Participatory Instruments and Practices in Urban Governance

Abstract

This chapter discusses both citizen and stakeholder participation as an instrument in urban governance. Citizens and other non-state actors can be involved in local decision-making in many different ways. Privatization of previously public entities such as municipal water companies, port authorities or educational institutes has created new local actors, adding new challenges to urban governance. Communication technologies both facilitate and complicate interaction between actors in the governance process. Where governance outcomes are contested, ordinary citizens increasingly take recourse to legal action or mobilise on 'the streets' to hold their governments to account. This chapter discusses these general trends while highlighting how issues of scale and local context shape participatory practices locally.

From Closed to Claimed Spaces for Participation: Contestation in Urban Redevelopment Induced-Displacements and Resettlement in Kigali, Rwanda

“…In the absence of genuine participation in such invited spaces, affected people may create other alternative spaces of participation outside the hegemonic space in order to voice their concerns. Within such alternative spaces known as claimed spaces, also known as "popular" spaces because they result from popular initiatives [61], citizens come together as autonomous agents to create opportunities to directly confront the authorities and the status quo in the hope of bringing about changes and resistance to the dominant power relations [62]. The notion of claimed spaces involves a multitude of tactics and strategies deployed by mobilised people claiming rights in diverse ways and seeking to address the challenges of asserting citizenship.…”

The urban governance configuration: A conceptual framework for understanding complexity and enhancing transitions to greater sustainability in cities

“…Over the last decade, city practitioners the world over are increasingly experimenting in their development plans to ensure a more ‘secure’, ‘resilient’ and ‘sustainable’ city (Bulkeley et al., 2015, Bulkeley & Castan Broto, 2013; Bulkeley et al., 2016; Jordhus‐Lier et al., 2019; Pelling, 2010; Peyroux et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2019; Ziervogel, 2019). Academics have also foregrounded the issue of ‘responsibility’ and the need for interventions concerning urgent environmental, economic and social uncertainties of our time (Hordijk et al., 2015; Latour, 2014; Satterthwaite, 2014; Sutherland, Scott, et al., 2015). Recent urban and sustainability literature is increasingly focused on the question of how we can enhance ‘resilience’ and ‘sustainability’ or produce the ‘ecological city’ and the transformative role of cities, relating this to issues of governance (Macintyre et al., 2018; Mutisya & Yarime, 2014).…”

Social Impacts of Place-Making in Urban Informal Settlements: A Case Study of Indonesian Kampungs

“…In addition to the discussion in the previous paragraph, several authors (Ponzini and Palermo 2014;Iwińska 2017) also brought up the gap in the methodology and analysis of how place-making process influences the social aspect. One major downside that place-making shares where it is seen as a process rather than a product, is difficulty of measuring the outcomes (Cohen et al 2018;Hordijk et al 2015;Silberberg et al 2013). The results of place-making as a process is much less tangible than the traditional planning approach where the results are more visible through physical changes or economic profits.…”