The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation: Transforming Urban Governance in a Post-pandemic World 3031326636, 9783031326639

Citation preview

The Urban Book Series

Enza Lissandrello Janni Sørensen Kristian Olesen Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen   Editors

The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation Transforming Urban Governance in a Post-pandemic World

The Urban Book Series Editorial Board Margarita Angelidou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL, Silk Cities, London, UK Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK Simin Davoudi, Planning & Landscape Department GURU, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK Geoffrey DeVerteuil, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Jesús M. González Pérez, Department of Geography, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma (Mallorca), Spain Daniel B. Hess , Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo, State University, Buffalo, NY, USA Paul Jones, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Andrew Karvonen, Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Stockholms Län, Sweden Andrew Kirby, New College, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA Karl Kropf, Department of Planning, Headington Campus, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Karen Lucas, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Marco Maretto, DICATeA, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Ali Modarres, Tacoma Urban Studies, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA Fabian Neuhaus, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Steffen Nijhuis, Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Vitor Manuel Aráujo de Oliveira , Porto University, Porto, Portugal Christopher Silver, College of Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Giuseppe Strappa, Facoltà di Architettura, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Roma, Italy

Igor Vojnovic, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Claudia Yamu, Department of Built Environment, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway Qunshan Zhao, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments in the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development. The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainability, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urban and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, transport systems, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It also invites research which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as comparative and applied research. The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects, policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of contemporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs, edited volumes and textbooks. Indexed by Scopus.

Enza Lissandrello · Janni Sørensen · Kristian Olesen · Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen Editors

The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation Transforming Urban Governance in a Post-pandemic World

Editors Enza Lissandrello Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark

Janni Sørensen Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark

Kristian Olesen Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark

Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic) The Urban Book Series ISBN 978-3-031-32663-9 ISBN 978-3-031-32664-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The idea of the ‘new normal’ emerged during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic as reflection and conversation developed among a few researchers working in different corners of Europe in the Urban Europe Research Alliance (UERA). We all had the opportunity and the chance to connect through the digital world. Would the world of the COVID-19 pandemic emergency have changed the fundamental ways of researching the urban, its governance and planning ideas, and the way we understand participation? In just a few weeks, during the first wave, the COVID-19 pandemic swept the world and caused the tremendous human tragedy and a historical economic setback for which we still do not know the full impact. However, in 2023, the situation changed again. Cities across Europe and the world now face a common challenge in planning for a deeply uncertain future to address multiple crises, in a post-pandemic ‘new normal’. Transforming and revising the priorities and the substantive goals of urban planning, as well as the silos thinking and the disciplinary divides, are issues again for discussion on governance and participation across local and international scales. New models of cities are taking form in the mind of urban experts to deal with a ‘new normal’ to address the multiple crises emerging in the future. But this is not enough. Inclusive future responsible citizenship requires new types of professionals who think and apply innovative models to mediate and negotiate power and ethics for a just and sustainable urban future. However, it is crucial to notice that transform sustainable cities and communities must be combined with a progressive role of research and education in crossing disciplinary divides to recreate alliances for deliberative democracy in our future urban world. Planning as ‘to think in action’ might need to revise its substance and the processes, skills and competencies to prepare for urgent planning. Strategical improvisation will be essential as well as participation. The pandemic reminds us that societal change can be fast, even occur overnight and that events can accelerate transformative processes. Nevertheless, urgent planning requires not only fast actions to recover in an emergency but also the ambition for a more resilient long-term future. Urban research v

vi

Preface

needs to engage in everyday change affecting citizens, communities, policy actions and territories across health, climate and socio-ecological crises. The challenges ahead of us are enormous. It is time that planning needs to confront the energy crisis, the impossibility of peace across territories and the turbulence of new waves of migration that will affect our urban future. Planning, governance and participation will depend mainly on our understanding of what the ‘new normal’ means to us and all not just to contrast but adapt and learn how to navigate persisting and long-term challenges and develop our reflexive capacities. Urban research should continue to inspire the way for inclusive urban democracy, as participation will be essential to develop future forms of governance for urban resilience, societal harmony and solidarity. The book has been possible thanks to the support of Urban Europe Research Alliance (UERA) and its members to support me in organizing the conference in October 2021 at Aalborg University titled The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation: Transforming Urban Governance in a Post-pandemic World. The conference was the result of intensive collaborative work with Anne Ruas (University of Gustave Eiffel), the Working Group on Urban Governance and Participation and its members, Pia Laborgne (EIFER, Germany), David Ludlow (University of the West of England, Bristol, UK), Roberta Chiarini (ENEA, Italy) and Jolanta Dvarioniene (Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania). Furthermore, the conference’s abstracts have developed new insights and inspiration for the present book. It was essential the collaboration with my closest colleagues and friends at Aalborg University, who are part of the editorial team, to shape the process of this book. A warm thanks to Janni Sørensen, Kristian Olesen and Rasmus Nederga˚rd Steffansen. A special thanks to Lasse Schytt Nørgaard for the constant support to the editorial team, keeping the correspondence with all the authors, and all the several versions of the editing of the chapters. I also would like to thank all the authors and co-authors who actively participated in the writing and acting as reviewers. It was great collaborative work and a fantastic community to see growing! For urban theorists and practitioners, the ‘new normal’ constitutes a futureoriented culture of resilience. We must continue cultivating our reflexive capacities across fields and experiences. Research and education of future professionals require our effort to encourage a future of permanent adaptability, learning and reflexivity for preparing professionals ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic. We hope this book will provide a foundation for further reflection, research and education for a positive future in and beyond the ‘new normal’. Aalborg, Denmark January 2023

Enza Lissandrello

Contents

1

Introduction to the New Normal in Planning, Governance, and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enza Lissandrello, Janni Sørensen, Kristian Olesen, and Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen

Part I 2

1

Theoretical Framings of the New Normal

Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New Normal Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enza Lissandrello, Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen, and Lasse Schytt Nørgaard

15

3

Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Pløger

4

Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia: Toward a New Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ˇ c, Omiljena Dželebdži´c, and Ratka Coli´ ˇ c Nataša Coli´

41

Building the Buzz in Blakelaw: Re-Igniting the Public Realm of Britain’s Peripheral Urban Estates in the New Normal . . . . . . . . . Georgiana Varna and Danny Oswell

57

5

6

Adaptation of Partnership Models in Times of COVID-19 . . . . . . . . . Janni Sørensen and Tara Bengle

7

An Anthropology of the Co-Emergency: Getting Inspired by the COVID-19 for a Natural Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roberta Chiarini

27

69

81

vii

viii

Contents

Part II 8

9

Experiences on Urban Governance and Participation During the Pandemic

Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular Episode or a Shift to a “New Normal”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philippe Hamman, Andreea Grigorovschi, Sophie Henck, and Marie Fruiquière

95

Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times and the Portuguese Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Miguel Silva Graça

10 Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory Budgeting in Budapest, Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Gabriella Kiss, Máté Csukás, and Dániel Oross 11 Establishing a Green Energy Transition Process in COVID Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Felipe Barroco Fontes Cunha, Francesca Cappellaro, Claudia Carani, Gianluca D’Agosta, Piero De Sabbata, Danila Longo, and Carlo Alberto Nucci 12 Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned from an Urban Revitalisation Project in Dortmund, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Lena Unger and Dahae Lee 13 Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen, Enza Lissandrello, and Núria Castell 14 Reframing Participatory Regeneration Through the COVID-19 Pandemic. Highlights from Lisbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Roberto Falanga 15 Exploring PPGIS as a Way of Digital Participation on the Example of Heat Relief Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Pia Laborgne and Paula Klöcker 16 Online Participatory Events, Myth or Reality? Learnings from the EasyRights Hackathons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Maria Vitaller del Olmo and Nicola Morelli 17 Towards a New Normal in Participatory Governance in Berlin During COVID-19. A “Lost Year” or a “New Beginning”? . . . . . . . . 217 ´ ecka Aldona Wiktorska-Swi˛ 18 Videoconferencing: Miracle Tool or Policy Trap in the Governance of Smart and Sustainable Mobility? . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Nacima Baron

Contents

ix

Part III Critical Reflections and Future Perspectives 19 Digital Consumers Will Reign Post-COVID City Development . . . . . 245 Klaus R. Kunzmann 20 The Territorial Stigmatization of Non-profit Housing Areas in Denmark During COVID-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Kristian Olesen and Matthew Howells 21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Matthias Haase and Daniela Baer 22 Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based New Normal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Federico Camerin 23 Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 David Ludlow 24 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Enza Lissandrello, Janni Sørensen, Kristian Olesen, and Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Enza Lissandrello is an associate professor at Aalborg University with a background in urban planning and public policy, human geography and the governance of sociotechnical system innovation and transitions. Her work examines urban and regional planning under contemporary trends of reflexive modernization, participation, deliberation, conflicts and issues of representation. She has taught widely and published on the roles of planners and policy actors in sustainable urban planning and through deliberative forms. She is leading research on smart cities and urban development, urban living labs and positive energy districts. She is the research coordinator of the Urban Europe Research Alliance (UERA). Janni Sørensen is an associate professor in the Department of Planning at Aalborg University. She holds a Ph.D. in Regional Planning from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana and has for many years worked on participatory neighborhood scale planning with marginalized communities in Charlotte, North Carolina. Today, her work centers on research and teaching at Aalborg University with focus on both rural and urban communities’ access to and influence in local planning processes. Kristian Olesen is an associate professor in strategic spatial planning in the Department of Planning at Aalborg University. Kristian’s main research interests are in strategic spatial planning, planning theory, neoliberalization of planning, transportation policies and housing policies. Kristian is currently leading a research project investigating how housing associations in Denmark increasingly are acting as strategic urban developers when transforming socio-economically disadvantages non-profit housing areas.

xi

xii

Editors and Contributors

Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen is an assistant professor in sustainable urban planning at Aalborg University. He has been working with diverse themes of sustainability planning such as how air quality can become a driver in urban transitions, implementation of UN sustainable development goals in local planning and planning education, as well as the sustainability of multi-dwelling households, and second home planning. He teaches a broad range of themes related to sustainability planning and methods and theories of science in planning.

Contributors Daniela Baer SINTEF Community, Trondheim, Norway Nacima Baron University Gustave Eiffel, Champs-Sur-Marne, Île-de-France, France Tara Bengle Johnson C. Smith University, Charlotte, NC, USA Federico Camerin Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain; Departamento de Urbanística y Ordenación Territorial - Grupo de Investigación en Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Sostenibilidad (GIAU+S), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Francesca Cappellaro Sustainability Department, ENEA, Bologna, Italy Claudia Carani AESS, Modena, Italy Núria Castell Urban Environment, Norwegian Institute of Air Research, Kjeller, Norway Roberta Chiarini ENEA—Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy ˇ c Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Nataša Coli´ Belgrade, Serbia ˇ c Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture, University of Ratka Coli´ Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia Máté Csukás Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary Felipe Barroco Fontes Cunha AESS, Modena, Italy Gianluca D’Agosta Technology and Renewable Energy, Department ENEA, Bologna, Italy Omiljena Dželebdži´c Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia

Editors and Contributors

xiii

Piero De Sabbata Technology and Renewable Energy, Department ENEA, Bologna, Italy Maria Vitaller del Olmo Service Design Lab, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark Roberto Falanga Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Marie Fruiquière Strasbourg National School of Architecture and Research Unit “Architecture, Morphologie/Morphogenèse Urbaine et Projet”, Strasbourg, France Miguel Silva Graça Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment— University of Coimbra (CITTA—UC), Coimbra, Portugal Andreea Grigorovschi Strasbourg National School of Architecture and Research Unit “Architecture, Morphologie/Morphogenèse Urbaine et Projet”, Strasbourg, France Matthias Haase Institute of Facility Management, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Waedenswil, Switzerland Philippe Hamman Institute for Urbanism and Regional Development and Research Unit “Societies, Actors and Government in Europe”, CNRS/University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Sophie Henck Research Unit “Societies, Actors and Government in Europe”, CNRS/University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Matthew Howells Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Gabriella Kiss Department of Decision Sciences, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary Paula Klöcker ITAS, KIT, Karlsruhe, Germany Klaus R. Kunzmann Formerly School of Planning, Technical, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany Pia Laborgne ITAS, KIT and EIFER, Karlsruhe, Germany Dahae Lee Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technical University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany Enza Lissandrello Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Danila Longo Department of Architecture, Università Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy David Ludlow School of Architecture and Environment, UWE Bristol, Bristol, UK Nicola Morelli Service Design Lab, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark

xiv

Editors and Contributors

Lasse Schytt Nørgaard Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Carlo Alberto Nucci Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, Università Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy Kristian Olesen Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Dániel Oross Institute for Political Science, Centre for Social Sciences, Budapest, Hungary Danny Oswell School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England John Pløger University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway Janni Sørensen Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Lena Unger Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technical University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany Georgiana Varna School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England ´ ecka University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland Aldona Wiktorska-Swi˛

Chapter 1

Introduction to the New Normal in Planning, Governance, and Participation Enza Lissandrello, Janni Sørensen, Kristian Olesen, and Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen

Abstract Departing from the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has entered a new phase of the risk society, a phase dominated by uncertainty and indeterminacy, and a persistent sense of urgency. Crises and urgencies are not new. However, COVID-19 has established a new need for reflexivity and for society to interrogate the existing basic needs and required knowledge on and across the many scales of human survival. This introductory chapter presents the argument for and the concept of a paradigm shift in planning, governance, and participation. We call this shift the “new normal”. The chapter presents this shift by identifying research themes emerging during COVID-19 along with the transformation of planning, governance, and participation. Second, we frame the directions of the new normal while presenting the structure and the main contribution of the book. The “new normal” is a paradigm shift of “living with” risks—rather than only fighting against them. With little time for reflection, the new normal requires urban research to align efforts, capitalize on learnings from past experiences and the COVID-19 pandemic, and rethink priorities to shape future directions and perspectives across disciplines and diverse urban experiences. Keywords Risk society · Anthropocene · Institutional void · Socio-ecological practices · Urgent planning

E. Lissandrello (B) · J. Sørensen · K. Olesen · R. N. Steffansen Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade, 14, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] J. Sørensen e-mail: [email protected] K. Olesen e-mail: [email protected] R. N. Steffansen e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_1

1

2

E. Lissandrello et al.

1.1 Introduction Crises and urgencies are not new. Health crises, local disasters, earthquakes, flooding, and pandemics have always provoked situations and waves of crisis and recovery at various times in diverse places worldwide. In urban studies, a crisis usually has a disruptive and transformative impact on planning practices, specific governance frameworks, and public involvement (Davoudi and Porter 2012). Crises erupt, interrupt, and disrupt a flow of actions with consequences on social and environmental risks and global economic impacts. A return to normal after a crisis and emergency often means a recovery of the pattern of habits, behaviours, practices, meanings, and cultures, in a new equilibrium. During the COVID-19 emergency, the urban population, about 4.2 billion individuals (World Bank 2022), raises questions about the effects of the virus’ diffusion on socio-spatial transformation processes (Ibert et al. 2022). Unlike other crises, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised “fundamental questions about what makes a community, a population, and a nation sustainable” (Dodds et al. 2020: 290). In the autumn of 2022, measures restricting mobility behaviour have been lifted in most western countries, and the COVID-19 emergency seems resolved. However, the pandemic has not vanished but opened a phase of maturity dominated by uncertainty about the future that intertwines with major risks such as world peace and democracy, energy crises, and the overwhelming dynamics of climate change. In this book, we argue that the COVID-19 pandemic health crisis and emergency also highlighted the need for new preparedness and anticipation to face present and future multiple interconnected crises. We call this shift “the new normal”. The new normal involves centrally planning governance and participation with a revision of assumptions and priorities within the societal process of modernization. During the COVID-19 pandemic emergency and its reoccurring waves, we are observing a radical change in the guidance for future (planning), the (more or less) institutional context that supports and structures actions for such guidance (governance), and the knowledge needed to prioritize those actions (participation). The “normal” is rooted in the routine practice performed in everyday life, enforced by the structures of regulation, meanings, infrastructures, and cultures that sustain and maintain a set of actions (Lissandrello 2015; Lissandrello et al. 2017). In the specific context of this book, the focal point is not to define the shift into a new normal as a coherent programme of change. Instead, the new normal is the field of experimentation of (new) emergent practices (Dryzek 2000; Hajer 2003) that the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has opened. This chapter first briefly introduces emerging research lines on planning, governance, and participation explored in the current research during the pandemic. Second, it frames the directions into the new normal addressing the structure and the main contribution of the book.

1 Introduction to the New Normal in Planning, Governance, and Participation

3

1.2 Emerging Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Planning, Governance, and Participation The first months of the pandemic were a state of emergency. From 11 March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the pandemic, the SARS-CoV2 virus, known now as COVID-19, has provoked an unusual time of “suspension”. The menace of the virus spread and the peril of fast transmission among individuals, places, and spaces created an incredible and fast transformation of the everyday life of people all over the world. Changes occurred almost overnight across urban areas, governance structures, and in how citizens could respond to an unknown “invisible” virus. Planning as the guide to the future changed for everyone around the globe. Planning holidays, taking our children to school, going to work, or for a stroll in the city—the normal activities and routines of everyday life were suddenly interrupted with social contact and interaction transformed, at first driven by fear and later by regulated and enforced restrictions. From March 2020 until autumn 2022, special issues and scientific articles in urban studies, planning, governance, and participation have defined emerging research lines and the need for transformative solutions for a more green, inclusive, and resilient recovery. Critical aspects underlined in pre-pandemic urban studies turned into intractable problems during the pandemic. The “corona crisis” (Brinks and Ibert 2020) has reflected global research interests on existing and persisting inequalities and spatial inequities across cities and regions in terms of public services, housing affordability, and segregation of areas or groups. The pre-pandemic dominance of short-term economic goals in urban planning, with ever-increasing housing costs and growing urban uniformity (Chirisa et al. 2022; Grant 2022) is rendering urban economies and communities in densely populated areas vulnerable, with impacts on the ageing population, unhoused people, urban crime and violence, and the public perception of safety in our cities. The COVID-19 measures of lockdown have raised research questions on spatial justice and the accessibility of public spaces and green areas. Urban research during COVID-19 has highlighted the persistent problem of racial disparities, economic inequality, and housing instability with tremendous stress upon healthcare governance and urban securitizing policies (Elander et al. 2022; Bates 2021).

1.2.1 Planning During the COVID-19 emergency, planning studies have focused on the immediate factors that favour or impede the risk of infection in cities. The planning discipline is traditionally instrumental in preparing for issues that pose urban risks (e.g. Crawford 2010; Scott 2020). Research attention during the pandemic included issues such as urban air quality, weather, and meteorological factors, urban water systems, smart city solutions and technologies for pandemic control, urban mobility and transport,

4

E. Lissandrello et al.

housing for everyone, urban health services, and impacts of the urban environment on mental health, the role of greening and nature-based solutions and urban agriculture, and building greener and pandemic-proof cities (Jevtic et al. 2022; Nieuwenhuijsen 2020). COVID-19 has also acted as a catalyst of concepts related to sustainable and healthy cities already existing in pre-pandemic times (Crawford 2010; Bailey et al. 2020), but with little chance to be prioritized over profit-maximizing goals and short-term economic urban ambitions (Baeten 2012). In addition, COVID-19 has raised research reflections on the failure of decades of urban planning piloted by car domination (Haughton 2020), which has deteriorated the quality of urban spaces, and the urban environment with congestion, air and noise pollution. Planning research has also focused on the alternative and faster implementation of alternative mobility solutions and tactical infrastructures (e.g. cycling) and has highlighted rights to decent, affordable housing (Einstein et al. 2022). The neighbourhood dimension has become an important spatial context in urban planning, especially in relation to improving accessibility and proximity of services in everyday life for children, the elderly, and families. The COVID-19 pandemic has also inspired research lines on the shift in consumer behaviour and the impact of online shopping on urban planning (e.g. Mehta et al. 2020; Kunzmann 2020).

1.2.2 Governance The COVID-19 pandemic has opened research lines on the hybrid forms of governance that combine control-oriented (Torfing et al. 2012) and collaborative-oriented (Peters et al. 2022) approaches to collective interactive steering and management (Kooiman 2003). While collaborative governance encouraged the “soft” measures of sanitizing, mask wearing, and social distancing, the COVID-19 infection’s spread has also required direct control and lockdowns. Hybrid governance emerged as a mix of control and collaboration to cope with public health goals with accountability for citizens (Peters et al. 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic has also inspired research on the redistribution of power beyond the nation-state, across the local and supranational authorities both on health services supply and demand sides. Questions related to the quality of services, communication, and financial strategies have been raised (Janssen and Van der Voort 2020; McGuirk et al. 2021). The data offered by international organizations (World Bank, WHO, and International Monetary Fund) regarding the COVID-19 situation in 237 countries in the world is considered the most comprehensive source of information today (Dodds et al. 2020). Research during the pandemic has paid attention to the role of supranational institutions such as the EU financial support and differences among nation-states’ internal possibilities and solidarity across borders to set guidelines and standardized decisions (Martínez-Córdoba et al. 2021). Citizens’ (im)mobility has sparked research questions on citizens’ unequal work conditions. Governance scholars have also focused on the credibility of technocratic governments in situations of insufficient knowledge of crises’ causes and effects (Ansell et al. 2021). The interlink

1 Introduction to the New Normal in Planning, Governance, and Participation

5

between technical aspects and adequate management of sociopolitical complexities, including the impact of the media, citizens’ trust in rules, and acceptance of new norms and values, are fundamental elements of the governance of crises (Schmidt 2020).

1.2.3 Participation Research on participation during the COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the changes in tools and means, with processes mainly shifting to digitalization. Often the challenges of public participation remain critical and largely inherited from traditional forms of participation. This includes the persistent challenge of reaching relevant stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups), as well as varying levels of participants’ knowledge and understanding of planning and design procedures and aims (Panti´c et al. 2021). Research on planners, designers, and managers’ performanceenhancing public participation during the COVID-19 emergency has underlined their limited training and practical experience in shifting from face-to-face meetings to virtual environments (Milz and Gervich 2021). This lack of preparedness runs the risk of reducing dissent (Pløger 2021) and reproducing the persistent inequalities of face-to-face meetings in virtual environments (Pokharel et al. 2022). The pandemic has revealed moments of hope with the spontaneous development of solidarities within and across local communities seeking to self-manage the immediate effects of COVID-19 (Solnit 2020). Participatory planning research during COVID-19 stresses the need to establish new relations of care and solidarity as an act of resistance against the techno-managerial systems that have led to planning impotence in some places (Legacy 2021; Inch 2021).

1.3 Framing Directions of the New Normal The book is an explorative journey that seeks to frame the “new normal”, conceptualizing trends of ongoing transformation. The next generation of urban professionals needs re-ordering priorities and shapes urban long-term goals in situations of risks, crisis, and uncertainty. This book brings together scholars across disciplines like geography, urban planning, anthropology, urban design, public policy, management sciences, governance studies and participation, sociology, and politics dealing with fundamental approaches to experimentation. The book articulates three parts that discuss the new normal as experimentation from diverse angles. From COVID-19 as a context of experimentation for theoretical framing of the new normal (part 1), to the situated multiple practices of experimentation in urban governance and participation during the pandemic (part 2), and as a critical reflection for future perspectives as a passage that opens to the new normal (part 3).

6

E. Lissandrello et al.

Part 1—theoretical framework of the new normal examines the COVID-19 pandemic emergency as a historically situated specific context for experimentation in urban research. The focus here is on emerging processes of rethinking assumptions, the validity of our intellectual models, and research priorities in planning governance and participation. The question is how and if the pandemic offers an opportunity to reevaluate existing models, processes, practices, and meanings of the COVID-19 emergency as a field of experimentation to orient specific theoretical research directions. Enza Lissandrello, Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen, and Lasse Schytt Nørgaard (Aalborg University, Denmark) (Chap. 2) reflect on the pandemic experience and the urban planning research role and priorities on healthy cities and discuss the changing relationship between knowledge and power as a deliberative turn for the new normal. John Pløger (University of Agder, Norway) (Chap. 3) critically considers the relationship between pandemic management and urban planning in the Nordic countries claiming that in both cases, public participation never partakes in decision-making and too often excludes agonistic dynamics. In the new normal, strategical improvisation is needed to enhance temporal decision and open to the contingencies and constructive conflicts inclusive of the hopes and dreams of people. Nataša Colic, Omiljena Dželebdžic, and Ratka Colic (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia) (Chap. 4) adopt a narrative analysis to detect the change of formal language when planners reach diverse types of communities. These dynamics are essential in the new normal as the changing culture of planning, governance, and participation. Georgiana Varna and Danny Oswell (Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK) (Chap. 5) analyse the UK planning after almost a decade of policy-induced austerity that situated COVID-19 on top of already fractured, fragile, and vulnerable communities. Varna and Oswell argue that the pandemic, while causing distress, also did create moments of hope for people from various mutual aid schemes and communal activities that popped up quite spontaneously. The new normal should consider flexible and scalable elements of these experiences as “place citizenship”, “care and affect”, “tactical urbanism”, and “empowerment”. Janni Sørensen and Tara Bengle (Aalborg University, Denmark and Johnson C. Mith University, Charlotte, NC, USA) (Chap. 6) draw on a decade-long partnership experiences of community planning marginalized areas and reflect on the impact of the COVID-19 imposed barriers to reaching the community through direct participation. The model of research-community collaboration in the new normal cannot simply shift to digital participation but integrate face-to-face participatory processes too, as the fine grain of work with communities is more crucial than ever. Roberta Chiarini (ENEA, Italy) (Chap. 7) argues that with the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need to reflect again on economic anthropology. Drawing from the Italian experience, she identifies trends that reconnect nature and the human relationship in a direct dialectic relationship. In the new normal, research should focus on the interplay among diverse types of emergencies. A solution to one emergency needs to be adopted with the sense of the impact on other diverse types of emergencies. Part 2—experiences on urban governance and participation during the pandemic explores how the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has opened multiple

1 Introduction to the New Normal in Planning, Governance, and Participation

7

practices that intertwine planning, governance, and participation. The point here is to capture emerging practices as carriers of specific possibilities and tensions by analysing the “doing” and producing meanings, reflections, and new subjects of inquiry. Philippe Hamman, Andreea Grigorovschi, Sophie Henck, and Marie Fruiquière (University of Strasbourg, France) (Chap. 8) explore the experimentation during COVID-19 in making corona cycle ways both in terms of the practice of urban design and discursive modes of “temporary”, “transitional”, or “pragmatic” urbanism. The experimental case in Mulhouse’s COVID-19 reflects the response to a new normal as a strategic selection of a range of tactical instruments to prioritize speed, reactivity, and low costs to plan and implement bicycle infrastructures during the health crisis. Miguel Silva Graça (University of Coimbra, Portugal) (Chap. 9) focuses on participatory budgeting in Portugal, successful in number and accomplishments. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed some critical burden on the effectiveness of participatory budgeting from face-to-face to digital participation. The new normal will require not just expanding to the digital but also deeper methods of participation in more inclusive and sensitive ways. Gabriella Kiss, Máté Csukás, and Dániel Oross (University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary) (Chap. 10) reflect on the participatory budgeting in Budapest during the COVID-19 pandemic and the experience of the continuous stop-and-go process. Hungary’s political and economic situation in 2020 and 2021 has marginalized opportunities for participation. The new normal requires a focus on equity and resilience and research efforts on practice to develop capabilities to adapt, retain, or even enhance inclusive deliberation. Felipe Barroco, Francesca Cappellaro, Claudia Carani, Gianluca D’Agosta, Piero De Sabbata, and Carlo Alberto Nucci (ENEA and University of Bologna, Italy) (Chap. 11) explore the question of energy poverty in urban transition processes with the case of Pilastro–Roveri district in Bologna, Italy. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the suspension of face-to-face meetings and public events, bringing great challenges to engaging citizens and other local actors in digital venues. “Energy citizenship” is discussed as a possible solution for managing the multiple crises in the new normal. Lena Unger and Dahae Lee (University, Dortmund, Germany) (Chap. 12) analyse a case of multiple stakeholders planning to redevelop a 52-hectare brownfield site of a former steel construction company into a mixed-use urban quarter of a technology park in Dortmund. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on analogue and digital public participation provided opportunities to tap the democratic processes, but digital communicative planning has shortcomings regarding power relations. The new normal should bring attention to forms of participation that can reproduce neoliberal logic through digital means. Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen, Enza Lissandrello (Aalborg University, Denmark), and Nuria Castell (NILU, Norway) (Chap. 13) propose a concept for the structuration of Urban Living Labs (ULLs) as spaces for learning across disciplines and urban contexts. Complex issues such as urban environmental justice and air quality require the co-production of knowledge among various local contexts and disciplines. The new normal will require reflexive practice across borders to generate and align participatory models. Roberto Falanga (University of Lisbon, Portugal) (Chap. 14) addresses the question of urban poverty in participatory processes through the case of the urban regeneration of Martim Moniz

8

E. Lissandrello et al.

Square in Lisbon at the end of 2020, the first participatory process almost exclusively online. The lack of inclusion of groups with unequal access to digital devices requires research attention on the most marginalized people living and working in deprived areas and critical aspects of urban poverty. Pia Laborgne and Paula Kloecker (KIT and EIFER, Karlsruhe, Germany) (Chap. 15) argue that the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development of digital methods for public involvement. Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS) experiences in Karlsruhe/Germany in 2021 on heat waves in the city show that critical urban areas and groups can be identified and discussed, but that those data require interpretation by citizens to enhance transparency on the use of the data. Maria Vitaller del Olmo and Nicola Morelli (Aalborg University, Denmark) (Chap. 16) explore hackathons to envision collaborative solutions in the design process through the EasyRights a Horizon 2020 project on the access of migrants to public services. Due to the COVID-19 social distancing measures, all participatory design processes have shifted online. The new normal should focus on designing and preparing inclusive digital spaces and facilitating moments to share participatory activities. Aldona Wiktorska-Swiecka (Univesity of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland) (Chap. 17) analyses the effects of the implementation of Berlin’s scheme for public participation during the pandemic and defines changing patterns of public governance in the COVID-19 pandemic times. The new normal should integrate the organizational culture and the trends for transformation towards participatory governance with the development of ICT. Nacima Baron (Université Gustave Eiffel, Paris, France) (Chap. 18) explores the managers’ videoconferencing performance during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency and its rapid adoption at a time when the French state implemented a new mobility policy and consent from the municipalities. Digitally mediated means adopted to become inclusive beyond distances continue reproducing territorial diversity. Further attention in the new normal is on the silent resistance of local governments in under-resourced territories. Part 3—critical reflections and future perspectives is devoted to address the main question on how the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has opened new contexts for experimentation for a future urban research agenda. The focus here is on the emerging critical issues and processes highlighted by the COVID-19 emergency, giving directions to a new normal future. The specific point is orienting preparedness processes to adopt visions of anticipation and strategical improvisation as a part of the new normal research and practice. A vocabulary beyond prevention and post-emergency is fundamental for the new normal in planning, governance, and participation to deal with long-term uncertainty and “living with risks”. Klaus R. Kunzmann (TU Dortmund, Germany) (Chap. 19) argues that planners have speculated boundless about COVID-19’s longer-term impacts on cities. It is essential for planners to develop visions but also critically prepare for a new normal future by improving their digital competencies and developing analysis on the spatial impacts of smart city development and e-shopping practices. The change in consumption patterns will force a reconsideration of urban politics in larger urban regions. Kristian Olesen and Matthew Howells (Aalborg University, Denmark) (Chap. 20) face the issue of segregation and structural injustice in residential areas in Denmark,

1 Introduction to the New Normal in Planning, Governance, and Participation

9

using the pandemic as a lens to uncover processes of territorial stigmatization and cultural racism unfolding in a time of crisis. There is a need to develop a “new normal discourse” on Danish Non-Profit Housing areas and their residents beyond territorial stigmatization and cultural racism of certain housing areas, their residents, and ethnic minorities. Matthias Haase and Daniela Baer (University of Applied Sciences Waedenswil, Switzerland and SINTEF Community Trondheim, Norway) (Chap.21) focus on the concept and the practice of positive energy districts (PEDs) and the COVID-19 pandemic as a catalyst for understanding pressures due to energy transition and climate neutrality. PEDs governance processes in Switzerland, Austria, and Norway (research approach, national programme, city approach) during the pandemic emergency show urgency in the new normal to capitalize on learning lessons from existing experiences and knowledge to prepare for adaptability and behavioural change. Federico Camerin (Universidad UVA de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain) (Chap. 22) explores the critical lessons from superblocks-related measures in post-COVID-19. Barcelona promoted in the last decades a focus on creating healthier, more inclusive, and resilient urban environments. COVID-19 has acted as an accelerator for the application of these pre-existing approaches giving the possibility to respond to a new urgency to deal with unexpected disruptions, enhancing a “culture of strategic improvisation”. David Ludlow (University of the West of England, Bristol, UK) (Chap. 23) argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has constituted an additional challenge to other crises, such as the climate emergency, highlighting the importance of resilience and adaptability in urban planning. Learning lessons from research and innovation projects across the EU can offer elements to prepare for the new normal, providing models for stakeholder engagement, co-creation of quality assessments, and communication channels across scales and groups for deliberating a more sustainable urban future. The book concludes (Chap. 24) with a collective overview of the contributions to ongoing research as discussed here. The emerging themes across chapters together offer an image of the emerging but still developing “new normal” and insights into future research agenda. We hope this book will provide a foundation for further reflection and research on this “new normal”.

References Ansell C, Sørensen E, Torfing J (2021) The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Manag Rev 23(7):949–960 Baeten G (2012) Normalising neoliberal planning: the case of Malmö, Sweden. In: Ta¸san-Kok T, Baeten G (eds) Contradictions of neoliberal planning. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 21–42 Bailey D, Clark J, Colombelli A, Corradini C, De Propris L, Derudder B, ..., Usai S (2020) Regions in a time of pandemic. Reg Stud 54(9):1163–1174 Bates LK (2021) Tired, but hopeful. Plan Theory Pract 22(5):663–667

10

E. Lissandrello et al.

Brinks V, Ibert O (2020) From corona virus to corona crisis: the value of an analytical and geographical understanding of crisis. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 111(3):275–287 Chirisa I, Mutambisi T, Chivenge M, Mabaso E, Matamanda AR, Ncube R (2022) The urban penalty of COVID-19 lockdowns across the globe: manifestations and lessons for Anglophone sub-Saharan Africa. GeoJournal 87(2):815–828 Crawford J (2010) Health at the heart of spatial planning. Plan Theory Pract 11(1):91–113 Davoudi S, Porter L (2012) The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note. Plan Theory Pract 13(2):329–333 Dodds K, Broto VC, Detterbeck K, Jones M, Mamadouh V, Ramutsindela M, Varsanyi M, Wachsmuth D, Woon CY (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic: territorial, political and governance dimensions of the crisis. Territory Politics Governance 8(3):289–298 Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, Oxford Einstein KL, Glick D, Godinez Puig L, Palmer M (2022) Still muted: the limited participatory democracy of zoom public meetings. Urban Affairs Rev,OnlineFirst. 10780874211070494 Elander I, Granberg M, Montin S (2022) Governance and planning in a ‘perfect storm’: securitising climate change, migration and Covid-19 in Sweden. Prog Plan 164:100634 Grant JL (2022) When politicians call for “better” planning, it’s time to worry. Plan Theory Pract 23(4):491–495 Hajer M (2003) Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sci 36(2):175–195 Haughton G, White I, Pinto N (2020) Planning the post-pandemic era. Town Country Plann 89(4/ 5):138–140 Ibert O, Baumgart S, Siedentop S, Weith T (2022) Planning in the face of extraordinary uncertainty: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plan Pract Res 37(1):1–12 Inch A (2021) Planning for the future? Plan Theory Pract 22(3):341–346 Janssen M, Van der Voort H (2020) Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Inf Manage 55:102180 Jevtic M, Matkovic V, Paut Kusturica M, Bouland C (2022) Build healthier: post-COVID-19 urban requirements for healthy and sustainable living. Sustainability 14(15):9274 Kooiman J (2003) Governing as governance. Sage, London Kunzmann KR (2020) Smart cities after COVID-19: ten narratives. disP Plan Rev 56(2):20–31 Legacy C (2021) The point is still to change it. Plan Theory Pract 22(4):511–515 Lissandrello E, Hrelja R, Tennøy A, Richardson T (2017) Three performativities of innovation in public transport planning. Int Plan Stud 22(2):99–113 Lissandrello E (2015). Stories of performativity in the politics of urban planning in two Scandinavian cities. In: International conference on public policy, 1–4 July 2015. International Public Policy Association, Milan Martínez-Córdoba PJ, Benito B, García-Sánchez IM (2021) Efficiency in the governance of the Covid-19 pandemic: political and territorial factors. Glob Health 17(1):1–13 McGuirk P, Dowling R, Maalsen S, Baker T (2021) Urban governance innovation and COVID-19. Geogr Res 59(2):188–195 Mehta S, Saxena T, Purohit N (2020) The new consumer behaviour paradigm amid COVID-19: permanent or transient? J Health Manag 22(2):291–301 Milz D, Gervich CD (2021) Participation and the pandemic: how planners are keeping democracy alive, online. Town Planning Review 92(3):335–341 Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2020) New urban models for more sustainable, liveable and healthier cities post COVID-19; reducing air pollution, noise and heat island effects and increasing green space and physical activity. Environ Int 157:106850 Panti´c M, Cilliers J, Cimadomo G, Montaño F, Olufemi O, Torres Mallma S, Van den Berg J (2021) Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the COVID-19 pandemic—lessons learned for the future. Land 10(12):1379

1 Introduction to the New Normal in Planning, Governance, and Participation

11

Peters BG, Pierre J, Sørensen E, Torfing J (2022) A research agenda for governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Pløger J (2021) Conflict, consent, dissensus: the unfinished as a challenge to politics and planning. Environ Plan C Politics Space 39(6):1294–1309 Pokharel A, Milz D, Gervich CD (2022) Planning for dissent. J Am Plann Assoc 88(1):127–134 Schmidt VA (2020) Theorizing institutional change and governance in European responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. J Eur Integr 42(8):1177–1193 Scott M (2020) Covid-19, place-making and health. Plan Theory Pract 21(3):343–348 Solnit R (2020) The way we get through this is together: Mutual aid under coronavirus. The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/14/mutual-aid-cor onavirus-pandemic-rebecca-solnit Torfing J, Peters BG, Pierre J, Sørensen E (2012) Oxford University Press, Oxford World Bank (2022) World development indicators. Retrieved 26 May 2022, from: https://databank. worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators

Enza Lissandrello is an associate professor at Aalborg University with a background in urban planning and public policy, human geography, and the governance of socio-technical system innovation and transitions. Her work examines urban and regional planning under contemporary trends of reflexive modernization, participation, deliberation, conflicts, and issues of representation. She has taught widely and published widely on the roles of planners and policy actors in sustainable urban planning and through deliberative forms. She is leading research on smart cities and urban development, urban living laboratories, and positive energy districts. She is the research coordinator of the Urban Europe Research Alliance (UERA). Janni Sørensen is an associate professor at the Department of Planning at Aalborg University. She holds a PhD in Regional Planning from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, and has for many years worked on participatory neighbourhood scale planning with marginalized communities in Charlotte, North Carolina. Today her work centres on research and teaching at Aalborg University with focus on both rural and urban communities’ access to and influence in local planning processes. Kristian Olesen is an associate professor in strategic spatial planning at the Department of Planning at Aalborg University. Kristian’s main research interests are in strategic spatial planning, planning theory, neoliberalization of planning, transportation policies, and housing policies. Kristian is currently leading a research project investigating how housing associations in Denmark increasingly are acting as strategic urban developers when transforming socio-economically disadvantages non-profit housing areas. Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen is an assistant professor in sustainable urban planning at Aalborg University. He has been a post-doctoral researcher on diverse themes of sustainability planning such as how air quality can become a driver in urban transitions, implementation of UN sustainable development goals in local planning and planning education, as well as the sustainability of multi-dwelling households, and second home planning. He teaches a broad range of themes related to sustainability planning and methods and theories of science in planning.

Part I

Theoretical Framings of the New Normal

Chapter 2

Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New Normal Planning Enza Lissandrello, Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen, and Lasse Schytt Nørgaard

Abstract During the last decade, much planning and urban governance research have investigated extensive- and small-scale experiments to design and establish new models for citizens’ participation and collaborative planning. These models have generally focused on practices for engaging citizens in specific local contexts and projects. This chapter develops a theory about public participation drawing from a tradition of deliberative democracy, collaborative, and pragmatic planning to help understand and advance participatory methods in new normal planning. The questions address how we can understand public participation as the intelligence of planning and a normalized practice, and how researchers can perform participation planning as a way of knowing, creating spaces of knowledge deliberation. Our experience as researchers dealing with the co-production of knowledge on air quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Aalborg is presented here with its diverse participation practice and mutual learning. The chapter concludes by identifying the essential role of planning research in facilitating, mediating, and acting as interlocutors of participation processes in the new normal. Keywords Risk society · Mutual learning · Deliberative knowledge · Planning research

2.1 Introduction “Poverty is hierarchic, smog is democratic” (Beck 1992: 36).

E. Lissandrello (B) · R. N. Steffansen · L. S. Nørgaard Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] L. S. Nørgaard e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_2

15

16

E. Lissandrello et al.

The COVID-19 pandemic reflects some of the trends of a risk society in which global impacts can no longer be attributed, predicted, controlled, evaded, or compensated (Beck 1992). Unlike other disruptive events, the COVID-19 pandemic has involved humanity in a historically common global situation with local repercussions (Chernilo 2021). In the new normal, after the post-COVID-19 emergency, planning research needs to face and anticipate the socio-ecological impacts on cities and regions and prepare professionals for a future that is not “ours” (Pløger, in this volume, Chap. 3) and without complete knowledge of future distruptive processes. The main lesson from the pandemic, is that pre-pandemic presuppositions, assumptions, methods, and models can propagate and amplify risks to society itself (Beck 1996; Latour 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the limits and insufficiency of existing scientific knowledge and the deficit in knowledge on the causes and effects of the pandemic were among the main problems. Even though digitalization processes have accelerated and facilitated connections across distances, the essential elements of participation as information and communication have not adapted at the same speed (Pokharel et al. 2022). Existing structural injustices of physical participatory processes have left what counts as essential knowledge, unquestioned (Panti´c et al. 2021). In this chapter, we look specifically at participation as a source of knowledge in planning. We argue that COVID-19—part of the multiple global crises that intertwine in our contemporaneity—“forced us to respond, to act, for better or worse” (Forester 2020:112). Our path to act in the new normal planning will be participation. In this chapter, we question how we can understand public participation as the intelligence of planning in new normal practice, and which role planning research about and beyond the pandemic can redefine spaces of deliberative knowledge production in the new normal. The chapter opens with a discussion on the relationship between planning, knowledge, and participation, followed by examples of participation creating “ways of knowing” in the work of researchers. We then provide a brief insight into the role of planning research in the dynamics of deliberative democracy in future new normal.

2.2 Planning, Knowledge, and Participation The global impact of the pandemic is representative of the impotence of planning solutions to reach everyone and everywhere and reflects the impossibility of controlling and managing knowledge. The pandemic is symbolic of planning in a risk society (Beck 1999), a society in which the challenges are not always confined or circumscribed and more often transgress spatial scales and the sovereignty of specific polities (Lissandrello 2006; Hajer 2003). Planning with a sense of vision of the future, of anticipation, but still rooted in the present situation of risk and uncertainty is and will be our new normal. As Forester (2020:111), in a recent publication, concisely describes, five generations have passed from “Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber’s classic statement of the so-called wicked problems that confronts professional experts (and the rest of us) with truly perplexing dilemmas”. However, even

2 Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New …

17

after five generations, we still question the relationships, the gaps, and the connections, between knowledge and action. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that knowledge constitutes planning as a specific field of study. In many situations where we, as planning researchers, confront the quest to define our field—often in interdisciplinary research environments—we often return to the historical definition given by Friedmann and Hudson (1974). A useful way to look at planning is to consider it as an activity centrally concerned with the linkage between knowledge and action. As a professional activity and a social process, planning is therefore located precisely in the interface between knowledge and action. (Friedmann and Hudson 1974: 2)

The second reason is that planning knowledge is critical concerning power (Forester 1982; Flyvbjerg 2002). Considering knowledge as power has intensified discussions across planning schools on the relationship between science and policy, the role of “expert knowledge”, and the use and misuse of knowledge in planning processes. However, contemporary planning scholarship maintains that knowledge cannot be understood as something “one holds” but as a co-production process across multiple ways of knowing (Sandercock and Forsyth 1992; Healey 2012; Davoudi 2015). The paradigm shift that knowledge does not occur before action but while planning is rooted in the deliberative scholarship of Donald Schon and John Dewey and has been interpreted in planning studies for a long time (Friedmann 1987; Forester 1999). Moving the compass of knowledge in and for planning has also moved the idea that values planning itself (Campbell 2012). While expert knowledge generally “serves” planning as a blueprint or state-led steering, the knowledge co-produced while planning is about “mutual learning” that drives deliberations. The relationship between knowledge and action shapes the collective intelligence of planning (Friedmann 1987). Knowledge becomes conceptualized as plural and shaped during action (Baum 1980; Forester 1982; Innes 1995; Richardson 2002; 2005; Madanipour 2010). Three questions become essential: Who shapes such knowledge, what is the scope of such co-production, who designs and mediates tools and processes of co-production and with which frames of references and means of action? Participatory frames thus the condition for the co-production of knowledge in planning.

2.2.1 Public Participation as a Way of Knowing Despite the multiple frameworks developed in the last decades regarding public participation, the point of departure remains Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, a fundamental critic of technocratic planning created in the 1960s (Arnstein 1969). The framework, as well known, consists of a ladder that—visually—represents a scale of values on the degrees of citizens’ participation as citizens’ power (Blue et al. 2019). The ladder serves as a critical tool for formal planning authorities to define their exercise of control over planning processes. One of the effects of

18

E. Lissandrello et al.

Arnstein’s critique is that opened a movement about social justice and a broad societal reflection on the democratization of planning, concerning citizens as a focal point. Citizens are the most affected individuals subjected to decisions and do not hold, in principle, a “dispositional power” within the governance structure. Arstein’s ladder has also constituted a ground theory for a paradigm shift in planning. This shift became consistent in the modernization of planning from the “art of producing documents” to the “art of producing dialogs”. This shift has influenced planning theory to integrate the concept of deliberation—from a responsibility of state action to a social learning process based on “mutual learning” to guide future actions (Friedmann 1987). John Dewey also began with “sociable individuals”. Today, there is a great deal of interest in Dewey’s “deliberative democracy”. His notion of the “public” must, however, not only be understood as functional, as people coming together to reduce the “burden of their separate actions” and to engage in “collective self-regulation” but as foundational in his recognition of the “unbreakable distinction between individuals and society”. (Sabel 1997: 182)

Participation is now a legally binding activity in planning in most contexts. Planning authorities exercise participatory practice in the functional design of public hearings, getting commentaries, diffusing questionnaires, organizing workshops, and managing budgets as shared processes. Collaborative planning theory intends participation to advance the deliberative democratization of planning practice. Democracy is a process in the making, with ongoing experimentation of its meaning and practices (Dewey 1927). Participation is a lens to illuminate democratic dilemmas of accountability, legitimacy, and progress in normalizing planning practice. Approaches developed in the last two decades have expanded the vocabulary and the meanings of public participation in diverse directions as engagement and public involvement (Cars et al. 2017; Barnett and Jackson 2019; Bratu et al. 2022; Bryson et al. 2013), capacity building and trust (Dryzek 2009; Coleman and Stern. 2018; Susskind and Ozawa 1984), dynamics of empowerment of citizens and stakeholders through agonism and reflexivity (Lissandrello and Grin 2011; Pløger 2004; 2021), and processes of democratization in practice (Forester 1999; Innes and Booher 2010; Kahila-Tani et al. 2019; Nieuwenhuijsen 2020). However, the “distribution” of power remains a fundamental question. Planning research has been more preoccupied with inquiry and observing public participation concerning planning decisions rather than theorizing participation as an active element that can open broader “ways of knowing”. This limitation of reflexivity in planning has left unquestioned the role of researchers in enhancing participation through the micropolitics of the co-production of knowledge. In the next session, we illustrate some of the participatory practices activated by our work as planning researchers at Aalborg University and reflect on the micropolitics of social justice in relation to power and knowledge. The point of observation here is on participatory practice, as “ways of knowing”, as the fundamental change in the culture of participation. We call this “knowledge deliberation” as our approach here is not centered on the way to get outcomes that people wish for or to get people to have voices, but instead focused on “the way that does justice to the way people learn and change and develop capacity and relationships in participation” (Forester 2021).

2 Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New …

19

2.3 Knowledge Deliberation in Aalborg In Aalborg, we acted as deliberative planning researchers to co-produce knowledge on urban air quality. We started in March 2020 during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Air quality is an indicator of the quality of the urban environment, but it is generally not a priority theme in urban planning. Expert knowledge of air quality modeling involving atmospheric sciences remains dominant in this area, together with epidemiology research. Air quality data are traditionally gathered by official stations, modeled by experts, and often “politicized” as filtered by assessing indicators that remain obscure to the most of the citizens. Engaging citizens in monitoring the air quality means opening a culture of participation in a field of knowledge that is traditionally non-participatory. Citizens are indeed traditionally seen as “passive” agents in this field of knowledge. During the pandemic and post-pandemic times, air quality has catalyzed research attention in environmental- and spatial justice and healthy cities. Ulrick Beck’s provocative work on the risk society (1992) mentions air pollution as a symbolic theme. The air involves everyone globally and locally, moving indifferently across diverse areas, groups, and borders. Generally, air quality is worse in residential areas in the proximity of industries or traffic arteries where the generally poor-income population live. The initial idea of our research team in Aalborg was to adopt an open and experimental approach to activate, through practical activities, diverse ways of knowing-through citizens’ engagement via air monitoring sensors, participatory GIS, face-to-face meetings with neighborhood councils, discussions with experts on air quality, municipality planners, and students of the Master’s in Urban Planning and Management and Cities and Sustainability at Aalborg University. The scope of these practice activities was to identify spaces of knowledge deliberation. We mean here how people can develop knowledge capacity and relationships by participating in research. An important aspect has been to anchor our research aim with other participatory activities already planned in Aalborg (such as the sustainability festival in Aalborg, organized every year in the city and the initiative called 2030-NOW expositions in the Autumn of 2022) and strongly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic times.

2.3.1 Knowing-Through Sensor Technologies In Aalborg, we work as deliberative planning researchers to engage citizens in air quality monitoring through low-cost sensors that can be self-installed in individual houses (or other places of interest like schools, shops, etc.) and on bikes. Citizens’ power here plays an important role. The idea to engage individual citizens in measuring pollution levels in their residential areas or during daily commuting practices is indeed deep turning a culture in air quality studies. In a culture of participation, sensor data collected by citizens means to engage them in becoming scientists, understanding data, and becoming able to access those data through a Web portal allowing

20

E. Lissandrello et al.

citizens and authorities to conduct their analysis. Thus, citizens’ power to measure about pollution levels in their residential areas or during daily commuting practices. The sensor data means to engage citizens about “what is matter” measuring. The modularity of the sensors made the process technically accessible, but the practical issues of working with citizens are not always smooth. The sensors need constant maintenance and supervision in data acquisition. Sensors also need to be taken down at citizens’ homes (requiring an appointment with a private citizen to enter their home), determining the problem, possibly shipping it to the provider, and reinstalling it after its return (requiring a new appointment). The mobile sensors have also proven to be cumbersome to deploy, mainly because of lockdown periods and more general difficulties of reaching people to install them on their bikes, but also because of several maintenance issues.

2.3.2 Knowing-Through Digital Participatory GIS In Aalborg, we also have developed participatory GIS (PPGIS) online surveys to gather insights from citizens on specific areas and groups. We are interested in understanding how citizens perceive air quality in Aalborg, if people perceive specific problems in the diverse areas with air quality or if they can tackle sensitive groups of people. The citizen’s response was the starting point. For us, it was essential to depart from existing surveys created for other types of research using this tool and then to discuss specific issues on air quality spatially in urban areas with environmental researchers. The surveys have mainly diffused through the media, a Website created in the course of the project, and side talks with other researchers and authorities. The surveys have required diverse testing phases to monitor the responses based on input from citizens. The results of the surveys need to be analyzed together with the decision-makers. However, the main challenge of working with the PPGIS is reaching actually a broad audience and getting meaningful data to discuss. Therefore, communication channels are essential, as well as the capacity to develop networks of interested parties and other researchers to distribute through their channels.

2.3.3 Knowing-With Neighborhood Councils In Aalborg, we work directly with citizens of neighborhood councils with face-to-face meetings in their local contexts. We engaged them in talks about their neighborhood and the critical problems they see with air quality—providing them sensors—but also about their general hopes and fears with planning and their feelings about participation. This approach has allowed developing relationships that have deepened our understanding of citizens’ perspectives on what is going on with urban planning and the municipality agenda for the area. Citizens engage and participate with interest in these talks. Talking to citizens is essential, as different neighborhood councils

2 Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New …

21

emphasize problems differently. For example, in the West part of Aalborg, the Vestbyen neighborhood, ongoing urban development projects are in phases of implementation (a new public transport-BRT-infrastructure, the new Aqvavit residential, and multifunctional area), and six other projects will transform the mobility of this area. Aalborg municipality is developing a new neighborhood climate adaptation plan for Vestbyen, which the residents fear will negatively impact existing green and recreational areas with ties to the historical maritime trades and identity in the area. Vestbyen plays an exciting role model for the ongoing dynamics of participation in formal urban planning processes. Our “way of knowing” with neighborhood councils in the diverse parts of the city has proved a potential for researchers to facilitate a culture of public participation in planning. Citizens’ data measurements on air quality have demonstrated that new forms of dialog and mutual understanding of problems can take form. For planning researchers, the practical tensions between citizens and planning authorities at the neighborhood level became evident regarding planned urban development processes and the impact of those on maintaining and improving a more sustainable urban future.

2.3.4 Knowing-With Experts In our work with Aalborg, it was quickly evident that air quality was not an issue high on the agenda of public discourse. Through talks with the neighborhood councils, we hold a public debate in the context of the initiative for the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals in the 2030-NOW event in Aalborg in November 2022. The Aalborg team designed the format of a roundtable debate, inviting experts on air quality modeling and health issues associated with air pollution. A local politician presented the political engagement in the urban air quality—the event was hosted at a local venue and free of charge. The experts’ speeches were on the impact of air quality on human health and the existing system of official monitoring stations and consequential modeling weather and climate dynamics influencing air quality. Critical discussions took form on the solutions to improve air quality in cities, inspiring and raising several important issues by the citizens. More than to the crowd, the event resulted in a partnership for co-production/-education of mutual understandings and urgent urban planning to meet healthy cities. The exchange has allowed the identification of diverse forms of struggle and conflicts related to the politicization of air quality and to mobilize urban planning competencies at Aalborg municipality.

22

E. Lissandrello et al.

2.3.5 Knowing-With Public Planners We also facilitated the creation and performance of a workshop series to create a platform for municipal planners and researchers to co-produce knowledge on participatory urban planning, using air quality as a driver. The AAU team has facilitated the identification of the overall process for implementing the workshop series and organized two main workshops with public planners in four Nordic cities. The intention was to build the nexus among three main conceptual elements: participation, air quality, and urban planning. These elements are traditionally divided into silos, sectors where specific knowledge is maintained. All the workshops have been online or in hybrid mode (Lissandrello 2023). In 2021, two workshops were developed to work collaboratively with public planners across these sectors. The main lessons here have been that participation is high on the agenda of Nordic cities. However, the approach is often “paternalistic”—this means that public planners culturally “provide” planning to citizens and responsively involve them mainly through information and consultation in tokenism. Public planners generally see citizens’ participation as extremely necessary in contemporary planning processes through its constraints. They often focus on the structure of planning regulations, the limit to planners’ resources, and the citizens’ expectations—the fear of causing and generating frustrations among citizens. One important element emerging from the last workshop in Spring 2023 is that participation is essential when planners envision the need for behavioral change from the citizens—e.g. changing the habits to use cars instead of active mobility or public transport, stop with woodburning. In a sustainable urban transformation, planners are aware the citizens are active drivers of the change and it is essential to engage them.

2.3.6 Knowing-Through Education In Aalborg, we continued to engage the young generation of planners to find pathways and research methods for relating urban air quality and urban planning. The design of lectures and workshops activates research-based teaching during the course Sustainable Urban Planning in the Master’s in Urban Planning and Management and the Master’s in Cities and Sustainability in the last three years. The students have, throughout the course, continuously worked with different issues of urban sustainability and participated intensively in a three-day mini-project workshop with the Vestbyen neighborhood through air quality measures, the use of mobile sensor technology, and the use of participatory GIS. In addition, we asked students to relate air quality issues with other urban sustainability issues. A report and a poster presentation finalized the student work and served as an exam. The lesson learned in the class experiments is that many issues can be potentially related to urban transformation

2 Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New …

23

starting from air quality monitoring and planning as green infrastructures, traffic limitation, and zero or low-emissions zones in cities. Future scenarios about the effects of air quality on climate change in specific areas seem also particularly relevant.

2.4 Final Reflections on the New Normal Working with public participation as “a way of knowing” places the planner researcher in the micropolitics of mediation of diverse relations of power/knowledge. Acting as an interlocutor, a researcher is also shaping the design space of knowledge deliberation with a selection of participants, communication modes, and the exercise of authority (Fung 2006) in knowledge co-production. In the new normal future, planners will need to cope with complex persistent wicked problems and contribute to knowledge formation in situated knowledge deficits, as no one will “hold” complete overviews. Complex relations of power often variegated and dispersed along communities of power or individual communities, and citizens will be, however, “forced to act” as during the pandemic times. The air quality knowledge, competences and governance is a symbolic example of those problems that the risk society will encounter in a new normal future, where diverse multiscale regulations and territorial synchronization of policies among local and global will also fall into knowledge deficits and “institutional voids”. The case of the air quality in Aalborg demonstrates that participation is crucial and that a need to theorize participation beyond decision lies at the root of the fundamental ways of co-producing knowledge for contemporary and progressive planning. In the new normal, planning researchers will not need to “provide” complete and ready knowledge but to shape the political spaces of “deliberative knowledge” actively. This shift will require less modeling and more monitoring. With this, we mean facilitating “mutual learning”, mobilizing “ways of knowing” through the micropolitics of knowledge co-production, and becoming reflexive learners. I am being acted upon but also acting, am I being active or passive, or in-between, or am I in a historical process that involves all kinds of combination? Norms act on us, but one way they act is by shaping our response and appropriation to them. That response and appropriation also has the power to reshape that norm, or those norms—the ones we never chose. (Butler 2016)

Planning research in the new normal requires the interpretation of knowledge (Yanow 2000; 2009; Wagenaar 2017) to uncover “power-laden realities of difference, place-specificity, everyday life, struggle, and experience” (Brenner 2018:571). In the new normal, crises will require deliberative knowledge and planning researchers to mobilize knowledge capacities among the “have not”—all of us. Activating knowingthrough and knowing-with about power-knowledge cannot be achieved without mediating forces able to trigger agonism within deliberative spaces of knowledge (Healey 1997; Sandercock 1998; Campbell, 2002; Fischer 2015; Pløger 2021).

24

E. Lissandrello et al.

Acknowledgements This research has been financed through the NordForsk grant (2020-2023) for the Nordic Programme on Sustainable Urban Development and Smart Cities. NordicPath—“Nordic participatory, healthy, and people-centered cities”.

References Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224 Barnett R, Jackson N (eds) (2019) Ecologies for learning and practice: emerging ideas, sightings, and possibilities. Routledge Baum HS (1980) Analysts and planners must think organizationally. Policy Anal, pp 479–494 Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, London Beck U (1996) World risk society as cosmopolitan society? Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. Theory Cult Soc 13(4):1–32 Beck U (1999) World risk society. Polity Press, Malden, MA Blue G, Rosol M, Fast V (2019) Justice as parity of participation: enhancing Arnstein’s ladder through Fraser’s justice framework. J Am Plann Assoc 85(3):363–376 Bratu IA, Dinca LC, Enescu CM, Stanciu M (2022) The role of social media in public forest management policies during COVID-19: implications for stakeholder engagement. Sustainability 14(7):3778 Brenner N (2018) Debating planetary urbanization: For an engaged pluralism. Environ Plan D Soc Space 36(3):570–590 Bryson JM, Quick KS, Slotterback CS, Crosby BC (2013) Designing public participation processes. Public Adm Rev 73(1):23–34 Butler J (2016) Rethinking vulnerability and resistance. In: Butler J, Gambetti Z, Sabsay L (eds) Vulnerability in resistance, pp12–27.. Duke University Press Campbell H (2002) Planning: an idea of value. Town Plan Rev 73(3):271–288 Campbell H (2012) Planning ethics and rediscovering the idea of planning. Plann Theory 11(4):379– 399 Cars G, Healey P, Madanipour A, De Magalhaes C (eds) (2017) Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieux. Routledge Chernilo D (2021) One globalization or many? Risk society in the age of the Anthropocene. J Sociol 57(1):12–26 Coleman K, Stern MJ (2018) Boundary spanners as trust ambassadors in collaborative natural resource management. J Environ Plan Manage 61(2):291–308 Davoudi S (2015) Planning as practice of knowing. Plan Theory 14(3):316–331 Dewey J (1927) The public and its problems. Athens, OH, Swallow Press, 1954, p 219 Dryzek JS (2009) Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comp Pol Stud 42(11):1379– 1402 Fischer F (2015) In pursuit of usable knowledge: critical policy analysis and the argumentative turn. In: Handbook of critical policy studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 47–66 Flyvbjerg B (2002) Bringing power to planning research: one researcher’s praxis story. J Plan Educ Res 21(4):353–366 Forester J (1982) Planning in the face of power. J Am Plann Assoc 48(1):67–80 Forester J (2020) Five generations of theory–practice tensions: enriching socio-ecological practice research. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 2(1):111–119 Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. Mit Press Forester (2021) John Forester in conversation with Ann Forsyth (for the “History and theory” course, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University)—1 Mar 2021

2 Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New …

25

Friedmann J, Hudson B (1974) Knowledge and action: a guide to planning theory. J Am Inst Plann 40(1):2–16 Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton University Press Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66:66–75 Hajer M (2003) Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sci 36(2):175–195 Healey P (2012) The universal and the contingent: some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Plan Theory 11(2):188–207 Healey P (1997) Strategies, processes and plans. In: Collaborative planning. Palgrave, London, pp 243–283 Innes JE (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. J Plan Educ Res 14(3):183–189 Innes JE, Booher DE (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge Kahila-Tani M, Kytta M, Geertman S (2019) Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landsc Urban Plan 186:45–55 Latour B (2020) What protective measures can you think so we don’t go back to the pre-crisis production model. AOC media on 29th March. Retrieved 12 Dec 2022 from http://www.brunolatour.fr/sites/default/files/P-202-AOC-ENGLISH.pdf Lissandrello E (2006) The utopia of cross-border regions. Territorial transformation and crossborder governance on Espace Mont-Blanc (Doctoral dissertation, [Sl]:[Sn]) Lissandrello E, Grin J (2011) Reflexive planning as design and work: lessons from the Port of Amsterdam. Plan Theory Pract 12(2):223–248 Lissandrello E (2023) Participatory urban planning in nordic cities: report 1-design and results of workshops 1 and 2 with municipalities. NordicPATH–Nordic participatory, healthy, and peoplecentred cities Madanipour A (2010) Connectivity and contingency in planning. Plan Theory 9(4):351–368 Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2020) Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities; A review of the current evidence. Environ Int 140:105661 Panti´c M, Cilliers J, Cimadomo G, Montaño F, Olufemi O, Torres Mallma S, Van den Berg J (2021) Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the COVID-19 pandemic—lessons learned for the future. Land 10(12):1379 Pløger J (2004) Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Plan Theory 3(1):71–92 Pløger J (2021) Conflict, consent, dissensus: The unfinished as challenge to politics and planning. Environ Plann C Polit Space 39(6):1294–1309 Pokharel A, Milz D, Gervich CD (2022) Planning for dissent. J Am Plann Assoc 88(1):127–134 Richardson T (2002) Freedom and control in planning: Using discourse in the pursuit of reflexive practice. Plan Theory Pract 3(3):353–361 Richardson T (2005) Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25(4):341–365 Sabel CF (1997) Constitutional orders: trust building and response to change. In: Hollingsworth JR, Boyer R (eds) Contemporary capitalism: the embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge University Press Sandercock L (ed) (1998) Making the invisible visible: a multicultural planning history, vol 2. Univ of California Press Sandercock L, Forsyth A (1992) A gender agenda: New directions for planning theory. J Am Plann Assoc 58(1):49–59 Susskind L, Ozawa C (1984) Mediated negotiation in the public sector: the planner as mediator. J Plan Educ Res 4(1):5–15 Wagenaar H (2017) Interpretation and intention in policy analysis. In: Handbook of public policy analysis. Routledge, pp 455–468

26

E. Lissandrello et al.

Yanow D (2009) Ways of knowing: Passionate humility and reflective practice in research and management. Am Rev Pub Admin 39(6):579–601 Yanow D (2000) Conducting interpretive policy analysis, vol 47. Sage

Enza Lissandrello is an Associate Professor at Aalborg University with a background in urban planning and public policy, human geography, and the governance of socio-technical system innovation and transitions. Her work examines urban and regional planning under contemporary trends of reflexive modernization, participation, deliberation, conflicts, and issues of representation. She has taught widely and published widely on the roles of planners and policy actors in sustainable urban planning and through deliberative forms. She is leading research on smart cities and urban development, urban living labs and positive energy districts. She is the research coordinator of the Urban Europe Research Alliance (UERA). Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen is an assistant professor in sustainable urban planning at Aalborg University. He has been a post-doc researcher on diverse themes of sustainability planning such as how air quality can become a driver in urban transitions, implementation of UN sustainable development goals in local planning and planning education, as well as the sustainability of multidwelling households, and second home planning. He teaches a broad range of themes related to sustainability planning and methods and theories of science in planning. Lasse Schytt Nørgaard is a Ph.D.-fellow at Aalborg University in the Department of Planning. He is conducting research on Positive Energy Districts in urban planning and he has been involved in research on urban air quality in a living lab environment. He has been a research assistant on citizen science, urban planning and the urban–rural divide.

Chapter 3

Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished John Pløger

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic introduced challenges to societal and local planning, especially regarding unpredictable mutations and the management of the emergence through control and surveillance. During the pandemic, the evolving relationship between society and politics cannot be called the ‘new normal’. This paper argues that the fight against the pandemic showed instead a ‘normal’ politics of discipline and control of people and peoples’ acceptance of a temporary displacement of civil rights and a suspension of participatory democracy. Limited attention has been paid to how societal dynamics and urban planning are related to common mechanisms concerning the procedural administration of a population. The ‘new normal’ emerges when we reflect on the planning skills essential to any society in a crisis and emergency. The COVID-19 contagious virus situation has led to reflections on how to meet a ‘new normal’ of ever-new types of emergencies. The pandemic showed that improvisation became a needed task in politics. But an emergency also depends on national systems and existing institutional and social regulations that constrain the ability to work unfinished and fail to reveal a new perspective to the new normal. Keywords Agonism · Public participation · De-cision · Discourse hegemonies · Planning · And democracy

3.1 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic introduced challenges to societal and local planning in several ways. The virus was unpredictable, and the initial outbreak was followed by mutations, causing societal and political uncertainty about the possible effects of vaccination and contamination. In the emergency, there was a lack of intensive healthcare capacity but also unknown mental effects of isolation. The unpredictable diffusion of COVID-19 became the subject of scientific studies using exponential J. Pløger (B) University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_3

27

28

J. Pløger

statistics and sometimes imprecise measures to show numbers and maps as justification for wider policy decisions. The pandemic forced politics and planning to act in a situation of incompleteness to avoid the worst scenarios. Emergency plans included overwhelming needs for new medical supplies and equipment that were difficult to secure, and the political response often became a total lockdown. Europe established national surveillance of the spread executed through massive testing of the Governments. In Norway and Denmark used the crisis to strengthen nation-state power by introducing new ministerial decrees that suspended public life into political whereabouts. The argument in this chapter is that as people experienced the COVID19 ‘emergency’, they also experienced an order to substantially submit to politics under authoritarian politics. The freedom of choosing whether to vaccinate or not was, by some, experienced as threatening to democratic rights. A society of control and surveillance emerging out of the pandemic politics should not be called ‘the new normal’. Planning has been challenged to be essential guidance to the future in a time of uncertainty. The requests for planning were especially regarding the management of the pandemic emergency response providing a strong fight against the virus. Planning strategies turned to disciplinary tools and subjugated people, with their acceptance, to a limited displacement of civil rights and democracy. In the immediate pandemic emergency, less attention has been given to past experiences with urban planning, with similar politicized and proceduralist administration of people. Ideally, in urban planning systems, people’s voice is included on issues that affect them. Political power to act is based on aggregated voices to become comprehensive for guiding path-creating decisions. Planning in Scandinavia is subordinated to political discourses and is a tool for steering society secured by legally binding rules and path dependency. It is well known that contingency, coincidence, and ruptures are drivers of incremental or adaptive planning. These mechanisms tame unpredictable becoming. Planning as truly public participation is rare, if ever. The option for the future is often limited by what a plan excludes. Public participation rarely includes plural knowledge and values voiced ahead of the draft plan (see Nyseth 2011). Insurgent voices or a protest is rarely seen as a potential productive driver for planning and politics. Although policy actors in politics and planning claim, their work is about dealing with complex matters and diversity of knowledge. The time of long and low-intensive contagious persistence of the COVID-19 virus has encouraged reflections on how to approach a ‘new normal’ of ever-new types of crises emerging. The pandemic has also shown that improvisation became a needed task in politics. But as the emergency depended on a national system, planning and politics have been unable to work unfinished or improvisational on a local level, and local improvisation was unable to surface. Governments’ experience from the COVID-19 pandemic became a crucial question about acting in a situation of deficit of knowledge. Politics focused on how to govern unpredictable forces and manage the emergency. Planning was out of the discussion. Planning authorities and politics could inspire other ways to open public participation allowing contestation of hegemonic knowledge, politics, and emergency plans.

