Share |

Articles in "All"

Imagine a full functional city of optimal population density (roughly six million residents) - one that operates on subway alone, has zero congestion, and absolutely no water pollution all developed in a matter of 4 years. Impossible, you say?

Can a mobile app improve the quality of life for a farmer in America's heartland or perhaps help school children in Detroit, MI? Can a single app be developed that enables Americans to benefit from broadband communications -- regardless of geography, race, economic status, disability, residence on Tribal land, or limited digital or English literacy?

In our opinion, evaluation of participation metrics should be paid more attention to. More often than not, online communities don’t serve their purpose of engaging visitors, simply because they are not being monitored appropriately for optimal participation. Here are just a few things that can be done to raise the bar to measure and increase public engagement in online communities.

There’s recently been discussion and debate surrounding the attempts of neighborhood news aggregates to build out automated collections of local news, events, blog trends, and discussions -- sites like Fwix, EveryBlock, and Outside.in being the most prominent examples.  But in order to remain vibrant, the sites must achieve the right mix of publicity, monetization, good content, and attractive presentation -- and unfortunately, it seems that none of the hyper-local news providers are hitting that magic mix.

Across the globe, urban planners and community decision-makers are embracing new technologies as a way of broadening and diversifying participation in local processes. But how do we design for success with these technologies -- and how do we measure that success? Far too often, indicators such as participant satisfaction surveys and rote number of participants are used to assess the impact of a project.

I have always been impressed with the substantial body of public participation (P2) knowledge and experience that resides in the urban planning profession. This will be my third year chairing the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Core Values Awards, and each year IAP2 has received high quality urban planning projects from around the world. It got me thinking that public participation practitioners in any sector have lots to learn from their colleagues in urban planning.

Lately I’ve been reading about an increasing number of instances in which good-faith planning efforts are being ambushed, often delaying or completely derailing various initiatives. Here, for example, are the new commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland, working to “fix” their comprehensive plan – click on item VI in the agenda under the video or jump to about 1:07 to get to the heart of it. More informatively, here’s the East Bay Tea Party in California revealing the strategy it used to derail a public visioning workshop focused on sustainable development.

My fear is that technology and innovation have almost made our civilization regress at an inverse relationship to innovation. Don’t misinterpret my statement.  I love technology as much as the next person, just ask my iPad sitting next to me.  The concern is not so much with technology itself as with the mis-application (or over-application) of it.  Instances of misapplied technology in planning and development can often be found in connection with an over-dependence on specialists or experts.

First implemented in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1990,  Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a planning process which allows citizens to decide directly how to allocate all or part of a public budget, typically through a series of meetings, work by community “delegates” or representatives, and ultimately through a final vote. While the process has been widely utilized worldwide, especially in Europe over the past two decades, only recently has it been implemented in a few U.S. cities — including Chicago.