HQE2R Guide Du Quartier - Participation

http://hqe2r.
cstb
DELIVERABLE 14
Sustainable renovation of buildings for

sustainable neighbourhoods
Contract n° EVK4-CT-2000-00025
Participation by
neighbourhood
residents and users:
methods and practice
October 2003
Philippe Outrequin, La Calade

Celia Robbins, UWE
Ove Mørck, Cenergia
Catherine Charlot –Valdieu, CSTB
HQE2R is a project co-financed by the European Commission within the

programme Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (‘City of
tomorrow’),
1 which aim is to elaborate methods and tools destined to local
communities and their partners to help them in their urban renewal projects.
Sustainable renovation of buildings
for sustainable neighbourhoods
Contract n° EVK4 – CT – 2000 – 00025
Participation by neighbourhood
residents and users:
methods and practice
October 2003
Philippe OUTREQUIN La Calade, France

E-mail: la.calade@free.fr
Celia ROBBINS UWE, U.K.

E-mail: celia.robbins@uwe.ac.uk
Ove MORCK Cenergia, Denmark

E-mail: ocm@cenergia.dk
Catherine CHARLOT – VALDIEU CSTB, France

E-mail: catherine.charlot-valdieu@cstb.fr
With specific contribution by:

For the appendix:
Jan ZIECK Ambit, Netherlands
E-mail: info@ambit.nl
For the bibliography:
Nicoletta ANCONA Quasco, Italy
E-mail: n.ancona@archiworld.it
2
2
Deliverable 14: “Participation by neighbourhood residents and users: methods and practice” HQE R
Contents
Abstracts.......................................................................................................... 8
1.1. Summary of the HQE2R European project and methodology .......................11

1.2. Where are we in the HQE2R process and methodology? ..............................12
1.3. What about the content of this deliverable ?..................................................14
2. PARTICIPATION AND THE REGENERATION PROCESS ....................... 16

2.1. Preconditions for participation .......................................................................16
2.2. Participation in different types of regeneration process...............................17
2.2.1 - Generative and Participative Programming (Programmation Générative et Participative:
PGP) ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.2 - Regeneration led by a social agenda : participation structure for the New Deal for
Communities, Bristol, UK...................................................................................................... 23
3. PARTICIPATION IN THE HQE2R NEIGHBOURHOODS ........................... 26

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................26
3.2 The participation context for HQE2R partner countries..................................26
3.3. Case studies from the HQE2R neighbourhoods.............................................27
3.3.1 - Frederiksberg – Copenhagen - Denmark................................................................. 27
3.3.2 - Quartier Viscose – Echirolles - France...................................................................... 28
3.3.3 - La Roseraie – Angers - France ................................................................................. 30
3.3.4 - Mimont- Prado- Republique – Cannes - France ....................................................... 31
3.3.5 – Anzin ......................................................................................................................... 32
3.3.6 - Loebtau – Dresden - Germany.................................................................................. 33
3.3.7 - Melegnano - Italy ....................................................................................................... 34
3.3.8 - Cinisello Balsamo - Italy ............................................................................................ 35
3.3.9 - San Leonardo, Porta Mulina – Mantova - Italy.......................................................... 36
3.3.10 - Bon Pastor – Barcelona - Spain .............................................................................. 37
3.3.11 - Manresa - Spain ...................................................................................................... 38
3.3.12 - Raval, Ciutat Vella - Barcelona ............................................................................... 39
3.3.13- Community at Heart, Barton Hill - Bristol - United Kingdom..................................... 40
3.3.14 -Vlissingen - RSG area .............................................................................................. 41
3.4 Summary and discussion .................................................................................44
4. APPROACHES TO PARTICIPATION ........................................................ 47

4.1. Sociological perspectives on participation methods ....................................47
4.2. Methods to guide the whole participation process........................................48
4.2.1 - Future Workshop ....................................................................................................... 48
4.2.2 - Scenario workshop .................................................................................................... 49
4.2.3 - Planning Cell (Planungszelle): .................................................................................. 50
4.2.4 - Planning for Real ....................................................................................................... 51
4.2.5 - Campaign “Village Idea“ ............................................................................................ 51
4.2.6 - Advocate Planning..................................................................................................... 52
4.2.7 - Participatory Learning and Action ............................................................................. 52
3
La Calade – UWE – Cenergia – CSTB
2
4.2.8 - Information – neighbourhood newsletters .............................................................. 53