3 Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished

29

This chapter aims to discuss how planning can improve society’s ability to work within an emerging contingent future. It is argued that to work ‘unfinished’ makes it possible to plan with the unforeseen, unresolvable strife, and the contingency of an uncertain future strengthening decision-making. The unfinished can be understood as a new mode of planning to improve governing capacities under the effect of multifarious crises connecting contingently. The case described in this chapter is not a discussion of pandemic policies as such, but a situation of agonism in urban regeneration planning processes (Pløger 2004, 2022). Lessons learned will be drawn to transfer the concept of unfinished to the pandemic planning-political processes to draw on the new normal as a future-oriented planning effort. A brief introduction of some major positions within contemporary planning studies on agonism is followed by a discussion of the democratic deficit in planning. A section introducing the concept of ‘the unfinished’ is here inspired by political action theory. The chapter argues that public participation can be understood as a ruling mechanism used to govern. A critical view of the current debate on how to institutionalize conflicts in planning is based on the philosophy of agonism. From here, the chapter turns to the core issue of the article, ‘the unfinished’ as a praxis. Planning unfinished means substantial work from decisions to de-cisions when guiding the future. The chapter concludes with insights on how to act de-cisional to plan with unpredictability and contingency in a societal ‘new normal’.

3.2 Conflict and Agonism Planning is part of a system of governing framed by law and politics. In the planning process, there are several actions of mediation and mitigation of antagonistic positions. What politics fear most is usually the long-running disputes or irreducible disagreements that occur during the planning process prolonging the time of implementation of a project. Mouffe (2013) claims that antagonism grounding democracy is an unavoidable condition of politics. In the last two or three decades, planning studies have been inspired by Mouffe’s antagonism and focused intensively on how to understand public participation from an antagonistic to an agonistic encounter between and among adversaries. Agonism—coming from Greek philosophy—means competition, struggle, and contestation. Mouffe frames agonism as a form of disagreement that is ‘never solved for good’ (Mouffe 2013). She argues that politics must acknowledge that any consensus is generally followed by dissensus. A consensus decision thus must be seen as a ‘conflictual consensus’ and a ‘solution for now’. Mouffe maintains that public spaces are always striated and hegemonically structured (Mouffe 2013:91), and it is impossible to find any ‘final reconciliation’ between oppositional positions (Mouffe 2013: 92). Conflictual consensuses and ‘a solution for now’ might then be understood as

30

J. Pløger

an attempt to tame interests without actors losing their oppositive positions. Translating Mouffe’s political philosophy to planning studies thus means understanding conflicting, antagonistic, interests as forces that guide a process. Antagonistic positions are productive to planning. Therefore, framing public participation according to Mouffe’s theory is not based on consensus but instead on a process where those who disagree are not seeing others as ‘enemies to destroy’ (antagonism) but as ‘adversaries among whom [there] exists a conflictual consensus’ (agonism) (Mouffe 2013:XII). Agonism sees adversaries as involved in a form of conflict that is ‘less likely to take an antagonistic form’ (Mouffe 2013:XIII). Adversaries share basic democratic principles such as the right to free speech and liberty and equality for all, even if disagreeing with their interpretation (Mouffe 2013:7). Everyone has the right to a voice and to strive for their opinions, but to see your opponent as an adversary means to recognize there will always be disagreements on ‘the meaning values’ (Mouffe 2013:7). Antagonism is ineradicable in a plural society. Mouffe’s inspiration to ‘engage with its key institutions’ on a political scale and struggle for political hegemony (Mouffe 2013:115) is also a way to challenge neo-liberalism and its ways of governing (top-down procedures, majority power). The agonism debate has gained momentum in recent years (see Hillier 2002; Pløger 2004, 2021, 2022; Bond 2011; Tambakaki 2016), but planning studies must be cautious when attempting to translate Mouffe’s political philosophy into planning. Planning is not only a key institution to the governing of society and thus politics. It is also a particular ‘ideological apparatus’ (Althusser 1983) of a politicized institution that is not supposed to act as an independent organization administratively. Planning follows political signals and/or restrictions given by the planning law and rules given by political guidance. Furthermore, when Mouffe’s suggests citizens engage agonistically through political institutions, it is vital to remember that planning is part of a governing process and a structure for implementing policies and political decisions. However, Mouffe’s work is fundamental to understanding the agonistic endeavour to reach a solution for now, implying reconsidering and making decisions on the move while heading towards the next conflict.

3.3 Governing, Conflict, Contingency The challenge of the unfinished is connecting conflict and contingency explored in planning studies to ‘institutional incompleteness’ for improving conditions of agonistic democracy. Building on contestation to reach a ‘good enough’ planning (Lowndes and Paxton 2018) is a way to enhance an ‘indeterminate and open-ended’ possible influence from the outside. Planning can be seen as an institutionalized deliberative process constituted by ‘games of power’ and ‘games of truth’ (Lowndes and Paxton: 703). ‘Games of power’ can be defined as a ‘set of arrangements that influence, but do not determine, how citizens act and interact’ (Lowndes and Paxton: 703). A deliberation as ‘games of truth’ is the openings towards contestation that are depending on the processual (discussion as a process), collective (interdependence),

3 Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished

31

contextual (a bricolage of interests), and contestable (open to challenge) (Lowndes and Paxton: 705–708) processes. The opening towards enabling ‘contingency and contestation’ (Lowndes and Paxton: 708) towards the outside (the public) means accepting it as a process, where ‘gaps’ and ‘soft spots’ cannot be clearly defined at the beginning or demarcated in its effect (path dependency). This ‘incompleteness’ demands ‘less pre-scripture in the planning process based on a respectful ethos of interdependency’ (Lowndess and Paxton 2018:708) that eventually encourages diversity as a part of a participatory process building. This ‘ethos of interdependency’ does not sound too odd to the Scandinavian planning system. In Norway, an urban developer promoting a plan is obliged to organize a public debate and invite affected parties to have a voice in a public meeting. Citizens can also raise their voices by writing complaints and/or by giving new suggestions for new plans. The plan put forward in public can therefore be claimed as an instrument open to change, but there are still concerns. The planning law is not clear on ‘how one can use participation as a mechanism to improve planning’ (PBE 2019b:4). As it is said: What is the difference between being heard, participating in the work, and being part of deciding the result? To be part of the planning process and to influence the result must not be confused with assuming the direct decision, to exercising the authority to decide on what the result should be. People’s right to have a say in decisions happens through democratically elected representatives [politicians] that in turn make decisions. Participation is therefore a matter of ending up with a result of an eventual process of sharing knowledge. Public participation is thus not always understood as a deliberative process where provisional and open-ended dialogues are open to incomplete decisions. Participation is more often a process undertaken by a formal procedure of legitimation within (in)formal codes of conduct that guide whom and when people can participate (PBE 2019b:10&14). The institutionalization of participation means that people meet guidelines on how to participate, follow a precise regime of knowledge, and establish conduct and a relationship with the plan as a product. Participation can also be seen as a ‘stage-managed’ (Legacy et al. 2019:276) by functional overdetermination of ‘public voices, plural voices, discourses, and disagreements’ (Foucault 1980:195). From a Foucauldian perspective, planning is part of a politicized apparatus designating ‘the way in which, the conduct of individuals or groups might be directed. To govern is to structure the possible field of others’ (Foucault 1986:221). Public hearings and participatory processes can be understood as mechanisms ‘employed to ensure the government’ (Foucault 2007:363) within a milieu of diverse interests and values. Public participation in a regulatory sense becomes therefore as an applied ‘set of relations, or rather, the set of procedures’ (Foucault 2007:2,121). Participation itself becomes a mechanism of power working ‘in a circular way [as] both … effect and cause’ (2). The procedural form of participation manifests within how the ‘regulation’ of planning makes it a kind of power-infused process aiming at securing consent from what is argued to be ‘a common mind and language’ (Rydin 2019:4). The institutionalization of participation can be seen as a part of both ‘the application of government politics’ (Althusser 1983:70) and as a governing power ‘to exercise and intervene repressively’ (Althusser 1983:17). Louis Althusser uses the word ‘repressive’ not necessarily as a means of violence (even if it can be also understood

32

J. Pløger

this way) but rather as an ideology, discourse hegemony, mode of communication, and law (e.g. the court). Within this framing, the democratic deficit in planning is due to the unequal distribution of knowledge and power, an unequal dialogue between the public and the planners, and an unequal position of power. As maintained by Durose and Lowndes, the use of political power (e.g. a forced consensus) can be contested by facilitating ‘spaces of incompleteness’ (e.g. discursively). However, for planning authorities ‘it is easy to mistake participation for having a say in decisions” (Furset et al. 2018:3), and ‘power is still what has to be explained’ (Metzger et al. 2017). One crucial question that remains here is, what about participative democracy when making planning decisions?

3.4 Democratic Deficit and Planning For long, planning studies claimed that planning institutions suffer from a democratic deficit in participation. This means that the politics of cities are impacted by this deficit, still, it is not something generally communicated. It does emerge directly when the powerful say ‘we decide’, ‘we allow deliberation’, or ‘we deliberate’, and not acknowledging that ‘there will be winners and losers’. Planners generally still do not have the opportunity to include citizens’ life experiences, desires, and hopes in planning. More often, we continue to assist in participatory processes with minimal opportunity for exploring multiple visions and integrating a diversity of voices and meanings. Planners usually do not have time to deal with institutional voids emerging along the process. There is no place to consider that any decision or a legally binding plan is filled with effects of power ignoring the diversity of positions and uncertain knowledge of local conditions and people’s desires for the future. In planning, it is not often discussed what knowledge was left out in the decision-making process and why it was left out. Hopes and dreams, so important for planning the future, are not part of the planning processes. Neither it is fully acknowledged that a decision is always made within a field of drivers’ interests and positions that are not aligned. Lastly, it is often taken for granted that a decision is supposed to lead to path dependency. It is a rare occurrence that a public reflection takes place to discuss ‘what happened that would allow learning’, ‘what was the effect’, and ‘what was left out’. Planning officers often claim to reflect on processes, but these reflections are generally done from a means-end perspective and often not as means to guide new political impulses. If planning must be not just a seductive rhetoric but also guidance to transient and fleeting forces (e.g. economy), these reflections are important to address the uncertainty and indeterminacy of the future. This may be truer now than ever as we seek a new normal. The planning rhetoric about working with a complexity of forces often leaves unquestioned crucial issues such as working in the middle of local–global forces, place diversity, sociocultural mixed spaces, and meanings in transition. In planning theory, there are already several suggested ways to improve participation and engagement within and among the complexity of forces. If planning wants to

3 Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished

33

contribute significantly to politics and cities beyond the ‘given logic’ and represent changing compositions of forces and relations, inspirations to follow for creating a new set of capacities can be ‘to plan for not having a plan’ and ‘the management of non-management’ (Hillier 2017). Hillier (2017) uses the case of Ted Mack, the Mayor of Sydney North 1980–1988, as an example of ‘management of non-management’ to improve both democratic participation and a way to strengthen a decision. At that time, Sydney North had about 80.000 inhabitants and organized 25 local ‘neighbourhood councils’ to activate citizens’ impact with more than 3000 citizens’ meetings. Mack derived recommendations from the citizens that should be put on the same foot as political suggestions, in a way that citizens’ ideas would not be displaced by political manoeuvres. The effect was an improved power balance between political, capital, and citizen interests, but also longer processes and decisions were made more complicated. Another example of ‘planning from not having a plan’ could be the city of Tromsø in Norway, a city of 80,000 inhabitants, where the city council in 2003–2004 couldn’t agree on a plan for the city centre. A local activist suggested ‘a time-off’ from planning. To his surprise, the council accepted the suggestion. In 2005, the citizens themselves organized meetings to make suggestions for a plan (Nyseth et al. 2010). Some active citizens involved in this process concluded that it was the listening, the connection to local knowledge, the interplay among interests, opinions, understandings, and everyday reflections that shaped the planning. In this approach to planning, the planner is a curator who works as a ‘proactive coordinator’ and informant among activists distributing roles according to citizens’ interests and positions, and developing the capacity to act (Haggärde et al. 2008). Compared to these two examples reported above, a democratic deficit is still the dominant way of doing urban planning around the world. Planning often is about an authoritative and centralized management guarded by a ladder of decisions ending in a final political decision. A case study on an urban regeneration project starting in 2020 in a suburban neighbourhood in Oslo, Norway, shows that public interests are still orchestrated by a choreographed process, and meetings are organized around a city-pre-defined plan and objectives for the project (e.g. parking, public institutions, functions). The pre-designed principles and the land-use plan are based on a precoding of the possible development of the area (green areas, density, scale, where to have housing, offices, and shops). The public’s voice in the debate appears unable to make meaningful changes (Pløger 2021). The taming of the public started with a series of meetings between city-selected local interests (investors, capital, housing co-operations, landlords) and the planning office to introduce the pre-given principles of the plan. The first meeting introduced the land-use and spatial plan and the experience of how the planning office stages and manages local interests to arrive at a forced consensus or consent. These meetings aim to end with a ‘plan programme’ representing a consensus or consent-oriented network of local alliances to secure the land-use plan and survive the coming public hearing. The Oslo study is far from the only one showing that cities still have several challenges to overcome the rhetorical claim of the democratic participation process (e.g. Legacy et al. 2019; Metzger et al. 2017; Rydin 2019). The first challenge is how to work with agonism, as a condition inevitable to democracy and a society

34

J. Pløger

of value and cultural pluralism. The second challenge is to give weak voices a say throughout the process. A third challenge is the cities’ administration’s questionable will and ability to incorporate open capacities of manoeuvring in a changing terrain of forces and interests (the management as non-management), requiring them to see urban development as a process of disputing visions and schemes of signification. The fourth challenge is to understand planning as a social field of difference and diversity that can create a space of contesting knowledge (whose knowledge, what knowledge) and praxis (adding new knowledge or minor change of plans). All these challenges frame planning as a field of contingent forces and effects that emerge as the possibility for a (self)critical dialogue in reconsidering the relation between knowledge and decisions. Public hearings and meetings organized by planning authorities are usually not the contexts for a (self)critical dialogue to learn from but are mostly concerned with an administrative step to govern urban development. The city of Oslo refers to Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of participation as a guideline on how to do participation (PBE 2019a, b) and as a management tool. In this document, public participation is the starting point that leads to the top of the ladder, where a final political decision is made. The public climbs Arnstein’s ladder no higher than to the level of ‘consultation’ and thus never partakes in decision-making. The decisional management and the final decision exclude antagonistic positions. The staged participatory process is able to displace critical voices by selecting participants and to close the contingencies of the plan by having a limited agenda. Public participation becomes a way for politicians and planners to share their knowledge and follow a given procedure of political decisions. Participation is thus ‘a way in which certain actions modify others’ (Foucault 1986:218). The plan, the law, the procedures, and the agenda subjugate the public to a given mechanism to manage antagonism to consensus or consent. Public participation reflects the political idea of representative democracy, and the process allows only arguments within proper politics. However, the story of Tromsø and ‘a time-off’ from planning has demonstrated that citizens can develop their capacity and ability to engage with the need and the value of planning. Tromsø represents that dissensus voices to politics and planning can be productive. But the city council simply ignored citizens’ knowledge and ideas to improve public participation. A ruling politics and planning does not usually integrate dissensus voices that demonstrate ‘a gap in the sensible itself’ (Rancière 2010:38). If consensus is ‘accompanied by dissent’ (Mouffe 2013:8), it forms a void or fissure in the sensible order of politics and planning. This void must be allowed to manifest within planning politics (see Rancière 2011). Planning studies inspired by Mouffe’s (2013) political philosophy focus on how to engage with productive agonism in the politics of planning. But Rancière’s idea of the ‘dissensus gap’ plays an important role too in planning. Mouffe has inspired planning studies on how to change an antagonistic process to a meeting among agonistic adversaries able to reach a ‘conflictual consensus’ (Mouffe 2013). However, planning studies don’t go further exploring when a ‘conflictual consensus’ is a solution for now’ and when dissensus can never be reconciled. In Mouffe’s view, a decision does not stand as a choice between conflicting or antagonistic alternatives. She maintains that it is possible to reach a common agreement without reaching a single consensus. This

3 Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished

35

is the basis of an ‘agonistic democracy’; a democracy that provides an institutionalized form of dialogue and decision that ‘permits conflicts to take an ‘agonistic form’, where the opponents are not enemies but adversaries among whom exists a conflictual consensus’ (Mouffe 2013:XII). Mouffe argues about the impossibility of final decisions, and the way forward is to institutionalize this ‘impossibility’ agonistically as a ‘solution for now’. For planning studies, ‘conflictual consensus’ could be achieved in a deliberative ‘trading zone’ (Bäcklund & Mäntysalo 2010), but Mouffe (2013) reminds us that we must engage in ‘the war of politics to make new hegemonic discourses’.

3.5 Decision and Future—De-cision Planning laws are ways to manifest planning as a power-infused process securing consensus or consent (Rydin 2019). It is not obvious how a ‘conflictual consensus’ and ‘a solution for now’ can counteract in legally powered decision-making. It is also not obvious how an ‘institutional incompleteness’ can improve participatory democracy without doing something about how to decide. At least, to understand these processes, a critical examination of how public participation and the management power mechanisms work should include the (in)formal power of a procedural management decision process. A ‘conflictual consensus’ and thus making ‘a solution’ for now’ implies that there is a lasting decision in the making suspended for an arc of time, and secondly, that a decisional praxis is ongoing now where ‘we know in the present, that we will be revising the present in the future’ (Lampert 2018:2). It implies that voids are present and persistent on planning issues which have a decision pending. A decision in the present is also made from ‘a disconnected beginning’, namely the societal, political, and knowledge context of a past decision (Lampert 2018:93). This indeterminate ‘beginning’ is what the philosopher Martin Heidegger saw as an ontological condition for present decisions. A decision in the present can only be a ‘de-cision’ so ‘a decision to decide’ (Lampert 2018:11). This means a decision that is made in the present and heading for a contingent future. A decision is thus made merely in the present as a ‘value against indifference’ (Lampert 2018: 98). Politics cannot stay indifferent, but a decision in the present can only stay as a wish for the future. Under this lens, planning is not about decisional predictability and the creation of a path dependency, closed by a decision, but instead can be seen as a de-cision. Planning in the present can only be ‘a solution for now’ challenged and potentially subjected to change in the (near) future. This reality is not presented to the public and neither is the public informed on the conditions of what decisions imply.

36

J. Pløger

3.6 How to Act Unfinished? Planning decisions are based on ‘acting antagonistically’; that is acting finished, closing. Decisions are made and controlled by a vertical structure establishing how to decide and who decides. The planning law and a legally binding plan make no room for reflection, but it gives political legitimacy for closing contesting ideas and strife on politics and knowledge. It is rare to see a debate about how planning and politics can be re-framed by a theory about de-cision, with an openness towards many possible futures. However, planning and public participation are often claimed to be all about the future. Planning studies often focus on a scenario praxis to orient decisions that consider multiple futures. But inviting people to make scenarios for the future from the ‘best guess for now’ or ‘the best fit for now’ (e.g. Bäcklund and Mäntysalo 2010; Innes and Booher 2010) is like making ‘speculations’ on what those scenarios are useful for. The premises of the future often leave unquestioned the present agenda and the current hegemonic regimes of knowledge and politics. Although a scenario is often a document with several alternatives about the future, more often it is a document that tends—as many other planning documents do, to make rationalization of present knowledge—excluding the hopes and wishes and many other contests outside the hegemonic and legitimate planning politics. Grounding scenario-making in a theory about de-cision allows to open a ‘what if’ process (questions and not answers, experiments, and not programmed scenarios). De-cision supports ‘thematic plans’ rather than scenario-building supported by legally binding decisions and present statistics. The potential of the de-cision is to develop new visionary ideas and experimental processes (what if) or interrogate the very basic knowledge heading for a de-cisional praxis, as well as the revision of mechanisms on knowledge production and past decisions. Planning today is still facing the same challenge of the past to work in transition and transference, with uncertainty on unintended consequences of decisions, of the unpredictability of the composition of forces, circumstances, and incidents emerging. The ever-present challenge to (planning) systems is to work with conflicts. If decisions are seen to stay final and controlled by law only, participation processes will continue to struggle with how to empower marginalized voices and excluded knowledge. There are reasons for considering how to do planning on the move. The many experiences of plans going in the wrong direction for many people and the recent pandemic experiences are reasons to consider that we need to continue to theorize planning as an unfinished act. Planning officers do often admit that their work is constantly changing constellations and configurations of interests, tactics, knowledge, and uncertain futures. But instead of facing these disputes and starting quarrelling, urban planning and planners remain constrained by management power and a hierarchical decision system. Certainty and path-making effect of decisions controlled by law make planning with a complexity lacking adaptability to change. The space for planning as making ‘solutions for now’ may benefit from seeing: • Participation as a continuing productive process of displacement and disruption of politics and knowledge, giving way to loop learnings (reflexivity).

3 Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished

37

• Institutions as acting impermanently and imperfectly, for the time being, to be able to meet a diversity of forces and many futures by working incomplete and unfinished. • Plans and decisions always need ‘temporary resting places’ with space for a ‘what if’ mode of working and thinking and to acknowledge the contingent future (see Healey 2009; Hillier 2011). Heidegger named de-cisional a mode of being in the world against indifference and indecision in the present. It can be seen as integrated into planning ethics and praxis. To act de-cisional is a commitment to stay in the middle of a multiverse world of forces, values, forms of life, and social and structural effects. It is a normative stand that recognizes that the future belongs to others. A de-cisional mode of working and thinking matches ‘an urgent need’ emerging (Foucault 1980), during the multiple crises in which planning cannot just stay in a normal path-giving decision or formal plan. As demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate change challenge, and the current energy crises, the new normal planning has to become on the move and more experimental. Planning has to work unfinished, defined as ‘what has not yet come into being’ (Mathiesen 1971:11). In urban planning, this unfinished can be translated as a way of working from a sketch to make a ‘speculative thought’ based on ‘what we can know for now’ and face potential consequences not yet known.

3.7 Conclusions If there is something to learn from the pandemic experience, it is the need for ‘new normal’ planning able to work with unfinished forces (mutations, new types of viruses). The value of and the need for planning is to acknowledge the risk of future emergencies and more openly embrace experimental ways to integrate knowledge and make sketches for the future. The COVID-19 pandemic politics did not show this new normal but fell back into surveillance, suspension of citizens’ voices, and the use of symbolic violence forcing submission. The pandemic demonstrated the failures coming from ‘the politics of fear’ exploiting expert-led exponential statistics as a governance tool. Learning from planning studies, the pandemic could be seen as an opportunity to look broadly at the multifaceted implications of restrictions imposed with justifications based only on the fear of the rapid spread of COVID-19, allowing for emergency plans with more nuances, options, and possibilities in contrast to a total lockdown. After the pandemic, politics will probably start again from scratch by making yet another static emergency plan, acting reactive rather than proactive. Politically new technics to strengthen technocratic governmentality of surveillance is likely to implement a bureaucratic and autocratic governing. Political authorities will repeat the usual rhetoric of public participation, where the meaning of participation will centre on consensus or consent-driven process, to strengthen governing by law, discourse hegemonies, and pre-planning meetings with tactical and strategically

38

J. Pløger

chosen powerful interests. The decision-makers will still meet the public concerning a limited range of issues that are considered vital to technical and authoritative governing and the management of people and their territories. This model is going to fail when facing the challenges of the multiple crises of our time. Contrary to this ‘normal’ political praxis, this paper has argued for an unfinished mode of planning and thinking, as the new way of doing planning must be guided by a praxis of empowering public inquiries (Healey 2018). A new normal experimental planning emerges whenever needed (Hillier 2011) led by ‘what if?’ questions that are crucial ‘to learn to speak unfinished’ and to use ‘indication’ as the mode of planning (Mathiesen 1971:5). Such a new normal is not an unchartered land. The vision plan for Nordhavnen in Copenhagen (Haggärde et al. 2008), the Tromsø year 2005, and the 1990 vision plan for the Melbourne harbour area (Dovey 2005) are examples of ‘planning unfinished’. The sketch is ‘a work in progress’ (Haggärde et al. 2008), where ‘a coming back to’ issues is possible. It marks that ‘a solution for now’ or ‘conflictual consensus’ decision can be and must be exactly, temporary. ‘We must quarrel more’, the former head of the Copenhagen planning office in Denmark once said. The obvious statement is that the road is still long before we have climbed the ladder of democratic public participation.

References Althusser L (1983) Ideologi og ideologiske statsapparater (Ideologie und ideologische Statsapparatet). Aarhus, Grus Arbejdstekster Bäcklund P, Mäntysalo R (2010) Agonism, and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice—the case of Finland. Plan Theory 9(4):333–350 Bond S (2011) Negotiating a ‘Democratic Ethos’: moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. Plan Theory 10(2):161–186 Dovey K (2005) Fluid city. Transforming Melbourne’s Urban waterfront. Routledge, London Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. In: Gordon C (ed). The Harvester Press, New York Foucault M (1986) The subject and power. In: Dreyfuss HL, Rabinow P (eds) Michel Foucault. Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. The Harvester Press, New York, pp 208–226 Foucault M (2007) Security, territory, population. In: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978, Palgrave Macmillan, London Furset HM, Coordinator Public Participation, Oslo (2018) Bedre medvirkning? Ja takk! (Better participation? Yes, please!), ByplanOslo 07.11.2018 (htttps://magasin.oslo.kommune.no/ byplan/), pp 1–6 Haggärde M, Løkken G, Holm ET, Kjerstin U (2008) Öppenhet och experiment—att utvckla och praktisera tankeverktyg för en ny planlägging. In: Conference Architectural Inquiries, Göteborg, pp 1–10 Healey P (2009) The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. J Plann Educ Res 28:272–297. https:/ /doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08325175 Healey P (2018) Creating public value through caring for place. Policy Polit 46(1):65–79 Hillier J (2011) Strategic navigation across multiple planes. Towards a Deleuzian-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning. Town Plan Rev 82(5):503–527

3 Planning—The Force of Working Unfinished

39

Hillier J (2017) On planning for not having a plan. Plan Theory Pract 18(4):668–675 Hillier J (2002) Shadows of power. An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. Routledge, London Innes J, Booher DE (2010) Planning with complexity. Routledge Lampert J (2018) The many futures of decision. Bloomsbury, London Legacy C, Metzger J, Steele W, Gualini E (2019) Beyond the post-political: exploring the relational and situated dynamics of consensus and conflict in planning. Plan Theory 18(3):273–281 Lowndess V, Paxton M (2018) Can agonism be institutionalized? Can institutions be agonized? Prospects for democratic design. BJPIR (br J Polit Int Relat) 20(3):693–710 Mathiesen, T. (1971) Det ufærdige. Bidrag til politisk aktionsteori (The Unfinished. A contribution to a Political Action Theory), København: Hans Reitzel. Metzger J, Soneryd L, Hallström TK (2017) ‘Power’ is that which remains to explained: dispelling the ominous dark matter of critical planning studies. Plan Theory 16(2):202–223 Mouffe C (2013) Agonistic. Thinking the world politically. Verso, London Nyseth T (2011) The Tromsø experiment: opening up to the unknown. Town Plan Rev 82(5):573– 595 Nyseth T, Pløger J, Holm T (2010) Planning beyond the horizon: the Tromsø experiment. Plann Theor 9(3):223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210366196 PBE (2019a) Medvirkning i innsendte reguleringsplaner (Participation on land-use plans). Plan & bygningsetaten, Oslo PBE (2019b) Handlingsplan for medvirkning 2019–2020. Plan- & Bygningsetaten, Oslo Pløger J (2004) Strife—urban planning and agonism. Plan Theory 3(1):71–92 Pløger J (2021) Politics, planning, and ruling: the art of taming public participation. Int Plan Stud, pp 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2021.1883422 Pløger J (2022) Contingency, decision, unfinished planning: let’s quarrel more!. Eur Plan Stud 1−17 Rancière J (2011) The thinking of dissensus: politics and aesthetics. In: Bowan P, Stamp R (eds) Critical dissensus. Continuum, Reading Ranciére, London, pp 1–17 Ranciére J (2010) Dissensus. On politics and aesthetics. Continuum, London Rydin Y (2019) Silences, categories, and black boxes. Towards analytics of the relations of power in planning regulation. Plan Theory, pp 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219870559 Tambakaki P (2016) Agonism reloaded: potentia, renewal and radical democracy. Polit Stud Rev, pp 1–12

John Pløger has published on planning and urban theory, planning processes, and participation. For some 20 years, he has, together with architects in Denmark and Norway, participated in architectural competitions in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. His most recent book is ‘Den Vitale byen’ (The Vital City) co-authored with Professor Jonny Aspen, School of Architecture & Design, Oslo, Norway. He has published widely on planning and conflict.

Chapter 4

Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia: Toward a New Normal ˇ c, Omiljena Dželebdži´c, and Ratka Coli´ ˇ c Nataša Coli´

Abstract The chapter aims to contribute to the understanding of the transformative potentials of participation in planning, particularly about underpinning principles and existing models of participation, including those that affect planning professionals’ responsiveness in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. The key research question is: what kinds of transformations occurred through new and alternative forms of participation in urban planning in Serbia within the last decade, and how does participation inform the future of cities in a time of uncertainty during the crisis? The research draws on the theoretical framework of critical pragmatism for understanding the micro-dynamics of practitioners’ engagement. It focuses on the experiences of planning professionals in applying non-mandatory, alternative participation practices during the early stage of the planning process. They take the form of small, pragmatic steps and practices of planning professionals that should contribute to effective urban governance on specific challenges. However, the normalization of those practices is just too earlier to evaluate if it would persist after the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Keywords Planning practice · Participation · Transformation · Professional planners · Post-socialist context

ˇ c (B) · O. Dželebdži´c N. Coli´ Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73/ II, Belgrade, Serbia e-mail: [email protected] O. Dželebdži´c e-mail: [email protected] ˇ c R. Coli´ Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73/II, Belgrade, Serbia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_4

41

42

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

4.1 Introduction The development of governance trajectories in post-socialist societies is influenced by path-dependency practices, including the transition of political, societal, and economic systems (Hirt 2015). The instituting of urban governance practices in Serbia has been encouraged within the last decade through the adoption of integrated and sustainable urban development framework in policies at national and local levels, as a translation of the territorial dimension of the EU Cohesion Policy after 2010 (Fioretti et al. 2020). While public participation is formally established as a normative basis that guarantees the right of citizens to participate in urban development processes, Serbian planning professionals have a pioneering experience in urban governance practices that provide an arena for experimenting and applicaˇ c et al. 2021). At the same time, bility of different methods of collaboration (Coli´ professionals in post-socialist planning contexts have acquired practical experience working in times of uncertainty, including the transition to a free-market economy, as well as the processes of EU integration (Nedovi´c-Budi´c et al. 2012; Hirt 2015). In response to uncertainty, planning doctrines in developed democratic societies put emphasis on processes of capacity development, learning, monitoring change, pragmatic thinking, redefining priorities, openness to experimentation and innovation, and mobilizing forces for collective action (Forester 1999; Hydén 2011). These processes involve local community residents, investment holders, officials, and civil society to change the method of governing society in the face of new economic and social conditions that cannot be solved only by traditional planning instruments, or only by market mechanisms (Jessop 2016; Rhodes 2007). Fundamental elements of the multilevel governance promoted by the European Union are policy instruments based on participatory practice (Mäkinen 2020). The expectations of pragmatic reasoning and communicative planning in the field of participation are that experientially informed acting in “little ways” within the micropolitics of social interaction can enable the realization of different outcomes, including change of planning policy to accurately reflect human capacities (Healey 2008; Forester 2017). In contrast to fully coordinated development as is the case in traditional physical planning, practitioners take part in dynamic decision-making processes of different actors, societal groups, and institutions, in which institutional capacities are formed in interaction with the social environment (De Magalhães et al. 2017). Planning literature suggests that the experiences of practitioners with different conditions of preparedness and anticipation can contribute to better understanding of participatory and innovation in planning (Forester 1999, 2012; Lissandrello et al. 2017). Planning practitioners’ work is organized within a system informed by societal values and human and political environments (Hirt 2015; Stead et al. 2015). Planners rely on planning norms and standards to endorse their decisions and practices, those related ˇ c and Nedovi´c-Budi´c to the form and function of physical space (Hirt 2012; Coli´ 2021). Despite the interaction with the European planning models and transfer of planning ideas (Nedovi´c-Budi´c and Cavri´c 2006), the local culture of practice in Serbia

4 Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia …

43

has been tightly linked to the socioeconomic transition to a free-market economy, including the stages of state monopoly over the economy and re-centralization of political power (Vujoševi´c 2003). Planning practitioners’ work in socialist Serbia was organized in a dominantly technical environment. Public participation has been institutionalized in the 1950s (Basic Resolution on General Urban Plan 1949). It included expert presentations of plans to community residents in sub-municipality units, the application of social surveys to determine the quality of life in urban areas, and ˇ c 2014). The transition from the facilitation of public inquiry on the draft plan (Coli´ collectivist socialist ideology toward patterns of pluralism in the 1990s modified the constellation of interests, with significant implications for current concepts of urban planning and design processes. The extension of the property market responsive to personal preferences, ages, and family cycle affected citizen mobility and increased their interest in qualitative characteristics of urban space (Bazik and Dželebdži´c 1997). However, the planning policy in the 2000s abolished most of the participation methods practiced since the socialist era. Formal public participation was limited to 30 days of public inquiry where the draft plan is made available to the public in the final stage of the planning process, which remained in current planning acts (Planning and Construction Act, Official Gazette of RS, no. 52/2021). During the public inquiry, citizens and stakeholders can review draft plan documentation in the premises of the local municipality and/or on their website and submit written comments or complaints that are discussed, accepted, or rejected in front of the planning commission. It was expected that market orientation and democratization of planning affairs would ideally provide ground for decentralized governance initiatives in participatory planning policy and practice. However, this notion has not been fully embraced within the planning community which still mostly understands participation as a “procedural formality” that requires qualitative improvements and ˇ c and Dželebdži´c 2018). a higher level of transparency (Coli´ Within the last decade, Serbia finally made steps in strengthening the position of urban governance, communicative planning, and public participation around 15 years later than other developed democracies across the EU.1 It adopted a standard of early public inquiry in 20142 on top of the traditional public inquiry on the draft plan, which was recognized as support to subsidiarity in decision-making processes and adjusting to participatory planning practices of the European Union (Mueller et al. 2015). At the same time, the planning profession faces challenges that include the shortening of planning procedures, frequent changes in legal planning frameworks, privatization, deregulation, flexibility, and formal participation lacking substantive effects on planning solutions. With these challenges ongoing, a new situation arises 1

In 2019, Serbia adopted its first Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of Serbia until 2030 through a wide participatory process that gathered more than 200 participants across the country. The strategy defined the sets of measures to increase the level of transparency and enhance participation of citizens and stakeholders in decision-making processes. 2 The methodology of early public hearing is procedurally like the regular public inquiry, conducted at the early stages of the planning procedure where the planning concept is presented to the public for 15 days at the premises of the local authority. However, there is no obligation to provide feedback unless the complaints are resubmitted during regular public inquiry on a draft plan.

44

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

when Serbian planning practitioners were coupled with the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic, which has slowed down all steps of the planning processes that require collaboration. To understand directions into the current “new normal” as a state of planning and participation in post-pandemic times, this chapter provides insight into the experiences of planning practitioners while working under the conditions of preparedness and anticipation in the face of urban governance transition. The main research question is: What kinds of transformations occurred through new and alternative forms of participation in urban planning in Serbia within the last decade, and how does participation inform the future of cities in a time of uncertainty during the crisis? To answer the main research question, the next section contextualizes participatory planning through the critical pragmatist approach, as an analytical framework for the research with Serbian planning professionals. It then presents the research methodology and empirical results obtained from interviews and focuses groups with planners in Serbia. The final section discusses the findings and implications for a theoretical understanding of the pragmatic approach in participatory planning under uncertainty and its application in transitional societies.

4.2 Contextualizing Participatory Planning Through Critical Pragmatism The critical pragmatist approach is used in this research as a framework for studying the dynamics of participatory planning (Hoch 1994; Forester 1999, 2012; Healey 2008). Participatory planning clarifies the demands for democratization, social justice, and governance, as processes by which societies and social groups manage their collective efforts and share responsibility (Healey 2003: 104). The ongoing research on participatory practice focuses on transformation through reflection and learning about others, creating change in power dynamics, enhancing the responsiveness of the officials, and building institutional capacities (Healey 1997, 2006; Innes 1998; Forester 1999; Innes and Booher 2010; Wagenaar 2011). The focus of critical pragmatism is on the micropolitics of social interaction in planning practice (Forester 1999, 2017) with the aim to understand “actual possibilities—what we might really do—in situations characterized by deep distrust and suspicion, deep differences of interests and values, a good deal of fear and, often, anger, poor or poorly distributed information, and more” (Forester 2012: 10–11). Critical pragmatism also refers to transformative work and acting in “little ways” to enable the realization of different outcomes in each political, historical, and socioeconomic context (Forester 2017). According to Healey (2008), this can be achieved by creating experiences that require re-assessment of previously established beliefs during joint work; transferring human capacities (material, moral, and aesthetic) into traditionally technical/political public

4 Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia …

45

policy practices, and challenging previously accepted frameworks with new, alternative ideas and evidence through continuous reflection between individual parts and the setting. In this section, we outline some of the aspects of transformative work in participatory planning. These aspects are used further on as an analytical framework for an understanding of planning professionals’ experience in the local planning practices in Serbia. As Forester (2017) points out, the transformative work in participation encompasses the (1) change of existing relationships and formation of new ones; (2) recognition of new issues and priorities; and (3) change of existing perceptions and values, as well as ends of the planning process. The first aspect is that interaction through joint work in a participatory setting represents an incentive for the formation of new relationships and forms of organization (Forester 1999; Laws and Forester 2015; De Leo and Forester 2017). Sharing the experience and engaging other participants in “mastering the process” means to initiate the development of capacities to articulate ideas, perceive differences, and respect what others value (Forester 2017). The role of planning professionals in the creation of new environments requires openness toward a re-evaluation of previous experiences in existing, well-established relationships (i.e., with local authorities). The second aspect of transformation relates to better recognition of issues and planning priorities that derive through interaction in the participatory setting (Forester 1999). Often, the goal is to form a setting in which actors, including planners, would gain a clearer perception of social reality, a better understanding of the relationships among interests and niches of mistrust, and the recognition of unforeseen interests that might potentially trigger creative and responsible responses (Lissandrello and Grin 2011; Forester 2017). Obstacles to maintaining of such settings are usually found in low institutional capacities that require mobilization of drivers for action, but also the required technical and expert-orientated attitude of professional facilitators of ˇ c et al. 2021: 7). social interaction (Coli´ The third aspect of transformation refers to open conversations about values, goals, and means, which are considered inescapable aspects of practical action (Forester 1999). According to Forester (1999, 2017), the process of listening to others allows for creating groups of understandings of values, observing each other in a modified way, redefining problems, and transforming mandates, goals, and meanings in each case. The pivotal role of planning professionals as active participants in these processes is those of carriers of the weight of responsibility forward and therefore become able to perform the kind of planning methods that will reconcile rationality and pluralism with the contextual needs of the local setting and its community actors ˇ c and Nedovi´c-Budi´c 2021). (Coli´

46

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

Fig. 4.1 Research method and sample

4.3 Research Method The adopted research method takes advantage of a particular historical moment of a transitional local planning context and examines the transformative potential of participatory practice through the reflections of forty-three planning practitioners in seven cities in Serbia. The point of observation here is on the experiences of planning professionals in applying non-mandatory, alternative participation practices during the early stage of planning processes. The research shows that Serbian planning practitioners take the form of small, pragmatic steps to contribute to effective urban governance on specific urban challenges. The main research method is ethnography, where researchers gained access to planning professionals’ local work settings, spent time, listened to them, engaged in conversations to identify specific issues of interest, and took field notes (Bryman 2016: 431). Data was collected via open-ended and one-to-one interviews with planning professionals in 2017 and 2019 in seven cities in Serbia,3 following by conversations and notes at two focus groups in 2015 and 2017 (Fig. 4.1). The research applied is based on a purposeful sampling strategy (Bryman 2016), where the professionals worked in planning administration and public and private planning enterprises had more than 20 years of experience in engagement as leading plan formation processes and facilitators of public participation procedures. The sample from 2017 predominantly comprised professionals who carried out nonmandatory participatory practice based on their self-initiative by working together with the local community and stakeholders. The sample from 2019 involved another group of professionals working on cases supported by the international donor programs in Serbia, directed toward the promotion of sustainable economic development, development of public infrastructure, strengthening of civil society, and effiˇ c 2018). In the former cases, cient administrative structures (Mueller et al. 2015; Coli´ international collaboration was directed toward the provision of technical support in capacity development for participatory decision-making. The formation of local

3

Arandelovac, Belgrade, Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Novi Sad, Panˇcevo and Šabac.

4 Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia …

47

integrated urban development strategies in several Serbian cities4 was facilitated through public–private–civil dialogues as support to sustainable development goals of local urban plans.5 The interview guide evolved around processes and outcomes of planners’ daily practice. Interviews lasted between forty minutes and one and a half hours. They were managed, recorded, transcribed, and manually coded by the researchers. The first round of interviews with twenty-eight planners was conducted in 2017, just three years after the two-level participation was introduced into Serbian planning legislation. The second round of interviews with fifteen planning professionals was conducted in 2019, after several years of practice in testing innovations in the field of urban governance in Serbia.6 Besides interviews, the research involved two focus groups. The aim of the focus groups was to encourage expert debate (Forester 2017) to address the pioneering experiences in practicing early public participation between practitioners (2015) and to discuss findings obtained from the field research (2017). Both meetings gathered the initial group of 28 interviewed professionals and included sessions where they presented stories about participatory practices at the local level, followed by questions from the audience (municipality representatives, academia, and civil sector), and further debate. The researchers participated in both focus groups as overt participants, having the opportunity to pursue the study in a live situation and revise the initial research framework in the joint setting (Patton 2015: 446). The narratives resulted by the interview and participant observation constitute the basis of this research against a framing of critical pragmatism and transformative potential of participation. Although the empirical research with planning practitioners was carried out several years before the COVID-19 pandemic, the applicability of the research findings in the post-pandemic era results relevant in relation to experiences of participation in the face of uncertainty. The uncertainty concerning the transition to diversified governance approaches, harmonization with European standards in the field of sustainable urban development, and democratization of society are reflected in the local “culture of practice” (Healey 2010). This includes public administration habitual practices and resistance to change, ways of process control, political support for developers and planning procedures to obtaining construction permits, insufficient level of participants’ trust in the work of public administration, as well as the perception of a low level of transparency in the decision-making processes (Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia until 2030 2019). Serbian planning practitioners currently experience strong pressure to elaborate and adopt plans in a short period of time, not allowing enough time and space for carrying 4

GIZ/AMBERO project “Strengthening of local land management in Serbia” supported testing of novel participation methods in formation processes of four local integrated urban development strategies 2010–2013, and a national strategy of sustainable urban development in Republic of Serbia until 2030 in 2019. 5 EU PROGRESS project supported testing of public–private–civil dialogue in formation of 36 detailed urban plans in Serbia 2016–2018. 6 The implementation of two-level participation into the formal planning framework occurred after testing of alternative participatory methods in the field of urban governance in several Serbian cities ˇ c et al. 2013; Mueller et al. 2015). within the GIZ/AMBERO project between 2010–2018 (Coli´

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

48

out multilevel public participation (Mueller et al. 2015, p.70). The circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic substantively affected ongoing planning processes, whereas direct participation was abolished and transferred to reduced, limited, and controlled consultation processes and online communication with designated planning officials via email addresses (Panti´c et al. 2021). The following section will present some of the most meaningful narratives relating to the experiences of planning practitioners where small steps in participatory planning caused a transformation in the field of (1) new relationships, where participation practices affected the change of existing relationships and formation of new ones; (2) new issues and priorities, where participatory setting enabled a clearer understanding of social reality regarding actors, problems, and possibilities; (3) new values, where participatory practices affected the change of existing perceptions and values, as well as the results of planning process (Forester 2017). The chapter maintained that these narratives could furnish relevant reflections for a future new normal in post-pandemic times.

4.4 Narratives of the “Culture of Practice” The transformation of the relationships and the forms of alternative participatory methods for informing citizens and stakeholders prior COVID-19 was recognized within several narratives concerning the early stage of the planning process. The first narrative can be identified by the methods of citizen participation and stakeholder engagement often defined as “poor and insufficient” (public sector planner, focus group 1) due to the “formal” language used. Announcing planning initiatives through local newspapers and the website of the municipalities does not have sufficient outreach in the local community. One of the cases presented at the focus group in 2015 concerned a neighborhood in the Northern municipality of Serbia containing informal settlements erected during the 1990s and occupied by community residents that had no previous experience participating in planning processes. According to the local planner, non-mandatory methods of citizen engagement helped to render the process open to everyone reducing the risk of social segregation and provided an incentive for the participation of inhabitants of the neighborhood in future planning processes: Incentivizing the participation of the inhabitants in informal settlements is a very sensitive process. We are aware that illegal construction represents one of the most severe jeopardizations of public space. At the same time, urgent housing needed to be addressed. During the crisis in the 1990s, the illegal construction of private houses cannot just be cancelled from the plan just for its illegal status [i.e., lack of construction permit]. The organized action of the local community [to come to us, planners after the radio announcement] at the early stage of the planning process helped us to map the informal groups that now regularly participates at planning events. I feel better as well, because we managed to minimize the risk of making the wrong decision on the plan regarding housing demands that will affect peoples’ quality of life. (Public sector planner, interview 22)

4 Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia …

49

This first narrative reflects the fact that in many cities in Serbia the housing accessibility in the 1990s spurred from individual housing construction to other types of planning and construction of new buildings including the occupation of public land and public spaces and the infrastructure corridors.7 However, the challenges of setting a participatory planning process together with the community occupying informally urban areas are highlighted as an important debate (UN-Habitat 2015). This aspect has emerged as particularly crucial considering the COVID-19 pandemic. The second narrative comes from a planner interview who underlined aspects of the organization of an open public participatory event in a form of a conference in which the diversity of actors and possibilities for the formation of new relationships with them was established. We doubted that local private developers will show up because they are used to making deals directly with politicians, and almost never participate in the local events covered by the media. They [private developers] carefully followed the arguments of public enterprises regarding the need to restrict the development in the area and expressed willingness to reevaluate their proposals together with us [planners]. This was new for us, as we are used to having serious battles regarding developers’ unrealistic requests to increase the occupancy ratio for-profit development, which usually reach us in a top-down fashion. (Public sector planner, interview 34)

Talking about new forms of collaboration and organization, planners expressed awareness that in addition to their technical knowledge and expertise, there is a need for a better understanding of the existing relationships among the different stakeholders and their level of accessibility to the planning process (i.e., residents, developers, local grass root representatives). These two narratives reproduce some of the aspects of the transformative work of planning professionals in redefining the dynamics of the participatory process by providing more space for representatives of different sectors to enter the discussion. Planning processes tend generally to select direct groups and build specific interactions; but enlarging those processes allows planners to change their own assumptions, acquire knowledge, recognize different requirements, notice, and accept initially unrecognized perspective, and establish a new set of values. One of the planners interviewed talked about their experience in testing a participation method called “public–private-people dialogue” during the early stage of a planning process with the assistance of a professional facilitator: We had to plan kilometers of infrastructure through a naturally protected area with restrictive conditions concerning biosphere reserves in collaboration with public institutions for nature protection that usually leave no room for discussion. So, we organized a public– private-people dialogue between planners, citizens, private developers, NGOs, and public enterprises to obtain a wider perspective on possible solutions. Meetings were facilitated by a professional planning expert that maintained respect towards and between everyone involved, which created a good atmosphere, and helped us resolve most of the restrictive problems and focus attention on priorities. (Public sector planner, focus group 2) 7

The Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure has created the first database of illegally constructed building/facilities where they identified 2.05 million or 43.42% of the total number of buildings/facilities in 2017.

50

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

Some of the planners talked about open communication, joint brainstorming, public discussions, storytelling, and workshops that created a “group perception” of the issues and priorities. However, several interviewees pointed out the ambiguities regarding the legitimizing role of participation on the actual outcomes of planning documents: Who can guarantee the implementation of the pre-draft plan discussed this early phase of the planning process [during early public inquiry]? How much will the final solution change? Is this school, kindergarten or electric station presented at the early participation event going to be there when the plan is adopted? (Public sector planner, interview 33)

This planner talked about the unclear formulation of priorities in urban areas, hindered by a lack of continuity from the pre-draft plan to the adoption phase, underlying the fragility of the planning system, and the low institutional capacities for supporting deliberative planning processes through transparent, institutional criteria regarding implementation and monitoring of the planning solution. The following narrative briefly describes the transformative work underlying the change of the legal participatory planning framework in Serbia. Within the project “Strengthening of local land management in Serbia”, we had the opportunity to test different methods of public participation and capacity building for the institutionalization of urban governance, monitor the effects of public engagement in practice, and take part in the negotiation process that resulted in the change of legal framework by introducing early public participatory actions into the Planning and Construction Act through Article 45a. Serbia has finally positioned itself in the modern European planning practice. I would call it an act of civilization…. But we must be honest, the greatest reluctance to the application of two-level participation was presented by urban planners and then by politicians. We [planning professionals] are aware that the introduction of novel processes requires new knowledge and a lot of effort. (International sector planner, interview 7, emphasis added)

The final narrative was developed in the context of the participatory planning process in the case of commercial and residential high-rise urban regeneration projects in central-city areas in Belgrade that were prone to conflict due to their attractive location on the city riverbanks: The “Belgrade Waterfront” project received more than 1000 complaints from citizens and also experts from the fields of architecture, planning, construction, etc. The project was rejected in front of the planning commission without explanation. Consequently, Belgrade lost its main railway station and 100 hectares of state-owned land on the Sava River in favor of private investments for commercial and residential housing purposes. At the same time, the city of Šabac developed a Detailed Regulation Plan for a public park of 300 hectares through a wide participatory process! Long-lasting consultations between urban planners, water management experts, and interested members of the public have shifted the focus of the local authorities from attracting investments to developing flood defense systems and regeneration of the public park. This is one of the main tourist attractions in the city. This joint effort made a difference. Most urban planners in this country know little about how participatory processes can affect the change of perception of the “hardest players”, and that is why it is important to talk about it out loud. (Public sector planner, interview 40, emphasis added)

This narrative is about pride and satisfaction among local planning professionals to make progress in the face of the challenge of public participation. At the same

4 Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia …

51

time, planning professionals expressed fears regarding the insufficiently established rule of law regarding the implementation of participatory planning principles that would allow fair consideration of complaints and suggestions. One-to-one interviewees highlighted the importance of “little fights”. Nonmandatory methods for public participation such as radio advertising, interactive web pages, info-points, exhibition panels, printed promotional material at local public gatherings, as well as public forums in pedestrian areas, opened a space for the creation of new relationships and cooperation between planning professionals and different groups of stakeholders (i.e., NGOs, citizens’ groups, private developers). It enhanced the revision of the planning principles of antagonistic perception of planners versus community residents. Planners noted that to engage with participatory practices they need to acquire new skills on how to involve diverse community actors, facilitate discussions, harmonize the needs of developers with the norms and standards provided by the public enterprises, and overcome barriers to transparency to support democratic decision-making. Planning professionals maintain that respectful communication among potentially conflicting parties requires professional facilitators and mediators to channel and trigger improved communication among actors. At the same time, planners expressed skepticism toward the responsiveness of the planning authorities in the institutionalization of novelties in participatory practice due to the requirements of existing procedures and bureaucracy. In a similar fashion, Tasan-Kok and Oranje (2018: 2) note that “…closer work with practitioners revealed how much creativity it takes for a planner to have any impact in a sea of bureaucracy, often entailing political choices, proactive roles, or even becoming a short-circuiting activist in the machine”. Our research suggests that experientially informed acting in “little ways” can enable the realization of different ends, including a change of planning policy in order to accurately reflect human capacities. An example of such practice is presented through the narrative of the professional that was involved in the introduction of early public inquiry into planning legislation in 2014. However, these processes are followed by resistance to change, as well as the low level of enforcement of the law in practice. Serbian local planning context is still strongly influenced by the conditions of economic transition and the process of EU integration, the adaptation of planning to market conditions, and regulations that do not follow the previous challenges at ˇ c 2015). the same pace (Coli´

4.5 Discussion and Conclusion The research used the experiences of planning practitioners in Serbia to understand the transformative potential of participation in the conditions of preparedness and anticipation. These conditions are essential in the post COVID-19 pandemic and allow to draw from the six narratives here illustrated the challenges and capacities regarding the establishment of new culture of participation in planning and governance. The argument here is that in the practice of a transitional society, preparedness

52

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

and anticipation are the basic conditions for the new normal. Interviews with planning professionals and focus groups allowed an insight into planning professionals’ daily practice in the state of “normal”, but also presented some cases in which planners rise above the practice as usual by embracing the “new normal” in planning and participation. Serbian planning professionals today are “somewhere in-between” on the one hand; they are aware of the transition to a new state of planning which has requirements of the market, EU policies in the field of participation and territorial governance, the flow of planning ideas, and influences. On the other hand, planners are anchored to the institutional planning procedures and professional discourses in the urban development of the top-down socialist system, the disintegration of the country during the 1990s, and the re-establishment of the transition to market-oriented planning after the 2000s. The EU accession process opened possibilities for strengthening the role of public participation in planning in Serbia.8 In this light, it is important to note the first initiative in the field of urban governance at the national level, the Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of RS until 2030 (2019) which defines specific measures for improving citizen and stakeholder participation procedures in decision-making processes. At the same time, the circumstances in which planning professionals work include “…the reluctance of politicians which are under international pressure to introduce the necessary innovation in the legal and institutional framework, a significant influence of economic actors, as well as political voluntarism… The socio-professional position of urban planners is marginalized because they operate in conditions of inconsistent and inadequate legal regulations, as well as with insignificant obligation to implement it” (Vujovi´c 2012: 57–58). In these circumstances, planning professionals tend to emphasize their role as defender of the “public interest” against global market forces that could threaten the social or ˇ c and Nedovi´c-Budi´c 2021). ecological welfare (Coli´ Under the COVID-19 pandemic, most planning processes in Serbia were slowed down due to reduced direct collaboration between institutional, political, societal, civil, and planning actors. Early public inquiries were transferred to a web-based format through the local administrative unit’s or ministry’ website and emails with designated officers. The web-based access to the information of public interest is a precondition for including citizens and civil society organizations in the governing/ planning processes, democratizing contemporary planning praxis through the new actor-relational approach, and creating of a framework for democratic achievement (Bazik and Dželebdži´c 2012: 69). However, recent government intentions to introduce the e-participation practice in an online format as the only method of public participation in Serbia (Draft Policy “e-Space” 2022) raised significant response within the civil society and academia. The criticism has been related to insufficient access to the draft plan and abolishment of the direct contact with the public. 8

In 2018, Serbian national government confirmed the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority, adopted Amendments of the Local Self-Government Act and Planning System Act (act that regulates public policies). These documents expanded the role of participatory planning and provided support for the use of alternative methods of participation to reach a more realistic and just planning decision.

4 Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia …

53

According to Forester (2017: 294), challenges of practically exploring values and perceptions require the “infrastructure for practically situated and responsive action” (Forester 2017: 294) and creating experiences of participation to pragmatically probe creatively designed, small moves accepted by the environment. Such responsiveness is particularly desirable in the circumstances of a “new normal” such as learning from the pandemic state, which reflected not only the need to work and exist in the digital world but also to the change in attitudes and behaviors (Lissandrello and Sørensen 2021). The efforts to deal with challenges brought by the new normal in planning and participation deepen the need for a renewed understanding of the local culture of practice (Healey 2010) and its forms, including the planners’ work to deal with public administration institutional constraints and their ability to change, confront, and engage with policy implementation, coordination of competences between different levels of planning, as well as participants’ trust in the work of public administration ˇ c et al. 2021). (Coli´ From the narratives elaborated in this chapter, the change in the formal language to outreach the community, the possibility of breaking assumptions with types of communities, the public–private–people dialogues, the tensions between the rules of law, and the new open participation as well as the little fights that transform antagonism in productive conflict are one of the trends that we can find important as the changing culture of planning, governance, and participation in a new normal. Obstacles are found in both institutional inertia (Kunzmann 2013) and path dependency (Hirt 2015). Transitioning from one socioeconomic and political regime to another means that the notion of participatory planning will not switch itself. According to the pragmatist approach to planning, seeking the “right” model should not be limited by the boundaries of formal planning system or constrained to the daily, expert planning practice of professional planners (Healey 2010). The alternative practices are seen as “small, individual victories in highly unequal political-economic contexts” (Tasan-Kok and Oranje 2018: 2). Consequently, new expressions of participation are likely to be hybrid in-between rather than typical modalities, as demonstrated in our narratives facing the predominantly unitary notion of planning to operate in a market economy and democracy. Acknowledgements We wish to thank local planners from cities of Arandelovac, Belgrade, Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Novi Sad, Panˇcevo, and Šabac for their valuable insights and contributions during interviews and meetings. The study was supported by GIZ/AMBERO–ICON project “Strengthening local land management in Serbia”, (2010–2018), the “EU Progress” project implemented by UNOPS (2016–2018), Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia in the period 2011–2019 (Grant No. 47014) and from 2020 (Grant No. 451-0368/2020-14/200006, and Grant No. 451-03-68/2020-14/200090), and the Sustainable Development Innovation Laboratory (University of Belgrade-Faculty of Architecture).

References Basic Resolution on General Urban Plan (1949) “Official Gazette of the FNRJ”, No. 78/49

54

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

Bazik D, Dželebdži´c O (1997) Requirement for the transition period: informatic infrastructure development. SPATIUM Int Rev 2:17–25 Bazik D, Dželebdži´c O (2012) Web-based support of spatial planning in Serbia. SPATIUM Int Rev 28:67–73 Bryman A (2016) Social research methods, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford ˇ c R (2015) Integrated urban development strategy as an instrument for supporting urban Coli´ governance. Serbian Arch J SAJ 7(3):317–342 ˇ c N, Dželebdži´c O (2018) Beyond formality: a contribution towards revising the participatory Coli´ planning practice in Serbia. SPATIUM Int Rev 39:17–25 ˇ c N, Nedovi´c-Budi´c Z (2021) Public interest as a basis for planning standards in urban develColi´ opment: state-socialist and post-socialist cases in Serbia. J Plan Educ Res. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0739456X211051421 ˇ c R, Mili´c Ð, Petri´c J, Coli´ ˇ c N (2021) Institutional capacity development within the national Coli´ urban policy formation process—participants’ views. Environ Plan C Politics Space 40(1):69–89 ˇ c R, Mojovi´c Ð, Petkovi´c M, Coli´ ˇ c N (2013) Guide for participation in urban development Coli´ planning. AMBERO, Belgrade ˇ c R (2014) Evaluation of the capacity development of actors within participatory planning Coli´ process. SPATIUM Int Rev 31:45–50 ˇ c R (2018) Encouraging local sustainable and economic development through the development Coli´ of Detailed regulations plans. United Nations Office for Project Services—UNOPS, Belgrade De Leo D, Forester J (2017) Reimagining planning as moving from reflective to deliberative practice. Plan Theory Pract 18(2):202–216 De Magalhães C, Healey P, Madanipour A (2017) Assessing institutional capacity for city centre regeneration: Newcastle’s Grainger Town. In: Cars G, Healey P, Madanipour A, De Magalhães C (eds) Urban governance, institutional capacity and social Milieux. Routledge, London, pp 45–64 Fioretti C, Pertoldi M, Busti M, Van Heerden S (2020) Handbook of sustainable urban development strategies. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Forester J (2012) On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Plan Theory 12(1):5–22 Forester J (2017) On the evolution of critical pragmatism. In: Haselsberger T (ed) Encounters with planning thought. Routledge, London, pp 280–296 Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning, shaping places in fragmented society. Macmillan Press, London Healey P (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Plan Theory 2(2):101–124 Healey P (2006) Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. Eur Plan Stud 14(3):299–334 Healey P (2008) Knowledge flows, spatial strategy making, and the roles of academics. Eviron Plann C Gov Policy 26(5):861–881 Healey P (2010) Making better places: the planning project in the twenty-first century. Red Globe Press, London Hirt S (2012) Mixed use by default: how the Europeans (don’t) zone. J Plann Lit 27(4):375–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412212451029 Hirt S (2015) Planning during post-socialism. In: International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, 2nd edn, vol 18. Elsevier, London, pp 187–192 Hoch C (1994) What planners do: power, politics and persuasion. APA Planners Press, Chicago Hydén G (2011) Making the state responsive: rethinking governance theory and practice. In: Hyden G, Samuel J (eds) Making the state responsive: experience with democratic governance assessments. UNDP, New York, pp 5–28 Innes JE (1998) Information in communicative planning. JAPA 64(1):52–63 Innes JE, Booher DE (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, London

4 Building on Recent Experiences and Participatory Planning in Serbia …

55

Jessop B (2016) Territory, politics, governance, and multispatial metagovernance. Territory, Politics, Governance 4(1):8–32 Kunzmann KR (2013) Strategic planning: a chance for spatial innovation and creativity. Plan Rev 49(3):28–31 Laws D, Forester J (2015) Conflict, improvisation, governance. Routledge, New York Lissandrello E, Grin J (2011) Reflexive planning as design and work: lessons from the Port of Amsterdam. Plan Theory Pract 12(2):223–248 Lissandrello E, Hrelja R, Tennøy A, Richardson T (2017) Three performativities of innovation in public transport planning. Int Plan Stud 22(2):99–113 Lissandrello E, Sørensen J (2021) Transforming urban governance in a post-pandemic world: the “new normal” in planning and participation, Book of Abstracts, 20–22 Oct 2021. Aalborg University and Urban Europe Research Alliance, Aalborg. https://www.en.plan.aau.dk/digita lAssets/1088/1088416_uera_book_of_abstracts_eljs.pdf Mäkinen K (2020) Scales of participation and multi-scalar citizenship in EU participatory governance. Environ Plan C Politics Space 39(5):1011–1029 ˇ c R, Fürst A, Begovi´c B, Jochheim-Wirtz C, Boži´c B, Ferenˇcak M, Mueller H, Wehrmann B, Coli´ Zekovi´c S (2015) Strengthening of local land management in Serbia. In: Results of 6 Years of German-Serbian cooperation. Module 1: Urban Land Management. AMBERO Consulting Representative Office Belgrade, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Colorgrafx, Belgrade, Dec 2015 Nedovi´c-Budi´c Z, Cavri´c B (2006) Waves of planning: a framework for studying the evolution of planning systems and empirical insights from Serbia and Montenegro. Plan Perspect 31(4):393– 425 Nedovi´c-Budi´c Z, Zekovi´c S, Vujoševi´c M (2012) Land Privatization and Management in Serbia— Policy in Limbo. J Arch Plan Res 29(4):306–317 Panti´c M, Cilliers J, Cimadomo G, Montaño F, Olufemi O, Torres Mallma S, van den Berg J (2021) Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the COVID-19 pandemic—lessons learned for the future. Land 10(1379):1–19 Patton MQ (2015) Evaluation in the field: the need for site visit standards. Am J Eval 36(4):444–460 Planning and Construction Act (2021) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 52/2021. Available at https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_planiranju_i_izgradnji.html. Assessed 28 Jan 2021 Rhodes RAW (2007) Understanding governance: ten years on. Organ Stud 28(8):1243–1264 Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (2015) Planning Cultures and histories: influences on the evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns. Eur Plan Stud 23(11):2127–2132 Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of Serbia until 2030 (2019) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 47/19 Tasan-Kok T, Oranje M (2018) From student to urban planner, young practitioners’ reflections on contemporary ethical challenges. Routledge, New York UN-Habitat (2015) Habitat III issue papers, 22—informal settlements. Available at https://unhabi tat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-22_Informal-Settle ments-2.0%20%282%29.pdf. Assessed 1 Sept 2022 Vujoševi´c M (2003) Planning in post-socialist political and economic transition. IAUS, Belgrade Vujovi´c S (2012) Actors of entrepreneurial cities in the game of power: the example of Serbia. In: Svirˇci´c Gotovac A (ed) Actors of social change in space: transformation of space and quality of life in Croatia. Interregional scientific-professional conference (round table) held at the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb, 16 Dec 2011. Institute for Social Research, Zagreb, pp 51–61 Wagenaar H (2011) Meaning in action: interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. ME Sharpe, New York

56

ˇ c et al. N. Coli´

ˇ c is an urban planner and a research associate at Institute of Architecture and Dr. Nataša Coli´ Urban and Spatial Planning of Serbia. She engages in design and implementation of qualitative research in the fields of sustainable and integrated urban development, testing of and analysis of urban governance practices, land-use change, planning standards and access to services and spaces of general economic interest in urban development, public participation, and stakeholder engagement. Dr. Omiljena Dželebdži´c is a spatial planner and a senior research associate at the Institute of Architecture and Urban and Spatial Planning of Serbia. She holds significant experience participating in formation of spatial and urban plans at the local and national levels. She engaged in eleven national and four international projects and published over eighty scientific papers in journals and monographic studies. Her research interests include the development of indicatorbased spatial planning tools, ICT impacts on urbanization trends, functional settlement networks, spatial planning of mountainous areas, cultural heritage protection studies, and GIS-based spatial analysis. ˇ c is an associate professor at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade. Dr. Ratka Coli´ Her field of research is sustainable and integrated territorial development, citizen participation and stakeholder involvement, capacity development, international influences on planning policies, and integrating sustainability in higher planning education. She is a town planner with almost 30 years working experience in urban development practice as a public servant, a national expert in international projects being implemented in Serbia (UN-HABITAT, GIZ/AMBERO and UNOPS), and as an international expert on projects implemented by the Council of Europe.

Chapter 5

Building the Buzz in Blakelaw: Re-Igniting the Public Realm of Britain’s Peripheral Urban Estates in the New Normal Georgiana Varna and Danny Oswell

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic transformed our world. And, the measures required to manage it brought serious disruption to the vibrant, enriching, and healthy social interactions which most humans crave. In the UK, the public health pandemic followed in the wake of an epidemic of austerity that had been with us since 2010. So that today, the landscape is grim: public services have undergone serious decline; privatisations and outsourcing have battered the public realm; and public infrastructures across Britain have been severely eroded. In this work, we go beyond current government rhetoric and its instrumentalised thinking, exemplified by the empty “build back better” soundbite that is seeded through current planning documentation. Instead, we look at urban places that have been left behind: those suffering in terms of overall place quality and poor public realm. Our methodology centres on location-specific “experiments”, co-designed with the local community in the suburb of Blakelaw, Newcastle Upon Tyne, in Northeast England. We strongly feel that if we are to genuinely strengthen the place agenda in such a moment of fluidity of context, our challenge is to develop deep, multi-layered, complex understandings of the public realm of left-behind communities and places. And, we intend to do this by adopting a more radical, disruptive, experimental, yet collaborative, community-led urban design and placemaking approach. Keywords Urban design · Public realm · Place citizenship · Experimental approach · Politics of recovery

G. Varna (B) · D. Oswell School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, Henry Daysh Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, England e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_5

57

58

G. Varna and D. Oswell

5.1 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered the world we inhabit. But even more importantly, it has also changed us. The dramatic, global-scale transformation that we experienced, particularly during periods of total lockdown, affected the personal and social realms of us all; bringing our increasingly urbanized world almost to a halt, portrayed as being “almost suspended in amber”, in an in-the-moment mockumentary of the time (Brooker and Jones 2020). As the pandemic intensified, the measures required to manage it increasingly began to jar with our basic human need for vibrant, enriching, social contact. And as we shifted from each “stranger" being a potential encounter for new and exciting social interaction, to “the other”, becoming a potential threat of contagion to be avoided at all costs, the curtain came down on the “street ballet” of which Jane Jacobs wrote in the 1960s (Jacobs 1961). In the UK, all of these were exacerbated by the pre-existing, policy-induced, “epidemic” of austerity, that the country had been suffering from since the election of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010. Coalition government is a rare event in the UK, where the First Past the Post voting system tends to deliver absolute majorities for the victorious Party. However, after a fractious post-financial crash election had delivered no overall majority, the coalition that was quickly formed set about a programme of swingeing austerity cuts, reducing local government spending by more than half (Gray and Barford 2018), so that by 2019, £30 bn of spending reductions had been levied against services such as welfare benefits, housing subsidies, and social services (Mueller 2019). As a result of this, when the COVID-19 pandemic reached the UK in 2020, the socioeconomic and physical infrastructure of the country was particularly poorly placed to respond. It was within this wider socioeconomic context that the radical changes experienced by the types of individuals depicted in Jacobs’s Street ballet were played out. One frosty January morning in 2021, when taking my 8-year-old daughter to school, I noticed a painted rock, half hidden behind a flowerpot in my garden. The rock carried a message explaining that the finder should re-hide it and then post about the experience on an identified community Facebook page (see Fig. 5.1). This example was just one of the many playful, innovative, and spontaneous community-led initiatives that sprang up during the prolonged repeated lockdowns, which—on reflection—have given us the feeling that a renewed sense of place attachment and a stronger relationship with our locality is (re)emerging? The appearance of such interventions sparked our current research journey to try to capture this new sense of togetherness and perhaps even use it to dynamise the life of many “forgotten places”—neighbourhoods that have slipped off the main local, regional, or national “regeneration” and revitalization agendas (Varna and Oswell, 2021).There is a myriad of such places across the UK, and we zoom in here on the neighbourhood of Blakelaw, which sits on the Western fringe of the city centre of Newcastle upon Tyne. It is an area heavily disconnected from the city fabric by three main car traffic avenues, and locals we spoken with in our Community Engagement

5 Building the Buzz in Blakelaw: Re-Igniting the Public Realm …

59

Fig. 5.1 Rock painting and hide-and-seek initiative in North Tyneside (Author’s own, January 2021)

Fig. 5.2 Location of Blakelaw in Newcastle upon Tyne (Left; Google Maps) and Blakelaw Shopping Centre Area (Right; Author’s own)

event in July 2022, shared their concerns regarding the lack of a sense of place on arrival—save a small, worn-down shopping centre sign (Fig. 5.2). The central aim of our research is therefore to understand whether the recent COVID-19 lockdown experiences have led people to care more about their local public realm—by which we mean the totality of public and quasi-public spaces. In this chapter, we propose adopting an experimental urban design and planning approach to uncover whether this recent traumatic (global) experience has impacted on people’s desire to engage in a more active public life, after having been stripped away by decades of top-down place-insensitive planning schemes, political apathy, and lack of strong place-leadership (Architecture and Design Scotland, 2011)? We then anchor this in the local context of current Northern England and Newcastle and conclude with reflections on the successful application of this methodology to uncover if locals have become more engaged in the local public realm as active “citizens of place” rather than aloof spectators. We work here with the conceptualization of place as “dwelling, affinity, immanence, relationality, multiplicity and performativity” and of urban planning and urban design, as a kind of “magic” (Hillier 2005; Amin 2004; Thrift 1999, 2000). Our thinking also borrows from Deleuze and

60

G. Varna and D. Oswell

Guattari’s spatial philosophy, whereby they promote experimentation, and (as we understand it) a more dynamic, fluid understanding of place and planning (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, 1980, 1994).

