Trust and participation in urban regeneration

Abstract

Abstract AbstractDespite trust's perceived importance in participatory local governance, very few studies, theoretical and empirical, have devoted attention specifically to understanding their interaction. Focussing on resident participation in urban regeneration, this paper identifies shortcomings in the literature's theoretical grasp of trust. This has led to a trust-participation paradox: some academics have suggested that increasing resident trust in officers, institutions or their community will result in more participation, whilst others have argued that lower trust leads to greater participation. This paper suggests that the key to solving this theoretical quandary is to relinquish the perception of trust as a monolithic concept and recall its context-dependent nature. It proposes several forms of trust which could theoretically impact on residents' willingness to participate in urban regeneration: receptivity trust; ability trust; and representative trust. It concludes with recommendations for future theoretical and empirical research.

Tackling urban disparities through participatory culture-led urban regeneration. Insights from Lisbon

“…Degraded peripheries are more likely to receive community-based interventions that generally aim at tackling phenomena of social exclusion and poverty (Fainstein 2006;Wacquant 2008;UN-Habitat 2011). To this end, poorly-educated, low-income and/or unemployed people are often invited to play an active role in socially embedded activities (Couch et al 2003;Taylor 2017;Aitken et al 2012;Martinez-Fernandez et al 2012).…”

“…The upgrade of living conditions aims to fight area-specific barriers and advance behavioural changes to reduce the trade-offs of similar environmental factors and institutional shortcomings (Manski 1993). Communities are envisaged as the key players in the reinvigoration of democratic values and arguably it is their active participation that is said to foster greater trust in institutions (Aitken 2012), and policy effectiveness (Taylor, 2007).…”

Living (in) the city centre, neoliberal urbanism, Engage Liverpool and citizen engagement with urban change in Liverpool, UK

“…Aitken, 2012;Savini, 2011;Ferilli et al, 2016) and there is much to explore about how to engage people effectively in planning for a better, more just city. It is in this context that this paper presents the example of a citizen's initiative, Engage Liverpool, and its role in facilitating residents as urban change makers.…”

Measuring citizen participation in urban regeneration: a reflection on the construction of the participation index for the Bip/Zip programme in Lisbon

“…As they are expected to 'embody' the social capital and sit at the table with other relevant agents of decision-making, participatory processes are frequently organised through local networks and partnerships. The aggregation of different agents and the constitution of partnerships have been argued to strengthen the social capital, as well as the citizenry's trust of public institutions (Aitken 2012). However, considering that power inequalities may persist between local authorities and community leaders (Purdue 2001), risks of co-option of local agents can compromise strategies of inclusion, while an overemphasis on community leaders as new 'social entrepreneurs' for community capacity-building may shift responsibility from state to local communities and individuals.…”