4.3. Tools for individual events ..............................................................................54
4.3.1 - Surveys ................................................................................................................... 54
4.3.2 - Participatory survey technique................................................................................ 54
4.3.3 - Citizen meetings ..................................................................................................... 55
4.3.4 - Citizen Hearing. ...................................................................................................... 56
4.3.5 - Interviews with residents......................................................................................... 57
4.3.6 - Constructive evaluation........................................................................................... 57
5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.................................................................. 60

5. 1. Recommendations .........................................................................................60
5.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................60
5.3. Further reading on participation (annotated bibliography) ...........................62
Appendix 1..................................................................................................... 78
Communication and participation procedure............................................. 78
from the marketing perspective................................................................... 78
4
2
Memorandum: the HQE2R approach

and the findings of the project
“Je refuse l’idée qu’il y a d’un côté la lumière et de l’autre les ténèbres, l’homme et la
femme, moi et l’autre, le bien et le mal. Je cherche un lieu où ces contradictions puissent être
résolues. C’est une quête sans illusion »1 - Murale, Mahmoud Darwich, édition Actes Sud
1.1. The objectives of the HQE²R project

“Sustainable Renovation of Buildings for Sustainable Neighbourhoods” or HQE²R is a project
partly funded by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework R&D Programme.
The project started in September 2001 and will continue until the end of March 2004.
Co-ordinated by the CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment), France, it
combines research and demonstration aspects with the co-operation of 10 European research
partners and demonstration partners (local authorities or social buildingowners) working upon
14 neighbourhoods2.
The objective of the project is to develop a new methodology or approach together with
the necessary methods and tools to promote sustainable development and the quality of
life at the urban neighbourhood level. HQE²R aims at providing decision aid tools for
municipalities and their local partners, focussing on neighbourhood inhabitants’ and users’
concerns. With its integrated approach, it aims at providing a framework, which can be
generally applied to European cities. The project uses case studies as neighbourhood models
for which the tools are elaborated and in which the approach or the different tools can be
tested.
The elements taken into account in the development of this approach towards sustainable development
and its tools are:
• Improvements in the quality of the buildings and non built elements, which are
closely linked with needs expressed by the actors concerned (users), especially as regard
improvements in comfort and reductions in the costs-in-use and maintenance of
residential and non-residential buildings (energy savings, reduced water consumption,
optimisation of the use of raw materials).
• Improvements in the quality of life through urban development, which respects the
environment: reduced urban sprawl, more effective use of public spaces, and the creation
of cycle-ways, pedestrian areas and green spaces. Developing coherence and synergy
between the neighbourhood levels and the conurbation. Encouraging work in partnership
and building the capacity of the local community to achieve meaningful participation.
• Controlling costs and applying management methods, which allow all categories of
actors to share expenses.
• Controlling urban sprawl and commuting by managing the economy and
environmental impact of space use and also by managing mobility and the use of public
transport at the scales of the neighbourhood, the town and the conurbation.
The aim of HQE2R project is thus to allow local authorities to implement regeneration
action plans in their neighbourhoods and renovation of their buildings towards
1
I refuse the idea that there is a side for the light and another one for the darkness, the man and the woman, me and the
others, the good and the bad ones. I look for a place where contradictions can be solved. That is a quest without illusion.
2
See the list of the partners in Appendix or at the end
5
2
sustainable development. It is a question of providing operational tools for a concrete

analysis and evaluation, which are open to public (and private) debate and to action.
1.2 - The HQE2R approach and the expected project results

Today cities are being rebuilt, buildings are being rehabilitated, and neighbourhoods
revitalised. To assure sustainability, this regeneration must go beyond technical solutions,
taking social trends, changes in behaviour, environmental and economic development into
account.
To define concrete action plans, sustainable development requires an iterative way of
achieving a decision, because of the necessity of taking the various principles of sustainable
development into account all together at once. As the market law only takes into account
economic factors, and principally only in the short-term, sustainable development requires
sustainable development principles: the integration of the long-term, global impact of
decisions on environmental and social factors, with less hierarchical forms of participation
than usual market practices.
The HQE2R methodological framework for sustainable neighbourhood analysis and
development is structured as an ideal regeneration neighbourhood projects into 4 phases: a
decision phase, an analysis phase - identifying priorities, definition, discussion, an
assessment of scenarios phase and finally the setting up of the action plan for the
neighbourhood).
The methodological framework is furthermore based on 6 sustainable development principles
at the city scale, and then a system of 21 sustainable development targets under 5 main
objectives (see the list next page) and backed up by a set of 51 key issues with their 61
indicators for the neighbourhood and its buildings (ISDIS system).
THE HQE²R APPROACH TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE

NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT
PHASE 1 : DECISION PHASE 2 : ANALYSIS
3. Inventory based on the

1. Identification of 2. Strategic decision 21 targets and the
problems (social, for sustainable integrated SD indicators
environmental, technical) regeneration of the system (ISDIS)
that need actions neighbourhood
4. Shared SD
diagnosis of the
neighbourhood
(potential,
12. Monitoring and
dysfunction,
evaluation of the
Participation of residents and users cohesion)
project : SD
monitoring Partnership (public / private)
indicators
Local Governance 5. Strategic
priorities for the
neighbourhood and
definition of
11. Projects upon objectives for SD
9. Urban planning
the neighbourhood regulations including
with SD SD recommendations
specifications
7. Evaluation of
6. Generation of
10. Projects for the scenarios
scenarios
Sustainable Buildings against SD
8. Action plan for (to identify options
(new & existing) with targets (INDI,
the neighbourhood for SD action)
SD specifications ENVI, ASCOT)
PHASE 4 : ACTION and EVALUATION PHASE 3 : DECIDING UPON THE ACTION PLAN
Source: HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr) SD: Sustainable Development
6
2
The HQE2R project results are specific tools for local communities and for their local
partners (see also the diagram below):
- The choice of 6 sustainable development principles at the scale of the city and a
definition of sustainability for the neighbourhood scale.
- The definition of an overall methodological framework with 5 main global
sustainable development (SD) objectives, their 21 targets, 51 key issues or sub
targets and then 61 indisputable indicators at the neighbourhood and building
scales (the ISDIS system).
- A shared SD diagnosis method for SD (with an integrated analytical grid for the
previous inventory) adapted to the neighbourhood scale.
- Evaluation tools for scenarios or neighbourhood projects as decision aid tools for
assessing different scenarios before the final action plan for the neighbourhood is
chosen (3 models with the support of 3 analytical grids):
3 models:
- INDI (INDicators Impacts) a model of sustainable regeneration impact using
indicators and allowing the development of different environmental and
sustainable development profiles
- ENVI (ENVironmental Impact)
- ASCOT (Assessment of Sustainable Construction & Technology Cost), a
model of global cost of energy efficient technologies from an environmental point of
view at the building scale.
- Recommendations for improving participation in neighbourhood regeneration projects.
- Recommendations for taking SD into account in urban planning documents (for each
partner country).
- Recommendations for specifying sustainable development in the building process
- Recommendations for specifying sustainable development for non built elements
- Indicators for the different phases of a project state indicators, pressure indicators
and then monitoring indicators.
RESULTS OF THE HQE²R PROJECT:
an approach with methods and tools
for sustainable neighbourhood regeneration
Definition of 6 SD Choice of 5 SD Development of a shared SD

principles at the objectives, 21 SD diagnosis method enabli ng the
city scale targets, 51 SD key identification of territorial SD
issues and indicators (at stakes*
the neighbourhood and
buildings scales): the
ISD ID system
Elaboration of Recommendations to improve

