-produced decisions, equity objectives, or common initiatives are at hand, some actors are likely to be less listened to, or they are never even recognised, hence, ‘perfect’ participation does not exist. Nevertheless, participatory objectives continue to be an important resilience factor in attempts to make—and architectonically shape—new built environments, based as much in concerned parties’ wishes and knowledge of local circumstances, as in the repertoire of traditional professional solutions and political or profit-driven exploitation. This article makes a sample survey on land-use oriented planning and its capacity to include concerned parties, ranging from total neglect of residents to formalised government-steered participation and more spontaneous or insurgent community-driven attempts to communicate a wish. Two basic questions with ethical implications are here raised concerning how planning communication is grounded: Who is invited into dialogue, and what kind of flaws in the establishment of communicational links can be found? These questions are discussed here as examples of ethical dilemmas in planning concerning previously analysed cases in Sweden with an initial reflection also on known cases in India, Germany and Australia. Communicational mechanisms such as ‘dialogic reciprocity’ and ‘successive translational steps’ are especially discussed as areas of possible improvement in participatory practices.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-11-12
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3445
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3445
url https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3445
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3445
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3445
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3445
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3445/3445
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Gunnar Sandin
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Gunnar Sandin
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Urban Planning; Vol 5, No 4 (2020): Built Environment, Ethics and Everyday Life; 227-237
2183-7635
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130665063546880