 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Opinion of tools
Name der Fallstudie
URBAN I Graz and URBAN II link Graz West: Social and economic renewal of urban districts
URBAN I Graz und URBAN II- link Graz West: soziale und wirtschaftliche Revitalisierungsmaßnahmen in verschiedenen Stadtbezirken
Name of tool
URBAN Graz procedure
Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
The EU had requested participatory elements in the project framework. No clear participation concept, covering elements of participatory planning, participatory decision making, implementation and participatory evaluation was established before starting the processes. Broad knowledge of participatory planning tools does not exist at the administration level. The tool/procedure was developed in a learning by doing procedure</p>
<p>Other methods, such as PLANNING CELL (PLANUNGSZELLE), have been discussed but not applied for UGW. Planungszelle is a procedure to encourage step-by-step dialogue. It aims to define propositions for action for concrete problems of the society. It tries to bring out as many ways of interpretation of reality as possible by the people concerned and looks to integrate knowledge of the local population.<br>
<em>1st step:</em> INVESTIGATE: Interviews (guidelines for interviews) are carried out on the subject with people concerned in the city or district). People are selected by random sample. The goal is to get different points of view of the situation.<br>
<em>2nd step:</em> EVALUATE: Representatives of society groupings (up to 15) or institutions evaluate the situation/conflict from their point of view and present their solutions.<br>
<em>3rd step:</em> ACT: Citizens (25-200) are chosen by random sample and invited to work out possible solutions, considering the results of step 1 and 2. Usually, these citizens are paid by public funds for this job or at least released from work. During this time, they are assisted by process managers and have access to further required information. They finally formulate and argument recommendations in a so called "citizens' opinion". This opinion should be considered in the final decision. The procedure lasts for several weeks to months and includes up to 300 persons.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/groups/wdd/99_planning_cells.htm"target="blank">http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/groups/wdd/99_planning_cells.htm</a><br>
<a href="http://www.wegweiser-buergergesellschaft.de/politische_teilhabe/modelle_methoden/beispiele/Reinert.pdf"target="blank">http://www.wegweiser-buergergesellschaft.de/politische_teilhabe/modelle_methoden/beispiele/Reinert.pdf</a></p>
Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
Certain participatory planning techniques have been discussed (e.g. "district conferences"). None has been used so far primarily for fear of citizens' potential resentments and anger and consequences such discussions might have on the project. On the other hand, some parts of the administration are aware of the fact that these methods could bring out the "real" problems of the people.
Opinion of tool - assessment by tool users
-U GW still seems to be a complex program focussed on infrastructure and technical education and training. Its positive outcomes are expected mainly on the long term. Therefore, its usefulness is not fully understood and appreciated by the citizens.
-As for the lack of participation elements in all steps of the process, especially in UGW, the solution planned is to consult a specialist in participatory urban planning and to choose adapted participatory planning techniques. Another solution is the micro project fund to encourage local citizen involvement.
-Very often, decision makers do not share evaluation culture, that is, they do not really take evaluation results seriously.
Evaluations have positive side effects: on the one hand, they provide necessary support for politicians (Quantifications of results) -this aspect was specifically illustrated by the scientific accompanying evaluation. Also, the evaluation process encouraged cooperation and exchange between administration departments.
-The aspect of informal new ties built by common planning and evaluation process is considered as one of the most important experiences. Ties between administration departments; ties between administration and single project responsibilities (such as the organisation of small informal events, e.g. Christmas drinks), ties between the single project responsibilities, created by the common evaluation meetings ? Network building.
Opinion of tool - reviewer\'s assessment
This example illustrates how urban planning and decision making may function by following a strict top-down scheme without essential participatory elements (target groups are "beneficiaries" of final results and not included in any main decision step). Target groups may keep themselves informed using the project homepage or visiting the Info-Box (top-down information). The micro-project fund is the only bottom-up process, but restricted by the political orientation of the jury and the marginalized budget.
Hopefully the evaluation of UGW will bring out if and to what extent the absence of participation influences the results of the project and their sustainability.
Welche Tools wurden verwendet, um Nachhaltigkeit zu beurteilen?
URBAN Graz procedure
Weiterführende Informationen (nur auf Englisch):