Lack of Participatory Effort: On the Ethics of Communicating Urban Planning
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |