Understanding Inclusive Placemaking Processes through the Case of Klostergata56 in Norway
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Public participation and the placemaking approach are receiving continuously increasing attention and are therefore likely to become, in a near future, the norm of shaping our cities. They are instruments of local democracy, enabling citizens to stake a claim and exercise their influence on the city, repositioning them from recipients to active participants in this shaping. Research has shown that these democratic processes are the best way to ensure better physical environments, while also bringing social development. However, this attempt to shift from government to governance by power redistribution can at times pose a challenge to democracy, by repeating existing power relations between participating actors. If representation is not done right and communities are not equally engaged, the social benefits are at stake and issues of inclusion and exclusion arise. The need for assessment in this field is therefore highly relevant, but little progress has been done in developing measurable evaluation tools.
This article is based on action research, following as a case study the process of co-designing Klostergata56, a small, underutilized public space in the Norwegian city of Trondheim. It presents a new framework of evaluating a participatory process, applied to the project to investigate its level of inclusion.
Results of the study showed that the process had significant limitations to being inclusive to the expense of marginalized groups, due to unequal participation of stakeholders and differences in levels of nurtured social capital and civic trust. The challenges highlighted by the research make it possible to identify lessons for further processes to be more inclusive. Until such challenges are addressed, participatory placemaking will continue to be a trial-and-error process, therefore bound to repeat, at least to some extent, the inequality patterns present in a society.
Read the full article in accessible html-format here.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
The Authors retain copyright for articles published in The Journal of Public Space, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial Licence (CC-BY-NC) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
You are free to:
• Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
• Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
References
Cornwall, A. (2008) “Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices”, Community development journal, 43, pp. 269-283.
European Institute for Public Participation (2009) Public Participation in Europe: An International Perspective. European Institute for Public Participation Bremen.
Falleth, E. I., Hansen, G. S. (2011) «Participation in planning; a study of urban development in Norway”, European Journal of Spatial Development, 19.
Falleth, E. I., Hanssen, G. S., Saglie, I. L. (2010) «Challenges to democracy in market-oriented urban planning in Norway”, European Planning Studies, 18, 737-753.
Fiskaa, H. (2005) “Past and future for public participation in Norwegian physical planning”, European Planning Studies, 13, 157-174.
Gehl Institute (2018) Inclusive Healthy Places. A Guide to Inclusion & Health in Public Space: Learning Globally to Transform Locally. Available at: https://gehlinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Inclusive-Healthy-Places_Gehl-Institute.pdf
Iwińska, K. (2017) Towards Better Participatory Planning: Guide to Place-Making. Thesis. Netherlands: Utrech University.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2009) Exploring corporate strategy: text & cases, Pearson education.
Lehtonen, M. & De Carlo, L. (2019) “Diffuse institutional trust and specific institutional mistrust in Nordic participatory planning: Experience from contested urban projects”, Planning Theory & Practice, 20, pp. 203-220.
Madanipour, A. (2010) Whose Public Space?: International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development, Routledge.
Price, A., Austin, S., Paranagamage, P., Khandokar, F. (n.d.) Impact of urban design on social capital: lessons from a case study in Braunstone. Loughborough University.
Silberberg, S., Lorah, K., Disbrow, R. & Muessig, A. (2013) Places in the making: How placemaking builds places and communities, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 72.
Sokolaj, U. (2021) Inclusion and placemaking based participation, The case of Klostergata 56. [Master’s thesis]. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
The Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation (2019) Network of Public Spaces. An idea handbook. Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/c6fc38d76d374e77ae5b1d8dcdbbd92a/kmd_public-spaces_innmat_eng_org.pdf
United Nations (2015) Habitat III Issue Papers, 11 – Public Space.