5.2 Towards a More Experimental Approach in Urban Studies What underpins our thinking around the need for experimentation in this work; and how do we imagine such an approach being developed? It is certainly possible to consider any urban planning and design intervention as an “experiment”. Needs and possibilities are identified; interventions are developed and implemented; and some degree of subsequent impact assessment is (hopefully) carried out. When we look more closely at reflective and representative work in this area, however, we find only sporadic consideration of key questions such as what would urban design experimentation entail? And how and why do we need to experiment? It is here we hope to help fill a critical research gap, as identified by Evans et al. (2017), who remark that “urban experimentation is a rapidly emerging field of practice and theory” (Evans et al. 2017: 1). Indeed, in more recent years—and linked to pressing complex problems stemming from our current global situation—innovative experimental work has been done in relation to “urban resilience” (see Crowe et al. 2016); earth stewardship and information technology (Felson et al. 2013); low-carbon urban transitions (Moloney and Horn 2015); and governance in times of climate change (Bulkeley and Broto 2012; Bulkeley et al. 2015). In developing our approach, our thinking has firstly been deeply influenced by the work of Jean Hillier and specifically the proposal from her 2005 Planning Theory paper, which imagines urban planning (and we believe by implication, urban design) as: • the investigation of virtualities unseen in the present; • the experimentation with what may be yet to happen; • the temporary enquiry into what at a given time and place we might yet think or do (Hillier 2005). Secondly, we locate ourselves in a field where various and diverse methodologies have been used to capture the rich, multiplicitous, and dynamic nature of the public realm and public spaces. Ethnography has been well applied here, notably by Setha Low in her seminal book On the Plaza (2000) and later in her 2017 work Spatializing Culture (Low 2000; 2017). Having concluded a recent survey of several ethnographic studies, Jones (2021) voices concerns that ethnographic observation of public spaces has critical limitations, however, sharing his belief that unlike in traditional ethnographic settings,…participant observation is not, and cannot be, the primary mode of data collection in public realm research because, as a site of situated multiplicity and co-presence, this realm is intrinsically unsuited to the collection of data through participation in social group practices (Jones 2021: 437). We echo his

5 Building the Buzz in Blakelaw: Re-Igniting the Public Realm …

61

thoughts here, recognizing that the public realm is indeed a complex and contentious concept, which has been interrogated in depth by thinkers such as Arendt (1958), Habermas (1962, 1992), and Lefebvre (1974/1991). We also assert, however, that for us, the public realm contains the totality of the accessible public and quasi-public spaces within an identified area, into which—in principle at least—anyone can enter regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, purchasing power, etc. It is here, in the public places of cities, its parks, streets, and squares, that one can interact with “the other”, strangers can meet, and new experiences can happen, where one can engage passively or actively with the street ballet’. But, it is also important to acknowledge that this public realm also acts as a backdrop, against which highly societal routines such as school pick-ups; participating in local festivals and celebrations; attending local markets; meeting friends and family all play out (Carr et al. 1992). Following this line of thought, the public realm is the opposite of the private world of the family: of closed societies, clubs, and other private networks; where, unlike in the public sphere, there is a tendency towards the amplification of one’s own point of view. In contrast, individuals in the public realm, “being seen and heard by others derive their significance from the fact that everybody sees and hears from a different position. This is the meaning of public life, compared to which even the richest and most satisfying family life can offer only the prolongation or multiplication of one’s own position.” (Crowhurst Lennard 1995). Partly as a consequence of all of this and partly as a result of our desire to investigate Blakelaw’s public realm through an array of fluid and perpetually re-defined concepts such as “sense of place”, “lived experience”, “care”, “affect”, and “place citizenship”; we have elected to follow an experimental approach to our work. In doing this, we follow in the footsteps of thinkers such as Nancy Fraser and Margaret Crawford (Crawford, 1995), the latter writing as early as 1995, in the context of counter-balancing the Los Angeles’ School’s work on the demise of public space. Margaret Crawford importantly identified that: In fact, the meaning of concepts such as public, space, democracy, and citizenship are continually being redefined in practice through lived experience. By eliminating the insistence on unity, the desire for fixed categories of time and space, and the rigid concepts of public and private that underlie these narratives of loss, we can begin to recognize a multiplicity of simultaneous public interactions that are restructuring urban space, producing new forms of insurgent citizenship, and revealing new political arenas for democratic action. (Crawford 1995: 4)

Furthermore, she adds that “change, multiplicity, and contestation-rather than constituting the failure of public space-may in fact define its very nature” (Crawford 1995: 9). Following her line of thought, our key aim is to map, capture, and knit together this very multiplicity of simultaneous interactions and the variety of perceptions of place that exist in Blakelaw. Once we have progressed this aspect of our work, we will set about attempting to analyse the potential that might exist for it to be used as a catalyst, to stimulate an insurgent citizenship of place in neighbourhoods like Blakelaw, particularly given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the exogenously enforced denial of public life that it brought. In doing this, we will adopt the approach of the renowned place thinker Edward Relph and act with

62

G. Varna and D. Oswell

a “cheerful suspicion”, which “involves careful, unprejudiced observation of places and landscapes that is neither supercilious, nor cynical” (Relph 1997: 21). In taking this approach, we acknowledge that it will be no simple task to apply such conceptualisations of place as an ever-shifting construct, in a discipline where place is “an area on a map”, constrained by physical, environmental, and social laws, crystalized, and structured in clear fixities in plans, masterplans, and renderings. But in so doing, we take comfort in the words of Kallus (2001), who suggests that genuine innovation in urban design needs to reach beyond a volumetric, bounded approach to space and place and embrace the everyday in all of its complexities: in order to be truly innovative, urban design must consider space as habitable territory in which life-supporting activities take place. This view of the urban space means that its essence is more than a still-life, volumetric, entity. (Kallus 2001: 146). Thirdly, in the context of our chosen case study, we are working in an environment that has long been shaped by a combination of a sustained lack of engagement, chronic underinvestment, and more latterly, withering austerity (Webb 2017). This unholy trinity has enabled widespread cynicism and distrust in the planning system to develop over time, precipitating an intensifying sense of disempowerment within the community. Because of this, we believe that the moment is right to embrace a more inclusive, experimentally driven, disruptive, place-focused, research methodology. Using the public realm as the locus for urban experimentation will not only allow the testing of innovative ideas in low-risk ways; it will also help to create a sense of introspection, novelty, excitement, creativity, and playfulness for the participants. Our sincere hope is that this approach can then spark authentic processes of engagement in collaborative community placemaking endeavours, that will culminate in objectively identifiable positive change. Fourthly, the concept of learning from each other is central to our approach. We will do this by calling on our collective lived experience as researchers and participants, to help shape the initial processes of experimentation. But, we will also do it heuristically during those experimental processes—to ensure that we can generate and share rich content, from “learning by doing”. In taking this approach, it is important to note that we view the concept of “urban experimentation” as a fundamentally collaborative learning endeavour, whereby we will collectively work as professionals and local actors, on an equal footing, focused on creating an enriching learning experience for all of those involved, with clearly identifiable outputs and outcomes in mind. We have standardised this approach to the development of our experimental work around several key concepts. Our Collaborative Learning Urban Experiments (CLUEs) will involve certain clearly defined spatial and temporal parameters, robust research methodologies, and results that are readily shareable. We define that standardised approach to experimentation as follows: Collaborative = actively involving local communities and networks of actors; Learning = learning from and with communities; identifying new perspectives/approaches/futures; Urban = taking place in an urban setting (cities and towns); and Experiments = developed and implemented around a clearly identifiable research agenda and methodology that is set out in advance, delivering useful/valid/replicable results.

5 Building the Buzz in Blakelaw: Re-Igniting the Public Realm …

63

Finally, it is important to note here that we do not necessarily see our urban experiments in a utilitarian, pragmatic way, leading towards long-term, palpable, reallife projects or interventions, in some sort of highly instrumentalist way. That may well happen of course, but we prefer to think of place focused experimental efforts, as being akin to pebbles tossed into the fluid spaces of urban, social life creating far-reaching ripple effects helping to spread concepts of good place-making and urban collaboration, both (in) between places and through time. We believe that this approach can help to enhance relations both within communities of people, but also between those communities and the wider socio-political urban fabric. In so doing, we believe that we will both help to influence the place-shaping process of their lived localities, whilst also helping to re-build and reinvigorate the concept of place citizenship—with all the positive spin-offs that such a change might bring.

5.3 The Local Context: Marginality and Left-Behind Places In 2021, after a decade of austerity, decline in public services, multiple privatizations, significant shrinkage in large swathes of our public realm, and sustained pressure on the overall public infrastructure of most of Britain, it seems that the UK Government is finally attempting to recognize the importance of place quality with their new National Design Guide, published in January 2021 (MHCLC 2021). Stressing that the “National Planning Policy Framework sets out that achieving high-quality places and buildings is fundamental to the planning and development process” (MHCLC 2021: 3), the Guide proposes that a well-designed place includes ten key domains, with their own characteristics, embedded into three larger themes of community, character, and climate. As a result of this, the debate on the quality of outdoor social space, the public realm, and the importance of public life is (hopefully) at least reopened. The last time this happened in any significant way in the United Kingdom, was with the Urban Task Force initiative (DETR 1999) of the New Labour Government, highly criticised by authors such as Owen Hatherley in his seminal 2010 book ’A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain’. However, the context in 2022 is significantly different. Looking past the sound bite-driven rhetoric of the current government—with its intensely centralized control and obsession with the “primacy of markets”—the reality for most cities and towns around the country is grim. A long way away from the glossy brochure, press launch sloganeering of “build back better” or “levelling up”, empty city centres are experiencing an existential identity crisis (Enoch et al. 2022), whilst suburbs and peripheral housing estates, littered streets, forgotten parks, and abandoned squares bear witness to neighbours that are often strangers to each other, silently passing each other on the street like ships in the night. And as is usually the case, the situation is often far worse in “places of marginality” (Wacquant 1996), where exclusion has often been engineered in, sometimes even by the residents themselves, as part of a process of insulating oneself against the additional socioeconomic frictions that chronic underinvestment has delivered. Such locations have

64

G. Varna and D. Oswell

been described in mainstream political, media, and public discourses as “left-behind places”, a terminology which came to prominence following the traumatic national experience of the 2016 Brexit Referendum (Sykes 2018). Blakelaw Ward is one such peripheral, left-behind place. For as long as anyone we spoke to can remember, it has lacked a coherent, integrated, urban planning, and design (re)generation strategy and it is a place where wave after wave of housing interventions has created a fragmented, incoherent public realm, focused on Blakelaw Park (see Fig. 5.3a). The main “social centre” is now framed by a series of worn-down, low-rise shops, near a post-office and a café with a tattered look, and with fragmented areas of left-over, unused green spaces, with higher tower blocks in the background. The Community Centre is tucked away a few minutes’ walk down the street, behind a car park, and is difficult to find and access (see Fig. 5.3b). It is here where over the past year, the authors have been working on building a strong relationship with the local community body, the Blakelaw and North Fenham Community Council (BNFCC), to develop a mutually beneficial research plan. The COVID-19 wave and the Omicron variant in particular frustrated our efforts to start our fieldwork in autumn 2021, meaning that the work had to be pushed back to the summer of 2022. We carried out a series of online Zoom meetings and walking workshops in the area with the local Newcastle City Councillors and representatives of BNFCC. And, we also co-designed a Linked Research Project with our Master of Planning Students, which focused on the complex relationship between spatial fragmentation and community cohesion. We also undertook a Community Engagement event in July 2022, where we engaged with over 50 locals around issues related to the quality of the public realm and public life in the neighbourhood. We are now preparing a series of workshops with community members to co-design some experimental interventions which we can undertake together later this year. These will address some of the community’s more pressing issues and hopefully also engage

Fig. 5.3 a Left: Blakelaw detailed map (Google Maps) and b Right: Community Centre (March 2022, Author’s own)

5 Building the Buzz in Blakelaw: Re-Igniting the Public Realm …

65

some of the more disempowered or excluded local people, whose voices need to be heard. Our key aim is to shift perceptions about public space and public life for local citizens, by engaging them in a coherent process/continuum of experimentation, which aims to make real changes happen incrementally, embracing together a shared journey towards more positive futures for their locality. That is the real focus for change, and multiple policy vehicles (e.g., policy tools such as the Localism Act in England 2011, and the Community Empowerment Act, 2015 in Scotland), mutual aid organizations and societies, and pilot social and community-led entrepreneurship schemes already exist that can help enable this needed shift. Our role, beyond being researchers, as planners and urban designers, is to deploy our expertise and professionalism to bring these aspects together, to translate and instrumentalise them in a meaningful way for local people, so that they both have the material ability and feel empowered, to shape their local area in the ways that they desire.

5.4 Conclusions and Steps Forward In the spring of 2020, the UK found itself having to respond to the “suspended in amber” moment that signalled the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The country entered this period in a weak position. After almost a decade of policyinduced austerity, both public life in general and the public realm specifically were fractured, fragile, and vulnerable. Despite this, the pandemic did create moments of hope for people who value public life and the “sense of togetherness” it brings. From the various mutual aid schemes and communal activities that popped up, to the more active use of public spaces, our belief is that a reappraisal of the value of the public realm happened quite spontaneously. And, we sense that some recognition of this on the part of policymakers has followed. But what is happening on the ground because of all of this? This is what we want to investigate and capture, in real-time, through an experimental approach. Our challenge is to “stand on the shoulders of giants” such as Jane Jacobs and Jean Hillier, in the hope of answering some key questions about the rapidly shifting currents of the social life, particularly in left behind urban places, in the hope to identify a meaningful and coherent flow of ideas, concepts, and creative possibilities. In doing this, we also wish to go a stage further. We want to understand how these elements might be connected to concepts like “place citizenship”, “care and affect”, “tactical urbanism”, and “empowerment”. We want to understand this as it will collectively help us to imagine and describe new futures for these forgotten places. We propose to do this through a co-designed, experimental approach: creating and implementing interventions with local people; gathering robust data on their impacts; and using those results to influence both future policy, further investigations, and future interventions. We believe that by taking this approach—with Relph’s “cheerful suspicion” very much in mind—we will both help to empower a community that has been “left behind” for too long, but also be able to learn significant lessons from the process of experimentation itself.

66

G. Varna and D. Oswell

The first conference on Experimental Cities was organized in Copenhagen in 2017, in the wake of the publication of The Experimental City, a book edited by James Evans, Andrew Karvonen, and Rob Raven. In their opening remarks to this diverse collection of examples and reflections on urban experimentation, the editors argue that the key challenges currently facing humanity are played out most extensively in cities and also that since we are heading towards an increasingly urbanized planet, the “business as usual” approach to the ways in which those cities are organised has been clearly recognized as no longer valid (Evans et al. 2017). As a result, new solutions, approaches, policies, and interventions are being trialled in an increasingly intense and indeed, essential, wave of experimentation: the burgeoning realization that “business as usual” will no longer do has prompted a search for alternative ways to organize, plan, manage, and live in cities. Experimentation promises a way to do this and is gaining traction in cities all over the world. Policymakers, designers, private companies, and third sector organizations are initiating innovation activities to trial alternative future visions of local economic development, social cohesion, environmental protection, creative sector expansion, policy evolution, service delivery, infrastructure provision, academic research, and more (Karvonen et al. 2014; Evans et al. 2017: 1). We locate our present research in this broader emergent field. We believe that experimentation is flexible and scalable; it can act as a channel for citizen engagement, and furthermore, as a mechanism for collectively tackling specific social issues and exclusion. We also believe that the process of experimentation should be a positively future oriented one, in order that clear, transparent, accessible data can be gleaned from it and shared widely, because ultimately, community co-produced urban experimentation should be encouraged wherever, whenever and by whomsoever it might be practiced. Our work is at an early stage, but our relationship with the community continues to flourish, and there is a clearly expressed hunger on the part of key actors in Blakelaw to move together forward towards a more positive future. As a result, whilst remembering Edward Relph’s notes of caution, we remain hopeful and courageous regarding both our own research efforts and the long-term benefits that they may yield for Blakelaw, a community that has long been waiting for, and is well deserving of some detailed attention, care, and substantial financial investment to become a place that the people living there can lovingly call ‘home’.

References Amin A (2004) Regions unbound: towards a new politics of place. Geogr Ann 86B(1):33–44 Architecture and Design Scotland (2011) Places need leaders. Available at https://www.ads.org.uk/ leadership-is-key-to-creating-better-places/, 7th Apr 2022 Arendt H (1958) The human condition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Brooker C, Jones A (2020) Death to 2020, mockumentary, Netflix, 27th Dec 2020 Bulkeley HC, Broto V, Edwards G (2015) An urban politics of climate change: experimentation and the governing of socio-technical transitions. Routledge, London Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V (2012) Government by experiment? global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans Inst Br Geogr 37:1–15

5 Building the Buzz in Blakelaw: Re-Igniting the Public Realm …

67

Carr S et al (1992) Public space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Crawford M (1995) Contesting the public realm: Struggles over public space in Los Angeles. J Architecl Edu 49(1):4–9 Crowe P, Foley K, Collier M (2016) Operationalizing urban resilience through a framework for adaptive co-management and design: five experiments in urban planning practice and policy. Environ Sci Policy 62:112–119 Crowhurst Lennard S (1995) Livable cities observed. Gondolier Press, Carmel, CA Deleuze G, Guattari F (1987/1980) A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia (trans: Massumi B). Athlone Press, London Deleuze G, Guattari F (1994) What is philosophy? (trans: Tomlinson H and Burchill G). Verso, London DETR (Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions) Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an urban renaissance. Accessed at https://www.35percent.org/img/urban-task-force-report.pdf Enoch M et al (2022) When COVID-19 came to town: Measuring the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on footfall on six high streets in England. EPB Urban Anal City Sci 49(3):1091–1111 Evans J, Karvonen A, Raven R (2017) The experimental city: new modes and prospects of urban transformation. In: Evans J, Karvonen A, Raven R (eds) The experimental city. Routledge, London, pp 1–12 Felson A, Bradford M, Terway T (2013) Promoting earth stewardship through urban design experiments. Front Ecol 11(7):362–367 Gray M, Barford A (2018) The depths of the cuts: the uneven geography of local government austerity, Cambridge J Reg Econ Soc 11(3):541–563 Habermas J (1962/1992) The structural transformation of the public sphere. Polity Press, Oxford, England Hatherley O (2010) A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain, Verso. New York Hillier J (2005) Straddling the post-structuralist abyss: between transcendence and immanence. Plan Theory 4(3):271–299 Jones A (2021) Public realm ethnography: (Non-)participation, co-presence and the challenge of situated multiplicity. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 58(2):124–129 Kallus R (2001) From abstract to concrete: subjective reading of urban space. J Urban Des 6(2):129– 150 Karvonen A, Evans J, Heur BV, Hodson M, Marvin S (2014) The politics of urban experiments: Radical change or business as usual? In after sustainable cities? (pp. 105–114), Routledge Lefebvre H (1974/1991) The production of space. Blackwell, Oxford, England MHCLC (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government now Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) (2021) National design guide. Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places, London Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York Low S (2000) On the plaza: the politics of public space and culture. University of Texas Press, Austin Low S (2017) Spatializing culture. Routledge, New York Moloney S, Horne R (2015) Low carbon urban transitioning: from local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability 7:2437–2453 Mueller B (2019) What is austerity and how has it effected british society? The New York Times Relph E (1997) Sense of place. In: Hanson S (ed) Ten ideas that have changed the world. Rutgers University Press, Rutgers University Sykes O (2018) Post-geography worlds, new dominions, left behind regions, and ‘other’ places: unpacking some spatial imaginaries of the UK’s ‘Brexit’ debate. Space Polity 22(2):137–161 Thrift N (1999) The place of complexity. Theory Cult Soc 16(3):31–69 Thrift N (2000) “Not a straight line but a curve” or, cities are not mirrors of modernity. In: Bell D, Haddour A (eds) City visions. Longman, Harlow, pp 233–263 Varna G, Oswell D (2021) Towards a stronger quality of place agenda in the new normal. Town Plann Rev 92(1):107–114

68

G. Varna and D. Oswell

Wacquant L (1996) The rise of advanced marginality: notes on its nature and implications. Acta Sociologica 39(2):121–139

Georgiana Varna is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape at Newcastle University. She is currently researching on topics such as experimental urbanism; public spaces and place-making, and regeneration, within the context of the liveability agenda, with a particular interest in Scotland, and the Celtic nations. She has a long track-record in regeneration practice, placemaking, and policy making and shaping, having held numerous roles in academia, and being currently a Trustee for Architecture and Design Scotland. Her work is driven by a strong belief in co-produced, co-operative, and new practices of improving our world for a better tomorrow for all of us. Danny Oswell is a Lecturer in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape at Newcastle University. He is currently researching on topics such as experimental urbanism; town and city centre decline; and social and community enterprise. He has a long track-record in regeneration practice, having held numerous senior roles in the public and private sectors.

Chapter 6

Adaptation of Partnership Models in Times of COVID-19 Janni Sørensen and Tara Bengle

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated fast change and adaptation of methods related to participatory planning and governance. As planning scholars focused on access to the planning process, just decision-making and power for marginalized populations, this change calls for a cautious review of benefits and challenges as we settle into or object to the conditions of a “New Normal”. This chapter, therefore, describes a model for partnership with marginalized neighbourhoods developed through a long and sustained collaboration between planning scholars and residents in Charlotte, North Carolina, the partnership named the Charlotte Action Research Project (CHARP) at UNC Charlotte. This model is examined to understand vulnerabilities from “New Normal” trends. The argument here is that by describing best practice pre-pandemic, developed in this context, it is possible to shine a light on what we might risk abandoning in the post-pandemic. The chapter introduces alternative methods with the potential for maintaining high-level participation and power locally while adapting to restrictions that may be necessary due to pandemic-driven concerns. We conclude with a reflection on the “New Normal” participatory planner’s central role in ensuring that innovative and creative processes are not replaced primarily with digital tools, which we argue should be used only in combination with other methods. Keywords Marginalized neighbourhoods · Partnership model · Power · Community resilience · Alternative methods

J. Sørensen (B) Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 2.357, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] T. Bengle Johnson C. Smith University, 100 Beatties Ford Rd Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28216, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_6

69

70

J. Sørensen and T. Bengle

6.1 Introduction Urban planning scholarship and practice deals with persistent, wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) concerning “sustainability” in its broadest possible definition. Centering social sustainability issues have led some in the discipline to centre racial- and economic-disparities in the elusive struggle for grounding our work in the principle of a “public interest” in creating inclusive communities (Sandercock and Dovey 2002). Much of what characterizes both subject and process of urban planning has been rattled by the COVID-19 pandemic. In many cities, the role of public spaces changed with restrictions on gatherings, and policies had to be established to protect people from evictions in the face of lost income due to shutdowns. Crowded and substandard housing conditions were further strained as people were confined to staying home, people dependent on public transportation experienced disruption and uncertainty, and learning became reliant on WI-FI connections that were absent from some communities (Bates 2021; Sigurjónsdóttir 2022). These and many other pressing issues were addressed on the fly and often in grossly insufficient ways—while the pandemic raged there was little or no time for deliberation. The key issue in this chapter is precisely deliberation (Forrester 2013). In other words, what has the time of pandemic “done to” community-based models for planning towards supporting thriving and just communities? The urgencies of a global pandemic made fast and efficient decision-making justifiable in many situations, but “fast and efficient” bears the risk of lack of access to decision-making, in particular for those that are not close to the centres of power. As we debate, a “New Normal” scholars and practitioners must be transparent about how new techniques and processes developed during the pandemic should or should not be used moving forward. While improved online communication and digital solutions to restricted in-person participation have made great leaps in the past two years, it is not clear if these leaps are positive developments for marginalized communities’ access to the planning process? There is a long-standing tradition for research and practice in the field of planning reflecting on best practices for inclusive just processes and outcomes for marginalized populations (Arnstein 1969; Forrester 1999; Krumholz 1982; Healey 2015). As a pandemic crisis escalated, health needs to be favoured over other community needs planners must reflect on the unintended costs. While those costs are many, one fundamental area to consider is participation. Power and participation are intricately linked and when modes of participation change, we therefore must ask “at what cost and for whom”? Since the 1960s, there has been an acknowledgment that universities can play a significant role in marginalized neighbourhoods experiencing neglect and/or development pressures and gentrification. Rooted in Davidoff’s Advocacy planning (Davidoff 1965), planning programmes have sought to find ways of overcoming some of the barriers to participation for marginalized populations in the formal municipal planning processes (Morrell et al. 2015). The themes in this work include understanding on how partnerships can be developed to ensure mutual benefits, awareness of power differentials, planning methods grounded in spatial justice theory,

6 Adaptation of Partnership Models in Times of COVID-19

71

and addressing how to sustain partnerships long term. Our work in Charlotte, North Carolina, the partnership, named the Charlotte Action Research Project (CHARP) at UNC Charlotte, stands on the shoulders of decades of work to build meaningful and sustainable partnerships between students and faculty of planning and marginalized neighbourhoods (Reardon 1998; Sorensen and Lawson 2012). Our core contribution to this field has been an intentional effort to shift the dynamic of how to define partnership purpose, process, and measures of success. The authors have extensively researched the issues above in the context of CHARP, and most recently published a paper suggesting a participatory partnership model based on a decade of experience (Bengle et al. 2021). When considering participatory planning in the context of disaster, Rizzi and Porebska’s (2020) research establishes that community participation is crucial in risk reduction pre-disaster, mitigation, and reconstruction planning. However, efficient frameworks for different phases ranging from planning to post-disaster recovery—is lacking. They contribute to the field with a new framework that centres the importance of education, awareness, and responsibility, acknowledging the importance of both interdisciplinary experts and local knowledge. Reardon et al. (2009) describe how hurricane Katrina’s destruction of low-income neighbourhoods in New Orleans created explicit needs for partnership for the city’s poor and working-class neighbourhoods. As initial plans by the establishment questioned neighbourhoods’ right to return, “many low-income African American residents saw the Urban Land Institute plan as a strategy for reshaping New Orleans as a whiter, wealthier caricature of their city” (Reardon et al. 2009, p. 392). Through a partnership with a large group of highly skilled planning students and faculty and the organizing efforts of ACORN (Association of Community Organization for Reform Now), residents were able to create a “Peoples Plan” leading to the city designation of a portion of the Lower Ninth Ward as a publicly funded ReBuild Zone. Framing the COVID-19 pandemic as a form of natural disaster, this chapter advances the serious implications of vulnerable communities at the epicentre of exposure to all the consequences described above. Given the research findings by both studies described above, local participation, partnership with interdisciplinary experts, and community organizing to balance power relationships are essential. This begs a series of questions related to the nature of the disaster; when it is not the physical destruction of property and infrastructure but rather contagious and deadly disease, what is the role of participation and partnership then? And how do we ensure that the critical lessons about participation’s significance in dealing with community resilience continue to inform our work in the “New Normal” planning process? This chapter will revisit the CHARP model considering the pandemic. The need for planners to work for more just cities in partnership with marginalized neighbourhoods is growing as the economic crisis and the crisis of democracy is looming in many contexts following the pandemic. Considering this, the chapter sets out to explore how we can work proactively to ensure that the carefully developed partnership model is sustained and flexible to be applied in other contexts. What are the barriers to implementing participatory planning partnerships considering the

72

J. Sørensen and T. Bengle

pandemic? What are new tools and processes needed? The chapter concludes by proposing changes to adjust to a new normal.

6.2 Pre-pandemic: State of the Art and Identifying Vulnerabilities On the West side of Charlotte, North Carolina is the historically African American community of Reid Park. The neighbourhood was established in the 1930s to provide affordable homeownership opportunities to African Americans in a city where they were excluded from equitable participation in social, economic, and civic life. Despite historical marginalization that carried into more modern times, Charlotte continued to invest in unequal and inequitable development (Smith and Graves 2003). Reid Park residents pursued a community development corporation in the late 1980s to take matters into their own hands. After over a decade of successes including the construction of two new schools, a county recreation centre and library, the addition of new affordable housing and the razing of former public housing, local government support eventually waned, and the community development corporation dissolved. When the authors approached the volunteer Reid Park Neighbourhood Association in 2009, 92% of the population was African American and only a handful of residents was participating with Charlotte city staff on local community development efforts. The partnership between city hall and the neighbourhood community was one that the residents described as tokenism (Bengle 2015). Although they were allowed to hear and express opinions, as described by Arnstein (1969), they did not have decisionmaking power as evident in the continuous neglect of greenspaces, infrastructure, and schools with concentrated poverty and little resources. It was our hope as researchers, however, that we could support them in a process that would build their influence and decision-making power. A four-phase model of action research was created based on our initial six years partnership with the Reid Park neighbourhood residents. Action research is an intentional approach to problem-solving in partnership with community members. It recognizes and values local, indigenous knowledge, and seeks to merge this with the more traditional, academic knowledge of planners. Our model was developed out of our recognition of the importance that action research projects must be strategic and build upon previous work to have the greatest impact. The data for developing the model included participant observation meeting notes from six years of partnership, published articles and neighbourhood reports that we worked on with residents and descriptions of all community events and activities between 2009 and 2015. This significant amount of data was coded so that knowledge about each activity was attached to overarching themes tied to the five stages of action research. This led to an organic emergence of four distinct action research cycles that we argue to create

6 Adaptation of Partnership Models in Times of COVID-19

73

Phase IV Phase III Phase II Phase I Establish relationship

Increase Participation

Collective Vision

Build Power

Fig. 6.1 Model of action research for advancing community–university partnerships (Bengle et al. 2021; Bodorkós and Pataki 2009)

a replicable model of engaging marginalized neighbourhoods in meaningful, powersharing partnerships. The model is visible in Fig. 6.1, and the detail of the model is in greater detail described in a paper published in 2021 (Bengle et al. 2021). The CHARP model was informed by methods associated with Participatory Action Research (Bodorkós and Pataki 2009) and community organizing as a starting point that would create a foundation for a mutually beneficial partnership ensuring action in the community while engaging in research. It was only in retrospect after six years of partnership that we were able to identify four distinct cycles of action research that collectively describe a model for partnership worthy of replication. A few core observations are relevant in the light of the “New Normal” conversation. In many cases, the most marginalized neighbourhoods lack basic infrastructure for participation in urban planning as it is typically conducted even in progressive and well-meaning municipalities. Our work that meant a neighbourhood that lacked trust in the planning process was overwhelmed by needs and did not have representation, access, or externally identifiable leadership. The first phase—establishing relationships—formed the foundation of the partnership. Brydon-Miller et al. (2003) stress the importance of dedicating significant time to relationship building. It is common for marginalized communities to distrust researchers and practitioners because of past experiences of neglect and exploitation. In our partnership experience, this necessitated persistent long-term physical presence doing “everything but urban planning”. Pre-pandemic, students and faculty showed up at community meetings, met one-onone with residents, knocked on doors and canvassed the neighbourhood, conducted door-to-door surveys, participated in neighbourhood clean-ups and beautification, and hosted small-scale community-driven events. Except for regular phone calls with key leaders, all of the engagement occurred in-person. In phase two, the core concern was to expand the group of collaborators. While the first phase had shown us that strong internal leaders did exist—but often they just did not have any desire to work with the municipality or with the university due to decades of broken promises and neglect—it was of great concern that this leadership lacked diversity as it was constituted by naturally engaged leaders. Thus, the second phase focused on the expansion of local leadership and capacity building. Core work here was focused on developing a playground in the neighbourhood, from securing funding together

74

J. Sørensen and T. Bengle

to designing and building. Again, this process was highly dependent on the presence and ‘being together’ was a specific goal of increasing the crowd. The third phase addressed the reality that the neighbourhood historically had been unable to “Plan” in the sense that they experienced any meaningful influence on the future. This concern guided us to work together to develop a vision plan based on empowerment planning principles (Reardon 1996). The vision plan was then developed in the fourth phase of the CHARP model to win approval for and funding for its implementation from the municipality. All in all, this was a several-year-long intensive process. The CHARP model was achieved largely through community organizing (Bengle 2015) for creating a large and vocal base of residents to become well prepared to engage with the city. Something happens when partners connect in-person on the site for which to plan without preconceived or pre-planned proposals. While we recognized that the process, we engaged in over six years in one neighbourhood, is difficult to implement for municipal planners, we nevertheless believe it is a process such as ours (adjusted depending on context) that demonstrates commitment and a genuine desire to work for participatory planning that includes not just the “usual suspects”. As such, one of the absolute conclusions of our research in partnership is that physical presence and large numbers of diverse participants with loud and insistent voices are the determining factors for reaching to top rungs of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation in planning. Those are exactly the characteristics we have all been told repeatedly to avoid for the sake of health and survival for the past two years during COVID-19.

6.3 Making the CHARP Model Pandemic-Proof—What Should Change? The instinctive reaction to protect health at the societal level makes sense and is justifiable. In low-income neighbourhoods, the consequence of a “super spreader” event can be devastating. Therefore, it does not make sense for us to insist that our newly developed partnership model must persist. But it also does not make sense to go back to an “old normal” where neighbourhoods such as the one we work with in Charlotte have little or no access to planning processes. The literature suggests that a key element of resilience in the face of disaster is broad and informed participation supported by interdisciplinary resource people (Reardon 2009; Rizzi and Porebska 2020). Some partnership research (Andrews et al. 2011; Hyde et al. 2012) has suggested that neighbourhoods must have existing organizational and social capacity to benefit from these types of collaboration. However, we argue as a precondition for our model that exactly those neighbourhoods with the least capacity need the partnership the most. It is here that the initial two phases of our model are critical. And it is also here that our experience tells us that physical presence is needed for building trust and building capacity for participating in planning and governance. Therefore, we have reflected on the ways the model can be adjusted

6 Adaptation of Partnership Models in Times of COVID-19

75

and the compromises that must be made. In other words, what can we bring from the time of the pandemic into a “New Normal” that recognizes the importance of each element of the model we have carefully developed in the past while becoming more resilient to disaster? When describing what the change may look like we use examples from our own practice to further develop the original four-phase model into a more resilient model in times of pandemic. As noted earlier, we consider the two first phases of our model particularly vulnerable to processes that limit physical interaction and crowds. Therefore, we have reflected on examples of methods that may provide a compromise. In the following, we describe two such initiatives.

6.3.1 The Butterfly Highway In the initial phase of developing a partnership to engage in participatory neighbourhood planning, all our instincts and experience tell us that physical presence and gatherings are important. Hopefully, we are entering a post-pandemic world that might render these processes possible again. However, reflection on alternatives has led us to think more closely about a project that developed as a dissertation project for CHARP graduate Angle Hjarding called the Butterfly highway (Hjarding 2017). This project emerged as an interdisciplinary strategy to address needs for neighbourhood beautification (the immediate need identified by residents of low-income communities), a desire to work on ecosystem services (in this case creating pit stops for pollinators in urban neighbourhoods) and building capacity for participation in planning processes (community organizing efforts). At the core of this project was building raised beds with native flowers in the front yards and parks of low-income communities of colour. By offering people a free garden in exchange for being physical hosts and collectors of citizen-science data, we instantly developed relationships with larger numbers of residents than we had managed in several years of work in other neighbourhoods. There was a genuine interest and recognition of an immediate benefit. One long-term outcome of this effort was a network of residents passionate about their environment and about building influence in their local community. In the new normal, the core suggestion here is that in addition to feet on the ground in the initial establishment of partnership, small tangible projects can be powerful engagement and trust-building tools. The actual project can be a variety of things, but it is our assessment that the combination of beautification and environmental restoration were compelling in the neighbourhoods and worked well for capacity building and building bridges between participants. The outdoor nature of the work followed by conversations by phone or online would work well during times when physical gatherings should be minimized.

76

J. Sørensen and T. Bengle

6.3.2 The Oral History Projects and Photovoice in Times of Social Isolation Oral history is a methodology that developed from a critical stance towards traditional historic research. It presented a way to document the voices and stories of ordinary people (Perks and Thomson 2016). As one way of diversifying the group, we share our experience facilitating an oral history project. The reason for this example is that we developed a project whereby neighbourhood seniors were interviewed by neighbourhood youth, thus making direct connection points within the neighbourhood. In a new normal, it is imaginable that grandchildren could interview grandparents, for example, and neighbours could interview neighbours to stay within “social bubbles”. The process contributes to bonding social capital that increases the likelihood of civic action (Larsen et al. 2004) while also building local capacity (Bengle 2015). Additionally, personal and neighbourhood stories lend themselves well to being shared in online forums, and the strong interest in them could generate good and diverse participation where online viewing events could be followed by neighbourhood planning meetings. The histories have also the potential to lead to the development of documentary films as tools for communicating the vision of a neighbourhood with online collective viewing followed by a discussion as a valid method of attracting a broad group of participants. In a new normal, opportunities to tell stories in alternative ways also include projects that use creative strategies like the photovoice methodology (Schuch et al. 2014). Through the photovoice process, community members capture images of a collectively identified topic of interest. Online platforms, including social media, open new opportunities for sharing and storing images for the long term. Options to comment on photos could be included on virtual sites. This is especially easy to do on social media platforms.

6.4 Conclusion Can we point to a new normal of sorts that does not simply value the newfound efficiency of online engagement learned during the pandemic? In this chapter, we suggest that it is possible and necessary but also challenging. It comes with the need to acknowledge the deep divides in our cities in terms of access, trust, and power. Finding a new normal means reflecting as a community of scholars interested in deliberative practice, on our earlier work and identifying those features that could be expanded upon during the COVID-19 pandemic or other similar crisis to come, while not limiting engagement opportunity of distinct groups of marginalized people. One of our biggest takeaways from the pandemic is that now, more than ever, we must be ready to be adaptive. Participatory and neighbourhood planning processes have always had built-in uncertainty and emphasized the need to be recursive, iterative, and fluid. If we plan for the need to be adaptive from the start, we can be more ready

6 Adaptation of Partnership Models in Times of COVID-19

77

Table 6.1 Creating a resilient partnership Pre-pandemic

New normal

Establish relationship

When entering new partnership where little trust exists the physical presence may be combined with early small-scale individual projects that offers opportunity to build bridges between participants (e.g. butterfly highway)

Increase participation

Diversify of individual small-scale projects address several different types of neighbourhood issues (e.g. oral history project)

Develop collective As capacity and relationships are built, the use of virtual tools may become vision more useful. However, there is still a learning curve, and the software has limited usability on smartphones and tablets compared to computers. Not to mention, there is also the issue of insufficient access to WI-FI in vulnerable communities. All those issues must be kept in mind as must seniors, for example, who may not participate in this mode but rely on traditional meeting spaces Build power

As city governments develop online platforms for participation (see for example the participatory budgeting processes described other chapters in this book), university partners must work intensively with neighbourhood residents to begin to understand the nature of online organizing and how to effectively engage in this type of process

to shift when new rules of engagement become mandatory. In Table 6.1 below, we illustrate the needed changes to the model. As we look back on the past two and half years, we can’t help but notice the need for public spaces where human connections can be made and ideas can still be exchanged, all within safe physical distance even during a pandemic. We note that digital tools should be used only with deliberation and reflection and in combination with other methods. Pop-up engagements as well as the practical (exemplified by the butterfly highway) and deep uncovering of the roots of spatial inequality (such as oral history projects) may be what is needed in a new normal where community planning at the neighbourhood scale is resilient in the face of external disruptive events. We suggest that it is time for planning scholars, practitioners, and activists to intentionally push for the use of “other ways of knowing” to be front and centre in the new normal.

References Andrews JO, Cox MJ, Newman SD, Meadows O (2011) Development and evaluation of a toolkit to assess partnership readiness for community-based participatory research. Progr Commun Health Partnerships Res Educ Action 5:183–188 Arnstein SR (1969) The ladder of participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224 Bates LK (2021) Tired, but hopeful. Plann Theor Pract 22(5):663–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/146 49357.2021.2003102 Bengle T (2015) Learning and understanding empowerment planning: an emergent model that builds community capacity to affect neighborhood planning outcomes (publication no. 3721013)

78

J. Sørensen and T. Bengle

[Doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina at Charlotte]. ProQuest Dissertation Publishing Bengle T, Sorensen J (2017) Integrating popular education into a model of empowerment planning. Commun Dev 48(3):320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2016.1264441 Bengle T, Sorensen J, Gamez J, Morrell E (2021) A model of action research for advancing community-university partnerships. Collabor J Commun-Based Res Pract 4(1) Bodorkós B, Pataki G (2009) Local communities empowered to plan? Applying PAR to establish democratic communicative spaces for sustainable rural development. Action Res 7(3):313–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309336720 Brydon-Miller M, Greenwood D, Maguire P (2003) Why action research? Action Res 1:9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030011002 Davidoff P (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J Am Inst Plann 31:331–338 Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning process. MIT Press Forester J (2013) On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Plann Theory 12(1):5–22 Healey P (2015) Civil society enterprise and local development. Plan Theory Pract 16(1):11–27 Hernandez B, Schuch C, Sorensen J, Smith H (2021) Sustaining CBPRR projects: lessons learned developing Latina community groups. Collabor J Commun-Based Res Pract 4(6) Hjarding AG (2017) The butterfly highway: connecting people and nature. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2017. 10268883 Hyde CA, Hopkins K, Meyer M (2012) Pre-capacity building in loosely coupled collaborations: setting the stage for future initiatives. Gateways Int J Commun Res Engage 5:76–97 Krumholz N (1982) A retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland 1969–1979. J Am Plann Assoc 48:163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976535 Larsen L, Harlan SL, Bolin B, Hackett EJ, Hope D, Kirby A, Nelson A, Rex TR, Wolf S (2004) Bonding and bridging. J Plan Educ Res 24(1):64–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x0426 7181 Morrell E, Sorensen J, Howarth J (2015) The charlotte action research project: a model for direct and mutually beneficial community-university engagement. J High Educ Outreach Engagem 19(1):105–132 Perks R, Thomson A (2016) Oral history reader. In: Perks R, Thomson A (eds). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315671833 Reardon KM (1998) Enhancing the capacity of community-based organizations in east St. Louis. J Plan Educ Res 17:323–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x9801700407 Reardon K (1996) Community development in low-income minority neighborhoods: a case for empowerment planning. Unpublished manuscript Reardon KM, Green R, Bates LK, Kiely RC (2009) Commentary: overcoming the challenges of postdisaster planning in new Orleans: lessons from the ACORN housing/university collaborative. J Plan Educ Res 28(3):391–400 Rittel HJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in the general theory of planning. Pol Sci 4:155–169 Rizzi P, Por˛ebska P (2020) Towards a revised framework for participatory planning in the context of risk. Sustainability 12(14):5539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145539 Sandercock L, Dovey K (2002) Pleasure, politics, and the “public interest”: Melbourne’s Riverscape revitalization. J Am Plann Assoc Spring 68(2):151–164 Sigurjónsdóttir H (2022) Who is left behind? [online] Pub.norden.org. Available at https://pub.nor den.org/nord2021-032/#68781. Accessed 10 Mar 2022 Schuch JC, de Hernandez BU, Williams L, Smith HA, Sorensen J, Furuseth OJ, Dulin MF (2014) Por Nuestros Ojos: understanding social determinants of health through the eyes of youth. Progr Commun Health Partnerships Res Educ Action 8(2):197–205. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014. 0027 Sorensen J, Lawson L (2012) Evolution in partnership: lessons from the East St. Louis action research project. Action Res 10:150–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750311424944

6 Adaptation of Partnership Models in Times of COVID-19

79

Smith H, Graves W (2003) The corporate (re) construction of a New South City: great banks need great cities. Southeast Geogr 43:213–234. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2003.0009

Janni Sørensen is an associate professor at the department of Planning at Aalborg University. She holds a Ph.D. in Regional Planning from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, and has for many years worked on participatory neighbourhood scale planning with marginalized communities in Charlotte, North Carolina. Today her work centres on research and teaching at Aalborg University with focus on both Rural and Urban communities’ access to and influence in local planning processes. Tara Bengle holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, Charlotte in Geography and Urban Analysis. She has extensive experience working with Participatory Action Research methods and Community organizing in the context of University–Community partnerships. She is currently working as a consultant on neighbourhood participation in planning and research in North Carolina.

Chapter 7

An Anthropology of the Co-Emergency: Getting Inspired by the COVID-19 for a Natural Economy Roberta Chiarini

Abstract Many emergencies in the world are not perceived to be the cause of spontaneous human behavioural change. Drawing from a cultural anthropology perspective, this chapter explores the perception of the limits in the Western cultural world and argues that COVID-19 must be understood in the development of concomitant emergencies (co-emergencies), and for the way, humans have adapted in similar situations of urgency and adapted solutions to face them. In a post-humanistic dimension, the solutions to face the COVID-19 pandemic are indeed recurrent to the human adaptation to past emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a human behavioural change that limited the risk of a contagious virus. This simplification is part of “a new normal” that deals with the nexus between human perception of nature and an emerging governance of the economy. The chapter concludes that in a postpandemic new normal we need to pave attention to the relationships between humans and non-humans to develop a capacity to act and react to multiple emergencies while reducing complexity. Keywords Natural economy · Post-humanism · Socialization of emergencies · Anthropology of sustainability

7.1 Post-humanism and Natural Economy A humanist perspective often assumes that human agency is like an autonomous form of consciousness, intentional, and in exceptional cases causes of change. Under a post-humanist perspective, human agency is instead understood as distributed through dynamic forces in which human beings participate but do not completely intend or control processes of change (Keeling and Lehman 2018). Post-humanist R. Chiarini (B) ENEA—Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_7

81

82

R. Chiarini

theories offer an epistemology that is not per se anthropocentric as understood in Cartesian dualism. It seeks instead to question the traditional boundaries among the human, the animal, and the technological (Haraway 1991). The post-human perspective offers a condition that indicates that both humans and non-humans are “subjects” to a common side, and that man is only one form among many others. Post-humanist theory sustains that humans can only be understood through nature (Bolter 2016). In this framework, the very concept of economy in its essential meaning consists of direct governance from a local community (such as a local human and non-human organisms) like in the natural economy (Gregory 2012). According to this approach, most of the goods produced in a system are not just produced for the purpose of exchanging them, but for direct consumption by the producers (self-contained economy). The concept of natural economy is also an intimated economy (Price 1975), the producer–consumer relationships between and among parties are not only guided by rational choice but by emotional aspects. From a post-humanist anthropological perspective, the economy has no single meaning. The ultimate question of these times is why humans do not easily pursue a behavioural change in relation to the protection of the environment they inhabit and in turn sustain them. The sustainability turn in anthropology focuses on the way humans perceive sustainability as human progress or emergency, or as an evolutionary synthesis (Ingold 2022). The perception of the emergency can be seen as an economic factor of sustainable human livelihood. It represents the governance of local and internal resources and capabilities. The natural perception of the emergency is a direct connection to human government: it is internal rather than external, and it is also social when it results from the relationship between human and non-human elements. The perception of the emergency can be understood as a mechanism that reduces complex meanings and cultures. Perception, emergency, and economy are the fundamental pillars of the sustainability of the human condition. In an emergency, the human condition links together perceptions, other emergencies, and economies as an intertwined process. An emergency always reveals a system of emergencies that operate in relation to each other and that form a state of complexity from a single phenomenon. From an anthropological point of view, it is worth mentioning that simple societies pursue daily behaviours to reduce complexity in the attempt to contain risk consequent from several other emergencies. In Western societies, the economy is so “atomized” to create a disadvantage in the perceptive capacity of the emergency. Unsustainable economic processes establish a perpetual experience hard to break. The pandemic was an extraordinary condition that allowed humans to suspend most of cultural and social habits. The COVID-19 pandemic has created an intermediate perception of the emergency in a stage, a marginal moment that delineate human limits. Emergencies and risk, such as COVID-19, provoked the perception of an apparent exogenous event highlighting the failure of the Western economies and the downfall of the human-centric approach. Emergencies that are not directly due or related to human factors can delineate inertias of societies to act, react, and adapt. Neo-colonialisms and globalization have been processes that have eroded in a latent way the long run state-led policy rendering some of these policies less effective to deal with poverty, environmental risks, and economic deficits (Demichelis et al. 2001). Under a state

7 An Anthropology of the Co-Emergency: Getting Inspired …

83

of emergency as the COVID-19, all the world suddenly found itself fragile (Fassino 2020). The pandemic has proved that a natural event can happen with uncontrollable consequences on human survival and that our systems and mindsets are not prepared to face an evolutionary adaptation overnight. The everyday political economy of the world induces human choices to certain directions constructing meanings that are situated in time, an event, or a phenomenon to the general human perception. This has often the consequence of a single perception of the emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has provoked a collective imagination of the emergence that impacted the human geography of places. This chapter argues that the human perception of emergency is a fundamental issue that goes beyond the culture. This approach is meant to provoke an understanding of a post-pandemic new normal.

7.2 Co-Emergency and the Embodiment of Complexity in the Anthropocene In cultural anthropology, the concomitance of emergencies represents a cultural and critical phenomenon to investigate. The COVID-19 pandemic has constituted a health emergency that had some familiarity with other past emergencies. Culturally, all emergencies are rooted in an anthropocentric scene that sees human beings as a separate from, and superior to other beings (Shiva 2020). The argument here is that the concept of co-emergency represents the condition in which humans develop perceptions that in principle are linear and not in a juxtaposed or assembled way. Anthropological studies demonstrate that uncertainty is a driver for the visibility of specific emergencies and their interrelationship with other events and situations (Remotti 2011). Humans generally have difficulty perceiving the complexity of emergencies happening at the same time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, other types of emergencies co-existed as climate change and biodiversity loss which also determine the increased risk of pandemics (Daszak 2020). But the embodiment of complexity into a wider understanding of a whole phenomenon of adaptation is a cognitive exercise. Cultural anthropology demonstrated that simple societies are inclined to incorporate complexity. Western society’s culture tends instead to deviate from a perception of the complexity to singles emergencies. When complexity persists, it happens as a kind of compromise in the cultural system. Each cultural system is a concomitance of emergencies. It is an evolutionary process. Culture is not the only possible economic driver to simplification. Simple societies incorporate in their community “the participation of nature”, they communicate, share, and relate with nature. In extreme cases, they invert priorities between humans and non-humans. This strategy is adopted to reach a cognitive evolution. Simple society’s cultures represent the relationship human-no-human. The embodiment of this relationship is represented, expressed, and imitated in everyday capacities of simplification and reached several ways of evolution towards essentialism. In Creative Evolution, Bergson (1911) wrote

84

R. Chiarini

about the several ways evolution can take form in nature towards an economy of essentialism. The COVID-19 pandemic can be seen as the semantics of concomitant emergencies with an inclination that trends to a permanence of complexity. The concomitant emergencies usually depart from the primary emergency perceived through categories such as, for example, the work organization, communication, and the governance economy. Such categories impact events and crises at the cognitive level developing new perceptions of the social. Primary and secondary emergencies become then incorporated into a new economy that usually adapts to the necessary change to cope with multiple emergencies. Several concomitant emergencies push beyond an unsustainable system, to get closer to evolving and transitioning societies towards inverse adaptive relationships between man/nature and new points of equilibrium (Table 7.1). The anthropologist Van Gennep refers to strategies that change unsustainable behaviours under social, economic, and cultural unsustainable pressure. When complex adaptive systems reach the crisis point, they respond with an adaptive system. The COVID-19 pandemic represents not only an emergency but reproduces the trends of other emergencies as well, even if it remains perceived as separate from other emergencies. Generally, Western societies understand an extreme separation of emergencies. The historical way of perceiving emergencies as separated from each other reflects the main anthropological limits of the cultural perception of knowledge of a certain phenomenon and the consequential cognitive adaptation. In complex Table 7.1 Co-emergencies towards a new economy Concomitant emergencies in complexity system Climate Pandemic Economic Cognitive Perceptive Decomplexification capacity Cultural evolution Intersocial Rights of places Public services for sustainability Identity Communication and representative languages Semantic Behaviour stall Governance Technology drivers Information Investigation

Emergencies increasing Ungovernability and human ouster Trends

Beyond the human/ post-humanism approach

New economy

Simplifying the complexity Adaptation process Natural economy Intimate and direct economy Nature-technology relationship Semantic-economy correlation Cognitive performances

7 An Anthropology of the Co-Emergency: Getting Inspired …

85

societies, human perception follows “human convenience and desire”. Therefore, the question is always linked to an extremely cultural and unnatural perception of the state of complexity. In Western societies, those limits impede a future pathway of a sustainable lifestyle. The vision of a sustainable society is centrally focused on a revised culture of the relationship between humans and non-humans. Therefore, in case of emergency, a sustainable society does build on a specific solution for overcoming that emergency but focuses instead on the re-equilibrium of the whole local system. Cognitive evolution depends on the direct experiences of knowledge in response to failing cultures that undermine the learning process. Adaptation means a re-balance of a system between new needs and new conditions. It is a performance of “reduction”. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, the “socialization of emergencies” allows understanding not only of a semantic layer that offers a new framework for making meaning about the pandemic but also prepares the ground for all other interrelated emergencies affected by the same semantic path. Here the difficulty consists of understanding the virus not just as a human health problem but as a semiotic phenomenon that involves “the no-human” too as an “external element” that gives a reflection on human limits. Simple societies might offer many elements for future pathways of sustainable societies and the juxtaposition of different scales of emergency: the specific emergency within a general perception of the emergency, the present emergency within situated historical emergencies, and the interplay among diverse emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic can be seen as a specific critical point in our era in the self-regulation of the human system. The embodiment of complexity in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic has been part of the evolutionary oscillation between complexity and simplicity. While on the one hand, there was an adaptation of nonhuman species (virus) and an adaptation of human activities (e.g. social distance), the condition has been reversed in favour of the non-human. The COVID-19 virus has reduced certain complexities of human activities breaking the excessive mobility, the excessive consumption of global goods, and the excessive polarization of work localization. The virus constituted an exogenous driver to change human actions, reflecting the phenomenon of human complexity with limited action in space, a controllable and fast adaptation to a new set of behaviours.

7.3 Natural and Simple Economies and COVID-19: A Resolution Strategy Every human governs himself, breaking or not the state of economic complexity. As Polanyi (2008) claimed the interventionism of the state in the market, the utopia of a self-regulated free market, and the annihilation of the natural substance of society make us reflect on the disintegration of the cultural environment and the wound that institutions lead by the confidence of the free market (Polanyi 2008).

86

R. Chiarini

In Europe during the pandemic, each country made massive investments in research on the vaccine and its accessibility and equity in the distribution of COVID19 tests by everyone. The European Medicines Agency has continuously tested the results achieved. The European Commission has established the market regulations of vaccines adopted as an “international together” behaviour. In summary, COVID-19 has introduced a different economic process summarized in the following steps: experimentation, market regulation, unitary behaviour such as the “international together” collaboration, storage management and regulated allocation, and controlled and regulated prices. This process, however, is at the time not replicated to constrain other emergencies. Yet, there are similar situations in which systemic solutions are urgent as climate change, the victims of air pollution, vulnerable areas continuously affected by natural disasters, poverty, peace, and energy scarcity—all these are additional risks to human survival. These emergencies concern not just one country or just one emergency. Based on the online newspaper of health information, Studies, and Analysis published in Italy, in 2019,1 there were 64,000 victims of air pollution. Italy is in second place for avoidable deaths from particulate matter and ozone, among the large countries after Germany, but in first place, for deaths from nitrogen dioxide. This means that in Italy in 2019, there have been more deaths from air pollution than from COVID-19. But, just in the latter case, a very significant economic machine has moved. Three or four vaccines have sealed the market. This “simple market strategy” focused on production and marketing control has some analogies to the Italian state monopolies: the state is responsible for providing a specific good or a specific service that is essential to cover citizens’ needs. Private companies negotiate the price with the state with no possibility of speculation. The state monopoly is categorized as a simple economy. The economic process of COVID-19 vaccination was the complete reverse: several producers gathered into a single/similar product. This process is common to some famous Italian products such as the Parmigiano Reggiano, where many producers converge into a single product managed by a single consortium. Natural societies are also worth mentioning for their ability to pursue economic collaboration and convergence of participants. Natural economies tend to be autonomous. Goods are produced and consumed internally, and there is an important relationship between groups of citizens, the resource, and the final product. Citizens obtain transparency in the production process and the relationship with the raw material. There is a close relationship between the simple level of this type of society and the non-use of money. The natural economy adopts direct passages and simple behaviours. Rosa Luxemburg believed that the destruction of the natural economy was a necessary condition for the development of capitalism (Luxemburg 2021). The Inca Empire is a good example of a natural economy based on barter, on an exchange, rather than profit without the intermediation of money. This is typically mentioned as a non-capitalist example (Marx 1956). From a political and economic point of view, the Inca depended on a governor who managed through non-assiduous 1

Quotidiano on line di informazione sanitaria, Studi e Analisi. Quotidianosanità.it. 30 Agosto 2022.

7 An Anthropology of the Co-Emergency: Getting Inspired …

87

controls and guaranteed the balance of power. Even in the middle age, barter was a method for exchange in use, despite the circulation of money. Pre-market experiences in history often represent a natural/simple economy based on production lines that develop from the acquisition of resources spontaneously offered by the environment. These are societies with remarkable respect for nature. There is a more mixed social stratification and no clear division of labour. Continuous adaptation is experienced. The eco-villages are inspired by these models, which aimed at creating a small and self-sufficient ecosystem. In all these examples, the economy is an exercise, a performance, and a life. Economic life is part of the whole economic process: acquisition, procurement, production, processing, consumption, and recycling. The spirit of adaptation of the current society in a post-pandemic new normal requires new societal relationships not only among people but also with natural resources. Focusing on the anthropological observation of the ways in which humans relate to other living beings, Western societies have separated the elements that constitute the system towards a collapse (Kohn 2021). The idea of unifying all the elements means building an economic convergence of producers towards the marketization of a unique product in a similar way to the COVID-19 vaccination strategy. Socialization and governance assume that participation is at the base of any consideration of sustainability. But the relevance of participation and governance in the economy materializes when “the economy of the economy” is realized. This is the essential passage from complex to economic reflexivity (Giddens 1992). As Storper mentions, this term refers to the possibility for groups of actors in the various institutional spheres of modem capitalism—firms, markets, governments, households, and other collectivities—to shape the course of economic evolution through reflexive human action (Storper 1997: 1–27). The elimination of complexity from the market towards economic reflexivity could in principle reduce speculative risks on local resources. But speculation on natural resources is also a question of trends of globalization and neo-colonialism. Post-humanist considerations on the relationships between humans and nature are pointing to the loss of proximity and accessibility of natural perceptions that limit knowledge and skills. From an anthropological perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced solutions that have inspired reflection on the crisis of complexity and on the limits of cultural perceptions over reflexive human action. In other words, the pandemic has underlined in its process of diffusion and management reciprocity among the needs and human activities in a time of emergencies. Some trends can persist in a new normal as a more direct transparent governance, the production of a few nonreplicable products, more convergence of producers, and a common “sustainable” behaviour of citizens to deal with the negative effects. The resolution process during the COVID-19 pandemic is represented by the validation of quantitative data over the spread of the virus neglecting other types of emergencies, such as natural disasters and unsustainable economies. This framework failed to consider other types of emergencies. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine a future new normal. Within complexity theories, the pandemic is a crisis that causes alternative behaviours detached from the habits.

88

R. Chiarini

7.4 Adaptation to a “New Normal” If in simple societies, the adaptive process is a cultural process, and the same cannot be said for Western societies in which adaptation is often just the consequence of extraordinary events. Considering these premises and a theory that hypothesizes the correlation between adaptation, simple societies, and cognitive/perceptual evolution, the new normal could only concern a future scenario of assonance between pandemic solutions and other types of emergencies. Some examples of past and present societies show that the common principle to reflect once again is on the relationship between humans and non-humans. A new normal economy in a post-pandemic world needs to be inspired by simple and natural societies and by reflexive human action. Territoriality tends to exclude both environmental and anthropocentric determinism enriched by local governance and self-determination. Examples of this kind exist already in acquisitive communities based on the spontaneity of the use of natural resources, the totemic societies based on symbols of representation of human and natural fusion, the eco-villages that strive towards the maximum sustainable self-subsistence and the energy communities on the fusion of roles between human/energy resources. From an anthropological perspective of the new normal, there is a need for simplification. Perhaps a need to define an economy of the emergency is not based on cultural adaptation but instead as a re-evaluation of reflexive human action. The effort in the interpretation of human limits is not new in human history. Humanity has been forced to adapt itself, as well as forced to connect emergencies to each other. The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed for human adaptation by internal human processes to come on equal footing with external agents in shaping a future more sustainable economy. The external with internal human experiences have been re-unified because of a cultural suspension of the pre-pandemic human actions. Human action has selfdetermined possibilities under the external conditions of the virus. Lessons to learn from the pandemic experience for a future new normal is that human action will follow the same process in the constraints of sustainability. Human action can anticipate a cultural suspension and realize its primary needs before any interpretation of sustainability. Humans are generally unable to spontaneously cope with a pandemic or even connect one emergency to another. COVID-19 has shown that human action in an emergency is capable to suspend the cultural sphere and making space for a natural perception to deal with a new human experience based on self-governance and self-determination. During the pandemic, human action took new relational forms to manage resources, materials, and work organization, developing new models of alternative lifestyles. Economic choices have been made under a temporary cultural and social suspension opening new possibilities for understanding a future new normal based on sustainable economic behaviour.

7 An Anthropology of the Co-Emergency: Getting Inspired …

89

7.5 Trust Building as Key in the New Normal Some countries in the world encourage the non-exploitation of the land under the principle of localism. Localism is a mechanism that tends to the reduction of economic complexity by combining production and consumption. The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed towards the same principle. Simple societies create emergencies culturally by “training” people to act under emergency conditions by caring about their local places and their community. In the past, some societies have pursued a natural and intimate economy. Inca Empire represents a good example. The activities of the Inca state in the Xauxa region of the Peruvian central highlands were partially supported by the stockpiling of agricultural, gathered, and craft goods in over 2000 storehouses, distributed among 52 architectural complexes. The spatial organization and architectural standardization of the storage facilities suggest that the accumulation and disbursement of these goods within the province were centrally managed. Documentary sources indicate that the native Huanca population produced the goods stored and played a role in managing the storage system (D’Altroy and Hastorf 1984).2 More properly, the economic characteristics pursued “the socialization of goods and resources” in a direction of no waste, no production of futility, lands utilized exclusively by the surrounding community with restrictions to others to ensure their sustainable use, the development of an extensive network of storage facilities. These were located at every settlement and distributed along the extensive trail system that connected the empire. Nature was an essential aspect to human survival. These methods ensured the constant production of food and resources in the Inca Empire no matter how harsh the climate conditions and challenging geography they might have faced. The COVID-19 postpandemic trends in China, India, Indonesia, Iran, and Thailand, based on the creation of infrastructures with systemic economic processes have been based on a new set of roles, functions, services, materials, reviewed and re-proposed through “close relations” processes or in a direct functionality (Comelli 2021). Services dedicated to a single purpose are eliminated, in favour of multiple purposes that can be aligned. Table 7.2—“Contemporary urban strategies with the circular economy” provides some examples of this. The alignment of these varieties of services covers different needs and at the same time converges in the management of resources and technologies for adaptive and flexible structures. The new normal also emerges from the interplay with other crises as the recent oil crisis due to the Russia–-Ukraine war. These concomitant crises place pressures on the optimization of resources, waste materials, and technologies dedicated to multiple uses. Post-pandemic trends reproduce in a new fashion, the local economies of simple societies. In emergency conditions, the correlation between internal evolutionary processes and external economies oscillates from complex to simple, breaking cultural habits. This creates new conditions for the hybridization of materials, functions, technologies, and spaces. Anthropological studies show that an emergency can be also “created” by preparing for other emergencies. Emergencies 2

D’Altroy and Hastorf (1984).

90

R. Chiarini

Table 7.2 Contemporary urban strategies with the circular economy Cities

Relations

Beijing (China)

Plastic, paper, and glass houses

Hormuz Island (Iran)

Tourists and citizens have common services in the same place

Bangalore (India)

3.000 km of plastic roads

Khun Han Buddhist temple (Thailand)

Recycled glass for temple structure

Nevada (USA)

Hybrid technologies the geothermal with the solar thermodynamic

constitute the training for young people to evolve themselves (rite of passage) as part of critical relationships between humans and nature in the absence of a cultural influence.

7.6 Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has inspired a reflection on the new normal within emerging trends of natural economy processes. The cognitive understanding of concomitant emergencies involves the direct relationship between humans and nonhumans. During the COVID-19 pandemic, solutions have been adopted to reach an equity status of the vaccine and its distribution. The important point here has been the coordination between global vaccine suppliers and manufacturers and national-specific demands and local health situations and regulations. According to WHO, the COVID-19 vaccination coverage has determined a new sustainable and international economy of governance through3 : • • • • •

a global coordination (see the GAVI—Global Alliance for Vaccines), a market control, each country sustains a global target, vaccination services were integrated with other services, a future vision in a long-term capacity.

This chapter argued that economic interventionism experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic is very similar to simple societies. Like simple and ancient societies based on trade and trust in leadership, the pandemic has highlighted the need of common policies to prevent the spread of viruses, the of alliances for vaccine production and social solidarity. The management of the COVID-19 pandemic shows the limit of the cultural dimension of complex societies. By theorizing the ways of perceiving emergencies in contemporary societies, the chapter has highlighted some significant trends towards simple and natural societies. 3

19 WHO—World Health Organization. Vaccine equity. https://www.who.int/campaigns/vaccineequity.

7 An Anthropology of the Co-Emergency: Getting Inspired …

91

An inspiration for a new normal consists in a re-evaluation of the relationship between humans and non-humans to understand future chronic emergencies. From COVID19, we have learned that sustainable economies are driven not so much by incentives or common goals as by the opportunity to participate in and experience a complete economic process.

References Adlakha N, Kumar SP (2021) What’s in your walls: plastic, paper, carbon? Hindu J Bergson H (1911) La perception du changement, pp 143–177. Oxford, Clarendon Press Bergson H (2007) Creative evolution. Read Books Bolter D (2016) Posthumanism. Georgia Institute of Technology Comelli E (2021) Da Londra a Bangalore a Venezia, aumentano le strade fatte di plastica riciclata. Il Sole 24 Ore Tecnologia Scienza - Economia Circolare D’Altroy N, Hastorf CA (1984) The Distribution and Contents of Inca State Storehouses in the Xauxa Region of Peru. In: American antiquity, vol 49, no 2, pp 334–349 (16 pp). Cambridge University Press Daszak P (2020) Fermiamo la distruzione della natura per sfuggire all’era delle pandemie di G.Talignani. La Repubblica Demichelis D, Ferrari A, Masto R, Scalettari L (2001) No global. Gli inganni della globalizzazione sulla povertà, sull’ambiente e sul debito. Zelig Editore, Collana Futura Dopsch A (1969) Economia naturale ed economia monetaria nella storia universale. Sansoni Fassino P (2020) Coronavirus. Un mondo fragile. CeSPI Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale Geisler WS, Perry JS, Ing AD (2008) Natural systems analysis. In: Rogowitz B, Pappas T (eds) Human vision and electronic imaging. Proceedings SPIE, vol 6806, 68060M Giddens A (1992) The transformation of intimacy. Polity Press, Cambridge Gregory CA (2012) On money debt and morality: some reflections on the contribution of economic anthropology. Soc Anthropol/anthropologie Sociale 20(4):380–396 Haraway D (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York, NY Ingold T (2022) Evolution without inheritance: steps to an ecology of learning. Curr Anthropol 63(S25):S000–S000 Keeling DM (2018) Posthumanism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication Kohn E (2021) Come pensano le foreste. Antropologia oltre l’umano. Nottetempo Luxemburg R (2021) L’accumulazione del capitale. P. Greco Marx L (1956) The machine in the garden. N Engl Q, pp 27–42 Price A (1975) Sharing, the integration of intimate economies. In: Anthropologica new series, vol 17, no 1, pp 3–27 (25 pp). Canadian Anthropology Society Remotti F (2011) Cultura. Dalla complessità all’impoverimento. Laterza Polanyi K (2008) The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. In: Meier B (ed) Social thought & research, globalization, vol 29, pp 155–160 (6 pp). Social Thought and Research Shiva V (2020) Fermiamo la distruzione della natura per sfuggire all’era delle pandemie di G.Talignani. La Repubblica Storper M (1997) The city: Centre of Economic Reflexivity. Serv Ind J 17(1):1–27. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02642069700000001 WHO—World Health Organization (2022). Vaccine equity. https://www.who.int/campaigns/vac cine-equity. Last access 22 Nov 2022

92

R. Chiarini

Roberta Chiarini is a researcher at ENEA—Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development. She deals with direct governance for sustainable and energy communities in compliance with REC II. Her studies are related to cultural, technological, and natural devices for behavioural and perceptual changes towards sustainability. In her research, she always relates adaptive systems, multi-functional places, technology mix, and the direct responsibility performances of citizenship, towards a new economy.

