In the last decades, citizen initiatives have become more important for neighbourhood development. This applies as well to sustaining urban green and the (temporary) development of urban food gardening and small parks. Development through citizen initiatives is not a straight-forward task for planners as it means a new way of planning and legitimizing of planning decisions. Although citizen initiative and involvement in planning has gained much attention in planning practice in the last decades, planners still struggle with it. Citizen and entrepreneurial initiators of land-use projects for green and urban farming also have difficulty to understand the process of project approval or denial. Following the analysis of Schatz and Roberts (2016) of an ‘untenable governance ménage à trois’ of relational, participatory and neoliberal planning, it seems that in bottom-up planning three types of planning come together: technocratic, deliberative, and neoliberal. This makes the current struggles of planners and initiators involved in bottom-up spatial planning no surprise. In this paper we explore, based on a literature review, ingredients for a tool that could help professional planners (civil servants) and initiators to better understand each other and the planning process and improve the substantive discussion on land-use initiatives and in this way the accountability, credibility and thus, legitimacy of decision. To come to our list of ingredients, we take inspiration from the work of Mouffe and others who have stressed the conflicting views and interests involved in any policy issue. Taking her ‘agonistic approach’ to policy-making we aim to develop a tool that gives more room to substance in policy making: the different motivations, ambitions and political views of people in planning processes. Following scholars that take the work of Mouffe one step further, we look at concepts of boundary work and boundary objects (Metze, 2010), policy arrangements (Buizer, 2009) and a trading zone approach (Saporito, 2016) to come to a better understanding of, and a practical solution to, how to work with conflicting views in practice on planning process as well as substance. Second, we turn to social psychology and conflict resolution (Illes et al. 2014, Nash et al. 2010) to better understand the conflicts at stake around land-use decisions and to identify productive and counterproductive strategies to work with these conflicts. Third, we take inspiration in business literature to better understand how we can depict conflicting views for land-use and how we can come to a workable and integral concept of how to use a specific plot of land.
Amsterdam strives to combat a shortage of homes by launching an ambitious housing development scheme for 32 designated most deprived neighborhoods. After decades of urban renewal projects, the local communities still suffer from difficult to resolve socioeconomic problems. Aside from a minimum of 40% social dwelling units, 40% of homes are reserved for the middle class and only 20% for high-end. Mixing income segments on its own will not lead to an improved socio-economic status of the inhabitants thus, a new urban renewal program has been developed. On top of that, the new progressive municipal council, intends to democratise the urban renewal processes towards more community-led developments with local support and structural solutions. Some experts may argue that we require a radical new way of planning whilst others counter, that current standardised planning procedures cannot be easily changed.In partnership with themunicipality, we reflect on Amsterdam’s urban regeneration program and enhance collective crossborder learning by organising monthly learning sessions with the managers involved. Now that thefirst phases of the planning process have been completed, we follow a Grounded Theory (GT)method to structure the collected data and analyse the perceived barriers hindering the modernisation of planning practice. Observations and promising actions to make the participation process more inclusive, interactive and influential will be discussed. One example is that some managers on the ground who have to work with the system, are taking short cuts in planning procedures to ensure that citizens’ needs are incorporated in the developed plan. These disruptiveinterventions may be used to formalise and implement new policy and more effective pathways ofcommunity-based development.
The sustainable energy transition asks for new and innovative solutions in the way society, government, energy market and clients (end users) approach energy distribution and consumption. The energy transition provides great opportunity to develop innovative solutions where in the dense built environment district heating and cooling are being strongly advocated.Traditionally, the energy systems in urban districts have been regulated by a top-down approach. With the rise of local and distributed sustainable sources for urban heating and cooling, the complexity of the heat/cold chain is increasing. Therefore, an organic and bottom-up approach is being requested, where the public authorities have a facilitating and/or directive role. There is a need for a new and open framework for collaboration between stakeholders. A framework that provides insight into the integral consideration of heating and cooling solutions on district level in terms of: organisation, technology and economy (OTE). This research therefore focuses on developing this integral framework towards widely supported heating and cooling solutions among district stakeholders.Through in-depth interviews, workshops and focus groups discussions, relevant stakeholders in local district heating/cooling of varying backgrounds and expertise have been consulted. This has led to two pillars in a framework. Firstly the definition of Key Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators to evaluate technical solutions in light of the respective context. Secondly, an iterative decision making process among district stakeholders where technical scenarios, respective financial business cases and market organisation are being negotiated. Fundamental proposition of the framework is the recurrent interaction between OTE factors throughout the entire decision making process. In order to constantly assure broad-based support, the underlying nature of possible barriers for collaboration are identified in a stakeholder matrix, informing a stakeholder strategy. It reveals an open insight of the interests, concerns, and barriers among all stakeholders, where solutions can be developed effectively.
R-LINK onderzoekt hoe kleinschalige bottom-up initiatieven in de gebiedsontwikkeling kunnen bijdragen aan het oplossen van maatschappelijke vraagstukken. Deze kennis helpt bij het creëren van vitale en inclusieve stedelijke regio’s. R-LINK is een samenwerkingsverband van kennisinstellingen, bedrijven en maatschappelijke organisaties met een liefde voor ruimtelijke kwaliteit. Wij zijn nieuwsgierig en tonen betrokkenheid vanuit kennis. Dat doen we door met behulp van experimenten vernieuwende concepten te ontwikkelen. De nauwe samenwerking tussen onderzoek en praktijk helpt ons in de zoektocht naar haalbare oplossingen. Hoe kan gebiedsontwikkeling door kleinschalige initiatieven worden bevorderd, terwijl tegelijkertijd grootschalige stedelijke ambities en maatschappelijke opgaven worden gerealiseerd? R-LINK volgt 14 Nederlandse gebiedsontwikkelingsprojecten gedurende een aantal jaren nauwgezet. Zo kunnen we beschrijven wanneer nieuwe initiatieven slagen, en welke condities daaruit zijn af te leiden. Een multidisciplinair team van onderzoekers beschrijft en analyseert de samenwerking tussen overheden, bewoners en marktpartijen. Ook buitenlandse voorbeelden worden in het onderzoek betrokken. R-LINK heeft de ambitie om met plezier, energie en reflectie veranderingen in gebiedsontwikkeling op gang te brengen die door overheid, markt en samenleving gevraagd worden. Wij willen cocreatie en innovatie bevorderen, zijn bereid te luisteren en staan open voor iedereen – van eerste gebruikers tot politici.