assessment and and to promote inhabitants’ and
monitoring indicators users’ participation :
for projects and
neighbourhoods, - to identify and collect their needs
regarding SD - to improve procedures and
practices
-Recommendations
for briefing Elaboration of decision aid tools
documents taking Recommandations to to evaluate scenarios or potential
into account SD for integrate SD in urban urban planning projects (“design
new and existi ng planning documents contract” for example)
buildings
- Recommendations
for non – built
elements SD Sustainable Development
Source: HQE2 R project (http:hqe2r.cstb.fr) * See the scheme «The shared SD diagnosis method for setting priorities»
7
2
Abstracts
ENGLISH ABSTRACT
This document is concerned with the practices of involving residents in the regeneration of urban
neighbourhoods. It builds on the Deliverable 15 of the HQE2R project, which described the national
legislative context for participation in each of the project’s partner countries. Deliverable 15 also developed
a ‘Scale of Participation’ based on three dimensions (nature, content, timing).
The first aim of this document is to describe how resident participation has been addressed in each of the
project’s case-study neighbourhoods, and to reflect on these in the light of the Scale of Participation.
The second aim is to present short descriptions of a sample of participation methods that could be used to
enhance participation in the case study neighbourhoods and others engaged in a regeneration process.
These main parts of the document are set in context by briefly describing the HQE2R project, and
discussing the nature of participation in different types of regeneration process.
The document concludes with the observation that practice varies widely across Europe and it would be
inappropriate to give detailed recommendations. However, the document focuses on two methods which
presents participation as a continuum and progressive process. This is supplemented by a discussion of
questions raised by regeneration practitioners at a conference held by the project partnership.
FRENCH ABSTRACT
Ce document recense les pratiques de participation des habitants et usagers des quartiers dans les projets de
renouvellement urbain. Il complète l’analyse présentée dans le deliverable 15 sur le cadre législatif et
réglementaire de la participation d’une part et sur les pratiques (notamment dans le cadre d’Agendas 21
Locaux) d’autre part. Il s’appuie sur l’échelle de participation HQE2R à trois dimensions (nature de la
participation - depuis l’information jusqu’à la co-production de projets – participation dans le phasage du
projet et sujets retenus pour la participation :) également présentée dans le deliverable 15.
L’objet de ce document est de présenter différentes pratiques utilisées dans les quartiers pilotes ou test du
projet HQE2R au regard de l’échelle de participation HQE2R, puis de décrire différentes méthodes qui
permettent d’encourager ou de favoriser la participation des habitants et usagers d’un quartier au fur et à
mesure des étapes d’un projet de renouvellement urbain. Le document insiste notamment sur certaines
méthodes qui permettent d’impliquer les habitants selon un processus continu et progressif.
Ce document se termine sur les questions évoquées par les participants à la conférence européenne de
Copenhague de Mars 2003 dont un des thèmes majeurs était la participation des habitants.
DEUTSCH ABSTRACT
Der folgende Text befasst sich mit der Praxis der Bewohnerbeteiligung in der Stadterneuerung in Europa.
Er baut auf dem Bericht (“Deliverable”) 15 des HQE²R-Projektes auf, das den Rechtsrahmen für die
Bürgerbeteiligung in jedem der am Projekt beteiligten Staaten darstellt. Deliverable 15 entwickelte
ebenfalls eine “Beteiligungsskala”, die auf Arnsteins “Stufen der Bürgerbeteiligung” basiert.
Die Beschreibung der Umsetzung von Bürgerbeteiligung in den Fallstudien des Projektes und ihre
Reflexion im Sinne der “Stufen der Bürgerbeteiligung” ist das Thema des ersten Teils des hier
vorliegenden Berichts. Der zweite Teil beinhaltet eine Übersicht von Beteiligungsmethoden, die dazu
beitragen können, die Beteiligung im Stadterneuerungsprozess zu verbessern. Diese beiden
Hauptbestandteile des Textes werden mit der Methodik des HQE²R-Projektes verknüpft und diese kurz
dargestellt. Es werden ebenso die verschiedenen Aspekte von Beteiligung im Rahmen von
Stadterneuerungsprogrammen unterschiedlicher europäischer Staaten diskutiert.
8
2
Es ist festzustellen, dass die Beteiligungspraxis in den unterschiedlichen Staaten sich so weit von einander
unterscheidet, dass es nicht sinnvoll erscheint, detaillierte Empfehlungen für alle Staaten gleichermaßen zu
geben. Stattdessen erscheint es sinnvoller eine Checkliste mit Aspekten bereitzustellen, die im
Beteiligungsprozess Berücksichtigung finden sollten. Ergänzt wird der Bericht schließlich durch eine
Auseinandersetzung mit aktuellen Fragestellungen zur Bürgerbeteiligung, die von an der praktischen
Umsetzung von Stadtentwicklungsmaßnahmen Beteiligten bei einer vom Projekt durchgeführten