Part II

Experiences on Urban Governance and Participation During the Pandemic

Chapter 8

Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular Episode or a Shift to a “New Normal”? Philippe Hamman, Andreea Grigorovschi, Sophie Henck, and Marie Fruiquière

Abstract This paper deals with how COVID-19 influenced urban governance and planning processes, focusing on innovations compared to pre-pandemic modes of designing, building, and living in French intermediate cities. COVID-19 cycling urbanism is analyzed from the perspective of stakeholders, planning and design approaches, participation practices, and spatial features. The paper examines how lasting the urban responses are, as well as the innovations designed to cope with the health crisis and their possible impacts on the post-pandemic future, as “new normal” practices in city-making. As a case study, we picked the urban agglomeration of Mulhouse in France, which was heavily impacted by COVID-19 during the first lockdown in 2020. As cities around the world experimented with social and physical distancing measures, more or less temporary urban and public space transformations, were implemented in record time, to support active mobility modes in Mulhouse. This fast and relatively low-cost mode of action, often described as “tactical urbanism”, invites studies of intermediate cities like Mulhouse where mobility—which is still car-dominated—is a major sustainability and resilience issue. The paper draws on field work, document analysis, bibliographic monitoring, and interviews with local actors. Ultimately, it asks to what extent the experience of pandemic urbanism can P. Hamman (B) Institute for Urbanism and Regional Development and Research Unit “Societies, Actors and Government in Europe”, CNRS/University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France e-mail: [email protected] A. Grigorovschi · M. Fruiquière Strasbourg National School of Architecture and Research Unit “Architecture, Morphologie/ Morphogenèse Urbaine et Projet”, Strasbourg, France e-mail: [email protected] M. Fruiquière e-mail: [email protected] S. Henck Research Unit “Societies, Actors and Government in Europe”, CNRS/University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_8

95

96

P. Hamman et al.

serve to catalyze long-term change for city-making. Is the COVID-19 experience an isolated event strictly related to the health crisis, or a lever for a more profound renewal of the post-pandemic city project, in the face of the global ecological crisis? Keywords Mobility · Tactical urbanism · Temporary design · COVID-19 pandemic · Intermediate city

8.1 Introduction This paper examines the urban cycling installations that appeared in 2020 during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. In the context of a particularly severe health crisis, and with municipal elections to be held in the spring of 2020, decision-makers had to face unthought of challenges and to take unprecedented responsibilities. This was even more the case as, since the 2008 global economic crisis, and as a result of the global environmental crisis, designers had increasingly been looking for “alternative” modes of city-making, oriented toward near-futures (Rollot 2018). Temporary urbanism was used as a response to the need to quickly adapt cities to new health imperatives. Focusing on such measures, sheds light on “new normal” planning modes as the result of multiple urban transformations, on the level of planning strategies and experiences, as well as governance practices. Since March 2020, many different types of temporary urban installations have appeared around the world: slow streets, pedestrian plazas, “corona cycleways” (coronapistes in French), and so on. These types of temporary interventions, both in space and time, have, according to advocates, been “all about action” (Street Plans Collaborative 2021), which is why they have been grouped under the label of “tactical” urbanism. These recent urban transformations are in tune with tactical urbanists’ desire for a more socially and spatially inclusive, more democratic, and environmentally friendly city (Brenner 2020; Lydon and Garcia 2015). Also, multiple practical guides have been issued, giving indications about the type of actions to be carried out to cope with the health crisis in the city. They have been promoted, on an international scale, by figureheads of the tactical urbanism movement (Lydon 2020). In France, national public institutions, such as the Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques, l’environnement, la mobilité et l’aménagement (Centre for Studies and Expertise on Risks, Environment, Mobility, and Urban and Country Planning), have been playing an important role (CEREMA 2020). In practice, we will examine the specificities of “pandemic urbanism” in French intermediate cities, as illustrated here by the promotion of active mobility in Mulhouse following the lifting of lockdown restrictions. We ask the question: Is the COVID-19 experience an isolated event, strictly related to the health crisis, or a lever for a more profound renewal of the post-pandemic city project in the face of the global ecological crisis?

8 Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular …

97

8.2 Theory Along with the development of a planetary urban system, the association between the city and mobility has been strengthened, in particular with the development of internationalized networks of “global cities” (Sassen 2001). This association has been impacted by the outbreak of COVID-19, especially after many countries imposed lockdowns in 2020 in an attempt to curb the spread of the pandemic. This called into question whether the design of contemporary urban forms was suited to meet residents’ needs (Grant 2020), especially when social distancing became a mantra and was defined as a collective health imperative (Jabareen and Eizenberg 2021: 57). The deployment of tactical urbanism installments was used in many cities to rethink and reclaim public spaces for inclusive forms of urban life and mobility. What is precisely meant by the increasingly popular notion of tactical, rather than simply temporary, urbanism? First, it refers to bottom-up initiatives developed: for instance, in Bogotá, temporary bicycle lanes were “cobbled together” in March 2020, first by residents themselves, then by the city authorities on a day-to-day basis. In France, most big cities, as well as smaller ones, announced temporary cycling measures in April. France ranks among the European countries that have most actively developed COVID-19 cycling infrastructure (ECF 2020a, b). On the other hand, tactical urbanism is fueling debates among urban planners, since it is based on the principles of rapid implementation and removal, limited cost, use value (test and assess), and citizen involvement (Cha 2020). To understand urban action in the context of COVID-19, it is necessary to consider the different implications of the term. In France, two types of urban projects have traditionally been distinguished: strategic plans—which work in the long term and take a global approach to action— and operational projects aimed at transforming space in a shorter span of time, to provide it with the desired operationalities (Andres 2013). Tactical urbanism covers yet another type of project, driven by opportunity (Andres 2013). Such actions develop a radically new relation to time, based on instantaneity and impermanence, and present an experimental (Brenner 2020) and reversible character. Tactical urban measures could be understood as forms of “pre-operational urbanism”, in between strategic plans and operational projects, or as new urban development tools “complementing those that already exist” (Chabot 2014). Above all, they make it clear that we have to consider the temporalities involved in city-making (Chabot 2014; Tonkiss 2013). But when it comes to definition and classification, despite the numerous attempts within specialized literature, the relationships to time and their entanglement with the mechanisms of power and action are not yet theoretically stabilized (Pradel 2019; Baillargeon and Diaz 2020; Andres and Zhang 2020). Despite the fuzziness due to overlapping notions and heterogenous urban practices, several authors seem to identify ephemeral urbanism and transitional urbanism as different ways of taking time into account: the former refers to more punctual and easily reversible spatial occupations, closely associated with event-based urbanism (Diguet 2018; Pradel 2021), while the latter insists on the

98

P. Hamman et al.

importance of its transitional, reactivation, and prefiguration functions as part of “a connected history” (Diguet 2018), which also seems to imply a more aware, even strategic linkage between past and future territorial uses (Pinard and Morteau 2019; Pradel 2021). Pradel (2021) includes these different relationships to time in the more generic category of temporary urbanism, closely related to tactical urbanism, where emphasis is less on temporality and more on the inhabitant, local, and militant actions of reappropriation of city-making. The challenge of tactical urbanism is to make residents to rethink their overall relation to public space and hence to mobility through small steps (Lydon and Garcia 2015; Mould 2014). The crisis, caused by the lockdown, led city authorities to implement this kind of rapid and low-cost intervention. “Corona bikeways” are designed to encourage users to test alternative travel modes and turn to cycling, while experimenting with new street space distribution. The question that can be raised is whether such short-term, localized measures can help to redesign the city on a larger scale and in the long-term.

8.3 Fieldwork and Method French intermediate cities can be defined as urban areas with 200,000–500,000 inhabitants that perform functions close to those of metropolises but only have a regional reach (Deraëve 2015). In the Grand Est region, they were severely affected by the “first wave” of the pandemic (Hecker et al. 2020). Intermediate cities are interesting sites for connecting the culture of urban planning and the experience of tactical urbanism. While North America and some countries in South America have a long tradition of such connections, in France, urban development systems have mostly been based on top-down planning and operational strategies. As a case study, we have picked the urban unit of Mulhouse because it was particularly heavily impacted by COVID-19. In 2018, it had 247,065 inhabitants, and according to the Agence Régionale de la Santé of Grand Est (the regional health agency), deaths increased by 117.1% between 2019 and 2020 over the March– April period. The second-largest urban agglomeration in Alsace, close to Switzerland and Germany, Mulhouse is a former industrial city, which since the 1990s, has sought to make itself more appealing and to be recognized as a regional urban hub, by undertaking urban renewal projects to regenerate its historic downtown area. These included the renovation of industrial wastelands, the rehabilitation of workingclass districts, revitalization of public spaces in the wake of the development of the Mulhouse tramway in 2006, and transformation of the train station district with the launch of the tram-train line (2010) and the TGV high-speed train line (2011). Before the outbreak of the pandemic, the modal share of cycling remained quite low in Mulhouse. According to the Agence d’Urbanisme de la Région Mulhousienne (AURM—Urban Planning Agency for the Mulhouse Region), it was about 3% in 2019, more or less equal to the national average (AURM 2019: 7), but far lower than in the neighboring metropolises of Basel and Freiburg-im-Breisgau, where the modal share of cycling amounted to 25%, or more. This gives a measure of the ambitious

8 Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular …

99

character of the 9% target reported by the regional press during the 2020 municipal campaign (Fellmann 2020). The health crisis provided an opportunity to step up the deployment of cycling infrastructure, with the creation of 13.5 km’s worth of lanes at a cost of 110,000e (Ville de Mulhouse 2020a). Methodologically speaking, this paper draws on urban planning documents and expert reports from local authorities and urban agencies; the “participatory” platform Mulhouse C’est Vous (2020a); regional newspapers (Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace and L’Alsace) from January 2020 and the following months; records of 13 days of on-site observation; and 24 interviews conducted in 2021 with 17 institutional actors and 7 other stakeholders. Our goal is to examine to what extent the pandemic experience can serve to promote urban resilience (Deas et al. 2021) and whether it can be a catalyst for long-term change, leading to a “new normal” situation in terms of urban governance, planning, and design.

8.4 Results: COVID-19 Urban Installations in Mulhouse 8.4.1 Design, Implementation, and Evolution of COVID-19 Installations As part of their urban renewal projects, long before the health crisis, the city and urban agglomeration of Mulhouse had adopted planning tools to encourage modal shifts toward cycling. At the level of the agglomeration, the Cycling Master Plan updated in 2019 envisions a network of nearly 700 km of cycleways spread over the 39 municipalities. However, with an average of 6 km completed every year, it would take more than 60 years to complete the 400 km still to be built (AURM 2020: 8). At the city level, the renowned French urban planner Alfred Peter was, before the COVID-19 crisis, given the task of developing a new municipal Bicycle Plan. These studies covered two main overlapping objectives: defining a new Bicycle Mobility Plan, including 15 km of additional bicycle infrastructure, and revitalizing the downtown area of Mulhouse (Interview, an officer of the road department, city of Mulhouse, 01/02/2021). According to an officer from the city’s roads department, the COVID-19 bicycle plan was inspired by the studies carried out with Alfred Peter (Interview, an officer of the road department, city of Mulhouse, 01/02/2021). At city level, it roughly consisted in outlining a huge cross along the North–South and East–West axes (Fig. 8.1). The operation was started during the March 2020 lockdown and was swiftly completed. In a few weeks, 13.5 km of new cycleways were created. At street level, the new design followed the national guidelines drawn up by the CEREMA (2020). However, the spatial interstice created by the emptying of the city due to lockdown restrictions was not exploited. In Mulhouse, “corona cycleways” aimed to be structures, rather than interstices. They were lifted from car lanes, reducing the space allocated to automobiles—the main challengers to bicycles when people became wary of using

100

P. Hamman et al.

public transit and looked for other means of transport. At the operational level, out of the 13.5 km the city claimed to have created, only 8.5 km actually resulted from on-ground interventions during the pandemic. The apparently unified outline of the cross rather proves to be fragmented when considering the alternation between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 portions, the lack of intersection treatments, and the juxtaposition of a great variety of types of cycling and pedestrian installations (Fig. 8.1). Moreover, the new cycleways were materialized with yellow marking and/or other light spatial organization features (studs, posts) similar to those used to indicate road works (Fig. 8.2), which made it difficult to feel that this was a single and unified network. On the other hand, this has made it possible to adapt the COVID-19 installations over time. Since they were first created, starting in May–June 2020, there have been several interventions aimed at removing, transforming or making them permanent, in particular as a result of residents’ comments (collected on the Mulhouse C’est Vous platform for instance). By the summer of 2021, a year after the implementation

Fig. 8.1 Wide typo-morphological variety of cycling and pedestrian installations. Out of the 13.5 km of announced COVID-19 cycling routes, only 8.5 km were COVID-19 on-ground interventions, which resulted in discontinuous paths, especially due to lack of intersection treatment and the juxtaposition of various types of cycling and pedestrian installations (Ville de Mulhouse 2020b; m2A 2019)

8 Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular …

101

Fig. 8.2 COVID-19 installations in the urban landscape of Mulhouse. It is difficult to be aware of a unified cycling network because of the various types of installation and because of the use of yellow marking, similar to that used to indicate road works

of these new COVID-19 cycleways, out of the 8.5 km created, only 15% had become permanent; 73% had been removed or were now obsolete (6.2 km) and 12% remained temporary installations (Fig. 8.3). The impact, of these COVID-19 measures, on ongoing projects ultimately proves to be “rather marginal, it is not structural” (Interview, an officer of the road department, city of Mulhouse, 20/04/2021) since they have not altered the designs of the prospective cycling master plans drawn up before the pandemic. At most, the use of temporary modes was extended, with part-time pedestrianization of streets from May to September 2021 (as shops and restaurants reopened), or with events organized by the municipality during the “car-free days” held on certain Sundays in 2021 (Fig. 8.4) in specific streets or neighborhoods, such as sensory walks, project presentations, collection of resident opinions, interventions of community associations (Interview, deputy mayor for mobilities, city of Mulhouse, 01/02/2021).

102

P. Hamman et al.

Fig. 8.3 Transformation of COVID-19 urban installations over time. One year after the implementation of post-lockdown cycling actions, out of the 8.5 km cycling infrastructure deployed, only 15% had become permanent, 73% had been removed or was obsolete (6.5 km), and 12% remained temporary (Ville de Mulhouse 2020a, b; Mulhouse C’est Vous 2020b)

8.4.2 The Language Used to Describe Action In Mulhouse, measures were quickly taken to create temporary cycling infrastructure on the initiative of the municipality (Fig. 8.2). Few stakeholders used the term “tactical urbanism” to refer to them; only an expert from the AURM elaborated on the notion and then quickly switched to the term “pragmatic”: Going through a test phase […] is super important and it gives legitimacy to larger projects later on. […] If you blow it, it’s the end of everything. So, if you go through a transitional phase, it helps to make adjustments, you can use studs, etc.…, that’s kind of what you call tactical urbanism. […] Today I would call it not tactical urbanism but a pragmatic approach, it means considering use first. (Interview, mobility study officer, AURM, 01/04/2021)

The adjectives “temporary” or “transitional” came up the most frequently: A big trend actually is transitional urbanism. […] It’s also applied to the transition in public spaces with resident participation, [like] the famous yellow bike lanes. (Interview, urban development officer, AURM, 23/02/2021)

8 Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular …

103

Fig. 8.4 Key moments in the Mulhouse pandemic cycling project. The chronological timeline below shows the key moments in the “pandemic” project management process in Mulhouse, divided into five phases (identification of the problem, agenda setting, deployment of COVID-19 installations, public consultation, and evolution of COVID-19 spatial facilities), quite similar to the traditional process although the different stages have been shortened (WHO 2020)

Temporary urbanism, […] it allows the elected representative to realize what’s possible, what’s realistic, it allows the residents to appropriate public space in a new way. (Interview, an officer of the Agency for Citizen Participation [APC], city of Mulhouse, 06/04/2021)

Another key notion was that of an “iterative” process, which is intriguing since that kind of back-and-forth process might not seem to meet the need for speedy action: [It’s] a kind of iterative approach that we wish to adopt. Consultation comes after, yes and no. […] It so happened that we wanted to try things some associations had suggested, that is that whenever there were two car lanes, allocate one to cyclists. (Interview, deputy mayor for mobilities, city of Mulhouse, 01/02/2021)

8.5 Discussion: The “Tactical” or “Temporary” Dimension of Pandemic Urbanism 8.5.1 Shorter but Overlapping Timeframes One of the challenges of planning in the context of COVID-19 was to integrate temporary urbanism into the planners’ toolkit for city-making and make it part of local operators’ interactions (Law et al. 2021). While corona cycleways can be defined as emergency health measures, the action did not have the spontaneity that characterizes tactical urbanism. Rather, it complied with the usual succession of problem-setting

104

P. Hamman et al.

phases and preliminary studies, even though the time devoted to them was very much shortened and the different stages sometimes overlapped (Fig. 8.4). The decision-making processes were compacted into short-term experimental solutions (Deas et al. 2021). An expert from an association observed that the health crisis “made it possible to act fast and in a little less bureaucratic way”, while insisting that “it was possible to provide means for evaluation” (Interview, legal and public policy department, Automobile Club Association d’Alsace, 19/02/2021). While the design phase was somewhat shortened, the project still went through the usual validation process, as explained by an officer from the road department of the city of Mulhouse: Our elected representative gave us a commission, we still had a little time to reflect, about 15 days. When the decision-making process began, of course there was first the representative [the deputy mayor in charge] but it was not enough, so we had to go before the mayor and [the first deputy mayor] anyway. In the span of three days, we had a few working sessions, and they pushed the button. (Interview, an officer of the road department, city of Mulhouse, 20/04/2021)

Concrete actions need to be related to three different timeframes: the timeframe of the project, the political timeframe (measured by the length of elected representatives’ terms of office), and the social timeframe (the nonlinear process of social appropriation by residents) (Hamman 2020). The period of the 2020 lockdown coincided with the campaign for the municipal elections, which were then postponed from March 22 to June 28. Two different timeframes overlapped: Politically speaking, [there was a] will act but still a little reluctance because… the second round of voting was postponed. Technically speaking… nothing stopped us really, but we had questions about what we were going to do. In any case, one thing is certain […], we all agreed on the design. Because there was the Master Plan […] The problem was not what to do, but how. (Interview, an officer of the road department, city of Mulhouse, 20/04/2021)

Moreover, while in times of crisis, the urban planning processes can be shortened at the level of municipal departments, this is not necessarily the case when it comes to social acceptability. A head of the local association CADRes, for instance, asked that “the city should communicate and explain more, provide more education” (Interview, a leader of CADREs, 02/02/2021). Mulhouse’s coronapistes, thus, can be better understood as continuous innovations, resulting from more traditional and intertwined processes (Fig. 8.4), as suggested by one member of the Association des usagers des transports Sud Alsace (AUTSA): At the city level, they had more or less planned to create an East-West/ North-South axis for cyclists. It had been in the pipeline for a while, and in a context of emergency, they took the map of Mulhouse, they looked at where there were existing infrastructures, where there were portions missing and they just marked them with their highlighter pens. (Interview, a member of AUTSA, 26/03/2021)

In this respect, three main points should be underlined. First, during the election campaign, which had started before the lockdown, the promotion of urban cycling featured prominently, with terms derived from tactical urbanism. The March 8, 2020, issue of Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace described the planned measures as “easy

8 Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular …

105

to carry out, inexpensive and quickly achievable”. The interviewees expressed the same idea: “The issue of cycling, the green breakthrough is kind of everywhere in France during the municipal elections […], it’s obviously raising awareness” (Mobilities department, Agglomeration of Mulhouse, 16/02/2021). A second important issue, related to time, lies in whether COVID-19 installations are meant to become permanent or not. The chair of a cyclists’ association gave the following comments: It’s efficient, you have two-meter-wide paths with plastic posts, so you feel safe. But it’s not always very attractive ‘cause it’s on really ugly old asphalt. You see it’s temporary, it’s just a makeshift job. […] Not like in the Netherlands [where] the sidewalks are grey, the asphalt pavement is black and the bicycle paths are red. (Interview, a leader of CADRes, 02/02/ 2021)

Were tactical urban actions, then, just isolated events, resulting from the unprecedented conjunction of the lockdown and of the election campaign? An officer, in charge of mobilities at the AURM, observed that enthusiasm had ebbed and flowed: “No one talks about corona cycleways much anymore, I think! […] There’s been a lot of publicity in a lot of urban areas, and finally…” (Interview, mobility study officer, AURM, 01/04/2021). The stakeholders interviewed drew a distinction between making the temporary installations permanent and just maintaining them over time, for instance, by switching from the yellow to the white color code: It was already based on traditional urban planning approaches, to which they added a little tactical urbanism by using yellow, and now it’s back to white. […] There were existing bicycle lanes and they placed yellow studs to separate them, and many have been removed because it made it more difficult to maintain the roadway. (Interview, a member of AUTSA, 26/03/2021)

Thirdly, the temporary nature of COVID-19 actions is used as a justification by decision-makers: “It’s just a test. Some have been removed overnight, but that hasn’t made them a failure” (Interview, a, officer of the road department, city of Mulhouse, 20/04/2021).

8.5.2 An Effective Temporary Response: A Rapid and Low-Cost Experimentation The technicians interviewed clearly confirmed that their aim was to act fast and at a lower cost: “That’s why we shut the door to solutions that could have been more technically viable but would not have been possible to deploy in time. […] We accept responsibility for this choice, it was only meant to be a temporary tool” (Interview, an officer of the road department, city of Mulhouse, 20/04/2021). Agreeing with his colleague from the city department, an officer in the mobilities’ department of the agglomeration of Mulhouse underlined the impact of COVID-19 on the work of agents: These installations had to be designed by teams who were working from home. They had to do this under very difficult conditions. […] Within a few weeks, these guys did 12 km.

106

P. Hamman et al.

[…] Maybe if there had been more time to design them, there would have been fewer malfunctions and maybe more things would have remained. But hey, we had to move fast. (Interview, mobility officer, m2A, 16/02/2021)

The deputy mayor for mobilities in Mulhouse also put forward budgetary reasons: “We didn’t go all the way […], like changing the traffic lights at intersections, with an impact on public transport. Because the aim was also to test at a lower cost” (Interview, deputy mayor for mobilities, city of Mulhouse, 01/02/2021). This type of crisis urbanism seems to have been based on the tactical urbanism principles of “fast action and low cost”, as illustrated in the temporary character of the actions implemented but also, at the level of the decision-making process, in the cost of the spatial facilities and the budget allocated to the projects.

8.5.3 A Limited Participatory Process Participation in COVID-19 urban responses in Mulhouse was organized through specific consultation schemes set up by the municipality, via the local agency for citizen participation (APC) and an ad hoc digital platform: They started experimenting during the lockdown and then we consulted, on Mulhouse C’est Vous, with idea boxes, from June to September [2020]. We had 550 comments posted […], ranging from positive to very negative ones. […] In my view, we made a mistake, which was not giving enough information ahead of the process. (Interview, an officer of APC, Mulhouse, 06/04/2021)

While participation is seen as a hallmark of tactical urbanism, it appears to have taken a back seat to temporary urban action here. Participation was given a restricted role, and the process remained controlled by the usual decision-making experts and political officials. A member of the association AUTSA summed up the situation in this way: “It was temporary, it was low cost, but without any consultation!” (Interview, a member of AUTSA, 26/03/2021). One of the managers of CADRes expressed a similar opinion: “With the temporary actions, consultation came after! […] ‘Express yourself on Mulhouse C’est Vous’, and then, following pressure, you back off a little or you keep going. […] It’s always possible to say this is an emergency!” (Interview, a leader of CADRes, 02/02/2021). The new bicycle installations sprang from the necessities of the post-lockdown period, and no time was specifically allotted to the process of co-construction.

8.6 Conclusion Tactical urban action is commonly defined by its experimental character (Deas et al. 2021), also described as “transitional” or “temporary” (Law 2021), and by citizen involvement through a double process of co-design and co-construction (Cha 2020:

8 Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular …

107

31). While the first feature does apply to Mulhouse’s coronapistes—down to the limited ambition of the new infrastructure—this is hardly the case of the second one: agenda setting has remained the result of political and expert decisions, not of citizen mobilization; citizen consultation was monitored and the general approach to the project did not differ so much from mainstream processes. This also made the transitory nature of the installations even more obvious, with some being removed after the first lockdown and others reintegrated within broader plans (Master Plan, Bicycle Plan). The urban cycling measures taken in Mulhouse in 2020 seem to belong rather to temporary urbanism than to tactical urbanism. Different results of our research have led to this conclusion: the stakeholders used terms such as “temporary” or “transitional” to refer to the timeframes of project implementation and the stakeholders’ interactions, as well as to the nature of on-ground interventions, characterized by removable features, rapid implementation, and budget control rather than inclusiveness or citizen initiative. These experimentations coincide with a high point of enthusiasm for tactical urbanism in literature and the media. In the end, they present a temporary character but do not seem as much concerned with citizen participation. They appear more as tools used to face an unprecedented health situation, before a return to more traditional approaches, rather than marking a structural change in professional practices and urban planning policy. A more inclusive post-COVID-19 urban democracy remains to be created. As Law et al. noticed, “lasting change requires attentiveness to the multi-stage governance arrangements surrounding temporary uses” (2021: 8). In other words, the temporal variable is always intertwined with the spatial and social dimensions of political processes and daily life (Hamman 2020). For practitioners, the experience of corona cycleways can lead to the definition of “best practices”, in terms of standardizing the color or shape of road markings and light separation features, and in terms of finding the right discursive modes among slippery terms and notions, as shown in the confusing use of the words “temporary”, “transitional”, or “pragmatic” urbanism (Landgrave-Serrano et al. 2021). For researchers, studying the city in the making in a pandemic context (Grant 2020), more particularly the accessibility of urban services when cars or public transportation means are dispensed with (Moreno et al. 2021), is a means to re-examine urban planning strategy in terms of relational processes in space (Wohl 2018), the integration of spatial and temporal issues, and social transactions (Hamman 2020). The pandemic urban measures experimented in Mulhouse did not concern a specific, well-defined space of the city, such as brownfields, devoid of use and of value. In this respect, while tactical urban projects usually aim at activating interstitial spaces (Chabot 2014), the goal of COVID-19 cycling installations was to create structuring, unified infrastructure networks, either as part of new experimentations or of previous strategic plans, elaborated on a broader spatial or temporal scale. From this point of view, Mulhouse’s COVID-19 response is best defined as strategic, while in terms of its implementation, it used a range of tactical instruments: speed, reactivity, and low costs. For these two reasons, the temporary urban actions undertaken during the health crisis could lay the foundations of an additional framework for

108

P. Hamman et al.

conceiving urban governance, planning, and design that would integrate use value and serve as the basis of a “new normal” mode of city-making. Acknowledgements This research was conducted as part of the project Mut’Action—Mobility and Tactical Urbanism in Action (2020–2022), funded by the Grand Est Region and the French National Research Agency. It is led by the research unit “Habiter” at the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, under the direction of Céline Burger. We would also like to thank Eugénie Djouadi, student in the master program “Ville, environnement et sociétés” at the University of Strasbourg, and Marie Stemart, student in the master program in Architecture at the Strasbourg National School of Architecture, for the helpful work they carried out as part of their graduate internship in 2021. The proofreading of this paper by Jean-Yves Bart received support from the Maison Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l’Homme Alsace (MISHA) and the Excellence Initiative of the University of Strasbourg.

References Andres L (2013) Differential spaces, power hierarchy and collaborative planning: a critique of the role of temporary uses in shaping and making places. Urban Stud 50(4):759–775 Andres L, Zhang YA (eds) (2020) Transforming cities through temporary urbanism: a comparative international overview. Springer, Cham AURM (2019) Connaître et faire progresser la pratique du vélo: Quels leviers d’action possibles pour m2A et le Sud Alsace? https://www.aurm.org/uploads/media/5dd80703243ff.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 AURM (2020) La mobilité en 2030 dans la région mulhousienne. Des objectifs à atteindre pour m2A! Pourquoi? Comment? https://www.aurm.org/uploads/media/5f7c3d5ca8e44.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Baillargeon T, Diaz J (2020) L’urbanisme transitoire à Montréal: entre innovation et préservation. Revue Organisations & Territoires 29(2):25–39. https://doi.org/10.1522/revueot.v29n2.1148. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Brenner N (2020) Is “tactical urbanism” an alternative to neoliberal urbanism? In: Courage C, Borrup T, Jackson MR, Legge K, McKeown A, Platt L, Schupbach J (eds) The Routledge handbook of placemaking. Routledge, Abingdon, New York, pp 310–320 CEREMA (2020) Aménagements cyclables provisoires: tester pour aménager durablement. https:/ /www.au5v.fr/IMG/pdf/amenagementscyclablesprovisoires-vf_cerema.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Cha J (2020) Repenser la fabrique des espaces publics de la ville contemporaine: l’exemple du prototype du Virage à Montréal. J Soc Study Archit Can 45(1):23–41 Chabot L (2014) Friches temporelles et aménagements urbains temporaires. Urbia. Les Cahiers Du Développement Urbain Durable 16:67–84 Deas I, Martin M, Hincks S (2021) Temporary urban uses in response to COVID-19: bolstering resilience via short-term experimental solutions. Town Plann Rev 92(1):81–88 Deraëve S (2015) Les villes intermédiaires françaises face aux mutations des systèmes productifs: enjeux et stratégies territoriales. Bulletin De L’association De Géographes Français 92(4):524– 536 Diguet C, IAU-IdF (2018) L’urbanisme transitoire. Optimisation foncière ou fabrique urbaine partagée? www.iau-idf.fr/fileadmin/NewEtudes/Etude_1427/UrbanismeTransitoire. pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2022

8 Pandemic Cycling Urbanism in French Intermediate Cities: A Singular …

109

ECF (2020a) COVID-19 cycling measures tracker. https://ecf.com/dashboard. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 ECF (2020b) COVID-19 cycling measures tracker. Cities Map. https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/ reporting/1ae589b4-e01c-4c27-8336-f683ea516256/page/yMRTB. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Fellmann C (2020) Le vélo à Mulhouse: en selle pour les municipales. Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace. https://www.dna.fr/politique/2020/03/08/en-selle-pour-les-municipales. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Grant JL (2020) Pandemic challenges to planning prescriptions: how COVID-19 is changing the ways we think about planning. Plan Theory Pract 21(5):659–667 Hamman P (ed) (2020) Sustainability governance and hierarchy. Routledge, Abingdon, New York Hecker I, Pic V, Breton D, Gagnon A (2020) Le Grand Est: deuxième région française la plus touchée par l’épidémie de COVID-19. Insee Analyses Grand Est 115:1–4 Jabareen Y, Eizenberg A (2021) The failure of urban forms under the COVID-19 epidemic: towards a more just urbanism. Town Plann Rev 92(1):57–63 Landgrave-Serrano M, Stoker P, Jae-An Crisman J (2021) Punctual urbanisms: rapid planning responses to urban problems. J Plann Lit 36(4):467–491. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Law L, Azzali S, Conejos S (2021) Planning for the temporary: temporary urbanism and public space in a time of COVID-19. Town Plann Rev 92(1):65–73 Lydon M (2020) Tactical urbanism. A tool for crisis management? TUMI/NUMO Webinar, 2 Apr. https://www.transformative-mobility.org/assets/publications/Street-Plans.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Lydon M, Garcia A (2015) Tactical urbanism: short-term actions for long-term change. Island Press, Washington DC m2A (2019) Carte des aménagements cyclables de l’agglomération. https://www.google.com/ url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiUvsKmksT7AhXYXaQEHe CsBskQFnoECDAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mulhouse.fr%2Fwp-content%2Fuplo ads%2F2020%2F07%2F2019_800x700mm_amenagements_cyclables_Mulhouse__HD.pdf& usg=AOvVaw3coAQf5HBifIuEEKZtgyeZ. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Moreno C, Allam Z, Chabaud D, Gall C (2021) Introducing the “15-minute city”: sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities 4(1):93–111 Mould O (2014) Tactical urbanism: the new vernacular of the creative city. Geogr Compass 8(8):529–539 Mulhouse C’est Vous (2020a) Mulhouse se transforme: la restitution. https://mulhousecestvous.fr/ . Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Mulhouse C’est Vous (2020b) Bilan de la concertation Mobilités Expérimentation Vélo. https://mul housecestvous.fr/project/concertation-sur-la-mobilite-transport/step/bilan-de-la-consultation. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Pinard J, Morteau H (2019) Professionnels de l’occupation temporaire, nouveaux acteurs de la fabrique de la ville? Du renouvellement des méthodes en urbanisme à l’émergence de nouveaux métiers. Revue internationale d’urbanisme (Riurba), 8. http://www.riurba.review/Revue/pro fessionnels-de-loccupation-temporaire-nouveaux-acteurs-de-la-fabrique-de-la-ville-du-renouv ellement-des-methodes-en-urbanisme-a-lemergence-de-nouveaux-metiers/. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Pradel B (2019) Temporary, transitional, ephemeral urban planning, definitions to make things clearer. Anthropocène 2050. https://medium.com/anthropocene2050/lurbanisme-temporairetransitoire-%C3%A9ph%C3%A9m%C3%A8re-des-d%C3%A9finitions-pour-y-voir-plusclair-4a94f7916dfb. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Pradel B (2021) Du temporaire au transitoire, retour sur la prise en compte du temps dans l’urbanisme. Millénaire 3. https://www.millenaire3.com/ressources/Du-temporaire-au-transi toire-retour-sur-la-prise-en-compte-du-temps-dans-l-urbanisme. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Rollot M (2018) L’hypothèse collaborative. Conversation avec les collectifs d’architectes français. Hyperville, Paris Sassen S (2001) The global city. Princeton University Press, New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ (Original edn 1991)

110

P. Hamman et al.

Street Plans Collaborative (2021) Tactical urbanist’s guide to materials and design, v.1.0. https:/ /issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tu-guide_to_materials_and_design_v1. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Tonkiss F (2013) Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City 17(3):312–324 Ville de Mulhouse (2020a) Parcourez le centre-ville autrement. Press release. https://www.google. com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwikla2ljsT7AhUecKQ EHVJBCL4QFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mulhouse.fr%2Fwp-content% 2Fuploads%2F2020a%2F09%2FDossier-de-presse-Parcourez-le-centre-ville-autrement.pdf& usg=AOvVaw3T-CDD-C5OMpzRF0wASTRt. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Ville de Mulhouse (2020b) Organisation stratégique après expérimentation. 14 Sept. Oral presentation WHO (2020) Global. France. https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/fr. Accessed 26 Nov 2022 Wohl S (2018) Tactical urbanism as a means of testing relational processes in space: a complex systems perspective. Plann Theor 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095217722809. Accessed 26 Nov 2022

Philippe Hamman is a Full Professor of Sociology at the Institute for Urbanism and Regional Development and Vice-Dean for research of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Strasbourg, France. He is Director of the Master’s program “Cities and Environment” and co-head of the research team “Territorial Dynamics” of the CNRS/University of Strasbourg joint research unit “Societies, Actors and Government in Europe” (UMR 7363). His main research fields deal with urban sociology and sustainability research (especially energy, housing and mobility issues). He holds the EU Jean Monnet Chair “Governance of Integrated Urban Sustainability in Europe (GoInUSE)” (2020–2023). Andreea Grigorovschi is an architect-urbanist, Associate Professor at Strasbourg National School of Architecture (ENSA Strasbourg), France, in the “Architecture, City and Territory” Department, and a researcher at AMUP research unit. She holds a Ph.D. in Urban Architecture from the University of Strasbourg. Her research examines projects, theories and design methods at the crossroads of architecture, urbanism, landscape and territorial planning, focusing on the relationship between infrastructure and spatial environment as a vector of ecological and environmental transition. She is scientific coordinator of the Mobility Chair and academic director of the Sino-French Double Master’s Degree program (ENSAS-CAUP Tongji) at ENSA Strasbourg. Sophie Henck is a research engineer in sociology at the SAGE research unit (UMR 7363), CNRS and University of Strasbourg, France. In the Mut’Action project, she studied the impacts of temporary installations on public space after the first Covid-19 lock down in 2020 regarding urban mobility in intermediate cities of the French Grand Est region. She also supports the seminar and the research conducted in the framework of the EU Jean Monnet Chair “Governance of Integrated Urban Sustainability in Europe (GoInUSE)” (2020–2023). Marie Fruiquière is an architect and urban planner and designer. She has worked as a research engineer for the MUT’Action research project within the AMUP research unit (UR 7309) at the Strasbourg National School of Architecture (ENSA Strasbourg), France, and she is also involved in the Sino-French Innovative Metropolitan Mobility Chair (IMM Chair). At the same time, her Ph.D. thesis deals with the spatialization of environmental transition policies with a particular focus on funerary spaces in metropolitan contexts.

Chapter 9

Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times and the Portuguese Experience Miguel Silva Graça

Abstract In the field of citizen participation, Participatory Budgeting (PB) has gained a world-class position in the last 30 years. Since the first example in Porto Alegre, Brazil (1989), PB was disseminated worldwide and counted, in 2019, with over 11,000 experiences listed across 70 countries. However, the health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant repercussion on participatory processes, especially those that depend on face-to-face interactions, with the suspension of their reconversion through the adoption of digital channels, namely, causing negative impacts on access to the most disadvantaged, vulnerable, or underrepresented people. Portugal was no exception. Before the pandemic, there existed three national PBs, two regional PBs, and around 200 local PBs, but during 2020, only half of these participatory programmes started or kept working. Notably, the chapter brings three Portuguese examples heavily interrupted by the pandemic crisis, one PB at a national scale and two PBs at the local scale, both organised by the city of Lisbon but with different scopes. The chapter concludes by drawing lessons on the present situation of citizens’ engagement in PBs’ processes and advances insights on the new normal in participatory planning. Keywords Citizen participation · Participatory Budgeting · COVID-19 pandemic · Europe · Portugal

9.1 Public Participation From Ancient Greece to the present day, the issue of citizen participation in governing public life has always been inseparable from theorising about democracy as an ideal model for regulating society. The question of how citizen participation in decisionmaking can improve the quality of decisions, has been at the centre of the debate M. S. Graça (B) Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment—University of Coimbra (CITTA—UC), Coimbra, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_9

111

112

M. S. Graça

on the theory and practice of public administration over the last century. Public participation is today a widely spread and recognised concept, being a mechanism that is both effectively used and often incorrectly applied by public administrations, whether in the elaboration of public policies or the management of its relationship with citizens and communities (DeLeon 2005; Denhardt and Denhardt 2015; Peters 2001; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2017). The advantages of public participation are thus commonly discussed today. For example, public participation expands and enriches the range of options to be considered. Furthermore, the involvement of diverse actors, and the mechanisms through which objectives and solutions become shared, is generally a decisive factor for the success of public policies, resulting in greater satisfaction of citizens and the involvement of different stakeholders in the process (André et al. 2006; Arbter et al. 2007). In other words, it is consensual today that public participation is an important way of creating and exchanging knowledge, safeguarding rights, and legitimising decisions. Public participation is also an obligation according to current legislative and democratic principles in many countries. Even though the concept of participation implies a position that tends to level power among decision-makers and citizens, a position from which most decision-makers are not willing to give up (Creighton 2005).

9.2 Participatory Democracy, Citizen Involvement, and Participatory Budgeting Participatory democracy is a mechanism whose goal, amongst others, is to root the political culture of citizens, enhancing the representation of various stakeholders and groups (youth, elders, members of a community, or immigrants, among others). Citizens, in general, are in favour of direct and deliberative participation and, in principle, reject decision-making arising from processes based only on administrative authority without the direct inclusion of the citizens themselves (Beuermann and Amelina 2014). Participatory citizenship in decision-making, whether in more contemporary or traditional forms, is a crucial concept in public administration research and practice. A vital contribution from this field of research is to help all levels of government public decision-makers in their “role” of legitimizing decisions with citizens, partners, and consumers. Also, the broad concept of citizenship rights (Marshall and Bottomore 1992) and the role reserved for the state in its promotion (Mozzicaffredo 2000; Santos 1997) have created the necessary conditions for research on monitoring public policies, whether in their design, implementation, or evaluation. However, several researchers point out that other reasons fostered the “natural” incorporation of public participation in international or national legislation, in addition to ensuring public involvement to render decision-making processes more visibly democratic. For example, Nelson Dias (2013: 19) states that the “universalisation of the principles and procedures of liberal democracy goes hand in hand with the crisis of political representation”, as the consolidation of democracy with “very high abstention rates”.

9 Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times …

113

The crisis of representative democracy, therefore, on the one hand, is due to the growth of political apathy and, on the other, through the rise of direct citizens’ protests—violent and non-violent—against several choices or non-choices in public policies. In this sense, various global crises have been felt globally in several countries in the last decades. All of this discussion contributes to the democratic deficit or crisis of the legitimacy of political systems and leads to frustration and withdrawal of citizens from active political choice. As a result of a growing “crisis of political representation” raised by increasing criticism of existing representative democracies, their deficits, and their pathologies (Santos 2003), a growing distrust for political institutions has created a gap between citizens and the political class. Therefore, the citizens’ voices and more transparent governing methods are required. For this reason, “new social and political movements” have raised to open “a space of conciliation and trust between politicians and citizens” (Dias et al. 2013: 21). In this context, new approaches have emerged in favour of greater involvement of citizens in political power and the definition of public policies. In other words, this “democratic disenchantment” that confronts citizens with their political institutions has itself provoked new windows of opportunity for a new “democratic hope” (Dias et al. 2013: 21). Since the 1990s, the role of social movements has shown the way to promoting legislation, projects, or experiences that have created a new interest in the political movement by civil society. Crucial issues involve citizens expressing their voices and selecting sensitive issues important for deliberative democracy today. In this historical situation, the Participatory Budget was raised as a political instrument. Portugal is not immune to this context of progressive tension between citizens and the political class. An impressive abstention to national and local elections over the last decades and the introduction of new practices and mechanisms of public participation have been under the eyes of most. Participatory Budgeting (PB) processes have been initiated by municipalities and are particularly successful, with Portugal being one of the countries with the highest percentage of PB in the world.

9.3 Participatory Budgeting and the COVID-19 Pandemic As is commonly known, Participatory Budgeting is a form of public participation in which citizens decide the allocation of public money. PB generally works as a mechanism that allows citizens to identify, discuss, and prioritise public spending and gives them the power to decide how to allocate part of a municipal or national budget to a specific intervention or policy. PB has gained a world-class position in the last 30 years in the field of public participation. Its global expansion started from the impact of the first example of PB in Porto Alegre (Brazil) in 1989. And since then, it has been expanding as a significant innovation in local decision-making worldwide, with PBs with over 11,000 experiences listed across 70 countries at the end of 2019. More precisely, the PB World Atlas 2019 (Dias et al. 2019) counted between 11,690 and 11,825 ongoing experiences at a global level. While the majority

114

M. S. Graça

of PBs were found in Europe (4577–4676), followed by Latin America (3061–3081), Asia (2773–2775), and Africa (955–958), fewer PBs were implemented in Northern (178) and Central America (134–142) and Australia (12–15) (Fig. 9.1). However, the health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic had enormous repercussions on people’s lives, on human relations, on the action of states and public administrations, and of course, in direct democracy too. The PB World Atlas 2020–2021 (Dias et al. 2021) reported that one “of the consequences of these almost two years of the pandemic is the evidence of a conceptual narrowing of participatory budgeting”. Not only a narrowing of numbers—as before the pandemic, in the end of 2019, there were 10.081 active PB, in comparison with 4.032 during the pandemic in 2020—but also in terms of being unable “to accompany the evolution and diversification of the processes. In practical terms, PB is insufficient to explain the ongoing phenomena” (Dias et al. 2021: 6). PB World Atlas 2020–2021 underlines that—although the impacts of COVID-19 are pretty different in different parts of the world and countries—besides a negative global balance, also three significant trends have to be recognised: • “Suspension”, that affected around 55% of the initiatives, being the regions most affected by this suspensive wave South America, with an interruption of around 80% of the initiatives, Europe, with 53% of experiences affected, and Africa, with around 47% of the cases interrupted. • “Continuation”, that happened in around 24% of the initiatives, being the regions where this was most evident: North America, with 61%, and Asia, with approximately 53% of initiatives operating regularly.

Fig. 9.1 Participatory Budgeting world. Source Dias et al. (2021: 18–19)

9 Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times …

115

• “Adaptation”, that occurred in around 21% of PBs, that maintained the processes, although with adjustment to the context of the pandemic—i.e. usually the “virtualisation” of the initiatives or the holding of “face-to-face” meetings by the health standards in force with a smaller number of participants—being this tendency more intense in Central America and the Caribbean, in particular the Dominican Republic, with 100% of the cases in operation, and Asia, with a little more than 30% of the initiatives opting for the introduction of adjustments that allowed continuing the processes. The COVID-19 health crisis generated a wave of regression regarding civil liberties and rights on a large scale—in order to safeguard lives and simultaneously boost diverse spheres of the economy. Participatory Budgeting had no immunity in this process. In “just over 30 years of Participatory Budgeting in the world, the trend has always been one of growth, with the balance of new initiatives largely surpassing those that failed. However, 2020 marked the first major inversion of this movement (Fig. 9.2) with the number of discontinued processes surpassing those that worked and those that emerged in the middle of the pandemic” (Dias et al. 2021, p. 25). In Europe, we could find a broad spectrum of PB dissemination, also at the end of 2019, with 5113 active processes in total. Portugal remained in the top five countries with more PBs running, despite diminishing to less than half of active PBs during the pandemic. In 2020, it existed only 2209 PB active processes in Portugal, yet keeping it in second place among the countries with more active processes (Fig. 9.2). The European framework was therefore also heavily affected by the health crisis. COVID-19 was undoubtedly an obstacle to developing around 53% of the PBs’ pre-pandemic initiatives. The rules of confinement and social isolation imposed by

Fig. 9.2 Participatory Budgeting in the world in times of pandemic. Source Dias et al. (2021: 27)

116

M. S. Graça

Fig. 9.3 Participatory Budgeting Europe. Source Dias et al. (2021: 188–189)

the governments were the most common causes for the suspension of Participatory Budgeting across Europe (Fig. 9.3). Many of the PBs that succeeded in operating during the COVID-19 pandemic resorted to using online formats or chose to delay the start to later stages, making them coincide with times when the virus was less widespread. Not only PBs but most public participation initiatives, especially those that depend on face-to-face interactions, have been affected by the pandemic crisis. Suspension or reconversion to digital channels caused negative impacts on access to the most disadvantaged, vulnerable communities (Cabannes 2020) and under-represented citizens (Allegretti and Dias 2020). Nevertheless, some problems of public participation remain the same, also through online civic engagement work. Parts of the “hard-to-reach” population as older people, migrants, or poor and homeless are not easy to reach through digital tools either. And although we are still today collecting data and trying to understand what changed, something we know for sure: public participation has changed in the world, Europe, and Portugal during the pandemic (Fig. 9.4).

9.4 Deepening the Portuguese Experience Portugal deserves special attention in the PB experience for two main reasons. The first reason is the existence of three national PBs—the firsts worldwide, created by the Portuguese Government in 2017, namely Portugal’s Participatory Budgeting (OPP),

9 Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times …

117

Fig. 9.4 National observatory of participatory processes—Portuguese network of participative local entities (RAP). Source http://portugalparticipa.pt/Monitoring/

Portugal’s Youth Participatory Budgeting (OPJP), and the Participatory Budgeting for Schools (OPE). Therefore, Portugal is the only country in the world where the PB is applied at different national, regional, and local scales. The second reason is that since 2017, Portugal is also the only country in the world with national legislation defining the PB as mandatory for implementing public schools (i.e. the OPE as mentioned above). However, Portugal was no exception in the COVID-19 global pandemic scenario. Before this health crisis, Portugal counted three national PBs (OPP, OPJP, and OPE, since 2017), two regionals (OP Azores, since 2018, and OP Madeira, since 2019), and around 200 local PBs. In the enormous uncertainty during the pandemic, public authorities initially announced the interruption or provisional suspension of their participatory processes. In contrast, others decided to postpone, expecting it to be possible to resume activities later in the year. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Portuguese PBs can be seen through several lenses. First, looking at the numeric focus, PBs suspended during 2020 represent 96.4% of the total active processes (Dias et al. 2021: 246). This high value is caused mainly by the fact that all the school PBs (OPE) stopped during 2020 and represented almost 90% of the total Portuguese PBs. Looking at the territorial focus—i.e. to the different national, regional, and local scales—PBs’ processes promoted by municipalities or parishes were affected

118

M. S. Graça

at about 50% of the experiences. The other half of the existing local PBs suffered, in general, extensive methodological adaptations—with the conversion of face-to-face into virtual relationships between citizens and administrations, usually mediated by dedicated websites. We also witnessed, in most of the cases, to the postponement of the implementation schedule, with a specific concentration of cases in the last trimester of the year. Looking at a regional scale, both OP Madeira (OPRAM) and OP Azores (OPA), after a stop during 2020 and 2021, restarted, respectively, in August 2021 and March 2022 by using mixed face-to-face and online digital methods, depending on the health restrictions in force at the time. And also, the non-approval of the Government Budget by the Assembly of the Republic in December 2021 caused a political crisis that led to anticipated national elections at the beginning of 2022. This event stopped the launch of the existing national PBs: OPP, OPJP, and OPE. In the next chapter, between all these different kinds of Portuguese PBs, we will look with more detail to three ongoing processes that were heavily interrupted by the pandemic crisis: one of the PBs with a national scale (OPP, with two editions that took place in 2017 and 2018 and new ones successively scheduled for 2020, 2021, and 2022) and two PBs at the local scale, both organised by the city of Lisbon, but with different scopes. The Lisbon Green PB (designed in 2019) that was not launched in 2020, as planned, but just in March 2021 as a purely digital process. And the Lisbon Schools’ Green PB, which started as a pilot in 2019 in four schools but was interrupted by the pandemic lockdown and school closures.

9.5 Three Portuguese Participatory Budgeting By legislation, Portugal’s Participatory Budgeting (OPP) is a commitment, made since the Programme of the XXI Constitutional Government, that took place in two editions (2017 and 2018). In the first edition of the OPP, in 2017, that allocated 3 million euros, citizens presented 1,034 proposals, which were transformed into 599 projects eligible for voting (202 national and 397 regional). The vote mobilised 78,815 votes (45,531 national and 33,284 regional), which elected 38 winning projects (2 national and 36 regional). In the second edition of the OPP, in 2018, which allocated 5 million euros, citizens presented 1,417 proposals, which were transformed into 691 projects eligible for voting (272 national and 419 regional). As a result, the voting process had 119,703 votes (48,578 national and 71,215 regional), and 22 winning projects were elected (3 national and 19 regional) (Fig. 9.5). In 2019 there was no third edition of the OPP due to the overlapping electoral calendar (European Parliament elections, regional elections in Madeira, and Portuguese legislative elections). In 2020 and 2021—given the COVID-19 pandemic scenario, which caused the suspension of many forms of public participation— priority was given to the execution of ongoing projects, and to the design of future editions. Looking at the two editions of 2017 and 2018—in a total of 60 projects

9 Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times …

119

Fig. 9.5 Participatory Budgeting Portugal (OPP)—2018. Source https://participa.gov.pt/base/ini tiatives/lziWx1oarq/proposals

proposed and voted by citizens—it is possible to observe that 67% of those projects are now concluded. About 28% of the projects are ongoing, and only 5% are to be executed (more precisely, three projects, all in the Autonomous Regions of Azores and Madeira). Also, in 2021, the Government approved a new model of OPP through the Council of Ministers Resolution nº. 130/2021, which establishes the National Day of Participation and approves the rules for the future edition of Portugal’s Participatory Budgeting (OPP) and a new Participatory Budget for the workers of Public Administration (OP-AP or «AP Participa»). However, the scheduling of anticipated national legislative elections—due to the non-approval of the Government Budget— did not allow the launch of these PBs. As, without the budget, citizens could not decide how to spend it. Therefore, the start of these OPP and OP-AP editions, scheduled to start on January 27, 2022, was cancelled. Simultaneously, the marking of the commemoration of the first National Participation Day was also cancelled. A new edition still misses a scheduled date to start at the time of this writing. However, according to the approved rules, this edition will be dedicated to the strategic challenges of the country, defined in the Government’s Programme— “fight against climate change”, “response to the demographic challenge”, “reduction of inequalities”, and “construction of a more digital society”. And its new guidelines are focused in promoting social and territorial cohesion, and local entities’ involvement. That is, proposing a PB more digital, more green and more inclusive.

120

M. S. Graça

9.5.1 Lisbon Green PB Besides the national scale, the trajectory of PBs in Portugal has been heavily affected by the leading role of the Lisbon PB, the first implemented locally in a European capital city in 2008. This example became a nationwide reference for smaller Portuguese cities, which tended to adopt similar mechanisms. So, the Lisbon PB has been the flagship project of the Lisbon City Council in the public participation area, whose goal was to encourage the participation of citizens through the presentation of structuring and locally based proposals. Throughout the last 11 editions, citizens presented 6,743 proposals, that resulted in 139 winning projects and 303,208 thousand votes, corresponding to a total investment value of more than 36 million e. However, the last edition of Lisbon PB has been entirely different. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the process designed in 2019 was not launched in 2020 but just between March and July 2021. As a result of public health restrictions, all face-toface activities were cancelled and just ran through online sessions, and all submission and voting processes were digitalised. The 12th edition of Lisbon PB was dedicated to climate change, and was titled Lisbon Green PB. This topic was a new path that started, namely in the Lisbon PB 11th edition, in 2018–19, which was mainly about social inclusion but also targeted to new sustainable approaches, like the creation of a “Green Seal” for proposals that advocated for climate change mitigation or the creation of bicycle mobile voting stations. Being therefore a preparation for the next edition that aimed at “greening cities through participatory budgeting” (Cabannes 2021). It was essential to this context that the City of Lisbon won the European Green Capital 2020 award—recognising the work that the Municipality was developing over the last decade by establishing decarbonisation targets for 2030 and 2050. This issue appeared as a marking kick-off of a broad collective movement of actions (Fig. 9.6) and involvement of the population in Lisbon, also concerning the environmental sustainability goals of the city and the construction of a stronger voice of the citizens themselves, like at other European cities, in the fight against climate change. Besides the Lisbon Green PB, the past four years have also been devoted to the creation of a new group of climate change influenced participation tools, like the “Green Seal” for PB proposals, a Green Participatory Budgeting for Elementary and Junior High Schools, or a “Green Commitment” Platform for organisations and enterprises. While the Lisbon Green PB project was in preparation, the last two started in 2019 as pilot projects. Nevertheless, unfortunately, at the beginning of 2020, the COVID19 pandemic stopped both of them. Furthermore, as in 2021, Lisbon was designated as the European Capital of Sport, both these commitments and approaches had no chance but to be merged into a “Green and Sporty” Participatory Budgeting, accepting only proposals that promote both sustainability and sports practice. Therefore, in the Lisbon Green PB edition it were presented 251 proposals, that originated 69 projects in several different thematic areas, and that after voting resulted in more 23 winning

9 Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times …

121

Fig. 9.6 Twelfth edition of Lisbon Participatory Budgeting (2021). Source https://op.lisboapartic ipa.pt

projects, which collected 11,247 votes, summing up to 162 projects and an investment of 38,918,676 e in all editions. From 2008 until today, the status of the winning projects can be seen in real-time on the Lisboa Participa website. Regarding the 162 winning projects, since the first edition, 56% of projects have been completed (91 projects), currently, 14% are in construction (22 projects), and 30% are under study (49 projects, 22 of which are from the last edition).

9.5.2 Lisbon Schools Green PB The Green Participatory Budgeting for Elementary and Junior High Schools, or Lisbon Schools Green PB, started at the end of 2019. The process was not affected initially by the COVID-19 pandemic, it was face-to-face and focused on school students’ participation from 10 to 16 years old. The focus was exclusively on “green” proposals, discussed with the school community, and on environmental education and citizenship. Being the students able to vote the proposals they wanted to be implemented in their school, among the 12 that existed in a catalogue, organised in six different areas: energy, water, nature and biodiversity, waste, mobility, and education for sustainability. In this first year of the experiment, four primary schools were chosen in Lisbon with a budget of 10,000e per school. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, extending the pilot initiated in 2019 to the following year and in all primary schools in the city was impossible. All activities scheduled from February 2020 onwards (Fig. 9.7) were interrupted by the pandemic lockdown and school closures. Till today, the programme never resumed, and no further activities happened.

122

M. S. Graça

Fig. 9.7 Lisbon schools PB (2019/2020). Source https://www.facebook.com/lisboaparticipa— adapted by the author

9.6 Final Remarks and Future Lines of Research In the Portuguese context, many instruments are available to promote and deepen public participation. However, participatory democracy depends on societal processes, and there are some lessons to learn from the present post-health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be related to citizens’ engagement in the “new normal” on participatory planning. The landscape of active participatory processes has radically changed during the pandemic. Reducing both in number and quality, PB suffered a significant and perceptible impact as a result of COVID-19, with the dramatic suspension or reconversion of ongoing programmes through the adoption of digital channels and methods. Going the opposite direction, in the case of the Lisbon PB, from the two of the most important innovations of the 11th edition that were its democratisation and financial reinforcement. On the one hand, through the de-digitalisation of the process, by promoting less digital and more face-to-face methods with special attention to the involvement of those usually excluded from public participation processes, like youngsters, seniors, and migrants (Graça 2018). On the other hand, the financial reinforcement was materialised through an increase to e 5 million, doubling the previous figure of e 2.5 million. However, this reinforcement was later cancelled due to the financial effort required to fight the COVID-19 disease. As described above, in the three case studies—i.e. OPP (digital, green, and inclusive), Lisbon PB (green and sporty proposals), and Lisbon Schools PB (green projects catalogue)—these project started a “green” trend even if the COVID-19 pandemic didn’t allow to fully developed them. The OPP was successively postponed for different reasons (elections, COVID-19, and non-approval of the Government Budget). The Lisbon PB happened more than one year later than planned, and exclusively as a digital process. And the Lisbon Schools Green PB started as a pilot

9 Lockdown Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in Pandemic Times …

123

project involving four primary schools, and despite in 2020, this programme should have been extended to all 45 schools in Lisbon, that did not happen at all. On the other hand, if PB can be, in fact, a mechanism that can include actors typically under-represented in participatory processes and strengthen access to the most disadvantaged and vulnerable citizens, generally forgotten in normal routinised public participation practice (Barreto 2021; Serrano et al. 2021). One of the biggest challenges for today’s public administration remains to integrate, in the decision processes, the active participation of these populations, in order to articulate the aspirations of communities with the strategic goals and financial resources of the state. PB is therefore a process that—if correctly led—can contribute to a better performance of the governments themselves by providing a better public service and pursuing fairer public policies, and therefore to have more inclusive and sustainable local policies, that promote social and territorial equity. There are therefore several lessons learned from the Portuguese experience during the pandemic. As we have seen throughout the many lockdown, the transition to digital participation is not yet ready to replace face-to-face performance. However, a reflection should be done on the general momentum of this “new normal”. Is PB decreasing on its political relevance, after a time of encouragement, hopes and achievements? Despite PB is seen as a democratic innovation, and specifically a tool for citizen’s engagement, can it really help to create a significant commitment to sustainability, as announced by many participatory projects in Portugal and all around the globe? The COVID-19 restrictions have highlighted several problems of this participatory tool, however, the changes experienced during the pandemic can be also seen as the opening towards other forms of political innovation. And maybe this “new normal” helped bringing to the light precisely the key points that will be crucial to explore in the future.

References Allegretti G, Dias N (2020) How to manage and reimagine Participatory Budgeting in COVID and post-COVID era? Evidences from a mutual learning space for Portuguese local authorities. Les Budgets Participatifs En 2020: La Participation sans Démocratie? Journée d’études - 23/24 November 2020, Paris [Unpublished] Andres P, Enserink B, Desmond C, Croal P (2006) Public participation: international best practice principles. Special Publication Series No. 4. International Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo, USA Arbter K, Handler M, Purker E, Tappeiner G, Trattnigg R (2007) The public participation manual: shaping the future together. Austrian Society for Environment and Technology/ Lebensministerium, Vienna Beuermann DW, Amelina M (2014) Does participatory budgeting improve decentralised public service delivery? IDB Working Paper Series, n.º 547. Inter-American Development Bank, New York Barreto A (2021) Contribuições da participação para o combate à exclusão na Administração Local: o caso do Orçamento Participativo de Lisboa. ISCTE—IUL, Lisboa Cabannes Y (2020) Participatory Budgeting contributions to leave no one behind and no place behind: lessons from the past three decades—final draft 3. UN-Habitat [Working Paper, Unpublished]

124

M. S. Graça

Cabannes Y (2021) Greening cities through Participatory Budgeting: Answers to climate change from Lisbon, Portugal and Molina de Segura, Spain. Lisbon: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa; Zürich: City Finance Lab / Amsterdam: EIT Climate-KIC / Paris: FMDV / Barcelona: IOPD / Zürich: South Pole Creighton JL (2005) The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Deleon L (2005) Public management, democracy, and politics. The Oxford handbook of public management, Oxford University Press Denhardt RB, Denhardt JV (2015) The new public service: serving rather than steering. In Roberts NC (ed) The age of direct citizen participation. Routledge Dias N (2013) Esperança Democrática: 25 anos de Orçamentos Participativos no Mundo. Associação In Loco, São Brás de Alportel (Portugal) Dias N (2018) Hope for democracy: 30 years of participatory budgeting worldwide. Epopeia/ Oficina, Faro, Portugal Dias N, Enríquez S, Júlio S (org) (2019) The participatory budgeting World Atlas 2019. Epopeia/ Oficina, Faro, Portugal Dias N, Enríquez S, Cardita R, Júlio S, Serrano T (org) (2021) The Participatory Budgeting World Atlas 2020–2021. Epopeia/Oficina, Faro, Portugal Falanga R (2018) Critical trends of citizen participation in policymaking. Insights from Portugal. Changing Societies: Legacies and Challenges 2:295–318 Falanga R, Verheij J, Bina O (2020) Green(er) cities and their citizens: insights from the participatory budget of Lisbon. Sustainability 2021(13):8243 Graça MS, Craveiro T, Brito M (2014) Contributos para um planeamento municipal inclusivo e participado na cidade de Lisboa: O Programa Local de Habitação (PLH) e os Bairros/Zonas de Intervenção Prioritária (BIP/ZIP). Livro de Atas do PLURIS’ 2014 - 6.º Congresso LusoBrasileiro para o Planeamento Urbano, Regional, Integrado e Sustentável.: FAUTL/USP/UFSC/ UM, Lisboa, pp 1834–1845 Graça MS (2018) Participação Pública: mecanismos e práticas no contexto da Administração Pública e o Caso do Orçamento Participativo de Lisboa. ISCTE—IUL, Lisboa Marshall TH, Bottomore T (1992) Citizenship and social class.: Pluto Press, Londres (1ª Ed. 1950) Mozzicafreddo J (2000) Estado-Providência e Cidadania em Portugal, 2.ª Ed. Celta Editora, Oeiras Peters BG (2001) The future of governing, 2th edn. University Press of Kansas Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2017) Public management reform: a comparative analysis—into the age of austerity, 4th edn. Oxford University Press Santos BS (1997) Pela mão de Alice: O social e o político na pós-modernidade. Afrontamento, Porto (1.ª Ed., 1994) Santos BS (2003) Democratizar a democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa. Edições Afrontamento, Porto Serrano TJ, Dias N, Cardita R (2021) A inclusão de grupos sub-representados nos processos participativos. Oficina, Faro, Portugal Sintomer Y, Herzberg C, Allegretti G (2012a) Learning from the south: participatory budgeting worldwide—an invitation to global cooperation. Global Civic Engagement—Service for Development Initiatives, Bonn Sintomer Y, Herzberg C, Rocke A, Allegretti G (2012b) Transnational models of citizen participation: the case of participatory budgeting. J Public Deliberation 8(2), Article 9

Miguel Silva Graça Architect. Ph.D. in Urban Planning. Master in Public Administration. Degree in Architecture. Senior Researcher at the Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment—University of Coimbra (CITTA—UC), since 2011. Author of several books, chapters of books and scientific articles regarding public participation, innovation, local planning and retail urbanism.

Chapter 10

Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory Budgeting in Budapest, Hungary Gabriella Kiss, Máté Csukás, and Dániel Oross

Abstract Pandemic and social distancing are not conducive to the implementation of participatory processes based on deliberation. In our research, the resilience of a newly established participatory institution was examined during the pandemic. The first announcement of participatory budgeting (PB) introduced in Budapest (Hungary) coincided with the appearance of the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter explores the participatory decision-making aspects of innovation in Budapest between 2020 and 2021. The main questions are the following: (1) How do different decision-makers in Hungary react to the crisis? and (2) How did the pandemic affect the different PB solutions in Budapest? The results show that resilience and fair deliberation generally do not help each other and that relevant trade-offs occur in the time of pandemic and social distancing. Hungarian experiences of participation during the pandemic reflect the resilience of the process of PB in Budapest and show that a continuous redesign of engagement strategies and the real commitment of the decision-makers was essential. The chapter draws on the change of such a commitment in participatory design to discuss a possible “new normal” in the required efforts in participation in a pandemic and post-pandemic world. Keywords Participatory budgeting · Deliberation · Resilience · Democratic innovation · Exogenous shocks

G. Kiss (B) Department of Decision Sciences, Corvinus University of Budapest, F˝ovám tér 8., Budapest, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] M. Csukás Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Corvinus University of Budapest, F˝ovám tér 8., Budapest, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] D. Oross Institute for Political Science, Centre for Social Sciences, Tóth Kálmán utca 4., Budapest, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_10

125

126

G. Kiss et al.

10.1 Introduction The organizational response to different external effects or shocks is not new in the literature of management sciences. The so-called agile organization concept is a well-known concept in organizational studies (Tsourveloudis and Valavanis 2002) and experienced in the last years in corporate practice, as well amid the COVID-19 pandemic (Janssen and van der Voort 2020). It is built on the concept that everchanging environment organizations need to be flexible and ready to answer external challenges. Agile and adaptive governance adds flexibility, dynamism, and stability to these so-called agile organizations (Holbeche 2015). As the boundaries between business and public organizations are becoming narrower (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011), the challenges are normally different from those of businesses. The financial planning of a public organization is based on a predetermined public budget, i.e., a 1-year period. Public organizations tend to be less aware of a changing environment. Due to the rapid change in the environment, the organizational capabilities of companies are also appreciated by public institutions if they are keen to adapt and give appropriate responses in times of crisis. The rapid adaptation and short responses to exogenous shocks became “normal” in public organizations as well due to the pandemic (Ansell et al. 2021). In that sense, it is worth understanding how public institutions give responses in different areas, to COVID-19 as an exogenous shock, such as in their participative processes. This is especially true with the present conditions, as the role of equity is ever increasing in the new forms of urban planning and the citizen-centric role of public administration (Csukás and Szabó 2021). Municipal institutions all over the world had to react and respond to challenges related to the health crisis in a wide range of areas in 2020 and 2021. In the case of Budapest (the capital of Hungary), these challenges have coincided with the implementation of new democratic innovations over time. Citizen involvement is an innovation for the public institution in Central and Eastern Europe, and the activation of citizens is also a new area for the administration at the municipal level; in this sense, participatory governance has not been “normal” in Hungary so far. In that innovative approach, participatory budgeting (PB) is a new experience for local authorities in Hungary and Budapest (Oross and Kiss 2021). PB is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget (Sintomer et al. 2016). Although the definition of this phenomenon and its different modes of implementation are the focus of the literature, we did not want to discuss it here. In this chapter, we analyze the participatory decision-making aspects of this innovation in Budapest between 2020 and 2021 and explore the experiences of the participation and governance practices and the public institutions’ responses to the exogenous shock of the health crisis. The main questions are the following: (1) How do different decision-makers in Hungary react to the crisis? and (2) How did the pandemic affect the different PB solutions in Budapest? We approach this topic from economic and political science points of view and raise questions using these approaches. In answering these questions, we are to discuss a possible “new normal” in participation, especially in the case of PB in a pandemic and post-pandemic world.

10 Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory …

127

10.2 Participatory Governance and Exogenous Shocks At present, the scientific literature is generally not mature in terms of the impact of COVID-19 on participatory decision-making. An era of accelerating crises assumes an environment with increased cases of immediate, nondeliberative, and secretive decisions coming from the elites (Hart 1972). Empirical evidence shows that in contexts of current crisis, caused by such external shock, governments tend to repress citizen opportunities to take part in decision-making. These measures may take the form of exceptional and extra-legal measures, which pose the risk of growing citizen mistrust and the rollback of citizen participation (Falanga, 2020). As the weaknesses of our democratic processes are exposed, deliberative democracy can offer innovative solutions to such new emerging challenges (Curato et al. 2022). Considering the preliminary observations of the various action paths that local governments followed during their reactions to the crisis, there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of participatory decision-making and governance during crises caused by exogenous shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid the climate crisis we face, it is a reasonable prediction to expect an ever-growing scale of such exogenous shocks to the political structures of our social fabric, including environmental, health, energy, and economic crises. As theory suggests, this means a growing need for non-participatory, centralized, and expert-centric ways of decision-making and the invasion of complex organizations, with significant negative effects on citizenship (Hart 1972). Thus, the question arises whether we will experience concentrating political power during the forthcoming crisis-ridden times or whether the promise of participative decision-making methods, such as PB can be extended beyond coping with the general crisis of liberal democracy—the “malaise of democracy”, or the “global retreat of democracy”—i.e., people’s declining confidence in democratic institutions, a high degree of electoral abstinence, and political disaffection (Dias 2020; Moir and Leyshon 2013; Porto de Oliveira 2017; Sintomer et al. 2012; Su 2017). A new field of participatory expertise, “corona governance”, has emerged recently. There are multiple models of corona governance identified around the globe, opening up new discourses (Teivainen and Huotari 2020). It is a key objective of researchers to contribute to these newly opened discourses of participation and crisis by providing information and recommendations to public governance decision-makers, who are engaged, or who are planning to engage with participatory governance methods, such as PB. In a public health crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, public officials need first-hand knowledge to cope with and plan for such exogenous shocks. The way in which citizen participation arises in times of crisis is an important challenge of public administration (Falanga 2020). Based on our previous analysis of PB city cases, observed during the most difficult times of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, the quality of participation and deliberation has been seriously reduced due to the crisis (Bhusal 2020). Boin et al. (2020) highlight three challenges with which governments had to cope: (1) the challenge of reassessment—which measures must be taken, which should be discarded; (2) the challenge of accountability—who is responsible

128

G. Kiss et al.

for what, who should act, and when; and (3) the challenge of learning—the most important lessons from one’s own and external sources to increase future pandemic resilience. In observing the various responses to the corona crisis of cities with a longestablished tradition of PB, we see different approaches. The cradle of PB, Porto Alegre suspended the cycle of 2020/2021; Sao Paulo canceled public hearings and reduced their budget. In the first case in the USA, the 49th Ward of Chicago merged two cycles and emphasized the role of online voting while still leaving a small room for personal interactions. In Taipei, the process was also suspended. In European examples, the use of online platforms prevailed, thereby reducing deliberation and offline interactions. Based on these examples, the municipalities, where participation and PB have been institutionalized for decades, are also facing difficulties. When considering the impact of reorganization on the integrity and core values of participatory processes, those decision-makers chose several solutions. Most solutions are needed to address the issue of equity, accessibility, and the survival of these participatory institutions themselves. In our research, the resilience of a newly established participatory institution, namely PB, was examined during the pandemic in Hungary.

