From Participation to the Right to the City: Democratic Place Management at the Neighbourhood Scale in Comparative Perspective

Autopistas, ciudadanía y democratización: la Costanera Norte y el Acceso Sur, Santiago de Chile (1997-2007)

“…Es un derecho colectivo (Sorensen & Sagaris, 2010), compuesto de una serie de derechos que son "evolutivos", o sea, avanzan con los logros y las nuevas exigencias que nacen, fundamentalmente, de nuevas organizaciones y movimientos de la sociedad civil (Borja, 2002, pp. 8-10).…”

The state of public participation in spatial planning in the European union: public participation in spatial planning between theory and practice

“…As the field of public participation is ever changing with the development of new tools and techniques, there is also a significant grout of publications in this area (Petts & Leach, 2000;Maier, 2001;Creighton, 2005;Faga, 2006;Fagotto & Fung, 2006;Callahan, 2007;Sorensen & Sagaris, 2010). A review of literature was made to determine the current state of public participation in spatial planning in the EU.…”

Making a difference : boundary management in spatial governance

“…Moreover, efforts to reach consensus may ignore the existence of 'power play' in planning processes and may even be used to 'tame' stakeholder groups because the scope and the rules of the game are defined by the government officials (Flyvbjerg, 1998a;Sorensen and Sagaris, 2010;Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998). Rather than doing away with participation because of such difficulties, Sorensen and Sagaris (2010) propose that citizens are well-equipped to organise their own participation processes, and therefore should receive more responsibility in collaborative processes. More responsibility for citizens in collaboration implies a boundary shift in the direction of citizens in the lead (Vigoda, 2002).…”

“…Attempts to involve stakeholders may result in a limited and unbalanced group of people who are willing to participate, while others ~ 76 ~ cannot be reached (Nienhuis et al, 2011). Moreover, efforts to reach consensus may ignore the existence of 'power play' in planning processes and may even be used to 'tame' stakeholder groups because the scope and the rules of the game are defined by the government officials (Flyvbjerg, 1998a;Sorensen and Sagaris, 2010;Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998). Rather than doing away with participation because of such difficulties, Sorensen and Sagaris (2010) propose that citizens are well-equipped to organise their own participation processes, and therefore should receive more responsibility in collaborative processes.…”

“…Some depart from the perspective of governmental actors, such as network governance (Hajer and Zonneveld, 2000;Salet and Woltjer, 2009), co-governance (Kooiman, 2003), soft spaces (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009), public-private partnerships (Edelenbos and Teisman, 2008;Priemus, 2002), and deliberative governance (Healey, 2012). Other concepts depart from the perspective of societal stakeholders, such as citizen participation (Raco and Flint, 2001;Roberts, 2004;Sorensen and Sagaris, 2010), citizen involvement (Taylor, 2000), coproduction (Albrechts, 2013;Ostrom, 1996;Watson, 2014) and self-organisation (Van Dam et al, 2014). In this article, we conceive of collaborative planning as one coin with a governmental and a non-governmental (i.e.…”