Konferenz aufgeworfen wurden.
DUTCH ABSTRACT
Dit document behandelt het betrekken van de bewoners bij de renovatie van stadswijken. Het is gebaseerd
op deliverable 15 van het HQE2R project waarin de nationale wettelijke context wordt beschreven voor de
participatie (inspraak) in elk land van de projectpartners.
In deliverable 15 is ook een “participatieschaal” ontwikkeld gebaseerd op drie dimensies (aard van de
participatie, informatie en timing).
Het eerste deel van dit document is de beschrijving van hoe bewonersparticipatie in elk van de projectcase
studie is vormgegeven en hoe dit geprojecteerd kan worden op de participatieschaal.
Het tweede deel is de presentatie van enkele korte omschrijvingen van participatie methodes die gebruikt
kunnen worden bij de versterking en/of verbetering van de participatie bij de projectcase studies en andere
betrokkenen bij een renovatieproces. Deze hoofdonderdelen worden behandeld in het kader van een korte
beschrijving van het HQE2R project en de aard van de participatie bij verschillende soorten
renovatieprocessen.
Het document besluit met de constatering dat de praktijk in Europa sterk varieert en dat het daarom niet
relevant is om gedetailleerde aanbevelingen te doen. Aandacht wordt gegeven aan twee methodes die
representatief zijn voor participatie als een continu en progressief proces. Dit wordt aangevuld met de
gegevens uit de discussie door betrokkenen vanuit de praktijk tijdens de conferentie in Kopenhagen, maart
2003, welke georganiseerd werd door de partners van het HQE2R project.
DANISH ABSTRACT
Dette dokument beskæftiger sig med fremgangsmåder til involvement af borgere i byfornyelse. Det bygger
på Deliverable 15 i HQE2R projektet, der giver rammerne for den nationale lovgivning for hvert af de
lande, der deltager i projektet. I Deliverable 15 udvikledes også en skala for borgerdeltagelse baseret på 3
områder (art, indhold, tidspunkt i processen).
Dette dokuments formål nr. 1 er at beskrive, hvorledes borgerdeltagelse er blevet behandlet i hvert af
projektets case-studies af bykvarterer, endvidere at vurdere disse set i lyset af skalaen for beboerdeltagelse.
Det andet formål er at præsentere en kort beskrivelse af udvalgte fremgangsmåder, som kan bruges til at
øge borgerdeltagelsen i bykvarterer. Disse hovedafsnit i dokumentet er indsat i en sammenhæng ved en
kort beskrivelse af HQE2R projektet, og ved en diskussion af arten af borgerdeltagelse i forskellige typer af
byfornyelsesprocesser.
Dokumentet afsluttende konklusion er, at praksis varierer meget fra land til land i Europa, og det ville være
uhensigtsmæssigt at give detaljerede anbefalinger. Dokumentet fokuserer imidlertid på 2 metoder, som
arbejder med borgerdeltagelse som en varig og fremadskridende proces. Dette suppleres af en diskussion af
spørgsmål, der er rejst af deltagere på en byfornyelseskonference, der blev afholdt af partnerne i projektet.
ITALIAN ABSTRACT
Questo documento riguarda le attività di coinvolgimento dei residenti dei quartieri nei processi di
riqualificazione urbana. Completa l’analisi presentata dal progetto HQE2R nel Deliverable 15 che descrive
9
2
il contesto legislativo nazionale sulla partecipazione in ognuno dei paesi partner del progetto e nel quale
viene anche sviluppato il concetto di Scala di partecipazione mediante un diagramma tridimensionale:
carattere e modalità della partecipazione, fase di confronto e dibattito sul contenuto dei progetti, scopi finali
e tempistica.
L’obiettivo di questo documento è in primo luogo spiegare come la partecipazione dei residenti sia stata
condotta all’interno dei quartieri pilota del progetto HQE2R ed inoltre presentare esempi e metodi di
approccio che possano incoraggiare e favorire la partecipazione di abitanti ed utenti in un processo di
riqualificazione urbana, seppure in diversi contesti.
Il documento si conclude osservando che tali pratiche variano largamente nei vari paesi europei. Pertanto
non vengono date dettagliate raccomandazioni, ma si focalizza l’attenzione su quei metodi che presentano
la partecipazione come un continuo processo in evoluzione, richiamando gli argomenti discussi alla
conferenza svoltasi a Copenhagen a marzo 2003 nell’ambito del progetto HQE2R, incentrata sul tema della
partecipazione.
CATALAN ABSTRACT
Aquest document recull diferents experiències de participació per part dels residents i usuaris en els
projectes de renovació urbana de barris, completant l’anàlisi presentat en el deliverable 15 sobre el marc
normatiu de la participació ciutadana i les pràctiques, emmarcades generalment ens processos d’Agenda 21
locals. El document recull l’escala de participació HQE2R a tres dimensions (tipus de participació, des de
l’informació a la coproducció dels projectes, abast d’aquesta i el moment en la que es produeix) que
s’esmentava ja en el deliverable 15.
L’objectiu d’aquest document és el de presentar les diferents pràctiques utilitzades en els barris pilots del
projecte en base a aquesta escala de participació, a més de descriure els diferents mètodes que han de