10.3 The Case: Participatory Budgeting in Budapest 2020–2021 10.3.1 Regulatory Background of the COVID-19 Time in Hungary To understand the local government’s responses to the crisis, we must first see the broader context of the pandemic in Hungary. The responses of public institutions to COVID-19 as an exogenous shock depend partly on the legal background. According to the Fundamental Law adopted in 2011, a “State of Danger” (Art 53.), a constitutional emergency regime, was applied in Hungary in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Gárdos-Orosz 2020). Declared on March 11, 2020, the emergency regime empowered the government to issue decrees, suspending or completing certain parliamentary acts, and to create new decrees with the effect of an act of parliament to tackle the dangerous situation. In general, the Hungarian case shows an experience of concentrating political power, at least at a national level. Mostly, government decrees were adopted to manage the situation although in some cases the chief medical officer of the state also had an important role as a regulative authority. As in many other countries, there were measures to enforce social distancing, restricting the right to free movement. Measures included closing schools and universities, bars, bans on gatherings and attending sports events, etc. A limited curfew was introduced through a ban on leaving home during certain periods and restricting freedom of movement for all

10 Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory …

129

but essential reasons, such as receiving medical care, shopping, exercise, etc. The borders were closed to all cross-border traffic. In practice, the new provision was not debated greatly in public, and there was a great degree of obeyance to the rules (Fekete 2020). Specific rules on the operation of the justice system were, on the other hand, more echoed in scholarship. The government imposed an extraordinary “justice break” on March 15, 2020. The changing national legal environment had a huge impact on local democracy in Hungary: a decree defined that “In an emergency, the duties and powers of the body of representatives of the municipal government, the metropolitan and county assemblies are exercised by the mayor, or the president of the county assembly” (Decree Nr. 15/ 2021 [I.22]). In practice, this decree limited elected representatives’ ability to make decisions, as the municipal decision council was not convened by the mayor. Thus, the institutional system of representative democracy has also been limited in decisionmaking at the local level. Some measures of the government were taken not only for the safety of the public but were also motivated by party political competition. The government declared that municipalities should redirect revenues to the central budget. The mandatory increase in public transportation services or banning the collection of parking fees to incentivize people to drive has meant further extra costs and reduced income for local governments without any central compensation (Dobos 2020). As newly elected mayors of Budapest witnessed a notable share of their budget evaporate, they focused on inexpensive and rather symbolic decisions, such as extending the network of bike lanes or introducing PB.

10.3.2 Participatory Budgeting in Budapest 2020–2021 PB is a relatively new phenomenon in Budapest. In 2016, the local government of the 19th district of Budapest (Kispest) enabled citizens to choose from 16 development projects defined by the municipality, thus introducing the institution of a “community budget” (an early form of PB in Budapest). In 2018, items to be put to the ballot were selected from local suggestions, and the municipality ensured that part of the district’s budget (100,000 EUR) was allocated directly by citizens. In 2019, the 22nd district of Budapest also decided to provide 1,000,000 EUR for PB. Inspired by these “pilot projects”, the opposition candidates running for mayor of Budapest in the 2019 local government elections promised in their manifestos, to involve society in urban decision-making and to experiment with the practice of PB at city level as well. As the opposition parties gained the majority in the General Assembly of Budapest and several districts of the city following the 2019 municipal elections, in addition to the Budapest municipality, several local governments of Budapest (1st, 3rd, 8th, 9th, 13th districts) allocated a small sum (about 1%) for local PB as part of their annual budget of 2020 and 2021. Since PB in Budapest has a maximum of 6 years of operation and no legal background, the process is in an experimental phase in most cases (Oross and Kiss 2021). The experimental nature of the processes stems also from the fact that Budapest has

130

G. Kiss et al.

a dual self-government system: there are different models of PB in the districts and in the city council of Budapest. From a comparative perspective, PB in Budapest mostly resembles the participatory modernization model of Sintomer et al. (2016, 47) that offers consultation on public finances for citizens and gives local people a say in planning a small percentage of the total budget. Different methods are used in each district and in the city council. Deliberation and face-to-face forums are an important part of the city council, whereas elsewhere project submissions and voting dominate the process.

10.4 Research Method We have presented the pandemic situation in Hungary and the situation of the establishment of PB. We can ask the relevant question of how the decision-makers in this crisis situation responded to the pandemic in connection with the establishment of PB. What lessons can be learned from these experiences in terms of participation and the pandemic/social distancing? In this case, i.e., the city of Budapest during the pandemic in 2020–2021, we conducted exploratory research to understand these practices. We had two research questions: (1) How do different decision-makers in Hungary react to the crisis? (2) How did the pandemic affect the different PB solutions in Budapest? To answer these research questions, qualitative research was conducted using document analysis, participant observations, and semi-structured interviews. The combination of these methods ensured the reliability of the result (Miles et al. 2018). Data were collected systematically for every district and the Municipality of Budapest, which initiated PB in 2020–2021. During the document analysis, available information about the different processes of the districts of Budapest and the city council were collected, especially written concepts, online communication materials, newspapers, videos, and website content. Participant observation was applied in online and offline events (forums, walks, council meetings). Between April 2020 and November 2021, 23 semi-structured interviews were conducted mainly on online platforms or in person (if it was feasible). The interviewees were selected via snowball method and purposive sampling. To gain different views about PB processes, the interviewees represented every territory and the three main stakeholder groups of these processes: experts, organizers, and participants. In this regard, interviewees were representatives of local governments, experts in PB in civil society organizations, and participants in citizens’ budgetary councils. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using NVivo software and data-driven thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006).

10 Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory …

131

10.5 Results As a result of our analysis of the PB processes in Budapest in 2020–2021, it is concluded that the decision-makers at local governments chose several solutions: processes were transferred to the online space, events were delayed, hybrid solutions were tried, but complete abolition was also included in the decisions. Generally, five different types of solutions were shown in the different cases. Each process changed depending on the extent to which personal encounters, forums, and deliberation were determining elements before. All the cases and the responses can be seen in Fig. 10.1. The five responses are discovered in the Budapest case during the pandemic: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Cancelation. Postponement. Reduced mode. Online implementation. Hybrid implementation.

Cancelation: The most radical reaction to the crisis can be seen in this response. The decision-makers of the first district decided to abolish the planned PB in 2020. In this case, the PB was in the planning phase, and because of the significant budget cuts, the local government decided not to start the process and canceled the announcement. Postponement: Two different districts decided to delay the whole process before its announcement. In the case of the 8th district and 9th district, the budgetary issues were the main reasons, as both districts suffered from significant budget reductions. These decision-makers postponed the process until the normalization of the local government’s operative processes. The other reason why the eighth district decided

Fig. 10.1 Types of Participatory Budgeting Responses in Budapest during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–21

132

G. Kiss et al.

to postpone it was the deliberative nature of their plans. This process is built on a bottom-up planning process, involving the citizens street by street in discussions and debate on PB itself. Social distancing and the pandemic crisis posed a fundamental obstacle to this kind of process. Reduced mode: In the case of the 19th district, which has long experience in the organization of PB, the decision-makers decided on simplification and delay of elements related to the process. PB was announced, but the realization of the voted projects was delayed. The whole process was simplified, and forum elements were abandoned. The result was a lower level of participation, a smaller-scale solution, but the process itself did not stop. Online implementation: As an adaptation strategy, many authorities decided to use online solutions for communication and participation. Three districts decided to implement the PB process in a totally online version. The 3rd, 13th, and 22nd districts set the PB process in an online space, and the collection of ideas and voting were mainly online. The complete absence of deliberation is characteristic of these processes. The response to this online implementation was a reduction in forums, discussions, and meetings. In the 3rd district, online communication was a strong element, and the online solutions included the visualization of the submitted projects on a map. In the case of the 13th district, 2021 was the first year when PB was announced. Their solution was implemented for the first time on an online platform. Hybrid implementation: The case of the Municipality of Budapest involves a different response to the pandemic situation. This is due, among other things, to the fact that the city council had more resources and that a larger process had been originally planned. It was an important part of the strategy of decision-makers to preserve the most important elements of the deliberative process based on discussion and encounters. The main steps of this process are shown in Fig. 10.2. When the pandemic allowed, events (forums, walks, games) were held offline. However, with changes in epidemiological regulations, the processes were transferred to an online space from time to time. The most different element of the municipality’s process was a decision-making phase based on deliberation, where a council of citizens (Citizens Budgetary Council) proposed which ideas should be put to the vote. This was done entirely online. However, the ability to get involved online narrowed the fairness of the process because disadvantaged groups were unable to get involved or it was very difficult for them to do so in this way. The fact that deliberation occurred shows how committed the decision-maker was to deliberation, transparency, and participation. The various responses, given by the institutions to the situation caused by COVID19, shed light on a few points. It is clear from the responses that in addition to the pandemic situation and social distancing, the economic effects were also decisive. While social distancing and the spread of the pandemic had an impact on forums and deliberation, economic effects, such as government withdrawals, made participation processes largely impossible or even eliminated them. Such a drastic change in the economic and public health environment has destroyed the resilience of some processes.

10 Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory …

133

PB process – Municipality of Budapest 2020-21 Communication and Information (online and offline) from october 2020 Proposal submission online & offline Evaluation of proposals

Further development of proposals

Public voting online & offline Citizen Budgetary Council (online) 04/17-04/18

2021

2020 OCT

Results 24/08

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Fig. 10.2 PB process—Municipality of Budapest 2020–2021 (Source own compilation based on outlet.budapest.hu)

10.6 Discussion General theories of decision-making and citizen participation suggest that a crisis is mostly suitable for contra-participative methods, where authority is centralized, and emergency measures are adopted by the elite (Curato et al. 2022; Hart 1972). The crisis-abundant times of the recent and upcoming decades therefore project a future environment with even fewer opportunities for participative methods, such as PB, which also further accelerates the perceived decadence of liberal democracy and the deterioration of public belief in democracy. If this process is to be halted, then the new normal shall be a different environment, in which local governments need to implement participatory decision-making in a crisis, with the efficiency of the central authority and complex organizations. The case of Budapest shows that even during the pandemic, the will of the Municipality of Budapest to strengthen democracy in the city is sufficient to adapt and improve PB for its citizens. In local government decision-making, responses to a crisis may show the resilience of an institutionalized process. In connection with the analysis of the Budapest case, it is obviously important to consider the situation of local governments in Hungary. The political environment in which they operate and the change in the national legal environment largely determine the operating environment of decision-makers. Conflicts between national and local government actors affect the overall functioning of local governments, and this can determine participatory processes. As we have seen from the results, the reduction in resources is one of the key factors in shaping responses. Nevertheless, in a crisis, the amounts earmarked for funding participatory processes will likely be reallocated due to other increased expenditures. This can happen even if the PB process itself remains but continues to operate with a smaller budget.

134

G. Kiss et al.

The response to exogenous shocks, in the case of participatory processes, requires a rethinking and redesign of the steps and even the concept of the whole process. The cases seemed to be an important issue for decision-makers, which are the most important values of the process for them: the bottom-up structure and fairness or the creation of continuity and innovation. The answers to these can also be seen to differ along with the decisions. However, redesigning or continually redesigning processes requires significant resources: time, money, and creative capacity on the human resource side as well. The time required for redesign is also reflected in the slippage and postponement of the processes. In the responses we can see that, it was decicive if the given municipality could provide additional resources for the transformation of the participatory process mainly for the development of online solutions and for the redesign. If these were not available, reduction or postponement became the dominant response. If the resources were available to set up online platforms and create online communication, then responses were made in this direction as well and increased the resilience of these processes. The commitment of decision-makers and the quality of participation can also be reflected in the redesign presented earlier. If decision-makers are committed to conducting discussion and debate in the PB process and ensuring fair participation, retreats may result in cancelation or a move toward hybrid solutions. We can also see in international practice that bottom-up processes based on deliberation are typically not resilient in economic and health crises. In addition, forms of participatory decision-making that do not place as much emphasis on them can adapt more flexibly to changes in the external environment. Which type of response will characterize the new normal may be a matter of the commitment of the decision-makers and may differ from case to case.

10.7 Conclusion What is the “new normal” in the PB of Budapest? As our entire world has been in a state of uncertainty since the end of 2019, so too does this uncertainty characterize the processes of participation and budgeting. The continuous redesign of processes is becoming an integral part of these institutions. What we assume, based on the case of Budapest, is that the uncertain organizational structures and changes introduced in the process do not call for the need of cancelation if the commitment and capacities of the local government are sufficient. If the “normal” way of doing things is not feasible anymore, PB is as adaptable to new boundaries as other aspects of governance. In the case of Budapest, we do not know what has to be accepted as normal because the initial phase of these processes mainly coincided with the beginning of the pandemic, thus the continuous rethinking and returning present from the beginning. The political and economic atmosphere in Hungary is also part of the picture, and it is not necessarily considered normal, i.e., a system of norms accepted by society. The new normal does not always change the business-as-usual case in terms of social inequality or injustice (see also Chime 2020).

10 Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory …

135

As we concluded from this research, the PB processes in 2020 and 2021 were characterized by the reduction of participation and accessibility. It questions the fairness of these processes as the underprivileged groups are even more marginalized in terms of opportunities for participation. In that case, those who also had limited access to other resources in the pandemic (healthcare and education) were also excluded from these so-called PB processes. Therefore, the PB did not develop social discourse on different topics but created imbalanced accessibility to the decision-making for different social groups. To better understand these findings, it is also important to know the citizens’ side. Therefore, we see the need for further research on equity and resilience, extending the research to the views of citizens. What do citizens prefer in terms of openness and participation in such situations, and what resilience capabilities shall governments develop, which help them to adapt, retain, or even enhance their inclusive deliberation practices? It is a vast question to consider how the PB processes with different experiences and traditions responded to the crisis and what the results were in other geographical regions and different political environments. Therefore, it is worth examining the responses of the PB processes to the economic and health crisis on an international scale, especially concerning how online and hybrid solutions affected the fairness and competence of the process, to what extent the use of online platforms helped the survival of these processes, and to what extent equity and deliberation aspects were violated. Acknowledgements The work of Dániel Oross was funded by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund, Grant Number (PD_131408).

References Ansell C, Sørensen E, Torfing J (2021) The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Manag Rev 23(7):949–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272 Bhusal T (2020) Citizen participation in times of crisis: understanding participatory budget during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal. ASEAN J Community Engagement 4(2):321–341. https:// doi.org/10.7454/ajce.v4i2.1103 Boin A, Lodge M, Luesink M (2020) Learning from the COVID-19 crisis: an initial analysis of national responses. Policy Des Pract 3(3):189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.182 3670 Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Chime A (2020) There’s nothing new about the ‘new normal’. Here’s why. In: World economic forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/theres-nothing-new-aboutthis-new-normal-heres-why/. Accessed on 27 Jan 2022 Csukás MS, Szabó RZ (2021) The many faces of the smart city: differing value propositions in the activity portfolios of nine cities. Cities 112:103116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021. 103116 Curato N, Sass J, Ercan SA, Niemeyer S (2022) Deliberative democracy in the age of serial crisis. Int Polit Sci Rev 43(1):55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120941882

136

G. Kiss et al.

de Oliveira OP (2017) International policy diffusion and participatory budgeting. Springer International Publishing, Cham Dias N (2020) Hope for democracy. Oxford University Press, New York Dobos G (2020) Dekoncentrált válságkezelés? In: Körösényi A, Szabó A, Böcskei B (eds) Vírusba oltott politika. Világjárvány és politikatudomány. Napvilág Kiadó, Budapest, pp 109–119 Falanga R (2020) Citizen participation during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from local practices in European cities. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10451/45726. Accessed on 10 Aug 2022 Fekete B (2020) Az emberekb˝ol el˝obukkant az empátia (The people care). MTA Law Working Paper 2020/18. Retrieved from https://jog.tk.mta.hu/mtalwp/az-emberekbol-elobukkant-az-empatiamikroantropologiai-kutatas-a-tarsadalmi-tavolsagtartas-szabalyainak-mukodeserol. Accessed on 27 Jan 2022 Gárdos-Orosz F (2020) Covid-19 and the responsiveness of the Hungarian constitutional system. In: de la Garza JMS (ed) Covid-19 and Constitutional Law. Covid-19 et droit constitutionnel. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, Mexico, pp 157–165 Hart DK (1972) Theories of government related to decentralization and citizen participation. Public Adm Rev 32:603–621. https://doi.org/10.2307/975228 Holbeche LS (2015) The agile organization: how to build an innovative, sustainable and resilient business, 2nd edn. Kogan Page Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.perlego.com/book/158 9789/the-agile-organization-pdf. Accessed on 25 Jan 2022 Janssen M, van der Voort H (2020) Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Inf Manage 55:102180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020. 102180 Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J (2018) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 4th edn. SAGE Publications, London Moir E, Leyshon M (2013) The design of decision-making: participatory budgeting and the production of localism. Local Environ 18(9):1002–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839. 2012.752798 Oross D, Kiss G (2021) More than just an experiment? Politicians arguments behind introducing participatory budgeting in Budapest. Acta Politica. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1057/s41 269-021-00223-6. Accessed on 16 Aug 2022 Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis—new public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press, Oxford Sintomer Y, Herzberg C, Röcke A, Allegretti G (2012) Transnational models of citizen participation: the case of participatory budgeting. J Public Deliberation 8(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.141 Sintomer Y, Röcke A, Herzberg C (2016) Participatory budgeting in Europe: democracy and public governance. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315599472 Su C (2017) From Porto Alegre to New York City: participatory budgeting and democracy. New Polit Sci 39(1):67–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2017.1278854 Teivainen T, Huotari P (2020) Democratic horizons in times of corona governance. In: Opendemocracy. Retrieved from https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/openmovements/democratichorizons-times-corona-governance/. Accessed on 10 Aug 2022 Tsourveloudis NC, Valavanis KP (2002) On the measurement of enterprise agility. J Intell Rob Syst 33:329–342. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015096909316

Gabriella Kiss, is a Ph.D. in ecological economy and an associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Decision Sciences. She teaches decision-making-related courses and ecological economics at CUB. Her research interest is participatory decision-making in environmental issues and sustainable lifestyles. She also conducted research on the topic of participatory learning processes on sustainability issues in higher education.

10 Social Distancing and Participation: The Case of Participatory …

137

Máté Csukás is a Ph.D. student at Corvinus University of Budapest at the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, since 2019. He holds a BSc in International Businesses and MSc in Enterprise Development. His research focuses on digital transformations in cities and analysis of smart city solutions, especially urban governance, and the practical implementation of strategic smart city activities. He is also working as an innovation consultant, supporting the research and development activities of SMEs in Hungary. He is currently engaged with smart and sustainable mobility, particularly the policy implications of the alternative fuel infrastructure in Europe, and the analysis of the effectiveness of government incentives, provided for battery electric vehicles. Dániel Oross is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Political Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre of Excellence. He is Principal Investigator of the Research “Democratic Innovations and Hungarian Parties” (OTKA PD_131408) and ViceChair of the Cost Action network “Constitution-making and deliberative democracy” (CA17135). His research interests are democratic innovations, political participation, youth policy, and political socialization.

Chapter 11

Establishing a Green Energy Transition Process in COVID Times Felipe Barroco Fontes Cunha, Francesca Cappellaro, Claudia Carani, Gianluca D’Agosta, Piero De Sabbata, Danila Longo, and Carlo Alberto Nucci

Abstract This chapter describes the new normal approach adopted for a citizen engagement process carried out in the framework of a three-year EU demonstration project, aimed at establishing a green energy community (GECO project) in Italy. The engagement method was based on the Transition Management approach, steering participatory processes aiming at the activation of a sustainable behavioural change. During the COVID-19 crisis, engagement activities required a deep and radical change. The research investigated how to guarantee a participatory dimension and build an energy community during COVID times. In order to both realign actions to comply with the COVID-19 restrictions and preserve the participatory dimension of engagement processes, a systemic and regenerative co-design was implemented. Some activities (i.e. informative campaigns and stakeholders’ meetings) were redesigned and put online. Education and public events were moved from indoor to outdoor environments. This allowed regenerative experiences enhancing the connection between the local community and nature. In summary, COVID times F. B. F. Cunha · C. Carani AESS, Modena, Italy e-mail: [email protected] C. Carani e-mail: [email protected] F. Cappellaro (B) Sustainability Department, ENEA, Bologna, Italy e-mail: [email protected] G. D’Agosta · P. De Sabbata Technology and Renewable Energy, Department ENEA, Bologna, Italy D. Longo Department of Architecture, Università Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy e-mail: [email protected] C. A. Nucci Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, Università Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_11

139

140

F. B. F. Cunha et al.

imposed limitations but offered new opportunities to co-design more sustainable living solutions, such as energy communities. The collaborations born in COVID-19 restrictions are still ongoing offering innovative ways of meeting and acting together. Keywords Community engagement · Energy community · Sustainability transitions · Transition Management

11.1 Introduction The complexity of contemporary urban life, especially in times of crisis, calls for new forms of governance and collaboration able to combine the stances of institutional actors, civil society and the entrepreneurial world (McGuirk et al. 2021; Yang 2020). Recovering sociability and reconnecting public bodies and decisionmaking processes with citizens is urgent (Inch 2021; Pløger 2021), and this has been emphasized within EU strategies for energy transition and, more generally, within urban transition towards resilience and sustainability (including the EU Green Deal and the 100 Climate Neutral Cities strategy). In the context of energy, emerging forms of participation are arising worldwide, including interoperable tools allowing the modelling and forecasting of the behaviour. These tools allow people to better understand their consumption and energy use. Energy transition calls for extending consumer participation in the production and trade of renewable energy, facilitated by special trading structures for small producers, consumers, communities and prosumers (Dubois et al. 2019). One of the strongest structures for this transition is energy communities (EC) aimed at engaging consumers, distributing energy generation, reducing network losses and activating private investments in distributed renewable energy (Cunha et al. 2021). These collective energy schemes fit well with the idea of urban democracy and participatory governance as they constitute unique possibilities to collaborate on the very challenging theme of energy. The concept of participatory governance arises from the need for greater citizen involvement in the decision-making process. According to Fischer (2012), participatory governance puts emphasis on democratic engagement through deliberative practices and “seeks to deepen citizen participation in the governmental process by examining the assumptions and practices of the traditional view that generally hinders the realization of a genuine participatory democracy”. As Boeri et al. (2020) maintain, some of the most innovative administrations have adopted tools and practices enabling urban democracy, by including citizens in decision-making processes at the urban scale, as a normal way to act. During the pandemic, this approach has sometimes been extended through the implementation of new tools, platforms and digital supports in general, able to ensure the participation of citizens in the public field (McGuirk et al. 2021; Yang 2020). With the objective of meeting European goals in particular, this type of approach should be also adopted by public administrations more extensively to ensure a greater representation of citizens of diverse cultures and stances (Boulanger and Massari 2022). This is even more necessary in the post-pandemic scenario, which

11 Establishing a Green Energy Transition Process in COVID Times

141

has coincided with a dramatic energy crisis, on the one hand, and a dramatic need to recover sociability (and sociopolitical infrastructures) on the other. The intertwining of social, environmental and health issues calls for integrated approaches which align environmental justice, participatory democracy and well-being; therefore, the incorporation of collaborative governance in energy transition has become an even greater issue in the post-COVID era. This work focuses on a transition process towards the creation of a green energy community aimed at reaching sustainability, reducing energy poverty and generating a low carbon economic cycle. In particular, the case of the Green Energy COmmunity (GECO) project is examined. GECO is a demonstration project that has taken place in the Pilastro–Roveri district of Bologna since 2019. During the years of 2020 and 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the suspension of face-to-face meetings and public events, bringing great challenges to the development of GECO’s activities, and in particular those engaging citizens and local actors. Modelling research work aimed at achieving the optimal management of energy community has however been accomplished (Borghetti et al. 2021). This research investigates how to guarantee a participatory dimension in the building of the green energy community during COVID times. The following paragraphs illustrate the systemic and regenerative co-design process, aimed at realigning actions given the COVID-19 restrictions while preserving the participatory dimension of green energy transition processes.

11.2 Theory and Method The present work used multiple research methods (Sovacool et al. 2018), blending case study and literature review for data collection and triangulation for data analysis, performing thus qualitative, applied, descriptive and exploratory research. The triangulation method is understood as the use of multiple researchers to assist in overcoming subjectivities, personal bias and deficiencies emanating from a single investigator or the use of just one method. The triangulation carried out in this study consisted of collecting data from diverse sources and from the use of multiple perspectives and hypotheses, based on the work and experience of researchers with different backgrounds to analyse the study questions, in attempt to reduce individual bias and subjectivities.

11.2.1 Energy Poverty, Grounded Theory Energy poverty occurs when a person/family is unable to fully satisfy their energy needs and thermal comfort for a decent standard of living and well-being or when energy bills correspond to a threshold of more than 10% of family income. Due to growing urbanization, the problem of energy poverty is becoming more urgent in

142

F. B. F. Cunha et al.

urban areas, especially in low-income neighbourhoods, where it is harder (or even impossible) for families to cover energy costs, especially with the increase in heat islands and in the context of extreme weather events (DellaValle 2019 and Thomson et al. 2019). Recent studies conducted by Davillas et al. (2022) also established direct correlations between energy poverty and health issues, demonstrating that the inability of households to attain an adequate standard of energy services can be detrimental to health, particularly triggering cardiovascular diseases, inflammation and lower levels of mental health. It is therefore essential to implement strategies to alleviate energy poverty throughout energy transition. Furthermore, according to Build Up EU (EU 2020), roughly 75% of the EU building stock is energy inefficient, and data from EUROSTAT (2022) indicate that 15.2% of Europeans live in dwellings with a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundations or rot in window frames or floors. This contributes to the occurrence of energy poverty and health issues, as well as resulting in greater emissions of greenhouse gases (EU 2022). In 2019, the European Union (EU) approved a comprehensive legislative package entitled Clean Energy for all Europeans (CEP) to put in place appropriate legal frameworks to enable the energy transition, assigning a special role to citizens and community initiatives. CEP directives aim to stimulate virtuous behaviours, promote flexibility in consumption and favour the production of energy from a wider range of renewable sources, ranging from energy performance in buildings to energy transition governance and addressing the main aspects of electricity market regulation, risk preparedness and cooperation (Cunha et al. 2021; Dubois et al. 2019). The measures proposed by CEP to promote the energy transition in Europe were further deepened in 2020 with the EU Green Deal, enacted to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic through recovery and stimulus packages towards a greener, circular and smarter economy (Aszódi et al. 2021; SAPEA 2021; Werikhe 2022).

11.2.2 Transition Management, Grounded Theory Energy transition is a growing necessity that calls for radical innovation towards more sustainable energy production and consumption systems, and it requires both citizen awareness and active involvement in order to be effective in the long term. It is well known the reflexivity dimension is crucial in shaping trajectories for future action (Lissandrello and Grin 2011) and the need of interaction between planners and interlocutors as catalysts and initiators of change is part of this process (Lissandrello 2015). In addition, transition should embrace innovative processes that take place in a time-limited, protected space, usually independent by dominant regime and driven by individuals in anticipation of a new culture (Cappellaro et al. 2020). According to Geels and Raven (2006), transition is strictly connected to niche experimentation and learning. Niche creation can be steered by a range of actors, including users and societal groups, establishing processes that contribute to a shift towards more sustainable socio-economic systems. A participatory method to steer a transition process is Transition Management grounded theory (Roorda et al. 2014) that consists

11 Establishing a Green Energy Transition Process in COVID Times

143

of a step-by-step method accompanying local community transformation in urban contexts.

11.2.3 The Case of GECO Experimenting Green Energy Transition in COVID Times The GECO project was selected as a case study because it is being implemented from September 2019 to December 2022 and has thus been directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also being developed in a peripheral urban area, involving social housing, and is designed to promote green energy transition and alleviating energy poverty. Furthermore, the authors actively participated in the implementation of the GECO project, having direct access to the data collected, the events took place with citizens and stakeholders and the experiences shared. This transition primarily requires a step-by-step process in which consumers progressively acquire knowledge and awareness on energy management behaviour. The project has adopted a Transition Management approach to accompany the green energy transition process in Pilastro–Roveri, a district of Bologna, taking the following steps: • GECO Transition Team was established, comprising the GECO project partners and the collaboration with local stakeholders. • GECO Transition Arena was activated despite the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, the Arena engaged local stakeholders (companies, trade associations, local associations, public authorities) that played the role of change agents in the project districts. The Transition Arena participants supported GECO project activities in engaging local citizens. • GECO Transition Experiments were co-designed as short-term actions to explore and learn about radically different ways of meeting societal needs, contributing to green energy transition. • GECO established transition networks throughout collaborations and synergies with other EU projects, which have been working on energy transition issues in the same districts as GECO (Pilastro-Roveri), such as GRETA (GReen Energy Transition Action), an European project designed to pave the way for active energy citizenship and communities. In the GECO project, the Transition Management steps focus on energy community issues introducing a new paradigm for the whole process of producing and using energy by citizens and entrepreneurs. The key concept that drives this transition is the empowerment of the citizens: their capacity to produce the energy they need and, at the same time, their active participation in the energy market as active players (prosumers), instead of simple consumers. GECO transition steps had also faced local challenges related to energy issues. For example, GECO contributed to increase the knowledge on the benefits of retrofit interventions, aimed at energy savings, local

144

F. B. F. Cunha et al.

production of renewables and rational use of energy. These interventions are fundamental measures to alleviate energy poverty and promote the green energy transition. However, the active involvement of citizens and reaching a consensus within communities/condominiums, to approve and implement the investment needed to develop these interventions, are very difficult due to social and economic factors, especially when the less wealthy social groups are involved, and in COVID times. In this sense, the GECO project collaborated with the GRETA project (H2020, GA101022317) which aims to improve understanding of the conditions and barriers to the emergence of energy citizenship. The term “energy citizenship” refers to a form of active participation that ultimately supports local and global decarbonisation goals for energy systems. It can manifest in many ways, such as individual homeowners choosing renewable energy solutions or electric vehicles, participation in energy communities or advocating for climate change. However, not everyone can participate due to a range of factors, including being unaware of issues or of their practical solutions; being excluded from debates and decision-making processes; being prevented from acting due to lack of resources or lack of power. Within GRETA, the GRETA lab is a participatory and local-based approach to foster energy transition strategies, consisting of a series of pilot actions as a testing ground for energy-saving practices, environmental justice experimentation, as well as the feasibility for the grounding of an energy community. Meetings occurred in open air and semi-open environments to ensure safety and distancing.

11.3 Results GECO experiments and GRETA labs acted as niches; a starting point for the green energy transition process. This process achieved two fundamental results: • the sharing of knowledge and experiences among citizens and • a deeper knowledge about the energy digital twin that each citizen has.

11.3.1 The Role of Activation Events The first result was achieved thanks to activation events to train citizens and increase awareness and knowledge regarding energy transition and community models. From the outbreak of COVID-19 and onwards, some engagement events occurred in digital format. For example, online meetings were held using a digital platform in collaboration with public authorities, local and educational associations, trade associations and also other partners in EU projects. All these collaborations laid the foundations for the citizen engagement events and educational activities in the post-pandemic scenario. On the one hand, the use of ICT tools provided an interactive channel during lockdown, especially involving the local stakeholders and public authorities. On the other hand, online events were less attractive for the local population, particularly for the

11 Establishing a Green Energy Transition Process in COVID Times

145

Fig. 11.1 GECO event in Pasolini Park (left) and energy-saving intervention in the Condominium of Tommaso Casini Street (right), Pilastro District, Bologna

elderly and workers. When the COVID-19 situation improved, face-to-face activities and public meetings were permitted and most events were organized to reach most of the district population. In particular, eco-urban trekking initiatives were held at weekends in natural and outdoor spaces such as urban gardens and parks. These were eco-urban experiences to elicit a reconnection with nature and to encourage citizens towards more sustainable and low carbon lifestyles. Throughout these events, knowledge dissemination on the energy community was achieved, sharing solutions to foster citizens, residential condominiums and social housing cooperatives in the area, to promote energy-saving interventions and the installation of photovoltaic systems and storage (Fig. 11.1). One of the condominiums in Tommaso Casini Street, which benefited from the feasibility studies carried out by GECO project in 2020, started an intervention in 2021, and future actions are soon to install a photovoltaic system, storage systems and charging stations for electric vehicles.

11.3.2 The Role of Technology and Data Citizens’ empowerment moves from the awareness rising on energy consumption and the environmental impact of their lifestyle. Moreover, this process requires a solid framework for data collection, mathematical modelling, information and user training. Until 2018, these data were in the hands of the several major actors on the market. With the introduction of CEP, the political willingness to open the energy market to all citizens appears to be clear and different bodies moved to support this process. In Italy, for the first time, consumption and production data for each citizen became available on a website. However, access to this is always restricted to a few actors and cannot be granted to other parties, such as an energy community.

146

F. B. F. Cunha et al.

The use of smart devices and sensors was helpful both to solve this limitation and to provide users with fresh and relevant data about their energy behaviour. In the GECO project, sensors were installed in users’ homes, to collect data and automatically and transparently make it available to the user. Moreover, entities can be chosen by the user itself. As a result, a collection of data from different flats provides users with energy consumption information based on these data. Therefore, a deeper knowledge of energy behaviour was established, engaging citizens as change agents in the neighbourhood.

11.4 Discussion One of the highlights of the GECO project outcomes that the COVID-19 pandemic created was the rediscovery of spaces and ways of meeting, especially within cities. The lack of appropriate ventilated and large public spaces in neighbourhoods forced people to stay inside, to use small balconies and roofs, when available. Similarly, having to remain inside flats led to an increase in energy consumption. Consequently, the pandemic worsened energy transition issues. However, some changes in the energy transition perspective inside communities were observed thanks to the experience of the GECO and GRETA projects. In GRETA, the participatory laboratory and open discussion with citizens highlighted the main barriers to participation: systemic accessibility to information and to services that could lead to change in behaviours and habits, greater transparency and accountability on the part of both administrations and market actors and the set-up of alternative governance mechanisms which would be needed in order to elicit participation. The post-COVID scenario was marked by a fear of segregation not within the neighbourhood, but between the district and the rest of the urban fabric: concerns were expressed by the residents regarding the reduction of major bus services and the halting of bike sharing services. The issues of public and sustainable mobility, therefore, were worsened by the pandemic and emerged as a priority to be addressed. In the GECO project, knowledge dissemination events and energy data sharing encouraged citizens in energy consumption behavioural change. In future, as the EC norm states, the sharing of energy data should be simplified, reducing costs for end-users and for energy communities themselves. Moreover, energy-saving interventions and the installation of photovoltaic systems and storage in residential condominiums and social housing cooperatives could be integrated in the energy community, sharing the locally generated energy.

11.5 Conclusion This chapter has explored the issue of involving citizens as a crucial factor affecting the creation of an energy and sustainable community, both from the economic and social point of view. The COVID-19 crisis has transformed habits and behaviours

11 Establishing a Green Energy Transition Process in COVID Times

147

within the built environment, but, on the other hand, new normal necessities are growing, also drawing from the GECO and GRETA experiences. Establishing a green energy community requires aware and active participants to positively face all the issues related to the co-creation of such a community. In urban communities, an increase of energy citizenship activities or experiences can support both an increase in urban community engagement and boost the transition of cities towards carbon neutrality. One of the most promising energy citizenship actions is the co-creation of energy communities and attempts to become autonomous from the electricity grid. COVID-19 severely affected the activation process, especially in the framework of the energy transition process, which projects such as GECO and GRETA attempt to promote. In particular, meetings and public events were held online. When the COVID restrictions eased and permitted in person meetings, community engagement manifested new challenges and new normal needs. Interesting to note was that the new normal perception of citizens had already somehow assimilated the COVID protocols: it did not affect engagement modalities. Before the pandemic, social exclusion had been a major issue for the district; the isolation that COVID-19 entailed has further exaggerated the perceived need to be reconnected with the outer world and with the city at a larger scale, which was manifested in the priorities expressed by the residents. As a result, COVID-19 led to a greater commitment of citizens in energy transition process. Finally, the new normal has created new needs to experiment with more sustainable energy participation models such as energy communities. These models will require new participatory governance and urban planning practices.

References Aszódi A, Biró B, Adorján L, Dobos ÁC, Illés G, Tóth NK, Zsiborás ZT et al (2021) Comparative analysis of national energy strategies of 19 European countries in light of the green deal’s objectives. Energy Convers Manag X 12:100136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2021.100136 Boeri A, Longo D, Massari M, Roversi R, Sabatini F (2020) Commoning in the practice of urban governance. An experience from OBRAS project. AGATHÓN Int J Archit Art Des 8:180–187. https://doi.org/10.19229/2464-9309/8172020 Borghetti A, Corredor CO, Nucci CA, Arefi A, Delarestaghi JM, Di Somma M, Graditi G (2021) Impact of neighbourhood energy trading and renewable energy communities on the operation and planning of distribution networks. In: Graditi G, Di Somma M (eds) Distributed energy resources in local integrated energy systems, Roma, pp 125–174 Boulanger SOM, Massari M (2022) Advocating urban transition: a qualitative review of institutional and grassroots initiatives in shaping climate-aware cities. Sustainability 14:2701. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14052701 Cappellaro F, Chiarini R, Meloni C (2020) The humanification of the urban community: an Italian smart district experience. Int J Urban Planning Smart Cities (IJUPSC) 1(1):35–44. https://doi. org/10.4018/IJUPSC.2020010103 Cunha FBF, Carani C, Nucci CA, Castro C, Silva MS, Torres EA (2021) Transitioning to a low carbon society through energy communities: lessons learned from Brazil and Italy. Energy Res Soc Sci 75:101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101994 Davillas A, Burlinson A, Liu HH (2022) Getting warmer: fuel poverty, objective and subjective health and well-being. Energy Econ 106:105794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105794

148

F. B. F. Cunha et al.

DellaValle N (2019) People’s decisions matter: understanding and addressing energy poverty with behavioral economics. Energy Build 204:109515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019. 109515 Dubois G, Sovacool B, Aall C, Nilsson M, Barbier C, Herrmann A, Sauerborn R (2019) It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Res Soc Sci 52:144–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.001 EU, European Union (2020) In focus: energy efficiency in buildings. Retrieved from https://ec. europa.eu/ info/news/focus-energy-efficiency-buildings-2020-lut-17_en. Accessed on 28 Mar 2022 EU, European Union. Energy Poverty Observatory (2022) Indicators. Retrieved from https://ene rgy-poverty.ec.europa.eu/energy-poverty-observatory/indicators_en. Accessed on 28 Mar 2022 Eurostat, Data Explorer (2022) Total population living in a dwelling with a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames or floor—EU-SILC survey. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database. Accessed on 28 Mar 2022 Fischer F (2012) Participatory governance: from theory to practice. In: The Oxford handbook of governance. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199560530.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199560530-e-32. Accessed on 28 Mar 2022 Geels FW, Raven R (2006) Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003). Technol Anal Strateg Manag 18:375–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777143 Inch A (2021) Planning for the future? Plan Theory Pract 22(3):341–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14649357.2021.1936776 Lissandrello E, Grin J (2011) Reflexive planning as design and work: lessons from the port of Amsterdam. Plan Theory Pract 12(2):223–248 Lissandrello E (2015) Stories of performativity in the politics of urban planning in two Scandinavian cities. In: International conference on public policy, vol 1, p 4. Retrieved from https://www.ipp apublicpolicy.org/file/paper/1435309461.pdf McGuirk P, Dowling R, Maalsen S, Baker T (2021) Urban governance innovation and COVID-19. Geogr Res 59(2):188–195.https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12456 Pløger J (2021) Conflict, consent, dissensus: the unfinished as challenge to politics and planning. Environ Planning C Politics Space 39(6):1294–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/239965442098 5849 Roorda C, Wittmayer J, Henneman P, van Steenbergen F, Frantzeskaki N, Loorbach D (2014) Transition management in the urban context: guidance manual. DRIFT Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam SAPEA, Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (2021) A systemic approach to the energy transition in Europe. SAPEA, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.26356/energytransition Sovacool BK, Axsenc J, Sorrell S (2018) Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Res Soc Sci 45:12–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007 Thomson H, Simcock N, Bouzarovski S, Petrova S (2019) Energy poverty and indoor cooling: an overlooked issue in Europe. Energy Build 196:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019. 05.014 Werikhe A (2022) Towards a green and sustainable recovery from COVID-19. Curr Res Environ Sustain 4:100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100124 Yang K (2020) Unprecedented challenges, familiar paradoxes: COVID-19 and governance in a new normal state of risks. Public Adm Rev 80(4):657–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13248

Felipe Barroco Fontes Cunha is a PhD in Science, Energy and Environment by the Federal University of Bahia, Brazil (2021). From 2019 on he works at the Agenzia per l’Energia e lo Sviluppo Sostenibile, AESS as project manager following, among others, the GECO: Green Energy COmmunity project. As researcher, he is investigating topics related to the regulatory

11 Establishing a Green Energy Transition Process in COVID Times

149

framework of the electricity sector and the energy transition, focusing on distributed generation and energy communities. Francesca Cappellaro is an environmental engineer, PhD in sustainability transition, researcher at ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development. Her activities focus on emerging approaches in circular economy, sharing economy and collaborative business model innovation. She has deepen transition thinking and transition management especially in research on citizen science, urban transition and community engagement. Claudia Carani is senior expert at the Italian Energy and Sustainable Development Agency (AESS) in cities and communities’ energy transition into low carbon economy. Her activities focus on the implementation of sustainable urban planning, smart technological solutions and innovative business models addressed to improve the energy efficiency, local energy production, sustainable mobility and circular economy. She is also EU project manager of GECO project and she is involved in many other projects related to rational use of energy, renewable energy sources, EPC tenders and energy communities. Gianluca D’Agosta is researcher working in ENEA since 1999, participating to different research and technology transfer projects. In his career, he developed projects dealing with a wide range of technologies applied to different sectors, from industrial production and interoperability to telemedicine and energy communities. His activities have been focused on smart communities’ management, interoperability among different platform, data elaboration and model creation. Piero De Sabbata has been working in the Innovation Department of ENEA since 1986. He is involved in research and technology transfer projects dealing with interoperability and data exchange in industrial sectors like Fashion and Textile. Since 2001 he is the scientific coordinator of the X-Lab laboratory of ENEA and FTI dedicated to the technologies for interoperability and enterprise networking and to their transfer and adoption towards networks of enterprises with a specific focus on standards and on small and middle enterprises (SMEs). Danila Longo is Full Professor of Technology for Architecture at the Department of Architecture, University of Bologna. Architect and PhD, she is the contact person for UNIBO in the EU Construction Technology Platform and in the Energy Efficient Building Committee and member of the GTA (UNIBO -Thematic Group of experts) on Climate Energy and Mobility. Her research fields concern energy efficiency technologies, technological innovation, mitigation and adaptation initiatives and strategies for climate change, co-design and co-construction processes for the green transition of cities, accessibility and enhancement of cultural heritage, technology integration for smart cities. Carlo Alberto Nucci is Full Professor, head of the Power Systems Laboratory of the Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering ‘Guglielmo Marconi’, University of Bologna. Author/co-author of over 300 scientific papers published on peer-reviewed journals or on proceedings of international conferences and of 13 book chapters with international diffusion on the following topics: smart grids, energy communities, smart cities, power systems dynamics and transients, with reference to blackout restoration and lightning impact on power systems. IEEE and CIGRE Fellow, has received some best paper/technical international awards. He serves as national representative in HE Mission Climate Neutral-Smart Cities since November 2019.

Chapter 12

Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned from an Urban Revitalisation Project in Dortmund, Germany Lena Unger and Dahae Lee

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about undesirable changes to society. Yet at the same time, it represents an opportunity, if not the responsibility, for urban scholars and practitioners to rethink the way cities are planned. The purpose of this research is to (1) critically analyse a public participation process affected by the pandemic; (2) highlight the possibilities for improvement of digital and analogue participation in post-pandemic times; and (3) contextualise the results to our understanding of the discourse around the “new normal”. Multiple sources of data and research methods (i.e. document analysis, an online survey, and in-depth interviews) were used to study an urban redevelopment project in Dortmund called, Smart Rhino, whose planned public participation was hit by the pandemic. The findings are ambiguous. The pandemic, along with other factors, affected the participation and planning process making the existing concept inappropriate. The results for potential adaptation suggest important lessons for meaningful interrelation of digital and analogue participatory formats. Yet, adaptation potentials have not been tapped. We conclude with a contextualisation of the ambiguity of these findings, in the light of the discussion around a new normal, where we see prevailing challenges for participation and indications for normalised neoliberal logics in participation and planning in the case of Smart Rhino. Keywords Participation · Digitalisation · Urban revitalisation · Pandemic

L. Unger (B) · D. Lee Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technical University of Dortmund, August-Schmidt-Str. 6 44227, Dortmund, Germany e-mail: [email protected] D. Lee e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_12

151

152

L. Unger and D. Lee

12.1 Introduction Without neglecting severe effects of the crisis on people’s lives, the COVID-19 pandemic soon sparked debate amongst planners on the future of cities and around a new normal. Interestingly though, prior crises, such as the financial crisis in 2007 (Mauderer 2018) or the Trump administration (Sailer-Wlasits 2018), had triggered discourses on a new normal as well. Hence, in order to frame this term, we choose to follow Link’s (2013a, b; 2018) cultural theory on normalism. In his concept of contemporary normality, capitalist rationality is deeply inscribed into individuals and our culture by statistically normalising the habits of the masses and thereby creating normativity (Link 2013a). As he describes modernity and postmodernity as a compound of interconnected normalised cycles, the pandemic as an antagonism (crisis) disrupted the normalised cycle of global health, which in turn affected other normalised cycles, such as the economical, technological, or scientific ones (Link 2013a). Transferring the author’s concept of individual and cultural perception of normality, to the perspective of actors involved in participation in planning, reveals parallels with Keil’s findings as he states that “[…] neoliberalisation builds more and more on the existence of already socialized neoliberal subjects that have internalised neoliberal governmentalities.” (Keil 2009: 242), thus highlighting the relevance of Link’s (2013a) individual and cultural conceptualisation of normality for planning and participation. Gunder (2010), Miessen (2010) and MacLeod (2011) state that the role of participation in neoliberal planning agendas can be a mere tool to depoliticise planning aiming at the legitimisation of neoliberal agendas in urban development. Yet Hilbrandt (2017) argues that there are opportunities for insurgent participation. Digital modes of participation changing ontologies, epistemologies and methods of communicative planning and communicative rationality (Potts 2020), were increasingly implemented in participation processes during the pandemic, due to social distancing. In this light, we contextualise the problem of the pandemic hitting the public participation concept of our case study Smart Rhino, which is one of Dortmund’s largest redevelopment projects and centrally located within the city. From 2017, the investor Thelen Gruppe and multiple stakeholders planned to redevelop the 52hectare brownfield site of a former steel construction company into a mixed-use urban quarter of a technology park and the city’s University for Applied Sciences (Thelen 2022; ARUP 2020). In this process, the city of Dortmund announced an extensive and innovative informal participation concept with a cross-medial design (Dortmund 2022), which, however, was hit by the pandemic. Thus, the case study provides a good opportunity to study the impact of the pandemic on analogue and digital public participation and to discuss future perspectives. A document analysis, an online survey, and in-depth interviews were conducted, and we conclude with a contextualisation of the results to our frame of a new normal presented above.

12 Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned …

153

12.2 Current Issues of Public Participation Two long-standing challenges to public participation in planning are the participation paradox and the lack of authentic participation. The former describes how in early stages of spatial problem identification, public interest and desire to participate are fairly low, whereas options for influencing urban development are very high. Yet, over the course of project development, the public’s interest to take influence and participate continuously grows over time until it exceeds the options for influence. From this point on, the growth of public interest still increases until its implementation, yet opportunities for change amount to zero (Reinert and Sinnig 1997; Hirschner 2017). Another common challenge is the lack of authentic participation. Since Arnstein’s (1969) publication on the ladder of participation, many scholars have classified different levels or stages of participation, ranging from information to civic empowerment (Bauer 2014; Jahn 2013; Selle 1996). More recently, Straßburger and Rieger (2019) developed their framework of the participation pyramid, which was used to analyse the Smart Rhino participation concept. It distinguishes between information, consultation, and inclusion of civic perceptions as pre-stages of participation and levels of actual participation. These are co-determination, shared decisionmaking, and transfer of decision-making power. In practice, the majority of public participation, in urban planning projects, range within the informative or consultative level (Selle 2021; Nies et al. 2021), indicating a lack of authentic participation in planning. In order to tackle the problems of the participation paradox, and lack of authentic participation in Germany, local administrations increasingly attempt to implement informal concepts and formats prior to the formal participation process. Yet the question of the impact of this practice, on reaching higher participatory levels in planning processes, remains (Straßburger and Rieger 2019). For our study, we follow a normative understanding of participation aiming at inclusive dialogues, as in Habermas’ deliberative democracy theory (Olson 2011) and communicative planning theory (Healey 1993, 2003; Forester 1999). Potts (2020) relates communicative planning theory to digitalisation and states whose communicative rationality is becoming increasingly reliant on ICTs. This shift changes ontologies, epistemologies, and methods of communicative planning. Thus, it is vital to question and assess their inscribed logics, values, and effects, especially of digital participation formats, as the pandemic fuelled their adaptation. The pandemic itself has added yet another layer of challenges of public participation due to social distancing, and the academic discourse on lessons learned for a new normal to draw from is growing—yet opinions are divided (Paust 2020; Fan and Fox 2022; Pantic et al. 2021). As the relevance of digital formats was proven during the pandemic, the question has shifted to how to establish meaningful interrelations of online and offline formats (Paust 2020). Notwithstanding the significance of digital participation formats, especially in times of social distancing, Fan and Fox (2022) emphasise that it is vital for democratic discourse to be aware of its perils and aspects of public debate that cannot be transferred to a digital realm. Due to the

154

L. Unger and D. Lee

loss of embodiment in online formats that in turn is vital for establishing and maintaining the long-term relationships needed to form alliances or movements of joint protest, they detect perils such as shifting discursive powers in favour of certain actors through technological design, possibly entailing a “dimming of counter-storytelling power in virtual space” (Fan and Fox 2022: 10). Hence, they emphasise that designers and participants of online debates critically consider: “(1) What constitutes meaningful access, and for whom is access meaningful?” and “(2) Do platform conventions extend existing power dynamics; (3) Beyond just inclusion, how might public spaces be made malleable for disruption?” (Fan and Fox 2022: 18). Furthermore, digital participation is not immune to inherited inefficiencies of traditional process designs (Pantic et al. 2021). The quality of participation always depends on the careful adaptation to local circumstances and needs and thorough assessment of the suitability of both digital and analogue formats. Hence, the authors emphasise that it is also important to consider the broader contexts of pandemic effects on planning processes, such as postponements of milestones, project timelines, and procedural delays caused by COVID-19.

12.3 Methodology This chapter presents empirical results drawn from a document analysis (Schmidt 2017; Bowen 2009), an online survey (Ritter and Sue 2007; van Selm and Jankowski 2006), and a total of seven in-depth expert and problem-centric interviews (Meuser and Nagel 1991, 2009; Witzel 1985). The document analysis of project reports, press releases, newspaper articles, administrative documents, and council decision documentation was conducted to obtain information on the planning process and original informal participation concept of Smart Rhino. The online survey was conducted in March and April 2021 with a sample including 204 participants aged 18 and older (46.5% male, 51.5% female, 1% diverse, and 1% not indicated). The results serve to assess the effectiveness of the concept according to the participation levels developed by Straßburger and Rieger (2019) and to identify the demand for digital alternatives. Lastly, a broad range of actors, including activists, academics, and (digital) participation professionals, were interviewed in order to (1) deepen the understanding of the existing informal participation concept, (2) identify possibilities for conflict and mitigation in the digital and analogue realm, and (3) discuss opportunities for adaptation to pandemic circumstances and synthesise lessons learned for a new normal of public participation.

12 Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned …

155

12.4 Findings on Experiences and Effects of the Pandemic on Public Participation Within Smart Rhino The results of the document analysis show that the redevelopment project foresees an early informal, activating, and cross-medial participation concept, reaching far beyond formal public participation. The city of Dortmund, as the coordinator, aims at transparent communication, fostering interest and collecting public opinion on the planned development (ARUP 2020). The concept consists of three pillars: RhinoForum (RF), a forum connecting expert and civic topic-related knowledge, RhinoVous (RV), a cross-medial component, addressing the wider public, and RhinoTopia (RT), a site for bottom-up experimental and temporary uses and practices. RV aims for information and consultation of the wider public, representing a foundational component for the other two pillars that aim for higher levels of participation. It includes digital and analogue formats, such as digital and analogue information events, workshops, and site or neighbourhood walks. RF will facilitate thematic exchange on specific topics of the redevelopment project amongst civic society and experts, thus fuse this knowledge to inform the following urban design competition. RT aims to foster exchange and experimentation through temporary uses driven by civic action where actors from academia, arts, and civic initiatives aim to create a creative and lively civic hub on a small part of the redevelopment site. An overarching online participation portal will complement and support the overall process and connect RF, RV, and RT (ARUP 2020; Stadt Dortmund 2021). In sum, the original informal participation concept, as a whole, aimed to mitigate a participation paradox and increase the level of participation from the very early phase onwards. Yet, our findings on the survey revealed that the informal participation concept has not reached the informational level that represents the basis of Straßburger and Rieger’s (2019) framework. According to the survey’s results, only about a quarter of respondents are well informed about the project. A third of them stated that they do not know about the project at all, while the rest have only heard of it (see Table 12.1), indicating that the public is not well informed, as information, consultation, the inclusion of civic perceptions—pre-steps of participation—is not reached. Yet, these are prerequisites to achieve levels of authentic participation, such as codetermination, shared decision-making or civic responsibility, or transfer of decisionmaking from a civic point of view (Straßburger and Rieger 2019). Indeed, the majority of respondents answered that they want to be better informed about projects in their Table 12.1 Do you know about the Smart Rhino project? (n = 106)

Yes, I know about the project well

24.5%

I have only heard of it

46.2%

No

28.3%

No answer

0.9%

156 Table 12.2 Have you ever participated in planning process? (n = 174)

Table 12.3 Would you participate in planning process in the future? (n = 163)

Table 12.4 Under which conditions would you participate? (n = 166; multiple choice)

L. Unger and D. Lee

Yes

26.4%

No

73.6%

Yes

65.6%

No

2.5%

It depends

31.3%

No answer

0.6%

Guarantee that the ideas will be heard

55.4%

Flexible appointments

63.9%

Opportunities for digital participation

69.3%

Access to more information material

56.6%

Others

3.6%

neighbourhood. The results also indicate that there is generally a low level of participation (Table 12.2), yet a high interest in participating (Table 12.3). The respondents identified several conditions, one of which is opportunities for digital participation (Table 12.4). The fact that few informal participation formats have had a negligible impact on participation so far is not only because of the pandemic. Due to COVID-19 and a pending decision by the state ministry, participation has been delayed (Thelen 2022). As for RT, pandemic circumstances made it difficult to establish the experimental on-site participation format (Interviewees 1, 2) and it has not been realised. In fact, it is a format that aims for participatory levels of shared decision-making or civic responsibility, or even the transfer of decision-making from a civic point of view (Straßburger and Rieger 2019). Yet, this has proven to be less transferrable to a digital realm and less adaptable to pandemic circumstances. It should be noted though that the project was initiated and driven by the Initiative Die Urbanisten, which faced several challenges in cooperation on this project with the investor and the city administration (Interviewee 2). Interestingly, the overarching digital platform, or other formats originally planned as virtual, has not been realised yet, even though there was no need for adaptation of these components to pandemic circumstances. Moreover, activities announced within RF have not been implemented as planned either. According to the information provided by the city and the investor, who have been criticised multiple times for their slow and opaque information policy on the circumstances (Luzi 2021, 2022), this is due to a pending decision to be taken by the state government (Thelen 2022) on relocating the University of Applied Sciences to Smart Rhino. It is unfortunate that awareness and debate are still missing, as options for civil society to influence the project are decreasing and chances of

12 Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned …

157

conflict with adjoining neighbourhoods are high (Interviewees 2,3,4,5,6). In sum, these circumstances indicate the typical characteristics of the participation paradox.

12.5 Discussion of Lessons Learned to Inform a New Normal The results presented show that in accordance with Pantic et al. (2021), the broader project context and delay of milestones and deadlines have resulted in the postponement of the informal participation process almost as a whole. This is due to the pandemic and a pending political decision. In contrast to Paust’s (2020) findings, the impact of the pandemic has not resulted in an intensified use of digital modes of participation in Smart Rhino’s participation process. Thus, as stated above, we see an increasing risk for conflictual effects, as in the participation paradox (Reinert and Sinnig 1997; Hirschner 2017), because the potential of informal, early, and activating participation, according to the original concept, has not been tapped yet, as options for taking influence are decreasing and the formal participation process is to start in 2022 (Thelen 2022). More specifically, most interviewees (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) stated that they see risks for conflict, especially with the adjoining neighbourhoods, due to the different social structures, and fear of gentrification through Smart Rhino. Even if the decision on the relocation of the University of Applied Sciences is still unclear, neither the city nor the investor give reasons for why there is still no opportunity for public debate on the site’s future development (Thelen 2022; Stadt Dortmund 2022). Interviews conducted with planning professionals, activists, academics, and digital participation experts reveal several aspects of the participation concept that could have been adjusted to the pandemic circumstances to mitigate a looming participation paradox and truly aim for authentic participation. By connecting those findings with the existing research on participation during the pandemic, we draw lessons learned for participation and lastly aim to broaden the discourse on a new normal of participation and planning, based on our research.

12.5.1 Interconnecting Physical Space with Online Information and Civic Contributions The pandemic emphasised the need to connect virtual and physical spaces for communication and deliberation within planning and opportunities to do so. In order to achieve the first informational level of pre-stage participation (Straßburger and Rieger 2019), it is crucial to connect the information available online, to the redevelopment site. As stated by Interviewee 2: How should people know the project is called Smart Rhino? If they don’t know, how should they be able to find information online? When passing the site, indications of what is going

158

L. Unger and D. Lee

to happen there would be helpful to the public in order to be able to locate the information and plans available online to physical space and vice versa. (Interviewee 2).

As the interest in the project has been revealed by the survey results, exemplary measures could be putting up billboards around the site and the adjoining neighbourhoods, referencing to the online information, establishing QR-Codewalks and cross-medial advertisements, e.g. through local newspapers, social networks, etc. It is crucial to offer low-threshold connective information, to locate the project in physical space, without unconsciously assuming or presupposing expert knowledge to understand planning documents. This is especially important for sites that are not easily accessible, as in the case of Smart Rhino. A given example of a resulting misunderstanding was that residents feared the demolition of buildings after seeing the design concepts of the investor online. Citizens misinterpreted the design concept, believing that structures marked as existing buildings, which will remain on the site, were to be demolished (Interviewee 3). Relating to Healey’s emphasis on the importance of skills of translation (1993: 248), this can be prevented by understandably connecting the development site in physical space to online information. After consultative phases, the interviews (4,5), as well as the survey results (Table 12.4), have emphasised the importance of giving transparent feedback on the processing of people’s online contributions and suggestions, e.g. through conferences or geo-referenced ideas in mapping tools, in short and specific but easily understandable relation to the actual site as well. A suggestion from an interviewee is to create short and topic-specific videos on the redevelopment area, explaining the results of contributions in relation to the actual space, in order to help participants understand the spatial relations (Interviewee 4). On the one hand, the pandemic has shown that such digitised feedback loops with participants represent another option for interaction. It has to be noted though that it does not remove the desire and need for social interaction within consultational formats and beyond. Furthermore, it does not remove the need to physically experience a site, because, on the other hand, participants might experience the aggregation of their online contribution as superseding the presence on the site via video communication as a loss of individuality and embodiment in digital aggregation, as found by Fan and Fox (2022). Interviewee 5 stated that video communication in general has been accelerated during COVID-19. For Smart Rhino, it could be used as an activation and explanation tool, fostering civic interest and information on a low-threshold level, while providing visual and sound impressions of the non-accessible redevelopment area and its location within the city during times of social distancing. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind Fan and Fox’s findings on the “dimming of counter-storytelling power in virtual space” (2022: 10) with regard to video production. Storytelling is vital for democratic participation as “[…] the transformative potential of communicative action lies […] in the power of ideas, metaphors, images, stories.” (Healey 1993: 244). As for Smart Rhino, early in 2020, the investor published a video with its vision of the redevelopment that was widely shared by the media, thus dominating the story about the revitalisation area early on through virtual space and leaving no room for counter-storytelling and alternative imaginations, ideas, or proposals (Interviewee 3; Thelen 2022).

12 Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned …

159

12.5.2 Digital Conference Platforms—Opportunities and Challenges Our research revealed risks and challenges to be considered for online conferences in participation processes in post-pandemic times, relating to Fan and Fox’s critical question: “do platform conventions extend existing power dynamics?” (2022: 18) and Healey, emphasising that “we need to look carefully at the power relations of argumentative processes” (2003: 114). Our findings show that the delay of the participation concept and missing opportunities for information via conference platforms, etc., in pandemic times, has increased the opacity of the project to the public, revealing a form of extended power relations by not using platforms at all in times of need, withholding information and making it impossible to reach higher participation levels (Straßburger and Rieger 2019), thus reminding us to ask the critical question posed by Fan and Fox (2022: 17): “Who are those served by a disembodied public realm?”. Even if Smart Rhino’s planned digital formats had taken place during the pandemic, experiences sourced from the interviews point to challenges relating to this phenomenon and reveal difficulties in achieving engaging discourses online. Interviewee 3 stated that in his role as an organiser, he often felt he was “talking to a wall” as he was facing an unresponsive audience with turned off sound and videos, who did not give feedback or allow discussion, whereas in our research this was an experience from the organisational side, and Fan and Fox (2022) emphasise the threat of controlling the public through platform functions, which has to be considered as well. Hence, for authentic participation, the opportunity of embodiment of critique, protest, and counter-storytelling is vital, as the experience of apathetic participants by the organising interviewee might result from the perceived lack of opportunity for actual debate or even criticism and protest in the digital realm, or a lack of interest of participants. Either way, these experiences foreclose Healey’s vision of “reflective processes of intersubjective communication” and the “capacity for critique” (1993: 247). Moreover, Interviewee 3 stated that moderating conflictual situations is more fruitful when participants are physically present, rather than in online meetings, thus highlighting participants’ as well as moderators’ needs for embodiment and physical presence, especially in situations of conflict. The ability to establish alliances, joint commitment, and personal relationships is very limited in digital events but vital to participation, be it conflictual or progressive, thus adding imbalance to discursive powers (Interviewees 3, 5). On the other hand, fuelled by the pandemic, the use of digital conference platforms has now been established in the professional realm (Interviewee 5), and they have substantially advanced their functions. However, according to Interviewee 4, local German administrations face several hindrances in adapting to the use of conference platforms and other digital tools, which became apparent during the pandemic. Firstly, concerns and regulations with respect to data protection regulation hamper the uptake of digital infrastructure. Secondly, lengthy procurement processes impede

160

L. Unger and D. Lee

and delay adaptation of participation events to the digital realm. Additionally, Interviewee 4 generally sees a certain hesitance to innovation in administrations, due to a zero-mistake culture. COVID-19 has caused these aspects of administrative structures to be questioned and contested. Firstly, the need for openness and awareness, of digital modes of planning and participation in general, was stressed, since digitalisation extensively transforms planning ontologies, epistemologies, and methods, especially within the communicative realm (Potts 2020). Secondly, the importance of the ability to quickly respond to disruption was sharply underlined. Advantages of the uptake of digital conference tools are their extended reach, their flexibility to accommodate large numbers of participants, and their ability to include diverse groups, especially young people (Interviewee 5). It has to be noted though that this in turn might exclude other groups, such as elderly people (digital divide) or people who lack technical skills or infrastructure. On the other hand, rather equal participation with regard to gender was experienced in the digital realm, whereas in analogue formats experiences were that deliberations were rather male dominated (Interviewee 5). Online meetings can be advantageous for employees and caretakers as they have more room to adjust their event attendance in accordance with their individual schedules (Interviewee 3). From the organising parties’ point of view, workload is reduced in comparison with analogue events (Interviewee 5). In sum, these opportunities and perils stress the increased need to mindfully complement digital and analogue formats within participation processes in order to tap the online potential for wider reach, while being attentive to the digital divide (Paust 2020).

12.5.3 Creating Meaningful Access and Interlinkages of Analogue and Digital Formats According to Interviewee 3, there is adaptation potential for formats on all participation levels. Put differently, it is possible to go beyond the “boring zoom meeting” and achieve a high discursive quality, online as well. Thus, formats within the realms of civic co-determination shared decision-making or the transfer of decision-making power to civil society do have digital potential, indicating potential for digital adaptation to social distancing for the RhinoTopia format. Digitising such formats requires a lot of effort, technical skill, and experience in process design from the organisational side though, as stated by an experienced planning professional and designer of participatory events and platforms. In addition, with increasing deliberative and creative online concepts and tools, progressively more technical knowledge is required, so low-threshold access is not granted. It is crucial to provide guidance and assistance, which takes time and preparation. The risk of losing frustrated participants is apparently much higher than in analogue events. Low-threshold access is emphasised as key (Interviewee 3). Thus, our research also points to the interconnections of Paust’s (2020) and Fan and Fox’s (2022) research in reference to meaningful interrelations of analogue and digital formats, combined with considering meaningful access. In

12 Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned …

161

sum, the findings imply that for participation formats of a higher participation level, the analogue realm represents a lower threshold for diverse participation and deliberation that does not require expert knowledge and is more open to personal interaction and asking individual questions, whereas the potentials for digital information and consultation can represent a meaningful addition to specific target groups. It should be noted though that as our research was only conducted in the first phase of the participation process within the case, indications of our findings would still need to be empirically verified after completion of the redevelopment project. Thus, it would be interesting to conduct further research to reveal the long-term effects of the pandemic on public participation and the redevelopment project as such. Furthermore, frameworks distinguishing participation levels, such as Straßburger and Rieger’s (2019) or Arnstein’s (1969), have been criticised for reducing complexity and not focusing on the conditions under which taking part in decision-making is practised (Nies 2016; Tritter and McCallum 2006). Yet, as we found that participation within Smart Rhino was negligibly low, this aspect loses relevance for our study. The chosen approach of communicative planning theory (Healey 1993, 2003; Forester 1999) has been criticised for having weaknesses in dealing with power relations (Westin 2021). Thus, we also incorporated research using different lenses, such as Fan and Fox’s (2022) work, drawing on transformative democracy approaches within political theory (Asenbaum 2021; Machin 2015) applied to digital participation under pandemic circumstances.

12.6 Conclusion In sum, the results of our case study on participation during the pandemic within the Smart Rhino project are ambiguous. The pandemic, along with a pending political decision, affected the participation and planning process, making the existing concept inappropriate. Results for adaptation potentials suggest important lessons for meaningful interrelation of digital and analogue participatory formats, showing that digital methods certainly provide opportunities to tap the democratising potential of collaborative and communicative planning (Healey 1993, 2003). Yet our analysis indicates that potentials for adaptation to pandemic circumstances have not been tapped for Smart Rhino, suggesting an extension of existing power dynamics, strategy to retain a dominant storytelling power over the future of the site (Fan and Fox 2022) and an administration fostering economic interests. The lack of authentic participation and a looming participation paradox are additional implications of neoliberal planning logics (Baeten 2018) and using participation as a post-political instrument (Gunder 2010; Miessen 2010; MacLeod 2011) within the planning process of Smart Rhino. In the light of our conceptualisation of a new normal (Link 2013a, 2018), this can be seen as a symptom of culturally normalised, thus prevalent neoliberal logics in planning, throughout yet another crisis, even if not an economical one (Baeten 2012; Keil 2009). To escape “the provisional establishment of a ‘new normal’” (Barbi 2021:182) and persisting normalisation of antagonisms (crisis) within bounds of

162

L. Unger and D. Lee

capitalist rationality, Link (2018b) presents the options of “a mid-term maintenance of an ever-growing state of exception; and […] the escape from a cyclical dynamism of growth in favor of degrowth alternatives.” (Barbi 2021: 182). In line with Baeten (2018), his view highlights, that in order to overcome normalised neoliberal planning logics, there is a need for an “overriding alternative vision of society” (Baeten 2018: 114). Against this background, the case study highlights that digital communicative planning has its shortcomings regarding extended power relations through digital means. As digitalisation extensively changes ontologies, epistemologies, and methods of communicative rationality within planning (Potts 2020), the findings underline that it is vital to dissect and question underlying aims, inscribed values, and effects of digital tools, used and not used in participation, and the process design, carefully. Furthermore, it is important to question if they further normalise neoliberal logics through digital means for all actors involved (Link 2013a). In addition, Link’s (2013a, 2018) perspective highlights the importance to validate the necessary individual and cultural conditions and circumstances for insurgence, disruption, and protest, in the digital and analogue realm, as communicative rationality and perception of the normal are increasingly shaped by the digital. Acknowledgements This chapter is partly written based on materials gathered during coursework completed by the students of Technical University of Dortmund, which we would like to acknowledge and express our gratitude for.

References Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224 ARUP (2020) Smart Rhino—Zukunftsprojekt für Dortmund und das Ruhrgebiet. Die Urbanisten. Retrieved February 15, 2022, from https://dieurbanisten.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mac hbarkeitsstudie_Smart_Rhino_Feb_2020.pdf Asenbaum H (2021) The politics of becoming: disidentification as radical democratic practice. Eur J Soc Theory 24(1):86–104 Baeten G (2012) Normalising neoliberal planning: the case of Malmö, Sweden. In: Tasan-Kok T, Baeten G (eds) Contradictions of neoliberal planning: cities, policies, and politics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 21–42 Baeten G (2018) Neoliberal planning. In: Gunder M, Madanipour A, Watson V (eds) The routledge handbook of planning theory. Routledge, London, pp 105–117 Barbi G (2021) Crisis as the new normal. Krisis 41(1):179–184 Bauer H (2014) Die Beteiligungspyramide als Instrument des Bürgerengagements: Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung auf lokaler Ebene. Ökologisches Wirtschaften 29(1):28–29 Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 9(2):27–40 Fan B, Fox S (2022) Access under duress: pandemic-era lessons on digital participation and datafication in civic engagement. Proc Hum-Comput Interact 6(14):1–22 Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press, Cambridge Gunder M (2010) Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Plan Theory 4(9):298–314

12 Participation During and After the Pandemic: Lessons Learned …

163

Healey P (1993) Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning. In: Fischer F, Forester J (eds) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. UCL Press Limited, London, pp 233–252 Healey P (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Plan Theory 2(2):101–123 Hilbrandt H (2017) Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof airport. Urban Geogr 38(4):537–556 Hirschner R (2017) Beteiligungsparadoxon in Planungs- und Entscheidungsverfahren. Forum Wohnen Und Stadtentwicklung 9(6):323–326 Jahn S (2013) Konzeption Partizipation in der Stadtentwicklung. Mack and Partner, Berlin Keil R (2009) The urban politics of roll-with-it neoliberalization. City 13(2–3):230–245 Link J (2013a) Versuch über den Normalismus: Wie Normalität produziert wird, 5th edn. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen Link J (2013b) Normale Krisen?: Normalismus und die Krise der Gegenwart. University Press, Konstanz Link J (2018) Normalismus und Antagonismus in der Postmoderne: Krise, New Normal, Populismus. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen Luzi R(2021) Dortmunds einmalige Chancen zur Mitentwicklung und Mitgestaltung der Stadt von morgen. Retrieved 03 Mar 2022, from https://www.luzi.ruhr/dortmunds-einmalige-chancen-zurmitentwicklung-und-mitgestaltung-der-stadt-von-morgen/ Luzi R (2022) Urbanisten als Stadtmacher:innen im Unionviertel. Luzi Ruhr. Retrieved 03 Mar 2022 from https://www.luzi.ruhr/urbanisten-als-stadtmacherinnen-im-unionviertel/ Machin A (2015) Deliberating bodies: democracy, identification, and embodiment. Democratic Theory 2(1):42–62 MacLeod G (2011) Urban politics reconsidered: growth machine to post-democratic city?. Urban Studies 48(12):2629–2660 Mauderer S (2018) Geldpolitische herausforderungen: ausstieg aus der expansion und das new normal der finanzmärkte. Deutsche Bundesbank. Retrieved 20 Feb 2022 from: https://www.bundesbank.de/de/presse/reden/geldpolitische-herausforderungen-ausstiegaus-der-expansion-und-das-new-normal-der-finanzmaerkte-767382#tar-6 Meuser M, Nagel U (1991) Experteninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht: ein Beitrag zu qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: Garz D, Kraimer K (eds) Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 441–471 Meuser M, Nagel U (2009) The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In: Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (eds) Interviewing experts. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 17–42 Miessen M (2010) The nightmare of participation. Sternberg Press, Berlin Nies M, Pahlen B, Altmann J, Freude I, Krumme K (2021) Integrating competences for a cocreativ urban planning culture—New approaches for the development of public open space. In: Planning unlocked—new times, better places, stronger communities: proceedings of 57th ICOCARP World planning congress, 08–11 November 2021. Doha Qatar, ISOCARP Olson K (2011) Deliberative democracy. In: Fultner B (ed) Jürgen habermas: key concepts. Acumen Publishing, Durham, pp 140–155 Panti´c M, Cilliers J, Cimadomo G, Montaño F, Olufemi O, Torres Mallma S, van den Berg J (2021) Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the covid-19 pandemic—lessons learned for the future. Land 10(12):1379 Paust A (2020) Stay home and participate—was uns die Bürgerbeteiligung unter der Kontaktsperre für die Zeit danach lehrt. https://partizipendium.de/stay-home-and-participate-was-uns-die-bue rgerbeteiligung-unter-der-kontaktsperre-fuer-die-zeit-danach-lehrt/. Accessed 6 Feb 2022 Potts R (2020) Is a new ‘planning 3.0’paradigm emerging? exploring the relationship between digital technologies and planning theory and practice. Plan Theory Pract 21(2):272–289 Reinert A, Sinnig H (1997) Mobilisierung der Kompetenz der Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Das Bürgergutachten ÜSTRA zum öffentlichen Nahverkehr in Hannover. In: Bühler T (ed) Bürgerbeteiligung und Demokratie vor Ort. Bonn, Self-published, pp 143–152 Ritter LA, Sue VM (2007) Systematic planning for using an online survey. N Dir Eval 15:15–22

164

L. Unger and D. Lee

Sailer-Wlasits P (2018) The new normal: Woran wir uns gewöhnen müssen. Der Standard. Retrieved 20 Feb 2022 from: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000086911542/the-new-normal-woranwir-uns-gewoehnen-muessen Schmidt W (2017) Dokumentenanalyse in der Organisationsforschung. In: Liebig S, Matiaske W (eds) Handbuch Empirische Organisationsforschung. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 443–464 Selle K (2021) Es geht um die Substanz. In Prozessen der Stadtentwicklung glaubwürdig beteiligen. In: Mitarbeit S (ed) Glaubwürdig beteiligen. Impulse für die partizipative Praxis. Beiträge zur Demokratieentwicklung von unten (30). Bonn, Stiftung Mitarbeit, pp 7–42 Selle K (1996) Planung und Kommunikation. Bauverlag, Wiesbaden Straßburger G, Rieger J (2019) Partizipation kompakt—Komplexe Zusammenhänge auf den Punkt gebracht. In: Für Studium, Lehre und Praxis sozialer Berufe (2nd edn). Weinheim and Basel, Beltz, pp 230–241 Stadt Dortmund (2021) Drucksache. Nr.: 21702–21. Rathaus Dortmund. Retrieved February 08, 2022 from https://rathaus.dortmund.de/dosys/doRat.nsf/DrucksacheXP.xsp?drucksache= 21702-21 Stadt Dortmund (2022) Projekt Smart Rhino. Nordwärts. Retrieved March 23, 2022, from https:// dortmund-nordwaerts.de/portfolio-item/projekt-smart-rhino/ Thelen (2022) SMART RHINO ist eines der größten städtebaulichen Entwicklungsprojekte der Stadt Dortmund. Thelen Gruppe. Retrieved 17, 2022 from https://www.thelen-gruppe.com/por tfolio/projekt/smart-rhino/ Tritter JQ, McCallum A (2006) The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 76(2):156–168 van Selm M, Jankowski NW (2006) Conducting online surveys. Qual Quant 40(3):435–456 Westin M (2021) The framing of power in communicative planning theory: analysing the work of John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes. Plan Theory 21(2):1–23 Witzel A (1985) Das problemzentrierte Interview. In: Jüttermann G (ed) Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Beltz, Weinheim, pp 227–255

Chapter 13

Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic Model Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen, Enza Lissandrello, and Núria Castell

Abstract Discussions on Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have been diffused in the last decade, especially concerning the issues of sustainability transition. In the EU, ULLs have been mainly conceptualized as niche innovations to develop various types of local networks, knowledge, products, services, capacities, and capabilities. ULLs represent a lower form of institutionalization, as they often do not show the capacity to align with—or have a real impact on—existing planning processes. This chapter reviews the various ways to conceptualize Urban Living Labs and develops a viable approach for aligning understandings across an international interdisciplinary research team of Nordic researchers. The NordicPATH’s model is based on the cocreation of mechanisms of knowledge generation for planning healthy and peoplecentered urban environments in four Nordic cities through science–policy interactions applied in urban contexts (Aalborg, Gothenburg, Kristiansand, Lappeenranta). The NordicPATH’s model has been advanced and performed since March 2020, in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, during forced isolation and periods of social distancing. The chapter highlights how the pandemic conditions may have strengthened researchers’ interdisciplinary process through digital connectivity and forced slowdown in outward activities with a potential for a resilient governance model. Keywords Co-production · Knowledge · Transition · Inclusion · Air quality

R. N. Steffansen (B) · E. Lissandrello Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] N. Castell Urban Environment, Norwegian Institute of Air Research, Instituttveien 18, 2007 Kjeller, Norway © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_13

165

166

R. N. Steffansen et al.

13.1 Introduction The concept of Urban Living Labs (ULLs) has gained substantial attention in EU processes of urban innovation in the last decade, yet a clear definition in terms of theoretical foundation and practical application is still open (Steen and van Bueren 2017). The variety of ULLs and their applications throughout urban innovation processes is an integral part of the complex understanding of planning processes that entail and involve interaction between science and society, but also across disciplinary forms of knowledge. Research in the field of ULLs has been particularly productive, generating multiple orientations grounded in diverse disciplinary traditions, but also by experimenting in diverse urban contexts (Scholl et al. 2017). ULLs are therefore often defined as informal spaces for knowledge creation among a plurality of public-, private-, and community-based actors, with the purpose to find innovative and transformative solutions to urban challenges, ranging from physical surroundings, and technologies, to processes (Marvin et al. 2018). In this chapter, we aim at exploring and expanding the concept of ULLs as spaces for learning across disciplines and urban contexts. ULLs often are initiated by research teams with diverse backgrounds, but the interdisciplinarity issue is often not centrally discussed. The chapter focuses on the structuration of a framework for interdisciplinary research established during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that our reflexive experience of working on generating and co-produce knowledge for planning healthier and people-centered cities in Nordic countries - with air quality as the main planning object - provides insights to prepare for a new normal and to deal with complex crises and risks.

13.2 ULLs’ Governance for Sustainable Futures A participatory model for planning healthier and people-centered cities is urgent as planning needs to cope with a twofold challenge. The first is about the complex knowledge needed to address the multiple and interrelated problems of sustainable futures. The second challenge is that planning practices are rooted in existing institutional and legal frameworks that often fail to provide adequate guidance for sustainable directions. In this chapter, we argue that ULLs can be essential to advance future objectives in sustainable models as they incorporate novel ways of building knowledge and transcend existing institutional structures. Under the lens of planning theory, ULLs can be seen as an agency that initiates processes of knowledge formation and production of specific urban situations, that might contribute to anticipating critical interests for policy actions at the urbanor neighborhood scales (Healey 1998). It is not an automatic effort to translate this process of knowledge co-production into advancing agendas and policies to be formalized in future formal urban planning. Such ambitions require knowledge

13 Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic …

167

exchanges and productive mutual learning among actors, as a base for the development of new methods of collaboration. In light of this ambition, ULLs entail two entangled and equally important processes: the fulfillment of an aim and its supportive governance structure and the mutual alignment of meanings and understandings that re-structure and facilitate exchange among a plurality of actors constitutive of the ULL process. While it would be safe to argue that the construction of a common aim and governance structure can be understood as the first step of the ULL, the negotiation of a shared aim and governance structure is often a complex process that requires continuous engagement and re-alignment with actors and participants. The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures of physical distancing have impacted processes of aim-building and re-alignment, while also accelerating processes of digitalization. In the following, we will uncover elements of how digitalization has changed the sense of shared aims, purposes, understandings, and governance of the ULLs, but nevertheless provided opportunities for a diverse form of connectivity across geographical scales, enhancing inclusion, and scalability.

13.3 Meanings of Urban Living Labs Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have been described as a form of urban governance (Bulkeley et al. 2016), a methodology (Eriksson et al. 2005), an environment (Ballon et al. 2005; Schaffers et al. 2007), a site of experimentation (Karvonen and van Heur 2014), or a system (CoreLabs 2007). Generally, ULLs can be also seen as a remarkable example of how cities innovate and create languages to define social change through experimentation (Hajer 2016). In our time, interdisciplinarity and new models for planning are much needed to face the complexity and wicked problems of cities. Steen and Van Bueren (2017) suggest that ULLs can exist in many different forms, especially in the context of niche innovations, aimed at the sustainability transition. Even if approaches to ULLs seem to differ, some common features can be extracted from the scientific literature. ULLs have often been conceptualized as sites to test new technologies, new policies, or new forms of partnerships, as a form of “urban experimentation” (Levenda 2019; von Wirth et al. 2019) and are often performed through attempts to integrate research and policy innovation processes (ENoLL 2006). The aim is to develop, test, or experiment with an “outcome” intended as a product, a process, or a service. ULLs often involve and evolve into different scales (from local communities to neighborhoods) and levels of administration. As such, ULLs are often defined by a vocabulary of learning and experimentation (Steen and van Bueren 2017) instead of aiming for “fixed” end results. A phase of experimentation involves testing aims and new ways of doing things, to show potential for shaping new trajectories for urban future scenarios. ULLs, as a form of experimentation, offer the space where understandings of challenges, claims of knowledge, resources, authority, or dominant ideologies can potentially be negotiated. In these terms, ULLs are a way to structure and reconfigure capacities, resources, and agency of participant actors (Hodson et al. 2017; Levenda

168

R. N. Steffansen et al.

2019). As such, the analogy of ULLs to niche innovations seems quite direct as both can potentially challenge existing governance regimes and directly affect urban transitions (Geels 2011). In urban planning, ULLs can be translated as a model for citizen participation and collaborative planning at the local scale. These models are rooted explicitly in what Friedman and Abonyi (1976) called a social practice model of experimental learning and Healey’s (1998) institutional capacity building through collaborative planning. Planning theory is at the base of the important aspect of ULLs as a model for the open participation of actors and networks, their mutual learning, and development of capacities and meanings in relation to a specific urban problem, that often is not fully known or understood. The key element of ULL activities is the development of a practice of collaboration among a plurality of actors involved, based on a model of mutual learning that can orient a substantial “outcome”. The model of collaboration at the foundation of ULLs is well illustrated also by the vocabulary of co-creation (ENoLL 2016; Feurstein et al. 2008; Franz et al. 2015; Gómez-Barroso et al. 2009; van der Heijden 2016; Schaub 2016). Co-creation implies the participation of endusers in the development of the process, i.e., the end-users should hold decision power about the results (Steen and van Bueren 2017). Co-creation consists of a radical change of the meaning of participation from simple tokenism, as consulting user opinions, to the empowerment of users. Menny et al. (2018) refer to Arnstein’s ladder of participation when arguing that co-creation is not always achieved at every stage of making ULLs, as different methods of engagement of users might be needed during the process of developing the product. Co-production can therefore also be activated through the different phases, e.g., when developing both the (material or technical) nature of the product and constructing new values. Friedman (1998) argued that citizens, as those exposed to urban everyday life, should be included in every phase of the planning process and contribute with a myriad of meanings linked to the urban context. There is therefore a need for iteration of the ULLs’ activities, which refine the lessons learned during product development and ensure co-creation (Feurstein et al. 2008; Pallot and Pawar 2012; Pierson and Lievens 2005; Lissandrello et al. 2018). The reliance on reflexive learning (Dewey 1949; Guile and Young 1998; Dyke 2006) is based on the iterative dimension of knowledge and interpretation of (various forms of) data and on the potentials and limitations of integrating databased knowledge in situated urban planning practice and visions of localized futures. However, we might also think of co-created “outcomes” where public authorities are the end-user, e.g., in situations where the ULLs’ aim is to develop new methods for public participation or when the “outcome” refers to a process of capacity building. Studies have been advancing the idea that ULLs have a substantial purpose to produce results that can be replicated “in the real world”, i.e., in other contexts (ASC 2016; Bijsterveldt 2016; Franz et al. 2015; Juujärvi and Lund 2016). By doing so, ULLs are argued to potentially “catalyse rapid technical and economic transformation” (Evans and Karvonen 2014: 415). The real-world context also poses the main challenge of ULLs, as they are in principle “uncontrollable”. The real-life context can include both physical and virtual places as urban processes often entail the inclusion

13 Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic …

169

of both physical presence and digital platforms. The contextual geographical linkage might also prove as a barrier for replicability to other contexts. The literature on ULLs in pandemic times seems extremely limited at this point, and this chapter might be a point of departure for further discussions on how crisis and risk conditions linked to social distancing influence the ambitions and the structures of ULLs.

13.4 The NordicPATH Urban Living Labs’ Approach NordicPATH’s overall objective is to establish a new model for citizens’ participation and collaborative planning in Nordic countries, to enhance Nordic research collaboration across disciplinary divides, with an impact beyond academia on sustainable urban development and smart cities (NordForsk 2018). The main idea of NordicPATH is to depart from urban air quality as a driver and detector of problems of sustainability and as a driver of engagement of citizens, thereby creating access to local knowledge. Air quality is an exemplary case of sustainability and an important indicator of healthy cities, and it offers a focal point for people-centered urban transformation (Grossberndt et al. 2021). Air quality can be this be considered as a working object or as an agent of urban change the consideration of which can provide specific solutions. The air quality is also a starting point for building a ULL as a model of interdisciplinary social learning, to frame the complex interlinkages between disciplinary elements. Interdisciplinarity is not just a question of putting several fields together so that individuals can share their specialized knowledge and converse with one another within their expertise. It is to create a real opportunity for sharing knowledge and shaping a new field that belongs to no one, not even to those who first established it. What is at stake, therefore, in this intercreation, is the very notion of specialization and of expertise, discipline, and professionalism (Minh-ha 1991). The project consortium that informs this chapter consists of researchers from Aalborg University, Denmark (urban planning and service design), Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Norway (air quality assessments and monitoring), University of Gothenburg, Sweden (technology and citizens-science studies), Swedish Environmental Research Institute (air monitoring assessments and modeling), Maptionnaire, Finland (Public Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PPGIS)) together with environmental and urban planners from the four cities: Aalborg (Denmark), Gothenburg (Sweden), Kristiansand (Norway), and Lappeenranta (Finland). Low-cost sensor technologies and online PPGIS survey and gamification tools have defined the strategic pathway to engage citizens in the co-creation of knowledge about air quality and urban planning. Although these were common traits of the ULL, all cities/contexts took different approaches to their deployment. The online survey tool, Maptionnaire, has been used to gather information about specific topics and needs, but in different ways throughout the different cities. In some cities, several topics were identified, while in others only one topic was specifically addressed. In

170

R. N. Steffansen et al.

all the ULLs, the local partners dedicated time to locate a purpose and understand the specific need in the cities in collaboration with local actors, such as the municipality or public organizations. Likewise, the organization of the governance network was differentiated in the cities as the ULLs worked all engaging local communities and local authorities. In some cities, the authorities were rather reluctant to directly participate in the project activities, while other cities’ authorities were very supportive of scientific work. Likewise, local communities in some cities were engaged by the project partners more than in other cities. At an advanced stage of the project, when several ULL activities had been initiated, the project consortium started to discuss common learning objectives of the ULLs, as differences started to show. A cross-consortium working group was formed and discussions based on a literature review started to form a working document that would follow and serve as a questionnaire. Allowing open-ended answers, the ULL coordinators could give input about consortium-level discussions on common approaches and framings of the ULLs. The questionnaires included a literature review for conceptual guidance, while multiple questions were asked for each theme. The questions were mainly inspired by Steen and van Bueren’s (2017) distinction of ULL’s in aim, activity, participants, and context. This was sent out to the four ULL coordinators in early summer of 2021. A shorter set of follow-up questions was sent out to the same coordinators in early 2022, to collect knowledge about progress in the ULLs and the effects of COVID-19 lockdown policy measures. The empirical data of this chapter consist of the answers from the questionnaires that have been collected in eight documents with responses about how the ULLs have been organized and structured in the NordicPATH project. Answers to these questionnaires vary in length and theoretical grounding. This might highlight the level of reflection that each ULL leader has put into answering, the time available, academic background, and progress stage of the ULL.

13.5 Working Together Differently In this section, we synthesize how the Urban Living Labs worked as an interdisciplinary model to set up collaborative planning of project work across disciplines and constitute a framework for operating in the four cities. The framework presented focuses on ULLs’ aims, activities, participants, and contexts. The section will also describe how the COVID-19 impacts have influenced each of these elements and the collaborative work at the consortium level.

13.5.1 Aims As described, the overall objective of the NordicPATH project is to establish a new model for citizens’ participation and collaborative planning in Nordic countries to

13 Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic …

171

enhance healthier and people-centered cities. The aims described by the ULL coordinators in the four cities are multiple, vary, and can be considered according to diverse categories. The different localized aims differ from fostering awareness and dialogue on the issue of air quality as a health issue in cities, to exploring how participatory methods for environmental monitoring can be integrated through low-cost sensors to engage citizens in the environmental department, and to exploring common pathways between urban and environmental competencies in collaborative planning processes. The aims reflect the fact that air pollution is a cross-border issue at the heart of social and environmental justice. In the local context of ULLs, air quality is understood as a sort of transcendental object that connects environmental and urban problems to deal with public participation. In Aalborg for example, the institutionalization of urban and environmental planning at city hall is mostly working as separate units or “in silos”, so the overall aim of the local ULL is to bridge this by working with air quality as a transcendental object. By focusing on air quality as a challenge to investigate with citizen science practice, community capacity can be built and influence policy and planning relating to both social and environmental justice. In Gothenburg on the other hand—besides addressing the persistent issue of working in silos—the ULL’s aim is to build capacity for the environmental administration to include participatory processes using the issues of air quality. In Kristiansand and Lappeenranta, the administrations were mainly concerned about air pollution from the perspective of particle matter caused by wood burning for household heating. The focus is therefore on facilitating dialogue around this issue involving citizens, experts, and policy actors. A common lesson is that linking the diverse ULLs’ aims to the specific problems that cities are already working with provides a gateway into research and policy administrations. In some Nordic cities, the interest in research on air quality was already a focus point, while in other cities, air quality raised a workable problem to research. As such, the aim of the ULLs is also to collect data on air quality through citizen science and interpret the meaning of those data in current urban policy and planning. The transformative focus of the ULL model is therefore not just related to the iterative process of learning from data but also to their “applicability” in conversation with urban policy. The pandemic did not directly influence the aims of the different ULLs, but the ULLs have adjusted some of the ambitions related to activities and participants and consequently reshaped the ambition of aims. The COVID-19 emergency has nevertheless brought with it an attention towards the relevance of urban air quality, by highlighting the relationship between urban planning and healty cities to policymakers.

13.5.2 Activities The activities carried out in the ULLs have been formed by the way the aims have been identified and formulated. Activities were not set up by formalized rules from the overall project leadership but were adjusted to fit the common aim of the project. A

172

R. N. Steffansen et al.

commonality of all the ULLs has been to engage citizens adopt sensors and becoming active producers of data and knowledge on air quality, in order to impact conversations with different interested parties in the cities, hereunder citizens (individuals and groups), and different departments and units of the city administration. Public events held by the city authorities have also been performed in NordicPATH cities to activate the interest of citizens in data production and participation, gather insights, and present results. Local businesses have not to the same extent been included or targeted by the ULL activities as this was not a primary focus of the project. Throughout, most activities with interested parties were participatory and especially focused on citizens as active co-creators of data. Data on air quality were produced through citizens-science by low-cost sensors (permanent and mobile) and PPGIS surveys (public opinion). This process of using existing sensor technology has great value for engaging interested parties and citizens, to enhance a participatory culture. The COVID-19 situation influenced the ULL work greatly and in various ways. The fact that the nation-states took different approaches to govern pandemic measures and regulations influenced the form and the activities that could be performed through the ULLs. However, most commonly the lockdown periods required some of the physical activities to be canceled, postponed, or to be held online. Though much has been learned by shifting from a physical to digital meeting culture, the difference in participation, by engaging interested parties through digital means for participatory events, rather than engaging physically, is significant. Though the Nordic countries are regarded as the most digitalized in the EU (2022), barriers still exist toward user fluency of digital meeting platforms. Thus, the activities planned in the ULLs, depending on the participants, were not necessarily possible. When it was possible to meet online, conversations did not have the same seamlessness as physical meetings but followed a formal and turn-based structure and limited possibility for in-between small talk.

13.5.3 Participants Considering participants in ULLs, it is important to focus on the end-users of the innovation or “outcome”. As the project aims to create new ways of public participation, the end-user would be those who suffer the most from poor air quality areas to shape new data and to enhance strategies for new urban policies and the ones engaged in a newly situated culture of participation. In NordicPATH, the role of the research team was to facilitate city-employed environmental and urban planners to engage with citizens as the “end-users” in the co-creation process. Other end-users are obviously more broadly all citizens. In Nordic countries, participation is regulated in public hearings. However, in most cities, public participation occasionally goes beyond hearing periods. In the NordicPATH project, ULLs’ aim to enhance new relationships among citizens, communities, researchers, and policymakers beyond the formal official processes of public participation understood legally as the hearing

13 Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic …

173

period. Citizens’ capacities as scientists (measuring and giving their perception on the air quality) and as carriers of local knowledge, interpreting data, and giving their perceptions of air quality are of high relevance for future planning and the process of democratic accountability of urban planning processes and priorities. Researchers are drivers of the NordicPATH project and the mediators of knowledge sharing and learning in the making of the ULLs. This includes the central role that researchers play in the transformation of knowledge in its various forms into articulated learning. The power dynamic here is reflected in the role of researchers to influence how participation can be understood using air quality as a driver. In the local context, the ULLs developed a theme still not consolidated in urban planning as the participation through air quality, attempting to develop an urban governance network in a short time (three years), but aiming at setting the stage for a long-term perspective with culturalization of participation and integrative practice of urban planning, that over the long-term perspective can become effective in influencing urban policies. Therefore, the ULL “power” will be to develop a new capacity of the university institution to establish trajectories to influence long-term policies by situating data at the center of this influence. As the work of the ULLs mainly has been carried out through periods of lockdown, this culturalization effort among participants has naturally been shaped by that condition. Postponements and abruptions have slowed the process but also accustomed the participants to the need for flexibility and adaptation.

13.5.4 Contexts As previously mentioned, the aims of the ULLs were shaped to the specific urban and institutional contexts of individual Nordic cities. In addition, the practical contexts of the ULL process should be considered. The ULLs in the NordicPATH project should not be thought of as physical sites or places where activities take place, but rather as a network of experimentation with a new theme for urban and environmental planning in structuring mechanisms of participation. As such the “sites” where the ULL takes place are multifaceted, they are online, through surveys, physically in workshops (sometimes hybrid online/physical), webpages with data and data visualization and one-on-one meetings. Oftentimes, the activities performed in the ULLs include the participation of interested parties in relevant real-life processes of, e.g., urban planning or local communities’ meetings. Much effort, however, is required by researchers’ in-between meetings in shaping a proper knowledge or problem context from which discussions may take place. This entails decisions on how collected data is presented or pre-interpreted and which problems the data represent. Obviously much of these discussions have been taken online.

174

R. N. Steffansen et al.

13.6 Discussion The experience of working with ULLs in the Nordic context provides an account of how transnational research agendas can meet localized challenges. The reliance on reflexive learning and iteration in ULLs creates a need to continuously discuss the relations between the overall objects and aim of the research project with the localized ULLs that facilitate the actual research and learning arena with several angles and interpretations with respect to local and transnational challenges. In a reflexive learning approach, knowledge is considered contingent, fallible, and open to revision in light of new information and experiences. This has not only relevance for the impact in the local context, but also to progress the ULL model more explicitly. ULLs can indeed constitute just bubbles, not aligned with urban policies and planning. The ambition for informing progressive participatory urban planning through ULLs is therefore not just limited to niche innovation itself but from the capacity to develop and possibly breakthrough existing urban policy regimes. For this reason, the role of research in transnational networks can become meaningful for contributing to long-term urban sustainable transitions, to become an intermediary agent beyond the local context and the individual ULLs. Both local and transnational structurations are needed for aligning diverse segments of transformation with the overall project and among ULLs for achieving the research agenda. A general model for such relationships is sketched in Fig. 13.1. When it comes to the conversations carried out in the project consortium about the ULL work, almost all the disciplinary representations were online, and though they did not necessarily follow formal agendas, conversations were still influenced by the barriers of online conversations. However, holding meetings online was not

ULL (Local aims)

Participants and activities

Participants and activities

Participants and activities

Participants and activities

Context

Context

Context

Context

• Needs

• Needs

• Needs

• Needs

• Challenges

• Challenges

• Challenges

• Challenges

• Governance culture

• Governance culture

• Governance culture

• Governance culture

• Etc.

• Etc.

• Etc.

• Etc.

COVID-19 conditions challenge and weaken the co-production with local actors

ULL (Local aims)

COVID-19 conditions challenge, but possibly strengthening the co-production at consortium level

ULL (Local aims)

Local governance according to context conditions

ULL (Local aims)

Interdisciplinary alignment of project governance structure and aims within project consortium and with local ULL organisers

NordicPATH Overall Aim

Fig. 13.1 Relation between the individual ULLs and the overall research project

13 Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic …

175

due to lockdown restrictions alone, but also because the project consortium consists of researchers from different countries not being able to meet physically, on a regular basis. Despite the challenges of working together from a distance, and through lockdowns, the structured conversation facilitated by the literature review and questionnaire and thereby common frame of reference and understanding are essential for the governance and progress of the individual ULLs and the shared learning and shared aim of the overall project. This is not necessarily a dynamic occurring as a result of multiple ULLs working toward a common project aim, as a singular ULL would also be highly influenced by the local context and thus a need to realign with outset aims would be obligatory. The novelty of this chapter is in proposing how multiple ULLs with multiple partners and disciplines during lockdown periods can continuously work toward adjusting shared understandings and aligning aims of individual ULLs toward sustainable urban transformations. Working across national borders through digital means has developed knowledge across consortium members and ULLs, despite conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the projectlevel discussions were perhaps challenged by lockdown conditions, but possibly also strengthened. Because lockdowns created a pause in local ULL activities, it left time to reflect and discuss across disciplines, at the consortium level. The reflections were facilitated by a structured literature-based frame, which ensured that different disciplines enhance in a mutual understanding of what ULLs are, can do, and how to operationalize them in accordance with specific aims, participants, activities, and contexts.

13.7 Conclusion This chapter has shown how the Urban Living Lab methodology in research projects can facilitate a sustainable transition of participatory urban planning, using air quality as a driver. A method for aligning aims across ULLs has been proposed, emphasizing the alignment of individual ULLs with the strategic objective of the overall project. The COVID-19 pandemic has hampered some local ULL activities and put participants, unaccustomed to online platforms, in the background. This has prolonged the ULL work, but also created the possibility for greater emphasis on online contexts and participation across borders from a distance. In conclusion, the interdisciplinary reflexivity seems to have been strengthened by lockdown conditions. A thorough and comprehensive methodological setup and continued discussions prove to be resilient in times of crisis that seem to advance a new normal. As such the chapter showed how ULL work can be facilitated across borders, through digital means of communication. The process has undoubtedly been affected by lockdown measurements, but a viable path for working together from remote has proven possible and should inspire replicability and scalability to other contexts and projects.

176

R. N. Steffansen et al.

Acknowledgements This research has been financed through the NordForsk grant (2020–2023) for the Nordic Programme on Sustainable Urban Development and Smart Cities. NordicPATH— “Nordic participatory, healthy and people-centred cities”.

References ASC (2016) Urban living labs. Amsterdam Smart City (ASC), Amsterdam Economic Board, January 14, 2017. Accessed 1 Jul 2017: https://www.amsterdameconomicboard.com/projecten/amster dam-smart-city-2 Ballon P, Pierson J, Delaere S (2005) Test and Experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: examining European practice. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1331557 Bulkeley H, Coenen L, Frantzeskaki N, Hartmann C, Kronsell A, Mai L, Palgan YV (2016) Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 22:13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003 CoreLabs (2007) Building sustainable competitiveness-living labs roadmap 2007–2010. Luleå, Sweden, Luleå University of Technology, Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology Dewey J (1949) Experience and existence. In: Boydston J (ed) John Dewey The Later Works, 1949–1952, vol 16 (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press) Dyke M (2006) The role of the ‘Other’ in knowledge formation, reflection and action in late modernity. Int J Lifelong Educ 25(2):105–123 ENoLL (2006) What is a living lab? European network of living labs (ENoLL), Accessed 2 Aug 2016:http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/FAQ Eriksson M, Niitamo V-P, Kulkki S (2005) State-of-the-art in utilizing living labs approach to user-centric ict innovation—a European approach. Luleå University of Technology, Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology, Luleå, Sweden EU (2022) The digital economy and society index (DESI). Retrieved 1 Dec 2022, from https://dig ital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi Evans J, Karvonen A (2014) ‘Give me a laboratory and i will lower your carbon footprint!’—Urban laboratories and the governance of low-carbon futures. Int J Urban Reg Res 38(2):413–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12077 Feurstein K, Hesmer A, Hribernik KA, Thoben K, Schumacher J (2008) Living labs: a new development strategy. In: Schumacher J, Niitamo VP (eds) European living labs—a new approach for human centric regional innovation. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin, pp 1–14 Franz Y, Tausz K, Thiel SK (2015) Contextuality and co-creation matter: a qualitative case study comparison of living lab concepts in Urban research. Technol Innov Manage Rev 5(12):48–55. http://timreview.ca/article/952 Friedmann J, Abonyi G (1976) Social learning: a model for policy research. Environ Plan A 8(8):927–940. https://doi.org/10.1068/a080927 Geels FW (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Trans 1(1):24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 Gómez-Barroso JL, Feijóo C, Pascu C, van Lieshout M (2009) User-led, citizen innovation at the interface of services. Info 11(6):82–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636690910996731 Grossberndt S, Passani A, Di Lisio G, Janssen A, Castell N (2021) Transformative potential and learning outcomes of air quality citizen science projects in high schools using low-cost sensors. Atmosphere 12(6):736. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12060736 Guile D, Young M (1998) Apprenticeship as a conceptual basis for a social theory of learning. J Vocational Educ Train 50(2):173 Hajer M (2016) Foreword. In: Evans J, Karvonen A, Raven R (eds) The experimental city: new modes and prospects of urban transformation. The experimental city. Routledge, pp 1–12

13 Urban Living Labs for Healthy and People-Centered Cities: A Nordic …

177

Healey P (1998) Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environ Plan A 30(9):1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301531 Hodson M, Geels FW, McMeekin A (2017) Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, analysing multiplicity. Sustainability 9(2):299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020299 Juujärvi S, Lund V (2016) Enhancing early innovation in an urban living lab: lessons from espoo, Finland. Technol Innovation Manage Rev 6(1):17–26. http://timreview.ca/article/957 Karvonen A, van Heur B (2014) Urban laboratories: experiments in reworking cities. Int J Urban Reg Res 38(2):379–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12075 Levenda AM (2019) Thinking critically about smart city experimentation: entrepreneurialism and responsibilization in urban living labs. Local Environ 24(7):565–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549839.2019.1598957 Lissandrello E, Morelli N, Schillaci D, Di Dio S (2018) Urban innovation through co-design scenarios. The interplay of data, technology, place and people for smart learning. Springer International Publishing, pp 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92022-1_10 Marvin S, Bulkeley H, Mai L, McCormick K, Palgan YV (2018) Urban living labs (1st edn). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315230641 Menny M, Voytenko Palgan Y, McCormick K (2018) Urban living labs and the role of users in cocreation. Gaia 27:68–77 Minh-ha TT (1991) When the Moon waxes red: representation, gender and cultural politics. Routledge, London NordForsk (2018) Sustainable urban development and smart cities. Retrieved 1 Dec 2022, from https://www.nordforsk.org/programs/sustainable-urban-development-and-smart-cities Pallot M, Pawar K (2012) A holistic model of user experience for living lab experiential design. In: Paper presented to the 18th international ICE conference on engineering, technology and innovation, Munich, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2012.6297648 Pierson J, Lievens B (2005) Configuring living labs for a ‘thick’ understanding of innovation. In: Proceedings of the ethnographic praxis in industry conference, pp 114–127. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1559-8918.2005.tb00012.x Schaffers H, Cordoba MG, Hongisto P, Kallai T, Merz C, van Rensburg J (2007) Exploring business models for open innovation in rural living labs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international technology management conference (ICE), pp 1–8 Schaub A (2016) Amsterdam living lab. Waag Society, Accessed 2 Aug 2017: https://www.waag. org/nl/project/amsterdam-living-lab Scholl C, Agger Eriksen M, Baerten N, Clark E, Drage T, Essebo M, Hillgren P, Hoeflehner T, de Kraker J, Rijkens-Klomp N, Seravalli A, Wachtmeister A, Wlasak P (2017) Guidelines for urban labs Steen K, van Bueren E (2017) The defining characteristics of urban living labs. Technol Innovation Manage Rev 7(7):21–33. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1088 van der Heijden E (2016) Urban management fieldlabs: living lab description. European network of living labs. Accessed 2 Aug 2016: http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglab/urban-managementfieldlabs von Wirth T, Fuenfschilling L, Frantzeskaki N, Coenen L (2019) Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation. Eur Plan Stud 27(2):229–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.150 4895

Chapter 14

Reframing Participatory Regeneration Through the COVID-19 Pandemic. Highlights from Lisbon Roberto Falanga

Abstract As the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020, a wide array of societal issues came to the international fore, being the aggravation of socio-spatial divides, one of the most urgent. In the last few decades, the call for citizen participation in urban policies has growingly straddled together social actors and stakeholders around different urban issues. However, little is known on whether and how participatory processes have tackled urban poverty in specific areas through regeneration initiatives. This is an information worth examining to highlight the potential reframing of participatory regeneration in the days ahead, and the extent to which it can be part of a “new normal”. To this end, the chapter presents and discusses some main findings from the participatory process for the regeneration of the Martim Moniz Square in Lisbon. This process started at the end of 2020 and gathered more than one thousand citizens to share their ideas about the present and future of one of the most iconic places of the city. Main findings show that citizens claim for a new public green area in the square, which corroborates the position defended by a new social movement raised in favour of more environmental justice. Three main highlights are advanced in the discussion. First, the role of participatory processes in regeneration initiatives can be an effective proxy between decision-makers and citizens, as self-organised groups can be strong allies to seal citizens’ claims. Second, participatory regeneration needs to be inclusive, as its primary goal is to give voice to the most marginalised people living and working in deprived urban areas. Third and last, participatory regeneration implemented through the COVID-19 pandemic can provide needed inputs to handle extreme events in the days ahead, which are likely to aggravate poverty and risk of poverty in our society. Keywords Urban regeneration · Participatory process · Poverty · Lisbon

R. Falanga (B) Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, 1600-189 Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_14

179

180

R. Falanga

14.1 Introduction Urban poverty can be understood as the symbolic and physical threshold between self and other, which influences inclusion and exclusion of (poor) people in society (Sibley 1995). Multiple factors converge to define poverty, such as income, employment, education, and housing, which all contribute to dynamics of territorial stigmatisation. According to Wacquant et al. (2008), this is especially true for deprived communities, which suffer from socially constructed representations that tend to crystallise borders and overlook internal diversity (Wallace 2010). In the last few decades, different practices have aimed to tackle poverty through urban regeneration in the built environments. Some scholars contend that differences emerge as to the regeneration of central and peripheral urban areas (Parés et al. 2014). Accordingly, city centres are more often targeted for big real estate and city (re)branding operations, whilst peripherals are more frequently subject to slum-clearance and householders’ forced relocation. Urban regeneration initiatives may deploy mixed solutions for new forms of social cohabitation and spatial redistribution between poor and healthy communities (Bolt et al. 2010). Regeneration initiatives may also want to “fix” local communities in the neighbourhood by funding social, cultural, and economic activities. In this case, local communities are often encouraged to (re)activate social bonds within and/or with surrounding neighbourhoods (Falanga and Nunes 2021). The diffusion of urban regeneration initiatives in Europe has been supported by international, national, and local funding schemes. However, the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to these practices. On the one hand, this pandemic has especially hit poor people by aggravating job insecurity and risks of contagion due to frequently overcrowded and/or inadequate housing conditions. On the other hand, regenerative initiatives face serious constraints when it comes to engaging communities on the field, due to health measures adopted to reduce contagion, such as lockdowns and social distancing. In fact, evidence on local initiatives of citizen participation shows that a limited number of initiatives has been able to overcome these limitations on the field in the last couple of years (Falanga 2020a). Whilst public authorities have declared their interest in either keeping or recovering participatory initiatives, reduced face-to-face interaction is perceived amongst the most challenging issues raised by this pandemic, and the shift to online participation is often experienced as a hurdle for local administrations. Against this backdrop, this chapter aims to present and discuss the main highlights from the participatory process for the regeneration of the Martim Moniz square in Lisbon. This can be considered as an emblematic case opened through the COVID-19 pandemic. The process started at the end of 2020 with the main purpose to regenerate the built environment in a square that is an iconic place of the city. As far as the author of this chapter was able to establish, this was an innovative process for being one of the few participatory processes in Europe that focussed on urban transformations, as

14 Reframing Participatory Regeneration Through the COVID-19 …

181

well as the only participatory process in Lisbon during the first wave of the COVID19 pandemic (cf. Falanga 2020a). Importantly, this was also the first participatory process in Lisbon that was developed almost exclusively online. The chapter is structured as follows: The first section presents the conceptual framework on urban regeneration and emerging challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic in urban planning. The second section describes the participatory process in Lisbon and some main findings. The third and last section discusses findings by arguing that reframing participatory regeneration is a necessary step to tackle aggravating socio-spatial divides, generated and/or aggravated through the COVID19 pandemic with a view to forthcoming extreme events. To this end, participatory processes can open a new dialogue on policy making, and major efforts need to be made to ensure the inclusion of the most marginalised people living and working in deprived areas.

14.2 The COVID-19 Pandemic and Urban Poverty This pandemic’s impact is a historical landmark documented in all life spheres and across all the countries of the globe. Considering the key role played by cities in attracting an increasing number of people, urban planning has been called to advance knowledge and practice on the governance of socio-spatial inequalities. The spread of the coronavirus has intercepted these dynamics, as shown by international patterns of contagion, which have been heavily conditioned by the presence of advanced systems of connections in some cities (Florida et al. 2021). Highly connected hubs were the main hotspot of contagion at the first stage of this pandemic, which disclosed considerable implications for urban planning. At the same time, modernist approaches revealed the drawbacks from an urban organisation that privileges specialised districts and showed the fragility of old and new clustering strategies, including the recent acceleration of real estate valorisation and fiscal revenues in city centres (Celata and Romano 2020). Whilst monofunctional downtowns, as well as edge cities, have been the most susceptible to the economic fallout caused by lockdowns (Ramani and Bloom 2021), urban diversity has been advocated as a key factor for healthier cities. Diverse, large, and compact cities have provided good results in health accessibility, as well as sustainable and soft mobility through new forms of local connectivity (Mouratidis 2021). Neighbourhoods have been at the centre stage of the public debate for being considered the most adequate urban units to rethink local community engagement, as well as the production and distribution of resources (see, for instance, the “15 min cities” model by Moreno et al. 2021). Not all neighbourhoods hold, however, the same conditions for self-sustainability. The demarcation between healthy and poor communities, generated and/or aggravated through the COVID-19 pandemic, is evidence of that. The concentration of poverty in specific urban areas has made health conditions especially harsh for the most vulnerable groups, with cross-cutting impacts on existing inequalities. The labour market has been especially targeted by the consequences of this pandemic, as

182

R. Falanga

some workers have had the privilege to work from (uncrowded) homes and access to private transportation, whereas others, especially “essential workers”, have been the most exposed to job insecurity (Florida et al. 2021). Moreover, low-skill workers, interacting everyday with customers via high-touch jobs, have been the most exposed to contagion, being often members of minorities living in precarious neighbourhoods (Afsahi et al. 2020). Alongside, discriminating behaviours, racialised practices, and practical impairments have harshened towards poor people, as they often became an accelerator of infection through urban mobility corridors (Almagro and OraneHutchinson 2020; Jay et al. 2020). Limited access to public transport, healthcare, healthy food, and recreational opportunities have been paired by inadequate housing conditions for poor migrants living in informal and often overcrowded houses with associated difficulties in paying rents (Ahmad et al. 2020; Vilenica et al. 2020). The growth of poverty, and at-risk of poverty people, has called for a serious commitment to combat structural inequalities in cities. However, tensions have emerged over the capacity of public authorities to face the acceleration of povertyrelated phenomena. During the pandemic, central governments have either been praised or criticised for their (un)preparedness to manage the coronavirus, whereas local governments have found themselves in a more strategic position. In contrast, and despite being dependent on central funding mechanisms, local authorities have increasingly been seen as the bulwark for an effective articulation, with social groups, for the support to solidarity-induced and self-aid networks (Falanga 2020a). In some cases, local actions have drawn lessons and given continuity to collaborative and participatory micro-planning in the neighbourhoods too (Healey 1998). So, whilst tactical urbanism and placemaking practices have gained new visibility in the last two years, little evidence has been shared, so far, on more structured and comprehensive urban regeneration initiatives, tackling poverty-related problems. The participatory process for the regeneration of the Martim Moniz square is an emblematic case of this kind, which coalesces innovative aspects regarding urban planning, citizen participation, and the shift from in-presence to online modes of interaction.

14.3 Lisbon: An Overview Lisbon, the capital city of Portugal, has been at the centre stage of tremendous sociopolitical transformations in the last few years. The financial crisis started in 2008 in the US and then spread around the world had a massive impact in the country. The city council aimed to face significant budgetary cuts, imposed by the national readjustment programme, by incentivising new local measures. In parallel, spreading social mobilisations reclaimed a new cycle of public investment against the austerity and the perceived welfare state retrenchment. Amongst the most innovative urban policies, Lisbon launched a participatory budget in 2008/2009, which became a key reference at the national and international level for being the first to be implemented by a European capital at the city level. In 2010/2011, the city council launched another innovative policy programme devoted to the regeneration of critical areas through

14 Reframing Participatory Regeneration Through the COVID-19 …

183

area-based initiatives implemented by local groups and NGOs (Falanga 2020b).1 In the last decade, the economic recovery has been driven by international investment in the real estate and tourism sectors mainly. Alongside the benefits from such an economic boom, the rise of housing prices and living costs has been one of the most disrupting social phenomena in the last few years. In fact, the aggravation of structural inequalities in major cities has been reported by several activists, practitioners, and scholars, as the public debate has grown around new pathways for citizen participation in urban planning, against speculative operations and/or in favour of more (environmental) justice.

14.3.1 Martim Moniz Square: At the Crossroads of the City Urban transformations in Lisbon pinpoint emerging trade-offs between the impetus given by new investments in the real estate and tourism sectors and growing socioeconomic inequalities. Against this backdrop, the Martim Moniz square (MMS) combines some key features of this tension in both spatial and social dimensions. The square was raised in the mid-1950s from the demolition of a neighbourhood surrounded by the Mouraria—one of the most multicultural areas of the city—with the São Jorge castle on the top of the hill on one side, and the Santana hill with the São José hospital on the other side. In the 1960s, a big hotel was built, and later in the 1980s, two shopping centres were put on the long sides of the square. Today, MMS joins houses, hotels, and local trade activities, being a gateway to the downtown from Rua da Palma and Avenida Almirante Reis, one of the principal avenues of the city. It is along the initial stretch of this avenue that a big wave of urban regeneration started in the 2010s, pushed forward by international and local incentives that aimed to improve local development and preserve the multicultural character of this side of the city. MMS was no exception, and today, the square welcomes one of the highest rates of migrant communities, being a hotspot of multicultural initiatives as well as poverty. In such a cultural milieu, the “Fusion Market” was inaugurated in 2011 as a set of 10 stands selling food from all over the world. Despite its promptness, the Market ended up raising complaints from residents and some political parties on the left of the political spectrum. In 2017, the new joint venture Moon Brigade advanced with a new project for the square: the “Martim Moniz Market”. The project was agreed with the Lisbon city council for an improvement in the number of stands, from 10 to 35, within a new fashionable structure that covered more than 50% of the public space. As soon as the agreement was made public, however, local NGOs and social groups raised their concerns and called for an open dialogue between local powers and the communities living and working in the area. Between 2018 and 1

The BipZip programme is one of the most known local programmes funding regenerative initiatives, which has inspired the design of the recently launched “Healthy Neighbourhoods” programme, which aims to tackle pandemic-related issues in deprived areas around the country.

184

R. Falanga

2019, concerns were echoed by political and social actors in several public meetings and debates. As the request for a public green area in the square gained consensus, practitioners and scholars seemingly defended the chance to raise the standards of environmental justice in the city centre. The “Garden Martim Moniz Movement (GMMM)” eventually played a major role in this contention as it allowed citizens, social groups, NGOs, practitioners, and scholars to join their voices against the project of the new market. More than 1600 people signed a public petition for a green space in the square, and the GMMM called out the city council, for a new participatory process, to set up a final decision. In July 2019, the city council announced the stop to the Martim Moniz Market and the intention to proceed with a participatory process, for the regeneration of the square.

14.3.2 The Participatory Process for the Regeneration of the Martim Moniz Square At the time when the participatory process was set up, the author of this chapter was an external advisor to the citizen participation department of the Lisbon city council. As an external member of the coordination team, the author had privileged access to information collected and produced through this process. Nevertheless, data presented and discussed in this chapter are essentially public and retrieved from the official Website of the Lisbon city council, which provides open access to the main results of this process (Lisboaparticipa 2021). At the outset, the plan of this participatory process aimed to develop face-to-face meetings with citizens through a variety of deliberative and participatory settings. However, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic imposed constraints that eventually led to develop digital solutions. For the first time in Lisbon, a participatory process was going to be almost entirely implemented online, which soon raised questions about how to ensure social inclusion. The coordination team, which was composed of public officials from multiple administrative units—citizen participation, urban planning, public space, environment, cultural heritage, and communication—under the supervision of the deputy mayor for urban planning, aimed to ensure that the voice of the poor and marginalised groups was heard. To this end, the participatory process was structured in four main stages: • First, participation should be based on evidence. Accordingly, a public exhibition of the key historical facts, related to the MMS and its current characteristics, was organised both online and in the square. The exhibition was prepared by the cultural heritage department with the help of the urban planning department, which highlighted current issues related to heating waves in the square and technical implications from the existing underground car park. • Second, between December 2020 and February 2021, the citizen participation department led the collection of qualitative and quantitative information about

14 Reframing Participatory Regeneration Through the COVID-19 …

185

socially perceived challenges and opportunities of the square. Importantly, participation at this stage aimed to reveal the most common ideas about the present and future of the square. This goal was operationalised through an online survey and 11 focus groups. Moreover, two internal workshops with the GMMM were organised by the coordination team in order to keep the movement updated with the process and hear its take on the MMS’ regeneration. Through the official webpage of the city council, citizens had the opportunity to access and fulfil the survey, as well as schedule participation in focus groups. • The third stage was organised by the public space department, which called citizens to submit drawings of the future square based on the main outputs from surveys and focus groups at the second stage. • The fourth and last stage engenders the implementation of a new project for the square. At the time of this writing (spring/summer 2022), the fourth stage has been announced by the current deputy mayor for urban planning, but it has not taken place yet. Accordingly, the following section delves into the main findings of the previous stages, with a focus on citizen participation promoted at the second stage through surveys and focus groups.

14.3.3 Main Findings Focus on the main findings from surveys and focus groups allows drawing a picture of the challenges and opportunities for urban regeneration in the locale. The survey questionnaire was structured in three main sections. The first compiled sociodemographic information; the second asked questions about the current uses of the MMS; and the third asked citizens to share their views on imagined futures of the MMS. Closed and open-ended questions aimed to gather quantitative and qualitative data that were analysed through different statistical methods, namely SPSS for quantitative data analysis, and T-Lab for the discourse analysis of the third survey section. With regards to the first survey section, responses from 1009 citizens show that around 80% were 18–50 years old people who held high educational degrees (either bachelor or master’s degrees), whereas only around 11% were less educated people. Whilst 89% of respondents were Portuguese people, 11% were citizens from 21 different countries. Less than 1% were young people (under 17 years old). Regarding the second survey section, the MMS was mainly perceived as a “crossroad”, with some people enjoying shopping and hanging out at the bars and restaurants around the square. Respondents highlighted the importance of green areas and keeping the square clean. Air quality was equally important, and efforts should be made to improve it according to respondents. High rates of satisfaction were demonstrated in relation to the underground car park as well as the multicultural environment, especially regarding local trade. The trade-off calculated between perceived importance and satisfaction resulted in three top priorities that were interpreted as requests for public intervention (i.e., the more important and the less satisfied people

186

R. Falanga

TRADE-OFF IMPORTANCE/SATISFACTION Trade-off importance/satisfaction 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5

Fig. 14.1 Trade-off between perceived importance and satisfaction. Source Lisboaparticipa (2021)

are about a specific issue, the more people want to see the issue solved): plantation of trees, reduction of noise, and improvement of cleanliness (see Fig. 14.1). Finally, the third survey section provides results on citizens’ ideas about the regeneration of the MMS, shared by 91% of the respondents. The first open question asked to indicate and rate keywords expressing citizens’ desires for that space. Results show top five keywords: garden, green, culture, space, and safety. The second open question invited citizens to describe their ideas for the future of the square. Top five clusters emerged from the content analysis of the most frequent words: green regeneration, public facilities, culture and multiculturality, mobility, and life quality enhancement. Additional analysis on the proximity and distance amongst the five clusters allowed drawing a significant statistical relation (>0.15) between green regeneration and public facilities, promotion of cultural and multicultural events, transformation of the mobility system, and enhancement of cleanliness and safety. Last, focus groups inform that citizens understand the potential for the MMS’ regeneration due to its privileged location in the city and its multicultural milieu. Likewise, focus groups reinforced the need for a safer place to stay, thus providing public facilities to all generations and a more functional mobility system around the square.

14.4 Discussion and Concluding Remarks Poor people and migrant communities have been amongst the most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the aggravation of living and working conditions (Ahmad et al. 2020; Afsahi et al. 2020; Florida et al. 2021; Vilenica et al. 2020). Acknowledging the unequal distribution of wealth in cities, poor communities have been hit the worst and have been the most exposed to be infected by the coronavirus. Some cities have proved to manage the health crisis more effectively, by

14 Reframing Participatory Regeneration Through the COVID-19 …

187

ensuring access to health structures and improving urban diversity against the fallout of specialised neighbourhoods and car-dependent environments (Celata and Romano 2020; Mouratidis 2021; Ramani and Bloom 2021). Against this backdrop, the role of urban regeneration initiatives is expected to tackle existing and emerging trends of urban poverty in deprived urban areas. As scholars advocate, such an effort entails both spatial and social dimensions that account for dynamics of social inclusion and exclusion in the city (Sibley 1995), as well as the critical capacity to work through the socially constructed barriers that stigmatise some specific groups and territories (Wacquant et al. 2008). The main findings from the participatory process for the MMS’ regeneration in Lisbon help advance this debate and offer a gaze into the potential of participatory regeneration in the days ahead. MMS is an iconic place of Lisbon that condenses multiple socio-spatial issues and merges typical features of urban regeneration in central and peripheral areas (Parés et al. 2014). On the one hand, it shows an accelerated trend of massive investment in the real estate and tourism sector, which is particularly strong in the Lisbon city centre. On the other hand, it illuminates the drawbacks of structural inequalities affecting the most marginalised groups, including migrant communities and poor people. The results of this participatory process are oriented towards the creation of a new public green area, which can bring new inputs to reframing participatory regeneration through and, hopefully, after the COVID-19 pandemic. Three main highlights are discussed in this chapter accordingly. The first highlight concerns the primary purpose of citizen participation, therefore the concrete chance that citizens have to voice in decision-making. Citizen participation in regenerative initiatives should be generative of new, and hopefully, more effective solutions aimed to tackle the concentration of critical societal issues. This was the case in the MMS, as citizens were invited to come together around ideas for the future of the square in direct contact with the city council. Results confirmed the already circulating idea of a new public green area, underpinned by the public debate on environmental justice promoted by the movement. In addition, whereas the process’ agenda did not explicitly address the impacts of the pandemic, the entire course of participation was heavily influenced by the disrupting events taking place in the last two years. Not only the pandemic forced the shift from face-to-face to online tools, as the request for more green can be understood as a claim that gained strength through the pandemic, in the face of contention measures and lockdowns as well as awareness on the importance of open-air activities. The second highlight regards the inclusionary character of participatory and deliberative settings in urban regeneration. The aggravation of structural inequalities within specific urban areas should be acknowledged to effectively address key societal issues related with poverty and risk of poverty. Participatory regeneration should deal with both degradation of the built environment and the several forms of social deprivation, which turns the participation of the most marginalised groups imperative. In Lisbon, the multi-level approach promoted by the city council for the MMS’ regeneration, engendered the combination of a twofold strategy addessing the city and the neighbourhood, the latter being compounded by a systemic contact

188

R. Falanga

with local NGOs and social groups that helped intermediate with migrant communities and vulnerable groups living and/or working around the square. Findings show, however, that major efforts need to be made in the future to ensure that younger and less educated people, along with migrant groups have a more significant voice in the final decisions. This is an issue worth considering in online participatory processes, as it needs to handle growing inequalities in literacy and access to digital devices. Third and last, findings highlight the potential of participatory regeneration through extreme events. Unfortunately, forthcoming extreme events are expected to drive meaningful transformations in our society, which will most probably affect poor communities. As shown by the participatory process in Lisbon, the engagement of citizens in decisions regarding the city offers a unique occasion to reconvene the meanings of urban transformations and capitalise local knowledge to improve urban policies with citizens. Whether and how this can be a prompt for the reframing of participatory regeneration, depends on a wide range of factors, such as the efficacy of institutional initiatives of citizen participation to effectively bridge with citizens and find new allies in self-organised groups; the competence of public authorities to ensure inclusive procedures and outcomes; and, finally, the capacity to actually receive and incorporate citizens’ claims in the policymaking. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the citizen participation department and the Lisbon city council for the opportunity to collaborate to the design and implementation of this participatory process. The Lisbon city council is the owner of all the data produced throughout this process, which are open to consultation at the following link: www.lisboaparticipa.pt

References Afsahi A, Beausoleil E, Dean R, Ercan SA, Gagnon JP (2020) Democracy in a global emergency. Five lessons from the covid-19 pandemic. Democratic Theory 7(2):5–19 Ahmed MZ, Ahmed O, Aibao Z, Hanbin S, Siyu L, Ahmad A (2020) Epidemic of COVID-19 in China and associated psychological problems. Asian J Psychiatr 51:102092 Almagro M, Orane-Hutchinson A (2020) The determinants of the differential exposure to COVID19 in New York City and their evolution over time. SSRN Bolt G, Özüekren AS, Phillips D (2010) Linking integration and residential segregation. J Ethn Migr Stud 36(2):169–186 Celata F, Romano A (2020) Overtourism and online short-term rental platforms in Italian cities. J Sustain Tourism, ahead of print Falanga R (2020b) Formulating the success of citizen participation in urban regeneration: insights and perplexities from Lisbon. Urban Res Practice 13(5):477–499 Falanga R, Nunes M (2021) Tackling urban disparities through participatory culture-led urban regeneration. Insights from Lisbon. Land Use Policy 108:105478 Falanga R (2020a) Citizen participation during the covid-19 pandemic. Insights from local practices in European cities. Fredrich Ebert Stiftung Florida R, Rodríguez-Pose A, Storper M (2021) Cities in a post-COVID world. Urban Studies 1–23 Healey P (1998) Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Plan 69(1):1–21

14 Reframing Participatory Regeneration Through the COVID-19 …

189

Jay J, Bor J, Nsoesie EO, Lipson SK, Jones DK, Galea S, Raifman J (2020) Neighbourhood income and physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Nat Hum Behav 4:1294–1302 Lisboaparticipa (2021) Relatório dos Resultados da 1ª Fase do Processo de Participação Pública da Praça Martim Moniz, 24/3/2021. From https://lp.lisboaparticipa.pt/martimmoniz/em-numeros Moreno C, Allam Z, Chabaud D, Gall C, Pratlong F (2021) Introducing the “15-minute city”: sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities 4(1):93– 111 Mouratidis K (2021) Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities 115:103229 Parés M, Martí M, Blanco I (2014) Geographies of governance. How Places Matter in Urban Regeneration Policies 51(15):3250–3267 Ramani A, Bloom NA (2021) The donut effect: how covid-19 shapes real estate. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Sibley D (1995) Geographies of exclusion: society and difference in the West. Routledge, London/ New York Vilenica A, McElroy E, Ferreri M, Fernández M, García-Lamarca M, Lancione M (2020) Covid-19 and housing struggles: The (re)makings of austerity, disaster capitalism, and the no return to normal. Radical Housing J 2(1):9–28 Wacquant L, Slater T, Borges Pereira V (2008) Territorial stigmatization in action. Environ Plan A: Econ Space 46(6):1270–1280 Wallace A (2010) New neighbourhoods, new citizens? challenging ‘community’ as a framework for social and moral regeneration under new labour in the UK. Int J Urban Reg Res 34(4):805–819

Chapter 15

Exploring PPGIS as a Way of Digital Participation on the Example of Heat Relief Planning Pia Laborgne and Paula Klöcker

Abstract The corona pandemic has challenged traditional ways of participation and accentuated the need to develop a good mix of methods, both analog and digital. The article discusses potentials and limits of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) as an example of digital involvement, using the example of heat relief planning. This is done based on literature and on experiences with a PPGIS survey realized in Karlsruhe/ Germany in 2021 about local climate adaptation. The goal was to identify people and places that are particularly affected by heat and to better understand factors for coping with heat waves. It collected comments and ideas regarding climate adaptation measures at the city level. A group discussion based on the results showed that these can be useful especially for orienting the administration regarding specific target groups and their conditions and needs but also for understanding the perception of and use of specific places. Mapping helped locate, e.g., tram stops that are particularly prone to heat stress or visualize places that are specifically important in the perception of the participants and included comments and ideas for improvements. A conclusion was that the method has clear limitations regarding who it reaches, e.g., because mapping needs participant to have map literacy and due to general digital divide issues. Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge integration into local strategies. It is just one brick in a participation strategy, which needs to be complemented by other forms of involvement. But it has the potential to provide valuable insights and data for local governance, as well as functioning as a way of informing citizens and understanding their needs, wishes, and ideas. Keywords PPGIS · Climate adaptation · Participation · Inclusiveness · Heat waves

P. Laborgne (B) ITAS, KIT and EIFER, Karlsruhe, Germany e-mail: [email protected] P. Klöcker ITAS, KIT, Karlsruhe, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_15

191

192

P. Laborgne and P. Klöcker

15.1 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has called traditional formats of participation into question, and a new mix of methods has evolved, including more frequent use of digital means of involvement. The situation of lockdown and social distancing presented a challenge but also opened a window of opportunity for new approaches. These approaches both have the potential to involve new groups that were difficult to reach before but also risk to create new barriers to inclusiveness of participation. A key question therefore is: What can we learn from these experiences that may inform “new normal” participation? In this paper, we focus on one method of participation, Public Participation GIS (PPGIS). The use of PPGIS aims at increasing public involvement and knowledge co-creation in local planning and decision-making (Brown 2012). Our thesis is that PPGIS has potential regarding climate adaptation, in our case coping with urban heat waves, and for increasing the inclusiveness of public involvement through digital ways of participating. The paper first introduces urban climate adaptation with regard to participation, then presents the method and use of PPGIS, and finally discusses experiences with using PPGIS for involving citizens in the climate adaptation strategy in Karlsruhe, a city in southern Germany particularly affected by heat waves and heat island effects. An urban heat island effect means the phenomenon that urban areas experience higher temperatures than their surrounding areas which can result in heat-related higher mortalities (Deilami et al. 2022). Cities face major challenges in times of multiple crises. Climate change drastically impacts urban settings, and climate hazards have and will continue to increase substantially (UN Habitat 2022). As the latest IPCC report highlights, climate risks cause heat extremes and heatwaves in cities more frequently, impact livelihood and human health, and limit the performance of key infrastructure such as transportation, water, sanitation, and energy systems (IPCC 2022). The demands on cities are growing and so are the possibilities for shaping a city. Inclusive planning, especially involving civil society in the planning process, is becoming increasingly important and also the main focus of our contribution. More than half of the world’s population live in cities, and socio-economic structures intensify vulnerability. This give cities a special task in adapting to climate change (Marx 2017). On that note, cities in particular play a key role in terms of adaptation and transformation strategies. In addition to this, urbanization is an ongoing global trend, establishing a need to accelerate the progress regarding adaptation and climate resilience of cities (IPCC 2022). Reckien et al. (2018) underline the pivotal part of cities in the development and implementation of climate adaptation measures. They argue that cities are a sort of “interface” between local action and national climate commitments. Also, the “synergies and trade-offs that exist between mitigation and adaptation are especially felt by cities” (Reckien et al. 2018: 208). In Germany, the main reasons for municipalities to become active are their own exposure to extreme weather events, also known as

15 Exploring PPGIS as a Way of Digital Participation on the Example …

193

“event-driven-risk-management” (Hackenbruch 2018: 64), and the comprehension of leaders in politics and administration of the topic (ibid.). To demonstrate to policy makers the urgency of action, the participation of civil society must play a greater role. The financial aspect must also be considered, as dealing with the consequences is usually much more expensive than prevention. Furthermore, heat is experienced in different ways with different vulnerabilities in the daily lives of individuals and groups. Developing efficient strategies to cope with heat needs understanding of how diverse populations experience and cope with heat and the factors influencing this (Kunz-Plapp et al. 2016). The authors of the IPCC report stress the urgent need to integrate inclusive planning in every-day decision-making “including social, ecological, and gray/ physical infrastructures” in order to advance climate-resilient development, which will provide multiple benefits regarding health and well-being issues (IPCC 2022: 35). Inclusive planning refers to the integration of partnerships between “local and municipal governments, the private sector, indigenous peoples, local communities, and civil society” which should play an important role in climate adaptation strategies (IPCC 2022: 35). Grothman et al. (2021) also identify the positive impacts of including civil society during the adaptation process in cities. The effects of participation can build social/knowledge capacities and new networks, empower marginalized groups, motivate to proactively change individual behaviors, and, importantly, legitimize agency of decision-makers (Grothman et al. 2021). Progress in adaptation planning, implementation, and climate policies can be observed on a global level even though adaptation gaps continue to exist and the focus often lies more in planning than in implementing (IPCC 2022). Thus, climate-resilient development requires multi-level participation. This information has been a topic since the beginning of the climate change debate: Governance during the adaptation process has to be equitable, regional, diverse, and inclusive to be effective and sustainable (IPCC 2022).

15.2 Theory and Method Protective measures against the COVID-19 pandemic, such as physical distancing and reduction of contacts, also limited the possibility for social interaction and participation and presented a major challenge for the realization of co-creation and participation formats due to the dominance of face-to-face approaches. But at the same time, the situation led to a more intensive examination and use of digital possibilities of participation and of their potentials. This time can thus also be perceived as a window of opportunity for developing and experimenting with new approaches and a new mix of analog and digital participation. These methods have potentials to help to activate new groups difficult to involve, but there is also a need to consider digital inequalities (Robinson et al. 2015), risking excluding people that are not used to or disconnected from the digital world. This raises questions around inclusiveness of participation that are key issue both for digital and analog methods: How can

194

P. Laborgne and P. Klöcker

we reach people beyond the “usual bubble/usual suspects”? What are key factors of inclusion/exclusion and how can digital approaches help reaching out to different groups without creating new barriers for those traditionally involved through analog approaches? There are manifold methods and ways of digital and hybrid involvement. We focus here on one tool—Public Participation GIS (PPGIS)—as an example of digital involvement, ideally integrated in a hybrid approach in combination, e.g., with inperson workshops.

15.2.1 Public Participation GIS In light of current challenges, there are calls for enhanced cooperation between science and policy and involving civil society (Komossa et al. 2021). Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) has been gaining momentum over the last two decades. The term originates at the 1996 meeting of the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) and was introduced with the purpose of involving and empowering marginalized populations (Brown 2012). PPGIS is a map-based online survey that combines respondents’ knowledge and perceptions with spatial data. Thus, for example, local conflicts of interest can be identified, areas and paths can be examined according to their importance and frequency of use, or already created plans can be evaluated by constituents. The method is widely used in urban and regional planning, but also gaining momentum in science (Brown et al. 2022; Fagerholm et al. 2021b) and for mapping of climate risks (e.g., Morse et al. 2020), landscape use and values (e.g., ibid.), and ecosystem services (Brown and Fagerholm 2015; Rall et al. 2019). Advantages of PPGIS include active support in for example evaluation, mapping and decision-making in spatial planning. The participatory approach helps to get insight into people’s perceptions, opinions, and knowledge across spatial scales (Escobedo et al. 2020). Moreover, the PPGIS method can help to foster better transparency for plans, as well as dialog and acceptance regarding spatial planning projects (García-Díez et al. 2020). A key point is that PPGIS can gather and include knowledge from living experiences and complement expert knowledge (see also Brown 2012). The online format can also provide opportunities to create a forum for posting comments, ideas, and thus a low-threshold way of taking part in discussion processes. The use of mapping can have the effect of better focusing on the specific geography and disseminate geographical knowledge (Papadopoulos 2021). Map literacy levels can be a barrier to inclusiveness for the method (Escobedo et al. 2020). Coupled to this is the uneven distribution of PPGIS participation (Brown et al. 2018). Since the survey happens on a voluntary basis, it tends to only reach certain groups. Additionally, concerns regarding privacy and processing of collected data limit participation (Brown et al. 2022). Nevertheless, the PPGIS method can be a useful tool for urban planning and science, but it also needs to broadly reach people who are affected by new plans, and policies and some are difficult to recruit for a map-based online survey (Fagerholm et al. 2021a). Brown and Kyttä describe how

15 Exploring PPGIS as a Way of Digital Participation on the Example …

195

the quality of PPGIS results are clearly linked to survey design and respondent participation (2014). The design, scope, and complexity affect primarily the accessibility of the questionnaire. Despite these weaknesses of the participatory mapping tool, it provides opportunity to bridge social- and natural sciences and provide an opportunity to address current societal challenges to identify integrated, nature-based, climate-resilient, and social solutions (Fagerholm et al. 2021b). Below, we describe a Public Participation GIS study we conducted in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus was on subjective perceptions of heat waves and on coping with heat waves in cities, in this case Karlsruhe in Germany. Karlsruhe is a good example to illustrate the use of the tool in relation to heat islands and the people’s exposure to heat waves.

