Search results

Discussion paper: Legitimacy of bottom-up planning: the need for facilitation of substantive discussions in planning processes

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.

Realising participation within an action research project on two care innovation units providing care for older people

Background: On two Care Innovation Units in the Netherlands, staff, students and Lecturer Practitioners work intensively together to provide care, create a rich learning environment, and to foster innovation and research. In striving to advance the quality of care and to develop person centred cultures a preference is given to participative forms of research in which diverse experiences and different types of knowledge are valued. Aims and Objectives: The research described here had two overarching aims: the improvement of practice situations and the encouragement of the integration of work and learning. This article focuses on our actions and learning with respect to fostering participation during this project. Design and methods: Within the action research methodology used, participative work-forms and research methods were chosen. For example, a responsive approach to evaluation of practice, use of narratives and the stimulation and use of creativity to help in exploring and sharing feelings, values and different forms of knowledge. In this article we use Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation to frame our reflection on enabling participation within this project. Results Participation took various forms and vacillated throughout the project. In addition to particular facilitation strategies, four factors emerged as influential in enabling or inhibiting aspects of participation among stakeholders: individual motivations and interests, the make-up of and atmosphere within the group, and the time made available to engage in research activities. Conclusions Participation in research is both more complex and dynamic than Arnstein's typology suggests. Moving 'up' the ladder may not be appropriate as a goal in and of itself. Instead, meeting and responding to each other's situations, as stakeholders, seems a more appropriate focus. Taking responsibility, as facilitator, for certain research activities, can free other participants to focus on elements which interest them and from which they derive satisfaction.

Multilingual Introduction WP6 Development of European COP Support Lab: Management & Facilitation

Development of a European COP Support Lab

Practicing active non-activeness in the facilitation of arts-based environmental education

Based on his personal experience, the author aims to examine some of the key competencies that he considers essential for facilitators of group activities in arts-based environmental education (AEE). In this, participants are encouraged to enhance their sensibility to the environment through artistic approaches. A case in point is a workshop called “making a little me”. Its participants sculpt – while keeping their eyes closed – a clay version of their own seated body in miniature. When guiding such a workshop, it is of critical importance, according to the author, to encourage the participants to suspend their judgments on the art works of others. The facilitator should make every effort to provide a safe environment by practicing “holding space”.

Facilitation by ecosystem engineers enhances nutrient effects in an intertidal system

Ecosystem engineering research has recently demonstrated the fundamental importance of non-trophic interactions for food-web structure. Particularly, by creating benign conditions in stressful environments, ecosystem engineers create hot beds of elevated levels of recruitment, growth, and survival of associated organisms; this should fuel food webs and promote production on the ecosystem scale. However, there is still limited empirical evidence of the influence of non-trophic interactions on the classical food-web processes that determine energy transfer, that is, consumer–resource interactions. On the basis of a biomanipulation experiment covering 600 m2 of an intertidal flat, we show that ecosystem engineers influence resource uptake efficiency and the accumulation of algae following nutrient enrichment in a soft-sediment food web. Nutrient additions increased chlorophyll a concentrations in the sediment by 90%, but only in plots where we also introduced high densities (2000 per m2) of a burrowing bivalve, the common cockle Cerastoderma edule. The artificial cockle beds increased the nutrient uptake efficiency of the biofilm and promoted sediment accumulation, which suggests that the cockles facilitated the sediment-living algae by increasing sediment stability. This indicates that ecological interactions, rather than the availability of nutrients per se, set the limits for production in this coastal ecosystem. Our results emphasize the need to include facilitation theory and recognize that positive interactions between species are key to understand, manage, and restore ecosystems under human influence.