permetre enfortir i afavorir la participació dels residents i usuaris d’un barri al llarg del procés de renovació
urbana. El document insisteix sobretot en certs mètodes que permeten implicar els ciutadants en un procés
continuat i progressiu.
Aquest document es completa amb les consideracions expressades pels participants a la conferència
europea de Copenhague del març de 2002 la qual tenia com a un dels temes principals la participació
ciutadana.
SPANISH ABSTRACT
El presente documento recoje las diferentes experiencias de participación por parte de los residentes y
usuarios en los proyectos de renovación urbana de barrios, completando el análisi presentado en el
deliverable 15 sobre el marco legislativo de la participación ciudadana y las prácticas, encuadradas
generalmente en los procesos de Agenda 21 locales. El documento recoje la escala de participación HQE2R
a tres dimensiones (tipo de participación – des de la información a la coproducción de proyectos-, el
alacnce de ésta y el momento en que se produce) que ya se comentava en el deliverable 15.
El objetivo de este documento es el de presentar las diferentes prácticas utilizadas en los barrios piloto del
proyecto en base a esta escala de participación, además de describir los diferentes métodos propuestos para
fortalezer y mejorar la participación de los residentes y usuarios de un barrio a lo largo del proceso de
renovación urbana. El documento insiste sobretodo en ciertos métodos que permiten implicar los
ciutadanos en un proceso continuado y progresivo.
Este documento se completa con las consideraciones expresadas por parte de los participantes en la
conferencia de Copenhague de marzo de 2002 la cual tenía como uno de los temas principales la
participación ciudadana.
10
2
1. INTRODUCTION: PARTICIPATION
IN THE HQE2R PROCESS
1.1. Summary of the HQE2R European project and methodology
Today cities are being reconstructed, buildings are being rehabilitated, and neighbourhoods revitalised.
To assure sustainability, this rehabilitation must, besides technical solutions, take social trends,
changes in behaviour, environment and economic development into account. In the HQE2R project 14
neighbourhoods and 10 research institutes in 7 European countries are co-operating to provide
methods and tools for use by local municipalities and their partners: government agencies, planners,
landlords, local citizens and other users in sustainable urban renewal projects.
The project is partly financed by the European Commission Programme for Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development (City of Tomorrow) and is lead by CSTB.
The objective of the project is to develop a new methodology together with the necessary tools to
promote sustainable development and the quality of life at the crucial and challenging level of
urban neighbourhoods
As far as developed until now, the HQE2R methodological framework for sustainable neighbourhood
analysis and development is structured into 4 phases (an inventory, an analysis - identifying priorities,
definition, discussion and assessment of scenarios and finally setting up an action plan for the
neighbourhood). It is furthermore based on a set of 21 sustainable development targets under 5 main
objectives and backed up by a set of indisputable indicators and 3 new assessment tools.
In detail the main results of the work done until now are:
• the choice of 6 sustainable development principles for the city scale,
• the definition of 5 main global Sustainable Development (SD) objectives with 21 targets at
the neighbourhood and buildings scales, and the definition of sustainability for the
neighbourhood scale;
• a shared diagnosis for SD method (with an integrated analytical grid for the previous
inventory) adapted to the neighbourhood scale;
• SD indicators at the built environment and urban scales:
- state indicators for the buildings and neighbourhood diagnosis,
- a system of 51 key issues (ISDIS) linked to the 21 SD targets with their 61 SD Indicators to
assess the sustainability of the neighbourhood,
- monitoring indicators for the different projects upon the neighbourhood (and for the city),
- a model of indicators (INDI model) as a decision aid tool for the elaboration of the SD profile
of the neighbourhood and for assessing the different scenarios before choosing the final
action plan for the neighbourhood;
• recommendations for improving participation in neighbourhood regeneration
projects (non built elements);
• recommendations for taking into account SD in urban planning documents (for each
partner country);
• 3 assessment models as decision aid tools for choosing the best renewal project for a
neighbourhood: 2 at the neighbourhood scale: the INDI model with SD indicators, the ENVI
model which assess the environmental impacts of the different scenarios and the last one at the
building scale, the ASCOT model about global costs;
• briefing documents for sustainable buildings renovation and construction.
11
2
• briefing documents or guidelines for non built elements in a neighbourhood;