15.3 PPGIS Survey in Karlsruhe In summer 2021, a Maptionnaire-based PPGIS survey on subjective heat stress and coping with heat was implemented in Karlsruhe. Besides gathering data about vulnerabilities, conditions for adapting to heat and coping strategies, the process had two additional aims. One was to test the PPGIS tool for the integration of local knowledge into local climate adaptation strategies, and the other was providing an opportunity for generating ideas and comments with an interactive communication tool. Subjective heat stress refers here to the subjective and individual experiencing of heat as stress, measured by statements expressed by individual study participants (Kunz-Plapp et al. 2016, Hackenbruch 2018). Karlsruhe is a city with around 313.000 inhabitants in southwestern Germany, located in the Rhine valley, the warmest region of Germany, due to the combination of warm, humid air, high solar radiation, and low wind speed (Hackenbruch 2018: 39–40). In summer, temperatures regularly exceed 35 °C which is associated with an overall high perceived heat stress (Kunz-Plapp et al. 2016) and can have an impact on morbidity and mortality. The survey related to several goals of the climate adaptation strategy of the city of Karlsruhe, namely stronger consideration of climate change in public relations work, new information formats, broader inclusion of the population regarding risks and measures for enhanced awareness of them, assessment of needs of different groups in the population, networking with multipliers for needs assessment and communication. The need expressed by the city administration was knowledge about heat stress and circumstances in private living environments and specific vulnerabilities of different groups and city districts. The survey was in part a replication of a heat stress survey from 2013, realized by Kunz-Plapp, Karlsruhe Institute for Technology and supported by the city of Karlsruhe (see Kunz-Plapp et al. 2016). The results should be cautiously compared, as the survey of 2013 was done directly after a strong heat wave while the summer 2021 was rather cool and rainy. Significantly, the circumstances of the pandemic in 2021 prevented the realization of a strategy to, e.g., visit elderly homes or other places where specific target groups can

196

P. Laborgne and P. Klöcker

be reached, who are difficult to attract online. While we here discuss PPGIS as a way to do participation despite social distancing, the circumstances were still challenging for an inclusive and diverse participation.

15.3.1 Method, Study Area, and Sample The survey was realized using the map-based online survey tool Maptionnaire. It contained map-based as well as map-independent questions around four main dimensions: (1) self-reported subjective heat stress and its major determinants in a daily life perspective, (2) changes in daily practices due to heat, (3) mapping cool places and those especially prone to heat stress including a specific question regarding tram and bus stops, (4) feedback to measures of the city as well as collecting ideas and wishes. The online survey was spread through different local networks and distribution lists as well as institutional contacts to specific target groups like elderly persons. The plan had been to invite participation not only online but in personal contacts at festivities and by visiting target groups at places where they live and meet, but this was not possible due to the circumstance of the pandemic. Nevertheless, the digital way of involvement enabled us to collect data despite not being able to do in-person interviews and workshops. The lack of heat waves in a cool and rainy summer was another difficult framing condition. The cleaned sample contained 225 respondents living in Karlsruhe. It is not representative for Karlsruhe because some districts, especially in the inner city, were overrepresented, others less present. Regarding age groups, the sample contains 20% below 30 years old (which corresponds to the large group of students in Karlsruhe), 14% between 30 and 50, 17% 50 and older.1 18% are students/in education, 47% have a university degree, and only 11% have a vocational training degree.2

15.3.2 Some Main Results The findings confirm the importance of private living conditions and thus the need to include knowledge on these conditions in relation to coping with heat. Correlating different variables with perceived heat stress shows that the generally perceived heat stress can probably be attributed to a large extent to the heat stress at home. Matching the individual "stress locations", the strongest three drivers of total heat stress are all activities at home. Only then come activities that largely take place outdoors. An interesting finding is that age has a negative correlation with the severity of perceived heat stress. The younger participants feel significantly more stressed than 1 2

49% not specified. 24% not specified.

15 Exploring PPGIS as a Way of Digital Participation on the Example …

197

the older participants despite the specific vulnerability of elderly people. One reason for this result is that among the younger respondents ( 50% Redevelopment area • A redevelopment area is defined as a vulnerable neighbourhood which for the past 5 years has fulfilled the conditions for being a parallel society Table 20.2 Overview of the evolution of the Danish “ghetto” discourse Year

Government

Segregation policy

1993–2001

Social democratic

Working report stressing No connection between immigrant that “ghetto” is a population and social problems in misleading concept NPH areas Institutionalization of ABIs

Perspective on ethnic minorities

2001–2009

Liberal

Policies on NPH areas “Ghettoes” the result of failed moved to the Ministry of planning and integration policies, Refugees, Immigrants, and not the result of individuals Integration Ghettoization strategy addressing the risk of ghettoization

2009–2011

Liberal

The Ghetto back into Society introduces the terms “ghetto” and “parallel societies” Institutionalization of the “ghetto list”

2011–2015

Social democratic

Replaces the term “ghetto” Vulnerable neighbourhoods must with “vulnerable be transformed neighbourhoods” The criteria for “vulnerable neighbourhoods” expanded

2015–2019

Liberal

No Ghettoes in 2030 introduces the term “hard ghettoes” and policies to dismantle these

Blaming immigrants and descendants of non-western background for parallel societies

2019

Social democratic

“Hard ghettoes” rephrased as “redevelopment areas” Continuation of the term “parallel society”

Immigrants and descendants of non-western background now the defining indicator of a parallel society

“Ghettoes” as parallel societies that must be broken down Immigrants and descendants of non-western background are an indicator of a “ghetto”

264

K. Olesen and M. Howells

life situation—caused by socioeconomic factors and segregation—have not always allowed them to do so” (Sigurjónsdóttir et al. 2021: 6). This is a reminder that there are “serious effects of segregation” in the Nordic countries, and that “the COVID19 pandemic has shed a new light on the societal structural injustices inherent in our societies” (Sigurjónsdóttir et al. 2021: 5). In the following, we explore to what extent this perspective can be found in the Danish discourse on NPH areas during the pandemic. In the early phase of the pandemic, Denmark tried to isolate COVID-19 cases by tracing their spread. This strategy was changed on the 11th March when the prime minister announced a country-wide lock-down, shutting down all non-essential public services and asking employees to work from home (Sigurjónsdóttir et al. 2021). A cornerstone of the Danish COVID-19 strategy has been free testing and the implementation of the so-called “corona passport”. Denmark’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has in an international context been seen as a success. One of the contributing factors highlighted in the literature is that Denmark has a relatively homogenous population with a strong trust in government and the welfare state (Olagnier and Mogensen 2020; Nielsen and Lindvall 2021). This argument is interesting, as it contrasts the image of a divided society outlined in the previous section. The connections between social inequality and the risk of COVID-19 have gradually come into focus at the Danish government body handling COVID-19, the Statens Serum Institut (SSI) (SSI 2020a, c, 2021). In October 2020, the SSI (2020c) published a report highlighting that immigrant of non-western background constituted 25.7% of all COVID-19 cases, despite only representing 8.9% of the population. Similar overrepresentation of ethnic minorities amongst COVID-19 cases has also been confirmed in a study by the OECD (2022). The SSI (2020c) suggested that immigrants of nonwestern background are more exposed to COVID-19, as they tend to live in more crowded households, often several generations together, and have jobs where they are more exposed to human contact and working from home is not an option (i.e. in the health care and transportation sectors). In addition, the SSI highlighted that communication and language barriers may also have been a contributing factor. This issue was later downplayed by the Nordic Council of Ministers (Sigurjónsdóttir et al. 2021). The discussion on COVID-19 and social inequality addressed by the SSI has, however, not transcended into the political discourse. Instead, a counter-discourse has emerged in the political arena, in which ethnic minorities and specific NPH areas have been held up as vectors of the disease. The underlying rationale in this discourse has been that ethnic minorities and certain NPH areas do not follow government guidelines and therefore constitute a health risk for the Danish society. In this way, the “ghetto” and “parallel society” discourse outlined in the previous section, has continued to influence government policies on how to deal with COVID-19. In the following, we present three brief examples. In the first example, in May 2020, the SSI (2020a) published a report highlighting a high number of COVID-19 cases amongst ethnic minorities in the Greater Copenhagen Area, more specifically in the eight suburban municipalities referred to as

20 The Territorial Stigmatization of Non-profit Housing Areas in Denmark …

265

Vestegnen (the Westend). These are municipalities with a higher percentage of NPH and ethnic minorities than the Copenhagen and national averages. In Autumn 2020, Vestegnen was again singled out as the area in Denmark with most COVID-19 cases per capita. As a result, the Government established a taskforce in the beginning of November 2020 to support eight municipalities in reducing the spread of COVID19 (Danmark 2020). The discussion on the “reason” for the outbreak in this area focussed mainly on issues of ethnicity (Holm 2020)—although dense living conditions and high percentage of individuals working in the service and health sector were also mentioned (Holm 2020; Pedersen et al. 2020). The special measures introduced to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in this area included multi-language information campaigns, as well as extra police patrols to ensure that rules were being abided by. The latter measure echoes similar actions taken as part of the Parallel Society Act, which introduced extra policing in “ghetto” areas, as well as the creation of “increased punishment zones”, where the punishment for crimes is higher than in the rest of Denmark (Danish Government 2018a). In general, these special measures have stirred negative media attention towards specific areas and their resident composition (Rasmussen 2020). In the second example, in August 2020, the SSI (2020b) reported a high number of COVID-19 cases in Denmark’s second largest city Aarhus, citing that more than half of the infected residents belonged to the Somali minority. As well as stirring negative media attention (Birk 2020; Jyllands-Posten 2020), this situation led to initiatives such as a dual-language information video from Aarhus Municipality (Aarhus Municipality 2020), again reinforcing the discourse that the reason for high infection levels amongst that specific minority was a lack of understanding or caring about government guidelines. It was reported that this resulted in increased stigmatization of the Danish-Somalian community, e.g. by bullying amongst children and refusal for childcare and public transportation (Nuur 2020). In the third example, in March 2021, the Danish Government launched the idea of enforced testing of residents in Denmark’s largest NPH area Vollsmose in Odense, Denmark’s third largest city, after a significant increase in COVID-19 cases. This again echoes the precedent set with special policing and punishment zones from the Parallel Society Act. The proposal was, however, rejected by the Parliament’s Epidemic Board, after it was reported that 8000 of the area’s 9100 residents had already been tested in the previous week (Kotkas 2021). In the parliamentary discussion, several political parties raised the concern that ethnic minorities “obviously” did not follow government guidelines and highlighted a need to address the “cultural differences” that were reinforcing the spread of COVID-19, whilst the Government refused these accusations as a too simplistic portrayal (Parliament Debate 2021b). We believe that these three examples illustrate how the SSI and the Danish Government have contributed to reinforce the stigmatization of specific NPH areas and its (non-western) residents during the pandemic, by continuing the “ghetto” discourse from the last couple of decades. In the last couple of decades, the “ghetto” discourse has led to a “politics of the exception” allowing extraordinary political measures to be introduced (Olsen and Larsen 2022). During the pandemic, we see how this “politics of the exception” is reinforced in unusual times. The examples illustrate

266

K. Olesen and M. Howells

how COVID-19 infection was seen as a problem specifically related to “ghettoes” and their immigrant populations, posing a threat to the “real”, law obeying Denmark. As the Minister of Immigrants and Integration highlighted in one of the parliament debates on the COVID-19 situation: … it would be strange, if the general problems we have with parallel societies and integration challenges were cancelled in this current situation. Of course, it plays a role. I do not believe that it is just because everybody drives taxis and live densely many people in the same apartment. The reason is of course also that we have integration challenges in this country. (Parliament Debate 2021a)

This could be construed as evidence of the use of the COVID-19 crisis to perpetuate an “internal othering”. Indeed, a report by the Danish Refugee Council (2020) stressed that the political and public discourse in the media on the spread of COVID19 amongst the Somali minority in Aarhus and concentration of COVID-19 cases on Vestegnen have reinforced the stigmatization of ethnic minorities in Denmark (Realize and Danish Refugee Council 2020). The third example illustrates how the Government was prepared to enforce testing in Denmark’s largest NPH on grounds that were highly questionable—both reinforcing and propagating the territorial stigmatization of a “ghetto” and its inhabitants. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to analyze the broader political and public discourse in further detail. It is, however, our impression that the public scolding of specific NPH areas and ethnic minorities have featured prominently in the media during the pandemic.

20.5 Conclusion In this chapter, we have demonstrated how the discourse on the so-called “ghettoes” and “parallel societies” has evolved in the last two decades. We argue that the turn towards ABIs has reinforced the perspective that the solutions to the challenges that some NPH areas are facing are to be found within the areas, rather than seen as a result of wider structures of social inequality in society. This perspective has paved the way for a series of government initiatives aiming at dissolving what are referred to as “ghettoes” and “parallel societies” with increasingly drastic measures. We have also illustrated how the territorial stigmatization of specific NPH areas is the result of evolving political discourses rooted in cultural racism in terms of how they construct ethnicity as a central feature in the “ghetto problem”. As Seemann (2021: 602) argues, the “ghetto-inhabitants are thereby constructed as “underserving” and “unfinished” citizens who need to prove themselves worthy of (re-)gaining full social citizenship”. Furthermore, we have demonstrated how the stigmatization of specific NPH areas and its residents has been reinforced during the COVID-19 crisis. Specific NPH areas and ethnic minorities have been singled out by the SSI and the Danish Government as vectors for the spread of COVID-19—a discourse that has been perpetuated by the media. The underlying rationale of the discourse, although often not explicitly stated, has been that specific NPH areas and ethnic minorities do not follow government

20 The Territorial Stigmatization of Non-profit Housing Areas in Denmark …

267

guidelines and therefore constitute a health risk for wider Danish society. This image has been reinforced by government initiatives targeting specific areas to contain the spread of COVID-19, echoing the use of ABIs and continuing “the politics of the exception” from the “ghetto” policies (Olsen and Larsen 2022). Wider structural inequalities have only received little attention beyond SSI reports. Nevertheless, we argue that the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to elucidate the societal structural injustices in Nordic welfare states such as Denmark, and that the pandemic may provide an opportunity to address these injustices in the postpandemic society. We therefore end this chapter by positing three steps for a “new normal discourse” on NPH areas and its residents. The first step would be to recognize that problems in some NPH areas (not all!) are not only the result of internal factors but also a consequence of wider structures of social and spatial inequality. In other words, the problems cannot only be solved by ABIs. Secondly, NPH should to a larger extent be recognized as part of the solution to the emerging affordability crisis, rather than be seen as a cause of segregation and ghettoization. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the political and public discourse must change! A discourse based on cultural racism will only increase the stigmatization of certain housing areas, its residents and ethnic minorities no matter where they live. We must learn to discuss problems in society in a way that avoids reinforcing the stigmatization of specific areas and groups and holds them responsible for wider societal problems. Acknowledgements This work is part of the research project The Housing Association of the Future: How can Housing Associations Build Sustainable Communities? funded by Realdania and the Danish National Building Foundation.

References Aarhus Municipality (2020) Foreninger hjælper med at sprede budskabet om de gode råd for at undgå yderligere Covid19-smitte. Aarhus Municipality, 6 Aug 2020. https://www.aarhus.dk/ nyt/borgmesterens-afdeling/2020/august/foreninger-hjaelper-med-at-sprede-budskabet-om-degode-raad-for-at-undgaa-yderligere-covid19-smitte/?fbclid=IwAR2G8E5_Bwb1RuhziHwE nQWgpQOo4sZW3ZCo4zE_rpj0KqQhx9pvWJ3df9Q. Accessed 10 Feb 2022 Andersen HS (2002) Can deprived housing areas be revitalised? Efforts against segregation and neighbourhood decay in Denmark and Europe. Urban Stud 39(4):767–790 Andersson R, Dhalmann H, Holmqvist E, Kauppinen TM, Turner LM, Andersen HS, Søholt S, Vaattovaara M, Vilkama K, Wessel T, Yousfi S (2010) Immigration, housing and segregation in the Nordic welfare states. University of Helsinki, Helsinki Bech-Danielsen C, Christensen G (2017) Boligområder i bevægelse. Landsbyggefonden, Copenhagen Birk C (2020) Nyt notat afslører: Sådan har smitten spredt sig fra somalisk miljø til mejeri. Berlingske, 10 Aug 2020 Danish Government (2004) Regeringens strategi mod ghettoisering. Ministry of Refugees, Immigrants and Integration, Copenhagen Danish Government (2010) Ghettoen tilbage til samfundet. Et opgør med parallelsamfund i Danmark. Danish Government, Copenhagen

268

K. Olesen and M. Howells

Danish Government (2013) Udsatte boligområder – de næste skridt. Regeringens udspil til en styrket indsats. Ministry of Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs, Copenhagen Danish Government (2018a) Ét Danmark uden parallelsamfund. Ingen ghettoer i 2030. Danish Government, Copenhagen Danish Government (2018b) Aftale mellem regeringen (Venstre, Liberal Alliance og Det Konservative Folkeparti) og Socialdemokratiet, Dansk Folkeparti og Socialistisk Folkeparti om: Initiativer på boligområder, der modvirker parallelsamfund. Den 9. maj 2018b. Danish Government, Copenhagen Danmark MM (2020) Regeringen opretter corona-taskforce på Vestegnen: ‘Ekstra restriktioner kan komme i brug’. DR, 2 Nov 2020. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/regeringen-opretter-cor ona-taskforce-paa-vestegnen-ekstra-restriktioner-kan-komme-i. Accessed 8 Sept 2022 Dekker K, van Kempen R (2004) Large housing estates in Europe: current situation and developments. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 95(5):570–577 Eriksson M (2008) (Re)producing a “peripheral” region: Northern Sweden in the news. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 90(4):369–388 Frandsen MS, Hansen JV (2020) Parallelsamfundspakkens genealogi. Dansk Sociologi 31(1):9–30 Holm LT (2020) Covid-19 er blevet markør for ulighed - også i Danmark. Berlingske, 5 June 2020 Jensen SQ, Christensen A (2012) Territorial stigmatization and local belonging. City 16(1–2):74–92 Jyllands-Posten (2020) Tre af fire nye smittede i Aarhus er fra Somalia. Jyllands-Posten, 5 Aug 2020 Kotkas BS (2021) Flertal forkaster regeringens forslag om tvangstest i Vollsmose. Altinget, 8 March 2021. https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/flertal-forkaster-regeringens-forslag-om-tvangs test-i-vollsmose. Accessed 23 Nov 2021 Larsen TS (2015) Fra ghetto til forsømte boligområder. In Greve B (ed) Grundbog i socialvidenskab, 2nd edn. Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne, Frederiksberg, pp 415–432 Ministry of Interior Affairs, Ministry of Housing, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, and Ministry of Education (1994a) Rapport fra byudvalget 1. Ministry of Interior Affairs, Copenhagen Ministry of Interior Affairs, Ministry of Housing, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, and Ministry of Education (1994b) Rapport fra byudvalget 2. Ministry of Interior Affairs, Copenhagen Musterd S (2005) Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: levels, causes, and effects. J Urban Aff 27(3):331–348 Nielsen JH, Lindvall J (2021) Trust in government in Sweden and Denmark during the COVID-19 epidemic. West Eur Polit 44(5–6):1180–1204 Nuur A (2020) Formand for somalisk råd I Aarhus efter corona-udbrud: Vi bliver kaldt alverdens ting. Berlingske, 12 Aug 2020 Olagnier D, Mogensen TH (2020) The Covid-19 pandemic in Denmark: big lessons form a small country. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 53(3):10–12 OECD (2022) The unequal impact of COVID-19: a spotlight on frontline workers, migrants and racial/ethnic minorities. OECD, Paris Olsen SH, Larsen HG (2022) State-led stigmatisation of place and the politics of the exception. Environ Plan C: Polit Space, OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544221119387 Parliament Debate (2021a) §20-spørgsmål S 1046 Om den øgende coronasmitte i indvandrertunge områder, 5 March 2021a. https://www.ft.dk/samling/20201/spoergsmaal/S1046/index. htm. Accessed 7 March 2022 Parliament Debate (2021b) Forespørgsel nr. F56. 86. møde, 24 March 2021b. https://www.ft.dk/for handlinger/20201/20201M086_2021b-03-24_1300.htm. Accessed 1 March 2022 Pedersen FS, Dam PS, Rebensdorf J (2020) Nu skrides der ind: Her er landets mest coronaplagede kommune. Berlingske, 3 Nov 2020 Rasmussen LI (2020) Heunicke vil have nedkæmpet smitten i landets hårdest ramte kommuner. Politiken, 3 Nov 2020

20 The Territorial Stigmatization of Non-profit Housing Areas in Denmark …

269

Realize & Danish Refugee Council (2020) COVID-19 og etniske minoriteter. Kortlægning af informationskanaler og medier. Realize, Copenhagen Seemann A (2021) The Danish ‘ghetto initiatives’ and the changing nature of social citizenship, 2004–2018. Crit Soc Policy 41(4):586–605 Simonsen KB (2016) Ghetto-society-problem: a discourse analysis of nationalist othering. Stud Ethn Natl 16(1):83–99 Sigurjónsdóttir HR, Sigvardsson D, Costa SO (2021) Who is left behind? The impact of place on the possibility to follow Covid-19 restrictions. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen SSI (2020a) Epidemiologisk trend og focus: herkomst (etnicitet). Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen SSI (2020b) Smittetallet steg tyderligere i uge 32. 10 Aug 2020b. https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyh eder/2020b/smittetallet-steg-yderligere--i-uge-32. Accessed 24 Nov 2021. SSI (2020c) COVID-19 og herkomst – opdateret fokusrapport. Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen SSI (2021) Fokusrapport. Herkomst og socioøkonomiske faktorers betydning for forskelle i covid19-smitte i Danmark. Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen Staver AB, Brekke J, Søholt (2019) Scandinavia’s segregated cities—policies, strategies and ideals. Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo Stjernberg M, Costa SO, Sigurjónsdóttir HR, Tunström M (eds) (2020) Overcoming barriers to social inclusion in Nordic cities through policy and planning. Nordregio, Stockholm The Housing and Planning Agency (2021) Udsatte områder og parallelsamfund. https://bpst.dk/da/ Bolig/Udsatte-boligomraader/Udsatte-omraader-og-parallelsamfund. Accessed 8 Sept 2022 Wren K (2001) Cultural racism: something rotten in the state of Denmark? Soc Cult Geogr 2(2):141– 162 Wacquant L (2007) Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven 91(1):66–77 Wacquant L (2013) Byens udstødte. Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne, Frederiksberg

Kristian Olesen is an associate professor in strategic spatial planning at the Department of Planning at Aalborg University. Kristian’s main research interests are in strategic spatial planning, planning theory, neoliberalisation of planning, transportation policies, and housing policies. Kristian is currently leading a research project investigating how housing associations in Denmark increasingly are acting as strategic urban developers when transforming socio-economically disadvantages non-profit housing areas. Matthew Howells is a Ph.D.-fellow at Aalborg University in the Department of Planning, where he sits in the Planning for Urban Sustainability group. After spending time researching different aspects of Blue Governance, he is currently conducting research on affordable housing in Denmark. Specifically, he is looking into the changing role of housing associations in Danish cities, and society more generally.

Chapter 21

From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal Matthias Haase and Daniela Baer

Abstract The Positive Energy District (PED) concept is currently evolving based on the strategic energy transition (SET) plan of the European Union member states. As the first PEDs are just now developing all over Europe, little is known about how the PED concept is being implemented, and how the pandemic has pushed the PED agenda forward in certain directions. The chapter reviews experiences from the pandemic crisis to identify valuable lessons on how different governance models work for PED. By describing and comparing recent developments of PEDs in Switzerland, Austria, and Norway, the chapter merges this knowledge to propose new ways to overcome shortcomings in the governance of PEDs based on the experiences from the pandemic crisis. Our research is based on literature and document analysis and qualitative interviews with urban planning experts. The chapter illustrates the importance of integrated and cross-sector approaches in the governance of PEDs, which are becoming a potential new normal way of integrating urban planning with energy innovation, implemented and operated in multi-stakeholder settings. Keywords Urban planning · Positive energy districts · Governance models · Country comparison

21.1 Introduction Climate change challenges triggered ambitious goals of policy actors by imposing energy-related building and community requirements based on Sustainable Development Goals of the UN (UN 2015). In the EU, reaching for the greenhouse gas M. Haase (B) Institute of Facility Management, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Waedenswil, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] D. Baer SINTEF Community, Trondheim, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_21

271

272

M. Haase and D. Baer

reduction goals of the Paris Agreement, stakeholders on all geographical and governance levels from nations, regions, cities, and communities are challenged. The concept of Energy Master Planning (EMP) has been advanced to help initiate a planning and implementation process to fulfil these goals within the context of energy transition (Sharp et al. 2020). Following bottom-up approaches for energy planning on the neighbourhood level is a promising attempt to reduce energy demand, increase efficiency and lower the carbon footprint in a multi-stakeholder approach (David and Schönborn 2018). Reaching for the Global Sustainability Goals, cities and communities play a prominent role as they are geographically the main cause for emissions. Additionally, they play a prominent role in putting global goals into local policies and means, and at the same time embedding them in the local context with site specific demands and settings. The COVID-19 pandemic has a deep and likely long-lasting impact on people’s lives (Lopez Steinmetz et al., 2021; Sovacool et al. 2020) not only due to the lockdown periods, but also in respect to energy systems. Evidence is emerging that substantial changes in energy-related use have occurred during the first COVID-19 wave (2020) within consumption, mobility, leisure, and work-related activities (Kraus and Koch 2021; Janssen et al. 2021). The interruption of some of these activities and the changes in people’s behaviour have reduced overall energy consumption whilst other activities have resulted in an increase in consumption. This provides evidence on the importance of transition governance of districts in our cities to reach for sustainability goals. Moreover, several long-lamented problems during the crisis were exacerbated, such as inadequate medical facilities, excessive urban population density, and inefficient urban transportation systems (Corazza et al. 2021). All these aspects particularly evident in urban areas typically led to inappropriate responses to the pandemic emergency and increased the complexity of already-ill and complex urban scenarios, with restrictions and confinement unsettling urban and social structures in a short time (Sharifi and Khavarian-Garmsir 2020; Salama 2020). Forced domesticity increased physical distances amongst people. Countries and cities were enclosed to prevent the spread “from the outside”; outdoor public spaces soon became empty, with non-existent social life. Neighbourhood proximity played a new role, fostered by walking and local shopping as the only admitted activities during the lockdown confinement (ADAC 2021). Now that lockdowns are being progressively lifted worldwide—domesticity, social distancing, and behaviour based on restricted personal mobility have already left many traces of their passing in our public spaces, although contrasts are evident and all leading to a threat to sustainability (Corazza and Muzzo 2021). The pandemic can be seen as an opportunity or a catalyst for behavioural change (Budd and Ison 2020). As energy planning is highly routinized, i.e. follows legal and habitual planning patterns, interventions to change routinized behaviour and change habits imply overcoming habitual behaviours. Researchers have demonstrated that to change behaviour a break in the normal behavioural pattern is required, such as a change of circumstances or major life event (e.g. moving or retiring) (see also Budd and Ison 2020; Schmidt et al. 2021).

21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal

273

Even a crisis such as the pandemic or a personal crisis could provide a window of opportunity for change (Schäfer et al. 2012; Schmidt et al. 2021). A new but fast-growing body of literature on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on sustainability transformations, for instance in the field of mobility or food consumption (Sovacool et al. 2020; Janssen et al. 2021; Budd and Ison 2020; Schmidt et al. 2021; Brosemer et al. 2020), has focussed particularly on energy transitions, investigating impacts on energy or electricity consumption in different countries (Alhajeri et al. 2020; Carvalho et al. 2021; Ghiani et al. 2020; Abu-Rayash and Dincer 2020; Edomah and Ndulue 2020; Bahmanyar et al. 2020). Scholars are mostly investigating the impacts of the pandemic with aggregated energy or electricity data (for instance in different European countries, Bahmanyar et al. 2020). Comparative studies on national approaches towards PEDs are therefore essential to understand which barriers or opportunities exist. In this chapter, we set up a general framework of PED governance, and then, we analyze PEDs processes in Switzerland, Austria, and Norway with a perspective on three different governance levels (research approach, national programme, city approach). The results will give valuable insights after the pandemic experience.

21.1.1 Positive Energy Districts The Positive Energy District (PED) concept is currently evolving based on the strategic energy transition (SET) plan of the European Union member states. PED requires a holistic approach to reduce energy demand and produce renewable energy as a means to foster the clean energy transition in the EU. The basic principle of PED is to create an area, capable of generating more energy than consumed on a yearly basis and being agile/flexible enough to respond to the variation of the energy market (European Commission 2018). In a new initiative of a European Partnership, Positive Energy Districts are envisioned as energy-efficient and energy-flexible urban areas or groups of connected buildings which produce net zero greenhouse gas emissions and actively manage an annual local or regional surplus production of renewable energy. PEDs require the integration of different systems and infrastructures as the interaction amongst buildings, the users, and the regional energy, mobility, and ICT systems, whilst securing the energy supply and a good life for all, in line with social, economic, and environmental sustainability. (JPI Urban Europe 2020: 4)

Governance structures of PEDs are the focus point of several activities on the EU scale as well as focus of international research by the International Energy Agency in Buildings and Construction Annex 83 “Positive Energy Districts”. Although a common and comprehensive definition is widely discussed, PEDs governance structures remain uncertain. This is mainly because of “intangible elements abound in the environmental, social, cultural, and institutional perspectives of sustainable development beyond the economic one and in the open, complex, and dynamic ecosystems that constitute the cities in which these technologies are deployed” (Guarino et al. 2021: 480).

274

M. Haase and D. Baer

PEDs represent at the same time challenges as well as opportunities for local and global sustainable development (Salom et al. 2021; Brozovsky et al. 2021). To support the governance of PEDs relevant projects and initiatives, key performance indicators (KPIs) can be a useful instrument to model and describe effectively complex phenomena through quantitative and qualitative indicators (Schiefelbein et al. 2017). In a recent study, the sustainability assessment of PEDs showed that the PED governance through sustainability assessment is still largely fragmented despite its fundamental importance to support the clean energy transition of the built environment (Guarino et al. 2021).

21.1.2 Multi-level Governance Approaches Towards PEDs The multi-level governance framework is an approach to understand how stakeholders on national, regional, and local levels interface to design and implement policies (Hooghe and Marks 2003). PED is a relatively new approach to address energy transition and climate neutrality, and it was originally initiated with the SET plan on a sub-national level between several European countries. There are several European directives that do foster the development of PEDs, but not a comprehensive one available, as PEDs cover different topics such as energy, built environment, and mobility that are manifested at different legislative levels and policies. The multi-level governance approach addresses this issue by conceptualizing the vertical and horizontal dimensions (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004). The vertical dimension argues for the importance of regional and local level performance as agents of change to implement national or sub-national strategies. Simultaneously, regional and local governmental authorities are often embedded in institutional and legal frameworks from higher scales (Dietz et al. 2008). Realizing PEDs requires a negotiation between different policies on national and even sub-national level to realize PEDs on the local level. PED implementation depends on negotiation in issue-based governance, where overlapping jurisdictions address key issues separately that can result in conflicts or risks (Hooghe and Marks 2003). Additionally, juristically gaps are prevalent as some PED relevant measures are not yet addressed within jurisdictions. The horizontal dimension focusses on stakeholder cooperation across organizational boundaries by learning, information transmission, and cooperation to influence outcomes. This collaboration is often organized in networks and may include actors from higher or lower levels. The importance of the local level is evident in this constellation, as this is where lessons and experiences from the planning and design and the implementation and operation of PEDs are generated. In addition, PEDs are implemented in different local contexts. Learnings and knowledge from this level need to feed into higher level of decision-making to form and influence PED relevant strategies and jurisdictions.

21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal

275

21.1.3 Governance Issues The development of PEDs requires an understanding of the district’s actual situation, as well as a vision of the future development of the district, to plan for suitable transition pathways (Haase and Baer 2020). To be able to govern this development, a district needs to be modelled in detail with several buildings to actively manage its energy consumption and the energy flow between the district and the wider energy system. Building system control and management strategies in districts are crucial to ensure a regulation by a central unit (district management system—DMS). The DMS acquires information from the field and decides the best strategies to deliver the required conditions for each zone and tenant. Control strategies are very powerful predictor variables (on/off set points, temperature and rate set points, etc.) (Sharp et al. 2020). When defining the relevance of performance indicators; legal requirements (i.e. for work environment), ownership or authority over parts of the district, and cultural context come also into play. Six performance concepts are here identified which have contextual relevance to energy use and supply of energy in districts. As a result of the underlining complexity of performance requirements in districts, it may also be useful to distinguish between functional sub-division of energy—meaning energy divided by the functions which it is used (by end user or supply system)— and organizational sub-divisions of energy use distinguished by who pays for the energy—related to billing practice, tenant agreements, and contracts with energy suppliers (Haase 2020). In many countries, the necessary legal and strategic frameworks for the realization of PEDs are not yet in place. Very often there is also a lack of a planning culture in city administrations or the knowledge resources available might be insufficient. In particular, the transformation of large (brownfield) areas has a big potential for the development of PED to reach for climate-neutral city districts. A collaborative planning approach between administration, industry, citizens, and research is needed for its implementation. PEDs should not only aim to achieve an annual surplus of net energy. Rather, it should also support minimizing the impact on the connected centralized energy networks by offering options for increasing onsite load-matching and self-consumption, technologies for short and long-term storage, and providing energy flexibility with smart control. PEDs can include all types of buildings and energy grid (JPI Urban Europe 2020). The trend in the research community on PEDs of shaping cities into carbon neutral communities is especially important in post-pandemic development (Brozovsky et al. 2021). The governance of PEDs requires, firstly a stringent system for improving energy efficiency, secondly the necessary structure for energy planning which cascades local energy flows, and thirdly assuring low-carbon energy production to cover the remaining energy consumption. Smart control and energy flexibility are essential part to match demand with production locally as far as practical and to minimize the burdens and maximize the usefulness of PED on the grid at large. Additionally, PEDs governance needs a holistic integrated planning and implementation approach

276

M. Haase and D. Baer

to realize synergies between sectors and to incorporate the realization of aligning goals (as e.g. integration of mobility).

21.2 Methodology With the research goal to contribute to understanding PEDs’ progress and advance scientific knowledge, the chapter analyzes governance models of three levels in Norway, Austria, and Switzerland. This research adopts a qualitative-comparative case study method. Qualitative-comparative analysis is useful for highlighting similarities and differences between cases through the study of phenomena in various contexts (Hopkins and King 2010). This approach enables a comparison of three national PED programmes in different regions of Europe, from which we draw insights on the governance approaches towards fostering PED development in the respective national contexts. The primary geographical scope of this study is Europe, however, one of the lessons learned from the pandemic is that European countries and cities faced the same problems and provided very similar responses. Our research is based on literature, document analysis, and qualitative interviews with urban planning experts.

21.2.1 Case Study Selection and Description We choose three different governance models (from three different countries). In Switzerland, a certification scheme is in place which is based on the SIA (Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects) Energy Path of Efficiency and the certification scheme “European Energy Award” for municipalities, which labels settlement areas with sustainable use of resources and efforts aimed at climate protection. In Norway, zero emission neighbourhood (ZEN) demos were conceptualized as PEDs from the beginning of the project. However, the concept evolves from a research task that started on building level and grew into district scale. In Vienna, there is experience from collaboration with local grid operator exchange with spatial energy planning in Vienna. This governance model emerges from city level down to district scale. Table 21.1 summarizes the different concepts.

21.2.2 Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Norway Until now, there is no national programme towards PED development in Norway, and the existing initiatives are scattered around research projects that incorporate several real-life demo sites, e.g. the H2020 founded + CxC project or the Research Centre

21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal

277

Table 21.1 Summary of comparison of the different concepts Aspects

ZEN

2000-W Site

Vienna

Integrated approach

Value chain integration approach of the construction sector

Measurable contribution to resource conservation and climate protection

Requirement long-term planning with a spatially differentiated approach

PED definition

PED/ZEN definition under development during lifetime of ZEN centre

Own Focus on definition and decarbonization on city certification level criteria

System boundaries

Static geographical system boundary on district level

Static geographical system boundary on district

Technical infrastructure system boundary (district heating and cooling network) whole city level

Guidelines and tools for implementation

Own definition of PED including KPIs as guiding principles for planning and design. Toolbox development of relevant tools

Own definition and certification criteria. A planning tool is available

Incorporating energy aspects into the early phase of planning processes

Energy flexibility

Intra-district energy flexibility

Intra-district energy flexibility

Incorporating energy planning from city level

on Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities (ZEN Centre) (see https://fme zen.no). The ZEN Centre is operating for eight years (2016–2024) with partners from private and public sectors in Norway. Norwegian Technical University (NTNU) is the host institution and leads the centre together with the research organization SINTEF. The goal is to develop solutions for future buildings and neighbourhoods with no greenhouse gas emissions and thereby contribute to a low-carbon society. The ZEN Centre has 11 public partners, including Trondheim Municipality, 21 industry partners, and two research partners (NTNU and SINTEF). The partners of ZEN Centre cover the entire value chain of the built environment development on neighbourhood scale and include representatives from municipal and regional governments, property owners, developers, consultants and architects, ICT companies, contractors, energy companies, manufacturers of materials and products, and governmental organizations. The ZEN Centre will contribute to and manage a series of neighbourhood scale demo sites, which will act as innovation hubs and testing grounds for solutions developed by the ZEN Centre. Demo sites are geographically limited, primarily urban, areas in Norway in which the centre’s researchers, together with user partners test innovative solutions for construction, operation, and use of neighbourhoods to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions on a neighbourhood scale (Wiik et al. 2019).

278

M. Haase and D. Baer

21.2.3 2000-W Sites in Switzerland The 2000-W Site certificate was developed as part of the EnergieSchweiz programme, whereby the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) promotes the implementation of the national energy policy on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Certificates for “2000-W Sites” are awarded to housing developments that use resources sustainably in the construction, operation, and renovation of their buildings and in the traffic they generate. The SFOE and the Energiestadt (energy city) association award this certificate in two stages, the first being for “sites under development”. The next stage is reached when construction has progressed to the point that at least half of the total living space is in use. The development is then considered a “site in operation” and can apply for a new 2000-W Site certificate (SFOE 2008).

21.2.4 Vienna in Austria The City of Vienna has set ambitious energy and climate goals to become climateneutral by 2040. By 2030, the production of renewable energies in the city area will have doubled, whilst at the same time, 30 per cent of the energy requirement will be covered by renewable energies (City of Vienna 2019a, b). The climate roadmap is intended to set the course for the next 20 years to make Vienna a climate-neutral model city. An essential part of the climate roadmap is the heating and cooling strategy, which is intended to ensure renewable heating and cooling throughout Vienna by 2040. At the heart of this, strategy is the conversion of around half a million natural gas heating systems to renewable solutions. The governance approach is based on planning bases, considering different spatial requirements. Legal adjustments are proposed, funding regulations are optimized, and new training opportunities are developed. Each climate protection area is identified based on the possibility to supply its energy needs with district heating systems. In addition, at least one additional climate-friendly heating system based on renewable energy or waste heat must be feasible (City of Vienna 2019a). The city estimates that by autumn 2020, climate protection areas will enter into force in 8 out of 23 districts of Vienna (Dhungana et al. 2019). This model city provides good insights into the governance structures for PED development. Since then, the energy planning department has influenced strategies, subsidies, and laws. The energy master planning is particularly noteworthy, as it not only creates the basis, but also formulates guidelines and binding specifications for the use of energy sources for the provision of space heating and hot water in new buildings. The linking of urban planning and energy planning is anchored in the Urban Development Plan (City of Vienna 2019b). An authorization to issue ordinances in Vienna’s building code makes spatial energy plans compulsory. This makes Vienna the first city in the world to control heat supply through a binding legal instrument. In “climate protection areas” only renewable energy, district or local heating is allowed for heating and hot water in new buildings.

21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal

279

21.3 Results The differences between the three governance approaches show what is specific for each of them with respect to the underlying governance structures summarized in Table 21.2.

21.3.1 Steering and Process Leadership The ZEN demo sites are all part of a larger research initiative and thus a progressive academic environment. The previous research projects with ambitions goals have shown that on the technical side, it is relatively manageable to get new technology used, especially when their economic benefits are communicated. It is more complicated to ensure that social practice is implemented. This implies a societal acceptance of the goals and that individuals follow those goals. The 2000-W Site is a certification that creates added value for all stakeholders— for investors, planners, users, law enforcement agencies, and authorities. Users enjoy a high standard of housing and living. They can live with the assurance that they are contributing to resource conservation and climate protection. Investors and owners are interested in value-preserving sites offering a high quality of living and working. The quality characteristics are useful for marketing and image-building. Due to the high level of acceptance, cooperation with authorities is much easier. For local municipalities, it helps them to bring their concerns to bear at an early stage. The certificate Table 21.2 Summary of comparison Issues

ZEN

2000-W Site

Vienna

Steering and process leadership

(Mainly) public steered demo sites

Privately steered process

Urban planning department

Holistic process of developing and deploying PEDs

Planning and design phase focussed

Planning and design phase focus, but additional new programme focusing on transformation of existing sites

Planning and design phase focussed

Integrative urban transformation process

Urban transformation process based on experimental approach and stakeholder involvement

Incentives, stakeholder collaboration

New locally embedded governance approach

Approach to open innovation and stakeholder interaction

Open innovation is driven by public sector as main project owner (8 of 9 projects are public owned)

Implementation of proven technology

Focus on binding legal instruments

280

M. Haase and D. Baer

is a guarantee of successful commercial implementation of their energy and climatepolicy goals. The certificate was designed as part of the federal programme of the SFOE, who is promoting the implementation of national energy policy in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy. With the SwissEnergy programme, the SFOE supports specific projects at municipal level.

21.3.2 Holistic Process of Developing and Deploying PEDs In Switzerland, the discussions of the 2000-W Society have formed the basis for a large support of the ideas connected to it. Several companies have identified business models around it, such as the 2000WS certification scheme. This scheme forms the structure and the social character of the district. People creating 2000WS or moving to them are convinced that what they are doing is good in the sense of “good for society and good for the planet” (quote from one interview conducted by author in 2021). In some 2000WS, there are groups of active inhabitants who promote a “sufficient” lifestyle, offer sharing options, and promote an alternative way of living (relying less on fossil fuel, vegetarian food etc.). Car sharing options are available in many sites, together with strict rules for owning cars (and restricted parking space). These are rules in place that inhabitants must agree to before moving onsite. So, there is a possibility for segregation implemented in the system. Further work is needed to identify further implications.

21.3.3 Integrative Urban Transformation Process In Vienna, incorporating energy aspects into the early phase of planning processes has been forced. The extra effort of coordinating multiple city stakeholders helped building a governance framework to realize potential of spatial energy planning. Energy should be a part of urban planning. The Energy Zoning Planning Concept, part of the Urban Development Plan, was implemented in 2019 to guide the city to integrate energy in different planning issues. Amongst other measures, it introduced energy zoning plans, developed by the Department for Energy Planning. Just like land use zoning plans or building regulation plans, the energy zoning plans set out the energy solutions for heating and hot water supply for defined zones. All new buildings in the zones must use district heating or other high-efficiency solutions like renewables or waste heat. This enables the steering of a more efficient use of district heating in the city and prevents fossil gas solutions for new buildings. Finally, it could enforce innovative solutions, such as micro-heat networks with low temperature sources. The energy-related operation processes are usually in the control of facility managers and technical staff of each building. Multi-owned districts often lack professional skilled workers. A multitude of performance indicators can be related to

21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal

281

this structure. Some performance indicators are important in the design and commissioning of the systems, and others are of use in the day-to-day running of the buildings. Energy can be considered to follow function because energy in the end is used to meet requirements defined by the activities that take place in a district. In each district, requirements are diversified by the type of activities/functions (residences, commercial (shops, retail), service (schools, restaurants, cafes etc.), by the sizes of tenants’ rental spaces, or by the type of spaces (public areas, offices, parking etc.). The different activities can be characterized by functional patterns for various groups; opening hours for commercial buildings will differ from operational hours for technical services and lighting. Facility operation must meet the requirements of staff in commercial and cultural or service buildings before they open to the public. In districts, many tasks are performed outside of opening hours which require maintaining health and safety for the workers. Examples are maintenance and cleaning, sanitation and supply infrastructures, mobility, and transport.

21.3.4 Open Innovation and Stakeholder Interaction The use of digital data by research partners was seen as an accelerator for the transformation of today’s electric power sector to a more sustainable energy production based on renewable energies. Vienna has introduced unique projects to ensure that the energy transition takes place and that residents are actively involved. Energy zoning plans could be an instrument for a city to steer pipe-bound infrastructure like district heating/green gas/exergy networks and to enforce the transformation of the building stock from fossil solutions to renewables. Innovative approaches are showing that cooling and heating can be combined in one system, with low costs. Resident-owned solar and wind power plants can be a role model for other cities looking for ways to include residents in the generation of renewable energy. It also shows how public ownership can enable and speed up the energy transition. For people with their own solar panels, the use of blockchain technology to sell surplus energy could be a lucrative option.

21.4 Discussion A few cornerstones of the advanced value stream for PEDs are high resilient community energy system considering buildings, supply, distribution, and storage as basic components which must match together. The main aspects were identified as important to be able to define value streams as basis for successful implementation of decarbonization projects. Understanding the pros and cons of the different governance models for energy supply and consumption is important to plan and realize districts that not only contribute significantly to reducing energy consumption and securing the location

282

M. Haase and D. Baer

of energy infrastructure (generation, distribution, storage), but also in terms of longterm sustainable development and in particular climate neutrality. The development and implementation of PEDs require a bundle of mandatory and optional services provided for the public owner of a building cluster. A bottom-up governance model has here its advantages. However, the pandemic has shown that customs are changing rapidly in a crisis. Thus, in the new normal, it will be interesting to see how building owners will prioritize. In the new normal, cities will progressively adapt to face the post COVID-19 emergency. Decision-makers will be called to revise current policies in the field of community master planning (including governance of public spaces, mobility, and waste management). Here, the Vienna governance model can help to accelerate the process. The pandemic will leave us with the chance to revise planning and implementation regulations. The development of PEDs will benefit from this. On the research level, this implies a careful evaluation of the interventions derived from the pandemic at different levels. More studies and field tests are required to develop advanced knowledge, thanks to the joint effort of expertise from medical, urban planning and management, social sciences, communication fields. Thus, multidisciplinary will be the key in this approach and will also guide practitioners when planning and designing operations and infrastructure to accommodate new social functions in the streetscape. Here, the ZEN governance model helps to understand how to prioritize solutions that are scientifically accepted. In addition, the open innovation processes which also include stakeholder analysis and interaction will accelerate the implementation of PEDs in the new normal.

21.5 Conclusions The main issue in the new normal is how to involve different stakeholders in the PED process in the best way? Which tools are needed to facilitate stakeholder involvements? How to communicate and visualize analysis results in the decision-making group? Is it the PED process which must govern focus on goals and constraints on diverse levels (national, municipal, neighbourhood) and phases? A last point to consider is the major attention to adaptations. The pandemic emergency and urgency have shown that there was no time to develop new vehicles, new spaces, new equipment, an that the only possibility is to adapt faster the current assets (fleets, facilities, staff) and behaviours, to give new impetus to existing knowledge to carbon neutral solutions and the transition path towards them. This will change the structure of the industry and the pandemic experience just stresses the need for this transformation towards a smart energy system interaction between sectors and technologies and the main stakeholders for a governance structure (energy service providers; utilities) that will overcome the challenges in their traditional way of doing business (Richter 2012). Therefore, adapting their business models to remain competitive is seen as an important step for the post-pandemic

21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal

283

world. When looking at the post-pandemic governance, new business models reveal basically two possibilities: 1. Ownership of renewable energy assets (Frantzis et al. 2008) 2. Utilities need to develop from commodity providers to energy service providers (Klose et al. 2010; Valocchi et al. 2010). According to this idea, utilities should evolve to comprehensive energy solutions providers for residential and commercial customers to create new sources of revenues. Due to the experience from the pandemic, a few characteristics to implement new energy supply concepts are worth noting as key elements for a post-pandemic world: • Highly resilient community energy system • Primary energy, carbon footprint target-oriented system approach (target value approach) • Understanding each building as a prosumer • Consequent use of transfer energy systems and sectoral coupling • Grid-friendly incentivized business models (no more supply-only-concepts) • Innovative instant trade energy distribution systems and remuneration systems • User-centric solutions. Acknowledgements This paper has been written within the Research Centre on Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities (FME ZEN) and with funding from Strategic programme of ZHAW. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the ZEN partners and the Research Council of Norway. This work is related to IEA EBC Annex 75, Annex 82 and Annex 83. The discussion amongst experts is highly appreciated. Financial support from ZHAW through the DECARB project is highly appreciated.

References Abu-Rayash A, Dincer I (2020) Analysis of the electricity demand trends amidst the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Energy Res Soc Sci 68(2020):101682 ADAC (2021) Corona und Mobilität: Mehr Homeoffice, neue Freizeit- und Urlaubsziele, in German: Corona and mobility: more homeoffice, new leisure and holiday destinations. https:// www.adac.de/verkehr/standpunkte-studien/mobilitaets-trends/corona-mobilitaet/. Access date: 29 Nov 2022 Alhajeri HM, Almutairi A, Alenezi A, Alshammari F (2020) Energy demand in the state of Kuwait during the Covid-19 pandemic: technical, economic, and environmental perspectives. Energies 13(17):4370 Bahmanyar A, Estebsari A, Ernst D (2020) The impact of different COVID-19 containment measures on electricity consumption in Europe. Energy Res Soc Sci 68(2020):101683 Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Quart 48(2):471–493 Brosemer K, Schelly C, Gagnon V, Arola KL, Pearce JM, Bessette D, Olabisi LS (2020) The energy crises revealed by COVID: intersections of Indigeneity, inequity, and health. Energy Res Soc Sci 68(2020):101661

284

M. Haase and D. Baer

Brozovsky J, Gustavsen A, Gaitani N (2021) Zero emission neighbourhoods and positive energy districts—a state-of-the-art review. Sustain Cities Soc 72(2021):103013 Budd L, Ison S (2020) Responsible transport: a post-COVID agenda for transport policy and practice. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect 6(2020):100151 Carvalho M, Delgado DBM, Lima KM, Cancela MC, Siqueira CA, Souza DLB (2021) Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Brazilian electricity consumption patterns. Int J Energy Res 45(2):3358–3364 City of Vienna (2019a) Vienna smart city strategy 2019–2050. City of Vienna, Vienna City of Vienna (2019b) Vienna energy zoning planning concept. City of Vienna, Vienna. ISBN 978-3-903003-50-7 Corazza MV, Moretti L, Forestieri G, Galiano G (2021) Chronicles from the new normal: urban planning, mobility and land-use management in the face of the COVID-19 crisis. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect 12:100503. ISSN 2590-1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100503 Corazza MV, Musso A (2021) Urban transport policies in the time of pandemic, and after: an ARDUOUS research agenda. Transp Policy 103(2021):31–44 David M, Schönborn S (2018) Bottom-up energy transition narratives: linking the global with the local? A comparison of three German renewable co-ops. Sustainability 10(4):924 Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2008) The struggle to govern the commons. In: Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Endlicher W, Alberti M, Bradley G, Ryan C, Simon U, ZumBrunnen C (eds) Urban ecology. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 611–622 Dhungana D, Hartmann S, Mollay U, Mühlberger M, Pfaffenbichler P, Saringer-Bory B, Schremmer C, Schumacher G, Tobler T, Vielguth S, Wakolbinger H (2019) Transform+ - Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen, Magistrat der Stadt Wien - MA 18 Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung in Zusammenarbeit mit der ÖIR GmbH (ÖIR). www.transform-plus.at Edomah N, Ndulue G (2020) Energy transition in a lockdown: an analysis of the impact of COVID19 on changes in electricity demand in Lagos Nigeria. Global Transitions 2(2020):127–137 European Commission (2018) The strategic energy technology plan—at the heart of energy research and innovation in Europe. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg Frantzis L, Graham S, Katofsky R, Sawyer H (2008) Photovoltaic business models. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO (US) Ghiani E, Galici M, Mureddu M, Pilo F (2020) Impact on electricity consumption and market pricing of energy and ancillary services during pandemic of COVID-19 in Italy. Energies 13(13):3357 Guarino F, Bisello A, Frieden D, Bastos J, Brunetti A, Cellura M, Ferraro M, Fichera A, Giancola E, Haase M, Kantorovitch J, Neumann C, Mankaa R, Segura IL, Traverso M, Tumminia G, Volpe R, Zhang X (2021) State of the art on sustainability assessment of Positive Energy Districts: methodologies, indicators and future perspectives. In: Proceedings of international conference on sustainability in energy and buildings (SEB-20), 15–17 Sept 2021 Haase M (2020) Requirements for representative models for comfort and energy simulations in districts. In: International conference organised by IBPSA-Nordic, 13–14 Oct 2020, OsloMet. BuildSIM-Nordic 2020. Selected papers. SINTEF Academic Press Haase M, Baer D (2020) Constraints, stakeholders and framing goals in energy master planning between neighbourhood and district. In: Bisello A, Vettorato, Ludlow D, Baranzelli C (eds) Smart and sustainable planning for cities and regions—results of SSPCR 2019—open access contributions. Springer, pp 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57764-3_1. ISBN 978-3030-57764-3. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030577636. Access date: 22 April 2021 Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unraveling the central state, but How? Types of multi-level governance. Am Polit Sci Rev 97(2):233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649 Hopkins DJ, King G (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American J Polit Sci 54(1):229–247 Janssen M, Chang BPI, Hristov H, Pravst I, Profeta A, Millard J (2021) Changes in food consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of consumer survey data from the first lockdown period in Denmark, Germany, and Slovenia. Front Nutr 8(2021):1–20

21 From Pandemic Governance to PED Agenda in the New Normal

285

JPI Urban Europe (2020) White paper on reference framework for positive energy districts and neighbourhoods. Key lessons from national consultations. Available online: https://jpi-urb aneurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/White-Paper-PED-Framework-Definition-2020323final.pdf. Accessed on 13 Feb 2021 Klose F, Kofluk M, Lehrke S, Rubner H (2010) Toward a distributed-power world. Renewables and smart grids will reshape the energy sector. The Boston Consulting Group Report, Boston Kraus S, Koch N (2021) Provisional COVID-19 infrastructure induces large, rapid increases in cycling. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118(15):1–6 Lopez Steinmetz LC, Leyes CA, Dutto Florio MA, Fong SB, Lopez Steinmetz RL, Godoy JC (2021) Mental health impacts in Argentinean college students during COVID-19 quarantine. Front Psych 12(2021):557880 Richter M (2012) Utilities’ business models for renewable energy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(5):2483–2493 Salama AM (2020) After coronavirus: how seasonal migration and empty centres might change our cities. The Conversation. ISSN 2201-5639. The Conversation Trust Salom J, Tamm M, Andresen I, Cali D, Magyari Á, Bukovszki V, Balázs R, Dorizas PV, Toth Z, Zuhaib S et al (2021) An Evaluation framework for sustainable plus energy neighbourhoods: moving beyond the traditional building energy assessment. Energies 14:4314. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/en14144314 Schaefer M, Jaeger-Erben M, Bamberg S (2012) Life events as windows of opportunity for changing towards sustainable consumption patterns? J Consum Policy 35(1):65–84 Schiefelbein J, Slotterback CS, Petersen JP, Koch A, Strasser H, Mair Am Tinkhof O, Kimman J, Church K, Freudenberg J (2017) Implementation of energy strategies in communities—results within the context of IEA annex 63. In: Proceedings of ECOS: 30th international conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systems. San Diego, CA, US Schmidt K, Sieverding T, Wallis H, Matthies E (2021) COVID-19—a window of opportunity for the transition toward sustainable mobility? Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect 10(2021):1–14 SFOE (2008) Grundlagen für ein Umsetzungskonzept der 2000-Watt-Gesellschaft. Ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt von Stadt Zürich, Bundesamt für Energie, EnergieSchweiz für Gemeinden und novatlantis Sharifi A, Khavarian-Garmsir AR (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci Total Environ 749:142391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142391. Epub 2020 Sep 18. PMID: 33370924; PMCID: PMC7499053 Sharp T, Haase M, Zhivov A, Rismanchi B, Lohse R, Rose J, Nord N (2020) Energy master planning: identifying framing constraints that scope your technology options. ASHRAE Transactions 2020, Volume 126, Part 1. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta. https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/or-20020-energy-master-planning-identifying-framing-constraints-that-scope-your-technology-opt ions?product_id=2113219 Sovacool BK, Furszyfer Del Rio D, Griffiths S (2020) Contextualizing the covid-19 pandemic for a carbon-constrained world: Insights for sustainability transitions, energy justice, and research methodology. Energy Res Soc Sci 68(2020):101701 UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations. sustainabledevelopment.un.org Valocchi M, Juliano J, Schurr A (2010) Switching perspectives. Creating new business models for a changing world of energy. IBM Institute for Business Value Publication, New York Wiik MK, Fufa SM, Andresen I, Brattebø H, Gustavsen A (2019) A Norwegian zero emission neighbourhood (ZEN) definition and a ZEN key performance indicator (KPI) tool. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 352(1):12030

286

M. Haase and D. Baer

Matthias Haase is a Professor of Building systems at Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW). Prior he served from 2007 until 2020 as a senior researcher at SINTEF Building and Infrastructure in Trondheim, Norway, and for four years (2010–2014) as an associate Prof in Integrated Energy Design in the Master course on Sustainable Architecture at the Norwegian University for Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Matthias is an es engineer with degrees in Mechanical Engineering (B.Sc. and Dipl.-Ing.) and Sustainable resource management (M.Eng.) and Architecture (Ph.D.) from Germany, England, and Hong Kong. Daniela Baer is an economic geographer and senior researcher in the field of sustainable urban development and transition at SINTEF Community in Trondheim, Norway. Her research focuses on social innovation and stakeholder collaboration to gain sustainable and citizen-centred transition within the built environment. Her work is embedded within the Research Centre for Zero Emission Neighborhoods in Smart Cities, founded by the Norwegian Research Council. Besides academia she former worked as a consultant for cities and municipalities.

Chapter 22

Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based New Normal? Federico Camerin

Abstract The COVID-19 crisis created a drastic confrontation with our built environments and the city-making process. In Barcelona, the implementation of Superblocks’ concept—including several measures to create healthier, more inclusive, and resilient environments—started in the pre-pandemic period (2016–2019) with difficulties of implementation in urban planning and governance. Barcelona’s urban everyday life has changed during the pandemic toward a more human-centered approach, so Superblocks-related solutions have gained support and attention. The City Council consequently in mid-2021 launched the “Barcelona Superblocks Government Measure” to apply the basic principles of this concept to planning processes and decision-making. Since then, urban planning policies have been implemented with fundamental urban changes induced by the pandemic and developed new urban regeneration strategies that prioritize public health in urban design. This chapter analyzes Superblocks-related measures and highlights the critical lessons learned from this experience for urban planning and governance in post-COVID-19 Barcelona. The main argument is that Barcelona’s Superblocks are tied to humancentered pre-pandemic policies launched in the last decade. The disruption caused by COVID-19 has enabled the new normal by changes in urban planning and governance leading to more sustainable accessibility and connectivity though urban democracy, creating a new sense of community. Keywords Urban policies · Post-COVID-19 · Resilience · Governance · New normal

F. Camerin (B) Universidad de Valladolid, Plaza del Colegio de Santa Cruz 8, 47002 Valladolid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] Departamento de Urbanística y Ordenación Territorial - Grupo de Investigación en Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Sostenibilidad (GIAU+S), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid, Avenida de Juan de Herrera, 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_22

287

288

F. Camerin

22.1 Introduction The goal of this research is to highlight the critical lessons learned from Superblocksrelated measures in post-COVID-19 Barcelona and provide insights into the new normal. In particular, this analysis aims to fill the gap of knowledge on the impacts of COVID-19 in terms of innovative solutions for urban planning and governance that may provide feasible strategies for environmental, social, and urban justice. Until now, no public reports or scientific research have dealt with the aforementioned aspects in Barcelona. The attempt is to partially overcome this lack of knowledge by highlighting the factors that have sped up the implementation of Superblocks in Barcelona since 2020. This work demonstrates that Barcelona’s Superblocks enable the new normal by relevant changes in urban planning and governance leading to more sustainable accessibility and connectivity though urban democracy and creating a new sense of community. This work argues that COVID19 has been an accelerator of a tendency that was already taken place in Barcelona and has sped up the implementation of Superblocks. A more human-centered city is now the cornerstone in the 2021 strategic document on government measures called “Barcelona Superblocks Government Measure” (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2021c). This document aims to extend the Superblocks’ basic principles to planning processes and decision-making to the whole city, being a clear manifestation of a striking change toward a more human-centered planning. The research on Superblocks-related measures deals with relevant challenges, as the document Barcelona Superblocks Government Measure was only released in late 2021, and the implementation is at its beginning, so this urban planning and governance document does not provide a robust theoretical framework. However, Barcelona is claimed to be particularly advanced on its journey away from traditional urban planning and government schemes, consequently Superblocks’ principles may be applied in other cities on the basis of local peculiarities. The exploration of the Superblocks-related approach may reveal much about the challenges and opportunities that the post-pandemic new normal may expect in terms of innovative human-centered and healthy solutions, aiming to deal with the existential crisis facing traditional city-making processes around the world. This work argues that the transformation and revision of priorities and substantive goals of urban planning and governance have been on the political agenda of Barcelona in the pre-pandemic period. Nevertheless, the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak showed that climate, economic, and social crises can accelerate the spread of the virus, so Barcelona’s City Council has seriously taken into account this urgent need and sped up measures related to the ecological transition such as Superblocks.

22 Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based …

289

22.2 Theory and Method This study is qualitative observational research that explores the features describing the implementation of Barcelona’s Superblock and relies on two main methods. First, the document analysis of gray literature (mostly government’s legislative documents, and urban planning and governance sources). Second, specific fieldwork in this Spanish city in October 2021 and April 2022 that comprised the following activities: archival research at the Arxiu Central d’Ecologia Urbana; on-site visits in Poblenou and Sant Antoni neighborhoods where Superblocks are already implemented; and the participation as a listener to the international event “Barcelona Superilla. The AfterCovid City” (5th–7th October 2021) (Barcelona City Council and Placemaking Europe 2021). These methods helped to explore how Superblocks-related solutions have gained support and attention in the planning and governance discourse of Barcelona, resulting in the Barcelona Superblocks Government Measure, an innovative document comprising urban planning and governance strategies for a new normal.

22.2.1 Post-COVID-19 City: Struggles and Impacts As well as in past epidemic diseases, the current COVID-19 crisis has created a drastic confrontation with our built environments and the city-making process in such way that it has contributed to reshape the daily life of cities (Megaheda and Ghonem 2020; Santa et al. 2021). Growing epidemiologic studies on the contagious rates of COVID-19 have demonstrated that specific urban conditions such as environmental, socio-economic, and territorial inequalities are relevant to the spread of the virus. Urban sectors with a high level of air pollution and drastic meteorological conditions present a higher risk of COVID-19 mortality (Urrutia-Pereira et al. 2020; Madl et al. 2021). The pandemic is also likely to hit hardest the poor, vulnerable, and less green neighborhoods areas and to aggravate urban problems such as socio-spatial segregation (Baena-Díez et al. 2020; Spotswood et al. 2021). From the economic perspective, cities with less diversified economic bases have been hit especially hard, especially those shaped for decades by mass tourism (United Nations 2020: 2). Although cities may be regarded as centers of infections due to overcrowded conditions (SantiagoAlarcon and MacGregor-Fors 2020), current scholarship is showing no evidence that population density is linked with COVID-19 cases and deaths (Carozzi et al. 2020; Hamidi et al. 2020). Cities, therefore, must be at the center of new transdisciplinary approaches because half of the world’s population live in urban areas that often place unsustainable demands on natural resources and present serious environmental degradation that threatens people’s health and quality of life. This is why urban planning, a discipline born in the mid-nineteenth century to address the dirtiness of urban environments (Cerdà 1867), is put at stake to provide resilient and sustainable solutions to reduce the pandemic impacts.

290

F. Camerin

New governance perspectives and strategies are also claimed to play a fundamental role in addressing issues of health, climate, and ecological crisis and provide feasible solutions for healthier and equitable cities. As stressed by the report “Policy Responses to Coronavirus” by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the crisis has accelerated municipal efforts to tackle these issues through existing urban policies and/or launched new innovative ones spanning a large range of topics—i.e., climate change, citizen participation, and housing—that have addressed the multifaceted “new normal” of post-pandemic cities (OECD 2020). The UN-Habitat report entitled “Cities and pandemics: toward a more just, green and healthy future” shows the pathways, according to which cities may decrease the pandemic impacts by more equitable, healthy, and environmentally friendly solutions (UN-Habitat 2021). As stated by Fabris et al. (2020), the 15-min city, Tactical urbanism, and Superblocks are solutions that are growingly applied internationally. All of them were introduced in the pre-pandemic period to provide a more holistic approach to the city-making process, enabling the “right to the city” not just for the wealthy, but for everyone (Lefebvre 1968). In this context, Barcelona is claimed to be an avant-garde city in the field of urban planning and governance because it has promoted innovative tools in the last decades (Degen and García 2012; March and Ribera-Fumaz 2016). The Spanish city has sped up the Superblocks implementation for developing measures to create healthier, more inclusive, and resilient environments.

22.2.2 Barcelona’s Superblocks: Origins, Issues, and Research Gaps Superblocks are specific examples of the so-called “neighborhood units” that bring together a number of urban blocks that utterly cut the amount of public space dedicated to private cars in favor of cycling, walking, public transport, and leisure. This change in urban design is also accompanied by the provision of human-centered facilities at the street level in combination with green solutions that equip healthier open spaces to reduce air pollution, noise, and heat island effects that also increase green spaces and physical activity (Nieuwenhuijsen 2021). Historically, the concept of neighborhood unit appeared in the early twentieth century as a diagrammatic planning model for residential development in metropolitan areas that attempt to shape functional, self-contained, and desirable neighborhoods in industrializing cities to revert squalid urban living conditions (Perry 1929; Mumford 1954; Johnson, 2002). This concept was taken into account by the Catalan architect Oriol Bohigas in the late 1950s (Bohigas 1958: 474–475) to rearrange the speculative urbanization patterns of Barcelona’s Extension (Aibar and Bijker 1997), but its concrete application occurred only 50 years later in the frame of Salvador Rueda-fostered “Ecological Urbanism” (Rueda et al. 2014). On the basis of a decisive awareness of the emergency to solve environmental and social issues that impede healthy and socio-territorial balanced

22 Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based …

291

living conditions (Mueller et al. 2017; Blanco and Nel·lo 2018; Pereira Barboza et. al. 2021), Rueda (2019) envisioned 503 neighborhood units that would cover the entire surface of Barcelona by 2030. This system is expected to reverse the privatecar dependency through a reorganization of public spaces and prevent 667 premature deaths annually by these main measures: The reduction of 19.2% of private motorized transport would improve air quality and reduce urban noise levels, and the increase of green areas from 2.7 to 6.3 m2 /inhab in the urban center would drop the heat island effect by about −35.8% (Mueller et al. 2020). Notwithstanding the increasing interest to study the different characteristics of Superblocks and their impacts on the urban environment (Scudellari et al. 2020; Zografos et al. 2020; Frago and Graziano 2021; Benini et al. 2021; Torner 2021; Eggimann 2022; Nello-Deakin 2022; Rodriguez-Rey et al. 2022), current research still lacks to understand how Superblocks have resulted in a deep change in urban planning and governance strategies.

22.3 Results This section is dedicated to the results of the inquiry on the relationship between the implementation of Superblocks system and the evolution of urban planning and governance strategies promoted by Barcelona’s City Council in the last 10 years (2012–2022). The document “Public Commitment toward Sustainability 2012– 2022—Compromís 22” (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2012) identifies 10 objectives for a more equitable, prosperous, and self-sufficient Barcelona through the involvement, commitment, and collaboration of the entities signing the public commitment. One of these goals was to establish Superblocks and consequently enhance humancentered neighborhoods where people can live and work, reducing distances from home to work, reorganizing the roads hierarchically, and creating new urban attractors that generate centrality in the neighborhoods (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2014: 13). In a context of growing awareness to promote resilient and sustainable solutions on the basis of green solutions (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2013), the application of Superblocks model relied on the basic idea that urban planning should shift from private-vehicle-centered mobility to the slow mobility (von Schönfeld and Bertolini 2017). Barcelona was about to implement many actions called for in city streets to fulfill other key urban functions according to the 2013–2018 and 2019–2024 Urban Mobility Plans (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2014). Superblocks were among these main actions. The Urban Mobility Plan stated that the organization of Barcelona’s urban fabric will be shaped according to Superblocks (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2012: 5, 74). On the basis of the local government document “Let us fill the streets with life” (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2016a), Superblocks implementation began with two pilot projects in Poblenou and Sant Antoni neighborhoods in the pre-pandemic period (2016–2019) (Figs. 22.1 and 22.2).

