Share |

Articles in "All"

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.

Inspired by the idea of  a ‘Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper’ approach to planning, ‘Urban Acupuncture’, ‘Tactical Urbanism’ DIY Urbanism , ‘Emergent Urbanism’ or ‘Bottom-up Planning’,  the recent level of global participation on our IdeasforCities facebook page  has really taken off.

Inspired by local community success stories that had yet to be shared beyond the community itself, the Craigslist Foundation, well known as a catalyst for individual and collective action for the public good across America, set out a little over a year ago to develop an online platform which would help spread these powerful stories to a broader audience. The concept behind this public engagement tool was to create a new type of forum especially for people who wanted to change something in their community but were unsure of where to start.

A recent study released by Pew Research Center on the Internet and Campaign 2010 shows some strong similarities between politics and planning when it comes to public involvement.

The Gov 2.0a conference in Oklahoma City kicked off today. This is the second year of the conference on open government, technology and citizen engagement.