• a guideline for the management of sustainable neighbourhood regeneration projects.
1.2. Where are we in the HQE2R process and methodology?

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted unanimously by the 178 States
represented in 1992, evokes in one of its 27 principles the participation of citizens as a fundamental
aspect of sustainable development. The tenth principle states:
“the best way to consider environmental questions is to ensure the participation of all the
citizens concerned, at the appropriate level. At the national level, each individual must have
access to information relative to the environment held by public authorities, including
information relative to dangerous substances and activities in their communities, and be able
to participate in the decision process. The states must facilitate and encourage the public in
becoming more concerned and participating by putting information at their disposal.
Comprehensive access to judiciary and administrative actions, namely redress and appeals,
must be ensured.”
The HQE2R approach (and process) is directly concerned with the participation methods in use in
each of the partner countries. Current good practice demands that regeneration projects must take full
account of social dynamics, as major a component of sustainable development (also taking into
account the environment and economic development). The involvement of residents and users in the
life of their districts and of their cities gives great benefit to local social dynamics.
Participation at the centre of the HQE2R approach:
The approach of the partnership is that participation should be at the centre of the approach (see
overall approach diagram below). It is a guiding principle of the methodology that the appropriate
level of participation should be sought at each stage, and that the aim should be to progress through
the three dimensions described above.
The wide variety of practice across Europe calls for a degree of pragmatism both in the completion of
the project and in the final recommendations. In the completion of the city case studies, the research
teams are guided by the local context in determining the appropriate level of resident participation.
The project will explore whether it is possible to make recommendations that will apply to all
European countries. Some of the questions that will be addressed include;
- Is there a minimal level of participation at which it is possible to speak about sustainability?
- Is it possible for participation to be effective and efficient at any level of participation, i.e. can
information becomes consultation, can that consultation become empowerment and then
empowerment lead to co-operation ?
- Is it possible to improve the participation procedures and to propose any methodology for
that?
12
HQE²R
HQE R: Towards a methodology for sustainable neighbourhood regeneration (Deliverable 10 short version)
THE HQE²R APPROACH TOW ARDS SUSTAINABLE
2
NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT
PHASE 1 : DECISION PHASE 2 : ANALYSIS