292

F. Camerin

Fig. 22.1 Superblocks-intended street in Poblenou neighborhood. Photo Camerin (2022)

Fig. 22.2 Superblocks interventions in a crossroad in Sant Antoni neighborhood. Photo Camerin (2022)

On the one hand, the mobility week of September 2016 enabled the implementation of a tactical urbanism approach in a 3 × 3 block area of Poblenou defined by Badajoz-Tánger-Llacuna-Pallars streets. The local agency BCNEcologia and Barcelona’s architecture schools installed street furniture according to a cul-de-sac scheme: This provisional intervention, instead of lasting a couple of weeks, was eventually left in place without consulting local citizens. This top-down decision generated opposition from the residents, but the neighborhood unit was eventually totally implemented after more than a year of talks with citizens (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2018). On the other hand, the 2017 participatory process for Sant Antoni neighborhood redevelopment (Eixample district) resulted in an action plan for the

22 Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based …

293

creation of a green axis structure, which intersections generate squares for refurbishment in the surroundings of the local market (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2022). The success of these two operations strongly depended on a participatory process that involved Poblenou’s and Sant Antoni’s citizens and stakeholders, even though the case of Poblenou relied on ex-post participation. The year 2020 represented a turning point for Barcelona. On 15th January 2020, the City Council declared the climate emergency (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2020a)— followed by the Climate Emergency Action Plan (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2021a)— and urged to change the urban model of the metropolis to properly tackle environmental, social, and urban justice. To achieve these goals, stepping up the pace of Superblocks to transform 15 km of streets into green axes by 2024 and creating at least 10 comprehensive-care Superblocks by 2025 was considered essential (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2020a: 13). The pandemic outbreak utterly changed Barcelona’s urban everyday life, posing new questions on the shape of the city toward a more local and human-centered approach (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2020b). The benefits related to the implementation of Superblocks were also highlighted by specific studies. Camerin and Fabris (2021) found that the first two neighborhood units had helped to mitigate health and socio-economic inequities, reduced pollutants, and encouraged trade and citizen interaction. Moreover, the Barcelona Public Health Agency (Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona 2021) identified the positive environmental and health effects of Superblocks-related urban transformations. These improvements went so far that Superblocks-related solutions have growingly gained support and attention to the extent that they were included in the local strategic recovery plan of October 2020 to create a collective consensus with city stakeholders (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2020c). In late 2020, the City Council launched a competition to extend Superblocks measures from Sant Antoni to the whole Eixample district (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2020d, 2021d). The idea was to develop a healthier and more equitable urban environment in the area with the most intense daily vehicle traffic flow in Barcelona (350,000 cars/day) and high levels of pollution (50 µg/m3 on overage in 2019, 10 µg/ m3 more than the WHO recommended 40 µg/m3 ) (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2021b: 8). The City Council envisaged turning 21 streets into green hubs and generating 21 new squares at the crossroads, devoting 33.4 hectares to pedestrians and 6.6 hectares to urban green space (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2021b: 9). While going through the implementation phases of these great Superblocks, the City Council launched in October 2021 the “Barcelona Superblocks Government Measure” to apply the basic principles of Superblocks concept to planning processes and decision-making in the new normal. The document relies on a City Councilfinanced public investment of 525 million euros with two expected main outputs: the conversion of 1,000,000 m2 from private motorized transport to human-centered activities and the creation of 8311 new jobs (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2021c). These objectives will be achieved through a wide range of actions aiming at radically changing the framework for decision-making on the shape of the urban environment. Barcelona’s urban planning and governance now put first a human-friendly and proximity-centered approach to daily life, targeting economic, environmental,

294

F. Camerin

and social justice. In particular, the approach of Superblocks for the new normal in Barcelona’s urban planning and governance will be applied to five axes. First, the transformation of public space for slow mobility and providing new green spaces to increase socialization. Second, people-friendly improvement of neighborhoods and venues on the ground of accessibility and proximity. Third, the reactivation of the economic fabric on an ecological and sustainable basis. Fourth, the promotion of sustainable mobility that allows people to move on foot safely, quickly, and comfortably, all of which is in accordance with the extension and improvement of the city’s public bike-sharing service. In addition, the increase of the current public housing stock on the basis of the 2016–2025 “Right to Housing Plan” aims to build 6100 public housing units and the purchase of around 1000 flats for public housing between 2016 and 2021 (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2016b).

22.4 Discussion In a context of growing awareness about the urgent need to change the way to plan the city of the future, the COVID-19 crisis has jeopardized the fundamental attributes that define urban life: diversity, density, social proximity, and human exchange. A wide and open debate investigating the ways to make our cities more inclusive, empowering, healthy, equitable, and sustainable seems to converge on the fact that the corona pandemic is not a unique event but rather a symptomatic incident, a disruption that most likely will re-occur in similar ways in future (Ibert et al. 2022). In this sense, the COVID-19 has offered an opportunity to realistically stress-test the robustness of the influential conceptual ideas that may adapt urban governance and planning to the new normal (OECD 2021). Since 2020, the pandemic has resulted in a new urgency to deal with unexpected disruptions of different nature (i.e., economic, financial, monetary, and natural catastrophes), so planning should develop a transdisciplinary “culture of strategic improvisation” (Meadows and Kreutz 2022) and “tact-”solutions intended as tactical (Lydon et al. 2015) and tactfully (Kornberger et al. 2019). In this context, Superblocks principles constitute a fundamental basis to develop a new normal approach. Cities are unique entities in terms of shape and socio-economic features and hugely differ in how they operate. As a consequence, the Superblocksrelated method applied in Barcelona’s grid system will not fit in other cities. Despite this, the document Barcelona Superblocks Government Measure embraces new urban planning and governance culture and solutions because it introduces a comprehensive and transformative change from a rich repertoire of novel solutions toward sustainability, resilience, and ecological transition. The interventions regarding five main axes (public space, improvement of neighborhoods and venues, reactivation of the economic fabric, mobility, and public housing) constitute thus the culmination of a long-term process accelerated by the pandemic that may match the challenges of not just the pandemic but other future disruptions. To sum up, Superblocks have strongly changed fundamental parts of governance and planning affecting Barcelona and channeled different kinds of comprehensive

22 Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based …

295

and cross-cutting transformation at the following level. First, the application of Superblocks’ principles envisages a comprehensive city model as it revises the historical priorities and the substantive goals of the local urban policies. The redevelopment of Barcelona’s urban environment has been driven by a private-fostered urban expansion model mostly since the 1980s (Camerin 2019). Superblocks comprise instead of public-financed actions that may overcome speculative approaches to urban regeneration actions. Second, Superblocks force the citizens to change their common habits by providing new human-scaled urban designs. The Superblocks’ global approach—understanding public spaces as a common asset, protecting neighborhoods from traffic, reducing pollution and accidents, and strengthening pedestrian rights and social cohesion—puts the human being at the center of the open spaces in Barcelona, letting people move safely with health benefits. Third, the renaturalization of public spaces improves the sense of safety and security with planted elements and soft (permeable) surfaces. These are other relevant factors for the urban design of these new spaces that would enable cities to combat future excessive waterproofing.

22.5 Conclusions The 2020 pandemic period has demonstrated that the future will be radically open and widely unknown and that further disruptions are likely. The implementation of Barcelona’s Superblocks has been strongly related to a program of comprehensive and cross-cutting strategies implemented in terms of urban governance and planning over the last 10 years. Several sectorial plans regarding climate change, housing, mobility, and nature have fostered the idea of adopting a new city model. This change occurred on the basis of concepts such as ecological transition, resilience, and sustainability to contrast but also to adapt and learn how to deal with persisting economic, environmental, and social challenges of the twenty-first century. The two main lessons learned from this work can be the following. First, COVID-19 as an urban pandemic has been a catalyst for change. The urban nature of the pandemic has exacerbated structural vulnerabilities in the profit-driven European city-making process and evidenced that economic and environmental resilience should be put at the center of the new normal. Barcelona set the foundation for such change on a wider strategy since 2012 based on environmental sustainability and local citizens’ welfare. Second, COVID-19 has acted as an accelerator for the application of pre-existing approaches toward resilience and sustainability in urban planning and governance strategies. The implementation of Superblocks was conceived before the pandemic and later considered the ground zero for the new normal in urban planning and governance. The positive results of Superblocks have been achieved through extensive dialog with local citizens and stakeholders to collectively reflect about reshaping Barcelona as a whole. The strategy focused on making daily life the central concern of urban planning and governance, bringing cohesion to neighborhoods and driving the ecological transition. It is worth highlighting that Superblocks have been launched

296

F. Camerin

with multi-governance tools such as the “2020 climate emergency declaration” on the basis of fundamental statements by the City Council: “Tackling the change requires all of us to be involved. We need to join forces with all the players involved. Now… or never” (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2020a: 5). Acknowledgements This work has been carried out within the research project “La Regeneración Urbana como una nueva versión de los Programas de Renovación Urbana. Logros y fracasos” (“Urban Regeneration as a new version of Urban Renewal Programmes. Achievements and Failures” in English). This project is co-funded by the Spanish Ministry of Universities in the framework of the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan, by the European Union—Next Generation EU and by the Universidad de Valladolid. This work presents the results of the research “InURBA: Metrópolis fracturadas. Vulnerabilidad, reequilibrio territorial e institucionalización de las estrategias de desarrollo urbano integrado. PID2019-108120RB-C33”, financed by “MICIU. Programa Estatal de I+D+i Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad. Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2017-2020. Agencia Estatal de Investigación. Convocatoria 2020”.

References Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona (2021) Result report “Salut als carrers” (health in streets). https://www.aspb.cat/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/English-ASPB_salut-carrers-result sreport-Superblocks.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Aibar E, Bijker WE (1997) Constructing a city: the Cerdà plan for the extension of Barcelona. Sci Technol Human Values 22(1):3–30 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2012) Compromiso Ciudadano por la Sostenibilidad 2013–2022. https:/ /ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/CompromisoCiudadanoSostenib ilidad.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2013) Barcelona Green Infrastructure and biodiversity plan 2020. https:/ /ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/Barcelona%20green%20infrast ructure%20and%20biodiversity%20plan%202020.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2014) Pla de mobilitat urbana 2013–2018. https://ajuntament.barcelona. cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/PMU_Sintesi_Catala.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2016a) Omplim de vida els carrers. La implantació de les Superilles a Barcelona. https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/bitstream/11703/97356/1/mes uradegovernomplimdevidaelscarrerslaimplantacidelessuperi-160518111846.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2016b) Barcelona Right to Housing Plan 2016b–2025. https://www.hab itatge.barcelona/en/strategy/right-to-housing-plan. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2018) Supermanzana del Poblenou. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/sup erilles/es/content/poblenou. Accessed 21 June 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2020a) This is not a drill. Climate emergency declaration. https://www.barcelona.cat/emergenciaclimatica/sites/default/files/2020a-07/Climate_E mergency_Declaration_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2020b) 82 measures for reactivating the economy of Barcelona. https:/ /www.barcelona.cat/reactivacioeconomica/sites/default/files/2021-06/PRACTICAL_GUIDE_ TO_OUR_SERVICES_2021_0.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2020c) Barcelona fem plans de futur. https://ajuntament.barcel ona.cat/premsa/wp-content/uploads/2020b/12/6.-llibret-BCN-FEM-PLANS-DE-FUTUR.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022

22 Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based …

297

Ajuntament de Barcelona (2020d) Towards Superblock Barcelona. 11 November 2020. https://aju ntament.barcelona.cat/premsa/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/201111-DOSSIER-Superilla-Bar celona-EN.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2021a) Climate emergency action plan for 2030. https://contingutswww.barcelona.cat/barcelona-pel-clima/sites/default/files/plaaccioemergenciaclimatica_202 1nov_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2021b) Superblock Barcelona. Towards the city we want. January 2021b. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/sites/default/files/2021b0202_Superblock_ Barcelona_web.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2021c) Mesura de govern Superilla Barcelona per regenerar Barcelona i els seus barris. Octubre del 2021c. https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/bitstream/ 11703/123221/1/Llibret_SUPERILLA_MdG_A4_web.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2021d) Resolución de los concursos de ideas de Superilla Barcelona. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/es/content/resolucion-de-los-concursosde-ideas-de-superilla-barcelona. Accessed 21 June 2022 Ajuntament de Barcelona (2022) Supermanzana de Sant Antoni. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ superilles/es/content/sant-antoni. Accessed 21 June 2022 Baena-Díez JM, Barroso M, Cordeiro-Coelho SI, Díaz JL, Grau M (2020) Impact of COVID-19 outbreak by income: hitting hardest the most deprived. J Public Health 42(4):698–703 Barcelona City Council & Placemaking Europe (2021) Superilla Barcelona: the after Covid city. https://aftercovid.city/superillabarcelona/en/about/. Accessed 21 June 2022 Benini J, Manzini E, Parameswaran L (2021) Care up-close and digital: a designers’ outlook on the pandemic in Barcelona. Des Cult 13(1):91–102 Blanco I, Nel·lo O (eds) (2018) Barrios y crisis. Crisis económica, segregación urbana e innovación social en Cataluña. Tirant, Valencia Bohigas O (1958) En el centenario del Plan Cerdà. Cuadernos De Arquitectura 35:469–475 Camerin F (2022) Regenerar el antiguo barrio industrial del Poblenou (Barcelona). ¿Hacía una ciudad post-Covid-19? Bitácora Urbano Territorial 32(3):197–209 Camerin F (2019) From “Ribera Plan” to “Diagonal Mar”, passing through 1992 “Vila Olímpica”. How urban renewal took place as urban regeneration in Poblenou district (Barcelona). Land Use Policy 89:104226 Camerin F, Fabris LMF (2021) Towards the post-pandemic (healthy) city: Barcelona’s Poblenou superblock. Challenges and opportunities. In: Doucet B, van Melik R, Filion P (eds) Global reflections on covid-19 and urban inequalities, vol 2. Housing and home. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 65–74 Carozzi F, Provenzano S, Roth S (2020) Urban density and COVID-19. IZA DP No. 13440. IZA— Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn Cerdà I (1867) Teoría General de la Urbanización y aplicación de sus principios y doctrinas a la Reforma y Ensanche de Barcelona. Imprenta Española, Madrid Degen M, García M (2012) The transformation of the ‘Barcelona Model’: an analysis of culture, urban regeneration and governance. Int J Urban Reg Res 36(5):1022–1038 Eggimann S (2022) The potential of implementing superblocks for multifunctional street use in cities. Nature Sustain 5(5):406–414 Fabris LMF, Camerin F, Semprebon G, Balzarotti RM (2020) New healthy settlements responding to pandemic outbreaks: approaches from (and for) the global city. Plan J 5(2):385–406 Frago L, Graziano T (2021) Public space and the green city: conflictual narratives of the superblock programme in Poblenou, Barcelona. J Urban Regenerat Renew 15(1):113–128 Hamidi S, Sabouri S, Ewing R (2020) Does density aggravate the COVID-19 pandemic? J Am Plann Assoc 86(4):495–509 Ibert O, Baumgart S, Siedentop S, Weith T (2022) Planning in the face of extraordinary uncertainty: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plan Pract Res 37(1):1–12 Johnson DL (2002) Origin of the neighbourhood unit. Plan Perspect 17(3):227–245

298

F. Camerin

Kornberger M, Leixnering S, Meyer RE (2019) The logic of tact: how decisions happen in situations of crisis. Organ Stud 40(2):239–266 Lefebvre H (1968) Le droit à la ville. Éditions Anthropos, Paris Lydon M, Garcia A, Duany A (2015) Tactical urbanism: short-term action for long-term change. Island Press, Washington Madl P et al (2021) Air pollution, SARS-CoV-2 and the wider implications—an overview of recent events with a focus on Italy. Aerosol Air Qual Res 21:200438 Meadows S, Kreutz AS (2022) Constrained by order: challenges to reform in Victoria’s planning system. Plan Pract Res 37(1):61–78 Megaheda NA, Ghoneim EM (2020) Antivirus-built environment: lessons learned from Covid-19 pandemic. Sustain Cities Soc 61:102350 March H, Ribera-Fumaz R (2016) Smart contradictions: the politics of making Barcelona a selfsufficient city. Europ Urban Regional Stud 23(4):816–830 Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D, Basagaña X, Cirach M, Cole-Hunter T, Dadvand P, Donaire-Gonzalez D, Foraster M, Gascon M, Martinez D, Tonne C, Triguero-Mas M, Valentin A, Nieuwenhuijsen M (2017) Urban and transport planning related exposures and mortality: a health impact assessment for cities. Environ Health Perspect 125(1):89–96 Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D, Khreis H, Cirach M, Andrés D, Ballester J, Bartoll X, Daher C, Deluca A, Echave C, Milá C, Márquez S, Palou J, Pérez K, Tonne C, Stevenson M, Rueda S, Nieuwenhuijsen M (2020) Changing the urban design of cities for health: the superblock model. Environ Int 134:105132 Mumford L (1954) The neighbourhood and the neighbourhood unit. Town Plan Rev 24(4):256–270 Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2021) New urban models for more sustainable, liveable and healthier cities post covid19; reducing air pollution, noise and heat island effects and increasing green space and physical activity. Environ Int 157:106850 Nello-Deakin S (2022) Exploring traffic evaporation: findings from tactical urbanism interventions in Barcelona. Case Stud Trans Policy 10(4):2430–2442 OECD (2020) OECD policy responses to coronavirus (COVID-19) cities policy responses. OECD, Paris OECD (2021) The territorial impact of COVID-19: managing the crisis and recovery across levels of government. OECD, Paris Pereira Barboza E, Cirach M, Khomenko S, Iungman T, Mueller N, Barrera-Gómez J, Rojas-Rueda D, Kondo M, Nieuwenhuijsen M (2021) Green space and mortality in European cities: a health impact assessment study. Lancet Planet Health 5(10):718–730 Perry CA (1929) The neighbourhood unit, a scheme of arrangement for the family-life community, regional survey of New York and its environments. Neighborhood Comm Plan Comm Reg Plan New York Environs 8:30 Rodriguez-Rey D, Guevara M, Linares MP, Casanovas J, Armengol JM, Benavides J, Soret A, Jorba O, Tena C, García-Pando CP (2022) To what extent the traffic restriction policies applied in Barcelona city can improve its air quality? Sci Total Environ 807(2):150743 Rueda S (2019) Superblocks for the design of new cities and renovation of existing ones: Barcelona’s case. In: Nieuwenhuijsen M, Khreis H (eds) Integrating human health into urban and transport planning. Springer, Cham, pp 135–153 Rueda S, Cuchí A, Brau L (2014) Ecological urbanism: its application to the design of an econeighborhood in Figueres. Agencia de Ecología Urbana de Barcelona, Barcelona Santa SLB, Cremonezi GOG, Soares TC, Deggau AB, Andrade Guerra JBOD (2021) Healthy sustainable cities and the COVID-19 pandemic: a sustainable development goals perspective. In: Muthu SS (ed) COVID-19. Environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes. Singapore, Springer, pp 141–167 Santiago-Alarcon D, MacGregor-Fors I (2020) Cities and pandemics: urban areas are ground zero for the transmission of emerging human infectious diseases. J Urban Ecol 6(1):juaa012 Scudellari J, Staricco L, Vitale Brovarone E (2020) Implementing the Supermanzana approach in Barcelona. Critical issues at local and urban level. J Urban Design 25(6):675–696

22 Urban Governance in Post-pandemic Barcelona: A Superblock-Based …

299

Spotswood EN, Benjamin M, Stoneburner L, Wheeler MM, Beller EE, Balk D, McPhearson T, Kuo M, McDonald RI (2021) Nature inequity and higher COVID-19 case rates in less-green neighbourhoods in the United States. Nature Sustain 4(12):1092–1098 Torner FM (2021) Barcelona y su Ensanche: Cambio de paradigma hacia una movilidad activa y saludable. Revista De Obras Públicas 3626:48–54 UN-Habitat (2021) Cities and pandemics: towards a more just, green and healthy future. UN-Habitat, Nairobi United Nations (2020) Policy brief: COVID-19 in an urban world. United Nations, New York Urrutia-Pereira M, Mello-da-Silva CA, Solé D (2020) COVID-19 and air pollution: a dangerous association? Allergol Immunopathol 48(5):496–499 von Schönfeld KC, Bertolini L (2017) Urban streets: epitomes of planning challenges and opportunities at the interface of public space and mobility. Cities 68:48–55 Zografos C, Klaus K, Connolly JJ, Anguelovski I (2020) The everyday politics of urban transformational adaptation: struggles for authority and the Barcelona superblock project. Cities 99:102613

Chapter 23

Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions David Ludlow

Abstract The pandemic has promoted an accelerated socioeconomic transformation enabled by digital transition generating a “new normal” and raising new potentials for responding to the grand challenges of climate change mitigation and creating net-zero neighbourhoods. Urban governance is crucial to realizing the full benefits of the twin digital and green revolutions promoted by visions of the 15-min city and liveable neighbourhoods. However, delivery of the 15-min city as a net-zero neighbourhood depends on effectively securing “win–win” policy co-benefits supporting climate change mitigation actions from a top-down perspective, allied to bottom-up open governance promoting co-design and co-development of urban plan solutions. This chapter outlines the concept of a smart urban governance model that deploys satellite-derived (Copernicus) intelligence to promote enhanced ICT-enabled tools. The model combines top-down and bottom-up urban planning processes in delivering climate change mitigation commitments at the urban scale. Finally, the chapter addresses research questions concerning the relevance of this Smarticipate as an open, integrated, and interoperable urban governance and planning model. The conclusions reflect the application of a digital-twin ensemble with Copernicus-derived methodologies, for the development of new models in the future new normal. Keywords City planning · Governance model · Net-zero neighbourhood · Digital-Twin · Copernicus

23.1 Urgency for New Solutions The pandemic has given rise to the notion, and anticipation, of a “new normal”, reflecting changes in attitudes and behaviours evident as COVID-19 propelled cities and citizens through a decade of digital transformation overnight (Budd and Ison 2020). COVID-19 now joins the climate emergency in highlighting the importance D. Ludlow (B) School of Architecture and Environment, UWE Bristol, Bristol, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_23

301

302

D. Ludlow

of resilience and adaptability in urban planning whilst throwing into sharp relief the limitations of urban governance and demonstrating the urgency for new solutions. Consequently, city planners across Europe are facing a common challenge to develop effective planning solutions for a deeply uncertain future and influence the transformative capacity of cities to deliver on carbon neutrality whilst transitioning towards the post-pandemic “new normal”. The urgency of urban planning tasks is identified by the European Green Deal challenge to define decarbonization pathways by 2030, creating cities of “net-zero neighbourhoods” (European Commission 2019). Today, the new socioeconomic realities of post-pandemic life define a new urgent requirement for redefined mitigation pathways to form fundamental components of city planning. Critically, new city visions are required to support the specification of the mitigation and transition pathways and associated strategies to deliver urban and EU climate goals. Planning strategies based on “decarbonization pathways” (Nieuwenhuijsen 2020) can then form central components of new governance, delivering effective transformation strategies in the urban context (Dubois et al. 2019). Urban planners are responding to the challenge and actively working to understand how to envision the net-zero neighbourhood as hubs of living and working and how to shape behavioural change strategies to respond to the new socioeconomic and spatial realities of cities. The vision of the 15-min city consists of an assemblage of concepts well-known in urban planning as those of liveable neighbourhoods and mixed urban land use. In a 15-min city, neighbourhood housing, employment, education, shopping, and cultural facilities are all at easy walking and cycling distance. However, planning solutions should not just advance functional models but also deliver models able to deliver “win–win” policy co-benefits. In other words, these benefits should be associated with climate change mitigation options, air quality, healthy cities and citizens, and socially cohesive and economically vital local communities.

23.2 New Urban Governance Central to the realization of "new normal" planning solutions for the future is an integrated urban planning methodology leveraging stakeholder co-design, generating climate strategy and action plans that are transformative and agile supporting delivery of the carbon neutrality agenda adopted by urban politicians globally (Sharifi, 2021). However, the limitations of existing urban governance models are thoroughly exposed by the demands of integrated and transformative planning, emphasizing the urgent need for new solutions, including the reconsideration and redefinition of design principles and operational rules for a “new urban governance” (da Cruz et al. 2019). Calls for an urban planning method able to transition from a centralized, top-down perspective engaging with bottom-up solutions. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are crucial enablers for supporting tools and methodologies that

23 Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions

303

address top-down integrated urban planning whilst simultaneously developing the interconnection of open governance service and the co-design of planning solutions (European Environment Agency 2022). This chapter draws on the author’s experience in EU-funded smart city governance research and innovation projects over the past decade. First, it outlines the concept of a smart city governance model that deploys satellite-derived intelligence to promote enhanced ICT-enabled city governance (The European Space Agency 2022). The experience here is the building up of models that combine top-down and bottom-up processes in urban planning for climate change mitigation commitments at the urban scale. Finally, the chapter addresses research questions concerning the relevance of an open, integrated, and interoperable model of urban governance and planning (Smarticipate 2019), considering its application via a digital-twin ensemble (Copernicusderived methodologies) and some learning lessons from recent EU research and innovation projects.

23.3 User-Driven Approaches The smart city governance research and innovation projects referenced in this chapter, including Smarticipate (2019), URBIS (2017), DECUMANUS (2016), and urbanAPI (2014), deploy a user-driven approach with a focus on ICT-enabled urban governance and planning. The projects aim to support decision-making processes in urban land use planning by enhancing governance capabilities regarding issue identification, policy analysis, consultation, and evaluation. Key stakeholders include municipal land use planners with local and strategic plan development and implementation expertise. These stakeholders are thoroughly familiar with the varied context of land use plan development and implementation in which tools and methodologies must be effectively applied. In addition, informal stakeholder groups consisting of domain experts from various organizations external to the project formed advisory groups that guided the project partners. A detailed set of user requirements were acquired from the project cities, specified according to urban planning scenarios, which identified user needs and requirements, forming essential criteria for the development of the tools and subsequent evaluation of the applications.

304

D. Ludlow

23.4 Structured Development Methodology All research and innovation projects followed a structured development methodology, engaging end users comprising representatives of the respective partner cities in requirements definition, with methodology structured as follows: 1. Requirements and Stakeholder Engagement: In this step, end users comprising representatives of the pilot cities were consulted to understand their needs and requirements better. The CoReS methodology was followed in this project phase (Khan et al. 2013). This methodology is a stepwise approach to the problem of defining requirements for a project in collaboration with stakeholders—the first step is laying the groundwork and acquiring the necessary context. The second step is conducting requirements workshops with the stakeholders to define user scenarios for the project. Based on those scenarios, specific requirements are extracted, and finally, the stakeholders validate those requirements. The Redmine system was used to manage and track requirements and consult the stakeholders (Sarkan et al. 2011). 2. Tool Design and Development: Once the requirements were identified, the design of the tools was derived from these requirements. As a result, applications were defined using a Scrum-based agile methodology. Stakeholders were not involved in this project phase as the applications’ developers conducted it. However, the city representatives were available to respond to any questions or clarifications the developers might raise. 3. User and Technical Evaluation: Finally, user and technical evaluation of the developed products was performed. Technical evaluation was needed to test software quality using well-defined software testing methodologies such as white box testing, test cases, and unit tests. The developers used these methodologies to ensure that applications do not fail when used by different stakeholders. After technical evaluation, the user evaluation focussed on consultation with end users and stakeholders from the pilot cities to obtain feedback regarding various aspects of the developed applications. An online portal hosting various questionnaires was developed using Drupal to ensure that the applications met the specified stakeholder requirements.

23.5 Results The Smarticipate project provides a 3-dimensional framework as a basis for ICT investment in reformed smart city governance promoting integrated, open, and interoperable urban planning solutions. Smarticipate’s perspective regarding integration developed in collaboration with project cities, including Rome, Hamburg, and London (Kensington and Chelsea), is that urban planning and governance face the challenge of managing the complexity of interconnected socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of the city region in a spatial framework. Complex problems

23 Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions

305

like these require a holistic approach to urban development and an integrated assessment of urban policies supported by a comprehensive set of socioeconomic and environmental sustainability indicators. The Smarticipate proposition is that ICT is a key enabler of this holistic approach. The focus was to facilitate an effective integrated assessment of urban complexity and enhance decision-making capability. Supporting the specification of interconnected strategic policy, objectives constituted the co-benefits, and “win–win” solutions as the principal objective are more effectively secured.

23.6 Integrated Assessment Integrated assessment is fundamental to developing effective responses to the challenges of climate change mitigation and the post-COVID-19 “new normal”, as an integrated assessment is insufficient to affect the delivery of the urban transitions demanded. Implementing sustainable urban development by city planning also requires open governance, promoting the full engagement of all stakeholders in enhancing transparency, accountability and trust in governance, and the decisionmaking process. Demands for open and participatory styles of governance based on social interaction and information sharing have arisen as a need for innovation within broader societal change. These open governance modes respond to the dynamic of evolving roles and relationships of different actors, in which change is more rapid and fluid, with non-public sector actors, including social entrepreneurs and creative industries, increasingly involved in policy definition and delivery. The result is a more dynamic open architecture of governance in which cooperative governance systems are replacing silo-based approaches and the involvement of private parties in managing solutions.

23.7 Open Governance These principles of open governance lie at the heart of various smart city governance initiatives promoted by the European Commission. Smarticipate is an exemplary project that develops mobile applications supporting an interoperable, modular, and extendable digital platform for urban governance, enhancing participation, collaboration, transparency, and accountability of government actions. This idea of open governance embeds government in the broader context of actors and processes, generating new data and intelligence for citizens and other stakeholders for policy and service design purposes, thus directly and potentially contributing to more sustainable urban development. The co-creation process involves actors affected by policy action from the beginning of the design process, aiming to make them part of the solution with outcomes that would better tailor to local contexts, increasing effectiveness and acceptance of common actions.

306

D. Ludlow

23.8 Interoperable Common Solutions The third interoperability dimension of the Smarticipate model of city governance is a response to common global and regional drivers of change (climate change, economic crisis, urbanization) that are defining common problems in cities worldwide. Here, a common framework for decision-making processes can be applied to facilitate urban planning solutions developed through interoperable governance. The framework deploys common assessment methodologies that specify and quantify socioeconomic and environmental impacts in spatial scales across the neighbourhood, city, and city region, seeking and delivering policy co-benefits in city management. Systems interoperability requirements also arise from the collaborative multiagency dimension of urban planning. ICT investment in smart city governance solutions enables enhanced communication overcoming silos and supporting free information flows within and amongst governance agencies, emphasizing the need for common organizational foundations and promoting the potential interoperability in the governance system. The aim is to enhance communication amongst all stakeholders, including sectoral agencies in a horizontal perspective (local, city-wide) and governance levels in a vertical perspective (district, regional, national). Collaboration amongst governance agencies is essential for advancing interoperable decisionmaking processes and for the replicability of solutions. Replicability is thereby promoted based on tools and methodologies that are agnostic and scalable, supporting the development of generic modular systems of urban governance.

23.9 urbanAPI The urbanAPI project deploying smart city governance research has developed the integration potential of the Smarticipate model in collaboration with project cities, including Vienna, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Bologna, and Ruse. A prime example of this concerns the “urban development simulator”, which uses agent-based modelling to simulate socioeconomic activities in response to alternative planning scenarios over timescales up to 30 years at the local neighbourhood, city, and city region scales. The simulator assists in understanding the consequences of complex spatial planning decisions in response to the future expansion of the city and the associated impacts generated by these interventions. A robust assessment tool supports the visualization of urban mobility for assessing alternative planning scenarios integrated with the urbanAPI “mobility explorer” and utilizing the anonymized location. The usage data from mobile phone service providers, specified in terms of different urban districts and times (day/night), provide mobility indicators for assessment of the effectiveness of existing and alternative urban transport planning policies.

23 Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions

307

23.10 URBIS The integrated assessment developed in urbanAPI was supported by the URBIS project solutions deploying satellite technology (Copernicus Programme) for various applications in collaboration with cities including Genova, Amiens, Ostrava, and Osnabrück. URBIS green and open space assessments at 5 m spatial resolution are designed to integrate local intelligence data, including socioeconomic and in situ data. As a result, spatial distribution and green and open space in the city region and their development are detected over time. The policy focus aims to enhance the connectivity of the network of green infrastructures, defining green routeways linking the city centre to the countryside, thereby promoting active travel solutions in support of climate change mitigation, healthy cities, and 15-min city neighbourhood plans.

23.11 DECUMANUS DECUMANUS (Copernicus Programme) tools developed in collaboration with project cities, including Milano, Helsinki, Antwerp, and London (Kensington and Chelsea) also address the scope of open governance that extends beyond the requirements of integrated governance. DECUMANUS Earth observation-derived images capture key dimensions of the urban environment, including thermal and light emissions, climate change impacts, and green infrastructure frameworks. These dimensions provide a basis for integrated images of cities’ socioeconomic and environmental realities for developing new communication tools in an urban environment. DECUMANUS images depict the flows of light pollution and heat loss from our cities, improving studies on climate change’s future impacts on human well-being and supporting the development of communication tools. Communication is key to engaging citizens and mobilizing behavioural changes necessary to secure the more sustainable city of tomorrow. For example, the Climate Atlas images of the health impacts of climate change in respect of increased mortality according to business-as-usual scenarios at the urban scale aspire to inform citizens directly about the need for change. “Many cities have deployed Greening the City” campaigns to drive behavioural change to support the implementation of green infrastructure and planning nature-based solutions. These solutions not only enhance access to green open space but also provide relief from climate change impacts, restore biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services, and deliver the quality of life and social cohesion in cities with “win–win” policy co-benefits.

308

D. Ludlow

23.12 Urban Atlas The Urban Atlas (Copernicus Programme) applied throughout Europe is the prime exemplar of the development of the generic modular systems of urban governance (Urban Atlas 2022). The Urban Atlas provides comparable high-resolution (2 m resolution) land use and land cover intelligence for over 800 urban areas and surrounding city regions with more than 50,000 inhabitants. The atlas is complemented and enriched with practical information regarding road networks, services, and utilities. Using ancillary data allows specifying local city maps with more than 30 land use classes, plus additional building height and green information (street trees, parks, and gardens). Additional customization of the Urban Atlas permits the assessment of green and blue infrastructure networks and the proximity of green urban areas supporting the implementation of nature-based solutions strategies. Accessibility to public transport is also generated by integration with Google transport data, supporting active travel policy implementation that aligns well with 15-min city solutions and liveable neighbourhoods. The added value of the Urban Atlas is also in the potential of harmonized information across all of Europe’s urban areas, which could eventually support policymakers with a tool for comparative benchmarking between European cities regarding the development and delivery of urban planning solutions.

23.13 Digital-Twin—Next Generation Tools The significant challenge arising in the “new normal” in urban planning is to promote environmental and societal transitions into carbon–neutral cities. This goal requires urgent action to develop the next generation of decision-making support systems. The development of urban governance practice also depends on the possibility offered by the EU research and innovation actions. Some of the actions identified above are developing innovative, user-friendly, and digitally driven solutions. Mostly to learn about this, the next generation of decision-making support systems is Digital-Twin solutions. These constitute the potential to capitalize on the effective integration of the increasing capabilities of Copernicus Earth observation systems (satellites, in situ, citizens, and Internet of things observations), high-resolution Earth system modelling, and artificial intelligence, plus ICT and high-performance computing capabilities. These tools can support information essential to the decision-making process, improve understanding of urban behaviour, and essential integrated policy co-benefit solutions (Floater et al. 2016). Digital-Twins can directly address the urgent need to support new city visions. However, sometimes, it takes work to design a concrete roadmap for defining transition pathways and strategies for net-zero neighbourhoods. Promoting the specification of “win–win” policy co-benefits associated with carbon reduction strategies requires including strategies to improve air quality and socially cohesive and economically vital local communities. These goals are

23 Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions

309

Fig. 23.1 Carbon reduction scenarios and policy co-benefits—after ZERO project

also at the heart of the 15-min city concept and the development of carbon reduction scenarios (see Fig. 23.1).

23.14 Digital-Twin—Plan Generation The main potential of Digital-Twins is empowering local administrations to make better-informed, transparent, and fair decisions in resource allocation and strategic planning through data integration and visualization across the urban space. Data can be combined for multipurpose. For example, in promoting active travel, data on climate change mitigation and health indicators concern existing road networks and the functions of buildings, together with information on the movement of bicycles and other means of transport. This combination of data can result in meaningful knowledge of the urban space to detect vulnerabilities and potential through information about CO2 emissions and health risks. Furthermore, the conceptual framework for Digital-Twin solutions with Smarticipate allows digitally enhanced urban planning and spatial decision-making process (Fig. 23.2). The Digital-Twin provides the potential for an integrated “window on the world” detecting with more clarity neighbourhood challenges. Promoting beneficial open governance strategies for citizen engagement and co-creating planning solutions are aspects directly linked to the interoperable effective scale of the urban governance model. The functionality of the Digital-Twin model is further dependent on bottom-up stakeholder engagement processes and the potential of capturing needs, visions, and requirements in a participatory planning process. This open governance approach generates information, intelligence, and methodologies that support developing and delivering urban plans and strategies for "new normal" urban planning. Directions into the new normal must be inclusive and facilitate the alignment amongst multiple

310

D. Ludlow

Fig. 23.2 Digital-Twin solutions and Smarticipate governance principles—after ZERO project

policies, usually in separate silos. The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the importance of the interplay amongst silos in all aspects of social health, well-being, economy, and mobility. Planners urge to align all those aspects with climate action strategies, nature-based solutions, green infrastructures, and active travel opportunities for cycling and walking, re-purposing public space to meet community and inclusion.

23.15 Digital-Twin—Plan Implementation The Digital-Twin model also constitutes a tool for implementing a plan cycle concept that will ensure that the vision for the city, alternative strategic pathways, future scenarios, and the implementation of a final plan strategy will align with the stakeholder requirements. As such, it underpins an iterative design process aimed at local knowledge, specificities, and support needed by the urban strategic planning plan cycle: from information to scenario-building and from integrated impact assessment to co-benefit assessment and plans implementation (see Fig. 23.3).

23 Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions

311

Fig. 23.3 Digital-Twin co-creation process—after ZERO project

23.16 Conclusions As proved during the pandemic, cities face common global challenges and need a new normal future of models for developing understandings of common challenges and future sustainable urban development. The examples of the Digital-Twin concerning Smarticipate emphasize the need for new urban governance models able to enhance synergies amongst cities in a transnational and global context. The EU Mission “100 climate neutral and smart cities by 2030” (Mission for Climate Neutral Cities 2021) shows that local and regional authorities need new tools and methods. The Earth observation-based approach of Copernicus is capable of streamlining environmental data collection and management and facilitating the exchange of information and good practices at national, regional, and local scales. The three-fold sustainable development criteria of socioeconomic and environmental factors must occur in a spatial frame of the city region and a temporal frame of a long-term planning period extending up to 30 years. Integrated assessment of spatial development in the city region regarding sustainable development objectives must include climate change mitigation strategies and holistic understandings generated by multiple collaborating agencies and scales of governance. Effective communication amongst agencies is critical to successful cities-to-cities collaboration and developing synergies and integrated urban assessment methods. Data integration and data processing systems enhanced by information and communication technologies would provide easy qualitative assessments of multiple criteria and an open, integrated, and interoperable governance model for a sustainable future of city regions.

312

D. Ludlow

As seen in the Copernicus example, sustainable urban development requires a new generation of urban planning methods based on reliable, up-to-date, and areawide information on the urban space. ICT can support decision-making, guide urban policy-making and implementation, and inform and engage all citizens. Integrating policy silos across scales, as seen in the Copernicus methodology, would be needed in the future new normal. Policy co-benefits at different scales, facilitating mechanisms across scales and supporting the identification of priorities for policy intervention at the city and regional levels, will be of utmost importance in the future. The panEuropean perspective serves comparability criteria and benchmarking between cities for deploying and sharing models and tools for facilitating cities-to-cities support in decision-making processes in respect of individual urban identities and the varieties of European cities. The challenge of the new normal includes the complexity of democratic systems for open and participatory governance. Stakeholder engagement, endorsement, and co-creation of quality assessments for integrated urban planning should include national involvement, too, in order to prioritize strategies. Communication is essential for the co-creation process across diverse scales and conflicting groups for deliberating a more sustainable urban future. Integrated approaches and open governance have a common line in the communication amongst actors and agencies on concrete spatial assessments, future needs, and shared political objectives addressed by urban governance systems globally. New models derived from innovation actions and experiments amongst cities hopefully will serve developing capacities for facing carbon neutrality, whilst transitioning towards the post-pandemic “new normal”.

References Budd L, Ison S (2020) Responsible transport: a post-COVID agenda for transport policy and practice. Trans Res Interdiscip Perspect 6:100151 Commission E (2019) The European green deal. The European Commission, Brussels da Cruz NF, Rode P, McQuarrie M (2019) New urban governance: a review of current themes and future priorities. J Urban Aff 41(1):1–19 DECUMANUS (2016) Earth observation data supporting smart city applications for integrated urban governance. FP7 Space Call, European Commission, 2013–2016. Retrieved December 5 2022, from http://www.decumanus-fp7.eu/home/ Dubois G, Soacool B, Aall C, Nilsson M, Barbier C, Herrmann A, Bruyére S, Andersson C, Skold B, Nadaud F, Dorner F, Moberg KR, Ceron JP, Fischer H, Amelung D, Baltruszewicz M, Fisher J, Benevise F, Louis VR, Sauerborn R (2019) It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioural decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Res Soc Sci 52:144–158 European Commission (2008) Covenant of mayors. Retrieved 5 Dec 2022, from https://www.cov enantofmayors.eu/en/ European Environment Agency (2022) Urban sustainability in Europe—post-pandemic drivers of environmental transitions. EEA Report 06/2022. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

23 Driving Urban Transitions—Digital-Twin Solutions

313

Floater G, Heeckt C, Ulterino M, Mackie L, Rode P, Bhardwaj A, Carvalho M, Gill D, Bailey T, Huxley R (2016) Co-benefits of urban climate action: a framework for cities. Working paper. London School of Economics and Political Science, London Khan Z, Ludlow D, Loibl W (2013) Applying the cores requirements development method for building it tools for urban management systems: the UrbanAPI project. Theor Empirical Res Urban Manage 8(4):25–59 Mission for Climate Neutral Cities (2021) The EU mission on climate-neutral and smart cities lifts off. Retrieved 5 Dec 2022, from https://www.intelligentcitieschallenge.eu/news/eu-mission-cli mate-neutral-and-smart-cities-lifts#:~:text=The%20Mission%20aims%20to%20achieve,bec ome%20climate%2Dneutral%20by%202050 Nieuwenhuijsen M (2020) Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities; a review of the current evidence. Environ Int 140:105661 Sarkan H, Ahmad T, Bakar A (2011) Using JIRA and redmine in requirement development for agile methodology. In: 2011 Malaysian conference in software engineering, 13–14 December 2011 (408–413). Johor Bahru, IEEE, Malaysia Sharifi A (2021) Co-benefits and synergies between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: a literature review. Sci Total Environ 750:141642 Smarticipate (2019) Smart services for calculated impact assessment in open governance. Horizon 2020 Innovation Action, European Commission, 2016 – 2019. Retrieved 5 Dec 2022, from http:/ /www.Smarticipate.eu/ Soomro K, Khan Z, Ludlow D (2017) Participatory governance in smart cities: the urbanAPI case study. Int J Serv Technol Manage 23(5–6):419–444. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2017.100 09859 The European Space Agency (2022) Copernicus. Retrieved 5 Dec 2022, from https://www.esa.int/ Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus Urban Atlas (2022) Urban Atlas. Retrieved 5 Dec 2022, from https://land.copernicus.eu/local/urbanatlas URBIS (2017) Smart city solutions for integrated urban development impact assessment and visualization. EU FP7 ICT Policy Support Programme—CIP, 2014–2017. Retrieved 5 Dec 2022, from http://www.ict-urbis.eu/

Chapter 24

Conclusions Enza Lissandrello, Janni Sørensen, Kristian Olesen, and Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen

Abstract The rich collection of contributions to this book has explored changes to planning, governance, and participatory practices which have occurred at an accelerated rate during the pandemic. In this chapter, we offer thematic reflections on the collective lessons learned across theoretical and practice-oriented knowledge generated by the individual authors contributing to this book. The core themes of the “new normal” that emerged are organized into four main sections: Sect. 24.2: disruption, digitalization, and participation; Sect. 24.3: healthy, green, and just cities; and Sect. 24.4: the need for new perspectives in the new normal. Finally, in Sect. 24.5, we offer our thoughts on what the new normal means for the future of planning, governance, and participation practice and research. We invite scholars to continue the dialog based on the knowledge generated by the collective experience gathered from this book. Keywords Disruption · Shifting power · Digitalization · Equity · Deliberative change

E. Lissandrello (B) · J. Sørensen · K. Olesen · R. N. Steffansen Aalborg University, 14, 9000 Rendsburggade Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] J. Sørensen e-mail: [email protected] K. Olesen e-mail: [email protected] R. N. Steffansen e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Lissandrello et al. (eds.), The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_24

315

316

E. Lissandrello et al.

24.1 Introduction In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the world, causing tremendous human tragedy and historic economic turmoil. In late 2022, most restrictions were removed in the western part of the world, and we are returning to normal. However, lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic influence how we think ahead for the future of planning, governance, and participation in the post-pandemic emergency. In this book, we conceptualize the “new normal” as a field of experimentation of new emergent practices (Dryzek 2000; Hajer 2003) that needs to align with a multiplicity of ongoing crises (Elander et al. 2022; Bates 2021) and that requires a new generation of socioecological planning practice (Forester 2020). The argument here is that the “new normal” is not just about overcoming the COVID-19 emergency but rather “living with the risks” and seeing risks as opportunities to develop new strategies from the exceptional circumstances to push the normalization of practices beyond a time of crisis. The pandemic has also catalyzed attention to the sustainability of pre-existing urban planning, governance, and participation models. The principles of profitmaximizing goals, short-term economic urban ambitions (Baeten 2012), priorities of car-domination (Haughton et al. 2020), and the techno-managerial systems (Legacy 2021; Inch 2021) have demonstrated inability to produce resiliency to urban crises. Hybrid governance models during the pandemic demonstrated a need for collaboration and control of critical decisions in situations of knowledge deficit (Peters et al. 2022). The impact of lockdowns and measures to govern social distancing challenged reconfiguration of participatory processes, shifting them to digital networking that did not always succeed in ensuring legitimacy, justice, and democracy for urban change (Pokharel et al. 2022). The negative consequences of the pandemic illustrated widely by health research and statistical modeling, highlighted the limit to the accessibility of pre-pandemic models’ knowledge, and raised new questions on how knowledge should be collected, diffused, and communicated. In an emergency, issues of legitimization, trust, and transparency toward the citizens accentuate the severity of the crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic thus has been greatly disruptive, forcing changes in priorities and behaviors and highlighting pre-existing urban challenges. Public spaces became paramount to human interactions. Likewise, the role of the neighborhood as a resilient space for communities, on which citizens would rely for their everyday needs, was reinstated (Scott 2020). In sum, the COVID-19 emergency has accelerated processes that became persistent and shaped a new condition of planning, requiring governance deliberation and reflection on emerging participation models. Urban scholars need a new vocabulary to understand processes and practices that materialize during the pandemic and are becoming routinized as a “new normal”. The new normal relates here to a new condition for planning and the new way of planning, including changes in its substantial objects and processes in a pandemic and post-pandemic context to become more experimental. However, the pandemic has also introduced trends toward what we

24 Conclusions

317

may anticipate will be a new normal in a turbulent future (Ansell et al. 2021) with the interplay of multiple crises that urge a vocabulary in terms of preparedness. This book offers a nuanced and multidisciplinary account of such vocabulary, and the contributions offer lessons learned about how the “new normal” might develop into future forms of planning, governance, and participation for a more inclusive and sustainable urban future. This book explores the theoretical and applied knowledge developed in planning, governance, and participation due to established practices that transformed during the pandemic’s early and later stages. The main conclusions/themes of the book show that the pandemic caused a significant disruption in the existing ways of knowing, doing, and thinking. Forced digitalization has significantly impacted participation practices and raised questions about access and equality. The inherent ideal of equality and justice in physical urban spaces and planning processes has been challenged and experimented with to an unprecedented degree and aligned with emerging issues such as healthy spatial structures. The COVID-19 infectious disease reveals structures of unequally distributed health conditions across cities. Some of the most evident challenges to planning, governance, and participation in western democracies have been the shifting power balance and dynamics. This issue has called for a new interpretation of the challenges faced by processes of urban modernization, to which the perspective of the new normal will bring light.

24.2 Disruption, Digitalization, and Participation One of the most tangible themes that this collection of chapters communicates is the disruption brought forth by the pandemic lockdowns and the significant changes that planning and governance experience in digitalizing participatory processes (Milz and Gervich 2021). Many chapters in section two of the book describe practical planning challenges necessitated by the changed conditions. The forced social distancing was quickly overcome by shifting presence and processes to digital means, which forced an accelerated digitalization of working culture and participatory practice. Naturally, this has caused various challenges and concerns among planners and researchers, expressed through the book’s chapters. Graça (Chap. 9, this volume), for example, points out that planned processes of participatory budgeting have either been scaled down, postponed, put online, or canceled altogether, with funds being diverted toward pandemic preventive measures. To Graça, this shows that participatory budgeting is not ready to be entirely online but still needs face-to-face engagement. Nevertheless, as Kiss et al. (Chap. 10, this volume) argue in their analysis of participatory budgeting during the pandemic in Hungary, the continued re-design of such process could show their resilience and adaptability to different conditions. Nevertheless, the experience in Hungary did not secure the inclusion of socially vulnerable people and, thereby, principles of fairness and broad deliberation, which might point toward new areas of learning. A question of how much citizens expect

318

E. Lissandrello et al.

from participatory budgeting and especially in situations such as during the pandemic, still needs qualification. The disruptive effects of the pandemic were also noticed in Italy through the participatory process of establishing a green energy community, as Barroco et al. (Chap. 11, this volume) describe changes as profound and radical. However, the authors also describe a positive effect of the forced lockdown, as it reflected on the exclusion and isolation of citizens in the community, which led to an increased desire for connectivity with the surrounding society and strengthened the engagement in the energy community efforts. Vitaller del Olmo and Morelli (Chap. 16, this volume) highlight the benefits of moving online, which extends to being able to reach a broad audience and how digitalization creates different “spaces” for participation, but also that downsides could be “zoom fatigue”. To some extent, Unger and Lee (Chap. 12, this volume) also point at the learnings from forced digitalization showing an untapped potential to increase democratic processes, but also that much needs to be learned to be able to harness the full potential. In addition, Unger and Lee point out that digital means extend some of the skewed power relations of neoliberal societies. In similar strands, Falanga (Chap. 14, this volume) explored how regenerative urbanism can address urban poverty. He stresses the need to consider how digitalized processes can handle minority groups, such as migrants, and young and uneducated people, while not producing the same exclusivity in digital processes as in physical ´ ecka (Chap. 17, this volume) argues that the processes. To this end, Wiktorska-Swi˛ pandemic, in its disruptive nature, has provided a window of opportunity in which reflection on planning and governance of public participation has been essential. Digitalization does not relate only to form and purpose but also to the content of the invited, invented, and created spaces for public participation. Ludlow (Chap. 23, this volume) draws on research and innovation projects across the EU to offer elements for stakeholder engagement, co-creation of quality assessments, and communication channels across scales and groups. He underlines the need for an open model, digital management, and governance of possible more sustainable urban futures. Baron (Chap. 18, this volume) explores how public managers conducted videoconferencing for collaborative meetings during the pandemic lockdowns in France. Videoconferencing is becoming the new normal meeting culture. Naturally, there are trade-offs with this new arrangement, but public managers generally support this new culture and the benefits it provides. Along the same lines, Steffansen et al. (Chap. 13, this volume) discuss how interdisciplinary research teams working with new models for public participation in the Nordic countries have benefitted from the lockdowns. Forced disruptions to planned participatory activities slowed engagement processes, leaving more time to become aligned among project consortium members through digital communication. They argued that this possibility of digital connection across borders and disciplines, in the end, leads to a reflexive implementation of project goals and activities involving citizens and other partners. To some extent, the above chapters tell a story about how “digital elites” might have benefitted and can benefit from and be able to find innovative solutions to confront the conditions imposed by the pandemic lockdowns. In contrast, other structural inequalities in society have been extended or even enforced in these periods. Thus,

24 Conclusions

319

planners need to deal with digital equality in addition to the old normal challenges of inclusivity in public participation and unequal power structures. Nevertheless, many planners can cope and adjust to the pandemic disruptions and uncertain times.

24.3 Healthy, Green, and Just Cities The second theme that cuts across many of the chapters in this book is how the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a renewed interest in “where” and “how” we live. As many people for more extended periods were confined to a small geographical area (if not their home!), the awareness of the importance of the local neighborhood and local public spaces has grown immensely. We see this first and foremost in calls for making cities greener and healthier (Jevic et al. 2022). Falanga presents one example with the participatory process in Lisbon, where the public awareness of the need to develop Martim Moniz Square into a public green space grew during the pandemic (Chap. 14, this volume). Another example is the growing public and political support for the superblocks concept in Barcelona (Chap. 22, this volume). In many ways, the superblocks concept encapsulates the new belief in neighborhood-based planning initiatives prioritizing green public spaces. As Camerin (Chap. 22, this volume) points out, the superblocks pilot projects introduced in the Barcelona neighborhoods Poblenou and Sant Antoni before the pandemic played an essential role in mitigating the effects of COVID-19 in the two neighborhoods. This recognition has led the City of Barcelona to include the superblocks concept in its Climate Emergency Declaration, which is likely to play an important role in future spatial development of the city. While some of the experiments of spatially reorganizing the city introduced before or during the pandemic seem to have long-lasting effects, as in Barcelona, the timespan of other (progressive) experiments introduced during the pandemic has been more limited. For example, Hamman et al. (Chap. 8, this volume) discuss how the City of Mulhouse’s experiments with introducing “corona cycleways” by painting yellow bicycle lanes on the roads might not have the envisioned long-lasting effects hoped. Hamman et al. suggest that one explanation for the lack of political and public support for the new bicycle lanes might be that public participation only played a marginal role in the experiment, as the bicycle lanes were introduced in a more traditional top-down manner. In this sense, the elements of tactical urbanism that Camerin highlights as crucial in Barcelona seem to have been missing in Mulhouse. One of the other important lessons learned from the pandemic has been that some groups in society have been more exposed to COVID-19 than others. For many, the privilege of working from home or avoiding public transport has not been an option, and the idea of self-isolation at home, in an already overcrowded household, is impossible. COVID-19 has very clearly demonstrated the social-spatial inequalities in our society. One of the lessons learned has been that the marginalized have been hit the worst. Varna and Oswell (Chap. 5, this volume) discuss how COVID-19 has affected the suburb Blakelaw in Newcastle upon Tyne. In their chapter, Blakelaw

320

E. Lissandrello et al.

represents a case of a marginalized community, a place left behind, strongly affected by a decade of austerity policies in the UK. However, as Varna and Oswell demonstrate, even in this place of worn-down buildings and unused green spaces, a hope of a better place was sparked during the pandemic. Through community engagement activities, local residents have understood the importance of their neighborhood and community. In a similar vein, Sørensen and Bengle (Chap. 6, this volume) discuss how to develop a partnership model for marginalized neighborhoods through long and sustained collaboration between planning scholars and residents. With a point of departure in action research in Charlotte, North Carolina, Sørensen and Bengle examine what the pandemic has “done to” best practice community-based planning models. Supporting thriving and just communities, they warn against abandoning existing best practices in the post-pandemic new normal. This argument is also sustained by Laborgne and Kloecker (Chap. 15), who adopted digital geographical participation (PPGIS) to depth knowledge of the heat areas in Karlsruhe, Germany. While the local knowledge about the diverse areas improved through digital data acquisition tools, there is the need to engage citizens and policymakers face-to-face to interpret those data to enhance transparency and move concrete planning actions. Olesen and Howells (Chap. 20, this volume) explain how marginalized non-profit housing areas in Denmark have been stigmatized politically before and during the pandemic. In Denmark, some non-profit housing areas have been labeled as “ghettoes” and “parallel societies” by the Danish Government. Political initiatives have been taken to “normalize” the areas, e.g., by demolishing non-profit housing stock to reduce the immigrant population. Olesen and Howells demonstrate how this stigmatization continued and was even reinforced during the pandemic and how the state saw specific neighborhoods and their immigrant population as a health risk for the rest of Danish society. For Olesen and Howells, this illustrates how pre-COVID-19 political discourses have continued to shape the discourses and political measures introduced during COVID-19.

24.4 The Need for New Perspectives in the New Normal During the pandemic, the need for a “new normal” emerged out of a critique of the existing ways our urban areas have been planned and the limited possibilities for ordinary citizens to participate in and influence planning and decision-making processes. The idea of a “new normal” promoted from various quarters of society manifested itself in, among other things, the need for new perspectives on planning, governance, and participation. Many of the chapters in this book engage in the idea that new perspectives are needed to promote more green, healthy, and just cities, together with more democratic decision-making processes. One idea that runs through the book is that there is a need for more and better ˇ c et al. (Chap. 4, this volume) stress participation processes in the new normal. Coli´ that we need to understand and appreciate the transformative potentials of participatory planning. Inspired by critical pragmatism, they discuss the importance of

24 Conclusions

321

paying attention to the micro-dynamics of how planners engage citizens in participatory processes as the starting point for thinking about how these practices could be improved. In Serbia, this could, for example, involve citizens earlier than formally required. Along the same lines but rooted in different literature, Varna and Oswell (Chap. 5, this volume) advocate for a more experimental approach to urban planning that moves beyond the “normal”. Inspired by Deleuze and Guattari, they argue that planners should increasingly engage in collaborative learning urban experiments based on co-designing practices with the local community. Finally, Sørensen and Bengle (Chap. 6, this volume) suggest that academics and researchers, through action research inspired by Davidoff’s and Krumholz’s ideals of advocacy planning, have played and can continue to play essential roles in future community-based participatory processes. The question of how citizens can become more involved in planning ´ ecka’s (Chap. 17, this and decision-making processes is also central to Wiktorska-Swi˛ volume) study of public participation in Berlin during the pandemic. For her, one of the central questions in this regard is if (or how) top-down orchestrated public participation processes can be combined with bottom-up civic engagement approaches, ´ ecka, active citizenship will be the key challenging the “normal”. For Wiktorska-Swi˛ to the new normal of preparing for future crises. Many of the chapters in this book express hope that the new normal could mean democratic planning and decision-making processes. Pløger (Chap. 2, this volume), on the other hand, questions whether this is what the pandemic has shown us. For Pløger, the pandemic has led to an authoritarian governance style, in which lockdowns have been implemented with terse notice and with no form of “democratic” debate. The emergency of COVID-19 resulted in a situation where people had no rights to discuss or protest the political measures introduced. Following Mouffe, Pløger argues that in the new normal should be more space for strife and agonism in planning and decision-making processes and that we all should insist on the right to disagree. While Pløger criticizes the authoritarian emergency governance style introduced during the pandemic, Chiarini (Chap. 7, this volume) believes that this (new) experience opens up for rethinking the existing governance models in the new normal. Chiarini compares the economic interventionism introduced during COVID-19 with the governance models for simple (ancient) societies and argues that inspiration can be drawn from these in terms of trust in leadership and social solidarity. For Chiarini, there is more inspiration to be drawn from these simple societies in re-evaluating the relationship between humans and non-humans. Chiarini maintains that this will be crucial in the new normal for us to understand the roots of and how to prepare for future emergencies. As previously mentioned, the pandemic has led to a new-found interest in neighborhood-based planning concepts. We see this in the discussion of positive energy districts (Chap. 21, this volume), the Barcelona superblocks (Chap. 22, this volume), and net-zero Neighborhoods (Chap. 23, this volume). Interestingly, these concepts existed before the pandemic. However, their relevance has been given a new meaning. These concepts fed into the overall turn toward the neighborhood as the new appropriate planning scale. There is a new-found interest in engaging in neighborhood-based planning experiments in the new normal.

322

E. Lissandrello et al.

Lissandrello et al. (Chap. 2, this volume), drawing from deliberative and participatory planning theory, stress that research plays an essential role in the new normal. Participatory planning research involving and engaging citizens in actionoriented processes enables diverse “ways of knowing” and citizens to become more active and responsive political actors in knowledge co-production for action-planning processes to shape healthy cities. Furthermore, participatory planning research will be necessary for moving the power/knowledge question into the new normal when complex situations meet knowledge deficit or incomplete knowledge and will require a democratic shift from modeling (by experts) to monitoring (by citizens). It can, of course, be discussed to what extent the ideas and hopes for what the new normal would entail represent significant new ideas. Perspectives on the new normal have provided a convenient label for academics to advocate and push forward their existing pet ideas. However, a critical analysis may question whether the new normal differs from the old one. This criticism is the question Kunzmann asks (Chap. 19, this volume). In Kunzmann’s view, the pandemic has, first and foremost, led to an increasing digitalization of our urban areas. This development has already been on the way for several decades, typically promoted under the label of smart cities (see also Chap. 23, this volume). Kunzmann argues that COVID-19, in many ways, has acted as a lubricant for smart cities and has accelerated pre-existing urban development trends. Along the same lines, Kunzmann maintains that the urban city centers will continue to function as primary consumption-based urban spaces, disregarding claims that the new normal could be different.

24.5 A Future Research Agenda for the New Normal The legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic has been presented by various commentators as an opportunity to change the dynamics of planning, establish new governance paths, and initiate a caring and responsive era of participation for future urban resilience and sustainability (Bates 2021; Davoudi et al. 2013; Grant 2020) or a “fork in the road moment” (Inch 2021: 342). From our point of view, based on the experiences of the diverse contributions of this book, COVID-19 opened a phase that we call “the new normal”. The “new normal” is likely not only a “progressive recovery” (Inch 2021) but rather a transformative shift. We are not just fleeting moments from which society will recover but entering a permanent state of risk (Beck 1999). How should planning, governance, and participation respond to the changing context of the post-pandemic world in and for a future new normal? We frame three fundamental orientations for future research that will be important to cultivate in the new normal. First, the pandemic has highlighted the historical transition to a more global society (Chernilo 2021). The interactions among global, regional, national, urban, local, and individual scales become essential for socio-ecological practice research (Forester 2020). Research in the new normal should contribute to understanding emerging political spaces (Haughton et al. 2020) across tensions and decisions in

24 Conclusions

323

transnational, polycentric governance networks, global concerns, pressure groups, and social movement strategies (Hajer 2003). In addition, social media and digital networks require research to actively cultivate equal access to the future and encourage mutual and alternative ways of organizing social relations (Inch 2021; Scott 2020), developing continuous reflexivity as critical introspection of researchers (Legacy 2021; Lissandrello and Grin 2011). Second, the pandemic has underlined the urgency of a diverse approach to knowledge that can no longer be attributed, predicted, controlled, evaded, or compensated (Beck 1992) by existing institutional order and orchestrated by expert knowledge only. Research in the new normal needs to establish a new relationship between science and policy (Hajer 2009) and facilitate knowledge co-production of situated conditions of residents, officials, and communities to uncover priorities, hopes, fears, concerns, and commitments and data management. The new normal will require reflexivity not just in the form of learning for whom and for what planning cares for— a place, culture, and communities—but also in the evolving nature of planning as an idea of value (Campbell 2012) for planners for the multiple forms of governance and participation. In addition, research should orient skills and competencies in digital participation. Shifting from modeling to monitoring data means enhancing a culture of public participation and deliberative democracy. Planning action requires operationalizing evidence-based solutions with citizens and policymakers. Increasing the direct accessibility, reliability, and trustworthiness of knowledge co-production principles and goals will demand research ethics to mediate knowledge and action in the new normal. Urban research needs to generate capabilities from retrofitting practiceproof solutions and activating knowledge networks between professionals across sectors and cities, cultivating epistemic communities based on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. Third, the COVID-19 pandemic touched everyone generating common conditions of life experiences on what it means to experience (health) emergencies. The impact of the pandemic on populations underlined differences in wealth, healthcare access, and housing conditions. These aspects are intertwined with spatiality, mobility, and planetary urbanization. While we must recognize differences, we should also seek to cultivate responses to common challenges in the diverse local knowledge. Research in the new normal should focus on cultivating the capabilities of new citizen actors (e.g., citizen-scientists) as political participants with real impact and voice to support efforts for greater equality (Van Wymeersch et al. 2019) and knowledge co-production. We all can become detectors of local problems and generators of experimental solutions. The citizen-actor will be a fundamental asset in the new normal to deal with risks of distorting or neglected access to digital communication (Pokharel et al. 2022) and shape the micropolitics of participation (Forester et al. 2019; Laws et al. 2014). Digital and face-to-face participation should focus on inclusion and supporting engagement with the politics of planning’s contents and contexts. The new normal will require skills and competencies in strategic improvisation to develop visions and long-term orientations even in uncertain situations on the effects and consequences of risks and incomplete knowledge, shifting from formal or legal

324

E. Lissandrello et al.

opportunities to substantive and just opportunities for everyone (Davoudi and Brooks 2014). The exciting aspect of the new normal is not about comparing pre-pandemic and post-pandemic “normals” nor about “shifting paradigms” (Campbell 2021). The intriguing part is instead the resulting inquiring about continuous experimental, emerging, and ongoing practices in urban transformation (Cohen 2012; Dryzek 2000; Innes 1998; Sabel 2012). For urban theorists and practitioners, the new normal constitutes a future-oriented culture of resilience as an attitude of permanent adaptability, learning (Coaffee 2010; Heintz et al. 2012), and reflexivity to face the significant risks ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic, as climate change and social inequity (Ibert et al. 2022) and beyond.

References Ansell C, Sørensen E, Torfing J (2021) The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Manag Rev 23(7):949–960 Baeten G (2012) Normalising neoliberal planning: the case of Malmö, Sweden. In: Ta¸san-Kok T, Baeten G (eds) Contradictions of neoliberal planning. Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 21–42 Bates LK (2021) Tired But Hopeful. Planning Theory Pract 22(5):663–667 Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, London Beck U (1999) World risk society. Polity Press, Malden, MA Campbell H (2012) ‘Planning ethics’ and rediscovering the idea of planning. Plan Theory 11(4):379– 399 Campbell H (2021) Post-pandemic planning: beyond “stifling paradigms”. Achieving transformation requires grappling with the tiresome and low profile. Planning Theory Pract 22(1):3–7 Chernilo D (2021) One globalization or many? Risk society in the age of the Anthropocene. J Sociol 57(1):12–26 Coaffee J (2010) Protecting vulnerable cities: the UK’s resilience response to defending everyday urban infrastructure. Int Aff 86(4):939–954 Cohen A (2012) Producing publics: Dewey, democratic experimentalism, and the idea of communication. Rodopi, Amsterdam, p 146 Davoudi S, Brooks E, Mehmood A (2013) Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. Plan Pract Res 28(3):307–322 Davoudi S, Brooks E (2014) When does unequal become unfair? Judging claims of environmental injustice. Environ Plan A 46(11):2686–2702 Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, Oxford Elander I, Granberg M, Montin S (2022) Governance and planning in a ‘perfect storm’: securitising climate change, migration and Covid-19 in Sweden. Prog Plan 164:100634 Forester J, Kuitenbrouwer M, Laws D (2019) Enacting reflective and deliberative practices in action research. Policy Stud 40(5):456–475 Forester J (2020) Five generations of theory–practice tensions: enriching socio-ecological practice research. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 2(1):111–119 Grant JL (2020) Pandemic challenges to planning prescriptions: how Covid-19 is changing the ways we think about planning. Plan Theory Pract 21(5):659–667

24 Conclusions

325

Hajer MA (2003) Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sci 36(2):175–195 Hajer MA (2009) Authoritative governance: policy making in the age of mediatization. Oxford University Press Haughton G, White I, Pinto N (2020) Planning the post-pandemic era. Town Country Planning 89(4/5):138–140 Heintz M, Hagemeier-Klose M, Wagner K (2012) (2012) Towards a risk governance culture in flood policy—findings from the implementation of the “Floods Directive” in Germany. Water 4:135–156 Ibert O, Baumgart S, Siedentop S, Weith T (2022) Planning in the face of extraordinary uncertainty: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plan Pract Res 37(1):1–12 Inch A (2021) Planning for the future? Plan Theory Pract 22(3):341–346 Innes JE (1998) Information in communicative planning. J Am Plann Assoc 64(1):52–63 Jevtic M, Matkovic V, Kusturica MP, Bouland C (2022) Build healthier: post-COVID-19 urban requirements for healthy and sustainable living. Sustainability 14(15):9274 Laws D, Hogendoorn D, Karl H (2014) Hot adaptation: what conflict can contribute to collaborative natural resource management. Ecol Soc 19(2): 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06375-190239 Legacy C (2021) The point is still to change it. Plan Theory Pract 22(4):511–515 Lissandrello E, Grin J (2011) Reflexive planning as design and work: lessons from the Port of Amsterdam. Plan Theory Pract 12(2):223–248 Milz D, Gervich CD (2021) Participation and the pandemic: how planners are keeping democracy alive, online. Town Planning Rev 92(3):335–341 Peters BG, Pierre J, Sørensen E, Torfing J (2022) A research agenda for governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Pokharel A, Milz D, Gervich CD (2022) Planning for dissent. J Am Plann Assoc 88(1):127–134 Sabel C (2012) Dewey, democracy, and democratic experimentalism. Contemp Pragmatism 9(2):35–55 Scott M (2020) Covid-19, place-making and health. Plan Theory Pract 21(3):343–348 Van Wymeersch E, Oosterlynck S, Vanoutrive T (2019) The political ambivalences of participatory planning initiatives. Plan Theory 18(3):359–381

Enza Lissandrello is an associate professor at Aalborg University with a background in urban planning and public policy, human geography, and the governance of socio-technical system innovation and transitions. Her work examines urban and regional planning under contemporary trends of reflexive modernization, participation, deliberation, conflicts, and issues of representation. She has taught and published widely on the roles of planners and policy actors in sustainable urban planning and through deliberative forms. She is leading research on smart cities and urban development, urban living labs and positive energy districts. She is the research coordinator of the Urban Europe Research Alliance (UERA). Janni Sørensen is an associate professor at the department of Planning at Aalborg University. She holds a PhD in Regional Planning from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana and has for many years worked on participatory neighborhood scale planning with marginalized communities in Charlotte, North Carolina. Today her work centers on research and teaching at Aalborg University with focus on both Rural and Urban communities’ access to and influence in local planning processes. Kristian Olesen is an associate professor in strategic spatial planning at the Department of Planning at Aalborg University. Kristian’s main research interests are in strategic spatial planning, planning theory, neoliberalisation of planning, transportation policies, and housing policies. Kristian is currently leading a research project investigating how housing associations in Denmark

326

E. Lissandrello et al.

increasingly are acting as strategic urban developers when transforming socio-economically disadvantages non-profit housing areas. Rasmus Nedergård Steffansen is an assistant professor in sustainable urban planning at Aalborg University. He has been a post-doctoral researcher on diverse themes of sustainability planning such as how air quality can become a driver in urban transitions, implementation of UN sustainable development goals in local planning and planning education, as well as the sustainability of multi-dwelling households, and second home planning. He teaches a broad range of themes related to sustainability planning and methods and theories of science in planning.