CSTB – La Calade with contribution by ICIE, IOER, Quasco and UWE
3. Inventory based on the

1. Identification of 2. Strategic decision 21 targets and the
problems (social, for sustainable integrated SD indicators
environmental, technical) regeneration of the system (ISDIS)
that need actions neighbourhood
4. Shared SD
diagnosis of the
neighbourhood
(potential,
12. Monitoring and
dysfunction,
evaluation of the
Participation of residents and users cohesion)
project : SD
monitoring Partnership (public / private)
13
indicators
Local Governance 5. Strategic
priorities for the
neighbourhood and
definition of
11. Projects upon objectives for SD
9. Urban planning
the neighbourhood regulations including
with SD SD recommendations
specifications
7. Evaluation of
6. Generation of
10. Projects for the scenarios
scenarios
Sustainable Buildings against SD
8. Action plan for (to identify options
(new & existing) with targets (INDI,
the neighbourhood for SD action)
SD specifications ENVI, ASCOT)
PHASE 4 : ACTION and EVALUATION PHASE 3 : DECIDING UPON THE ACTION PLAN
Source: HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr) SD: Sustainable Development
13
2
1.3. What about the content of this deliverable ?

This report is concerned with the process, methods and practice for collecting information from
the residents and users, i;e. of participation by residents in urban or neighbourhood regeneration
projects.
We use the scale of participation developed in the HQE2R Deliverable 15 to analyse a range of
participation methods for collecting information and discuss their application in the regeneration
process. The participation scale is also applied to the 14 HQE2R case studies, to aid an
understanding of participation in different European cities. We propose which methods might be
applied in order to improve participation in the case study neighbourhoods.
The HQE2R scale of participation (cf deliverable 15) is developed from Arnstein’s ladder of
citizen participation, and uses the following definitions:
- Coercion: Residents are given no access to decision making. Information is withheld,
or used to direct behaviour according to the interests of the local authority. Equates to
‘manipulation’ and ‘therapy’ in the Arnstein ladder.
- Information: Information is transmitted to the recipients of a service or
redevelopment to keep them up to date with decisions. There is no dialogue and
residents have no access to decision making.
- Awareness raising: Information is given to residents with the aim of helping them to
understand the issues and objectives of the regeneration programme from the point of
view of the local authority. In the case of a sustainable development project (e.g.
recycling or energy conservation), this might include education about the purpose and
relevance of the initiative they are being asked to co-operate with. Residents do not
have access to decision-making, although the presentation of good quality information
is a pre-requisite of developing participation.
- Consultation: Residents’ opinions are sought to inform the decision makers, who
might take these views into consideration, but are under no obligation to do so. Typical
forms of consultation include questionnaires and public meeting. The contribution that
consultation can make to participation is entirely dependent upon the weight given to
responses by the authorities, it can thus be very disempowering for residents. A
frequent problem is that consultation occurs too late in the regeneration process to
affect major decisions. Early consultation thus has greater potential.
- Empowerment: Empowerment of individuals and groups within a neighbourhood is a
precondition of effective participation. Communities cannot take an active part in their
own governance if they lack the skills, knowledge and organisational capacity to do so.
Development in this area is often referred to as ‘community capacity building’. This
point on the scale of participation might thus be seen as a developmental one which
helps communities to advance towards the higher levels of participation. Equally
important is the institutional change within local authorities that is necessary to enable
them to respect and respond to an expanded governance role for neighbourhood
residents.
- Co-operation: The upper portion of our participation sale is divided into three
sections, which equate with the ‘partnership’, ‘delegated power’ and ‘citizen control’
rungs of Arnstein’s ladder. Participation at this level is characterised by the
involvement of citizens in both process and decision. A key principle is that the local
authority should always be clear about the scope and limits of a participatory process;
which decisions or budgets are open for discussion, or can be managed by residents
and which cannot.
14
2
- Partnership: residents are involved in on-going joint working, as distinct from one-off
or periodic consultation. Project development is transparent and open to resident
representatives throughout. Decisions are negotiated between partners.
- Delegated power, or joint management: Local politicians delegate a specific area of
responsibility to residents, accepting that they will be tied by decisions taken outside
of their control. The participatory budget of Porto Alegre is a well-known example of
this mode of participation.
- Self-management: A project, service, budget or property (e.g. a social housing block
or estate) is managed directly and independently by the community.
The HQE2R analysis, developed in Deliverable 15, adds a further two dimensions to make the
link between participation, the project process and the range of topics included. Our hypothesis
is that, as resident participation develops, it will;
1. Occur throughout the project process, from early investigations and proposals to
implementation and evaluation,
2. Develop from focussing on relativley minor and local issues, to considering broader
concerns, and eventually global environmental issues.
We thus represent participation on a three-dimensional diagram:

THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION
PROJ ECT PHASES
Monitoring to long term
Implementation
From short term
Decisions
To Global
Diagnosis
From Local
Identification
of problems
t
c ion ion es
s io
n en n
tio n PARTICIPATION
er at en at erm ra ctio
Co rm ar ult w e STEPS
fo on
s po op du
In Aw C Em C o p ro
Co
Source: CSTB, La Calade for HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr)
Source: CSTB – La Calade for the Brochure HQE²R n° 13
3
C.Charlot-Valdieu and P. Outrequin, Brochure HQE2R n°1: HQE2R: Towards a methodology for
sustainable neighbourhood regeneration, May 2003
15
2
2. PARTICIPATION AND THE REGENERATION

PROCESS
We propose that participation should occur at as many stages of the regeneration process as is
possible within national laws and practices. The methods presented in chapter 3 of this report
should not therefore be looked at in isolation, but rather in the context of participation
throughout the regeneration process; individual methods are the building blocks for a
participatory approach.
If we consider the stages in the project process (as presented in our three dimensions of
participation diagram), we might describe broadly the type of participative activity suitable to
each stage:
• Establishing local issues and priorities (Diagnosis)
At this early stage the priority is to inform the community and gain a broad base of
participation. The appropriate methods are thus those that reach a large number of people;
dissemination of good quality information, awareness raising activities and events, surveys,
public meetings, participatory research.
• Project development, decision making and implementation
There is the possibility of several levels of participation here. Where possible, a small number
of residents might be involved in project management, developing detailed proposals in
partnership with public agencies. If this is not possible, resident advisory groups might feed
local views to the project managers (meeting throughout the process, not on a one-off basis).
Broader participation, in the form of a ballot or a consensus building exercise, might be
employed to aid decision making (e.g. voting on different options).
• Monitoring and evaluation
It is desirable, although realtively rare, to involve residents in setting the criteria against which
a scheme will be evaluated. Community-generated indicators are an example of good practice.
As with project development and decision making, participation in evaluation might occur on
two levels, through a resident advisory group, and through mass participation in response to
surveys and at public events.
2.1. Preconditions for participation

• Insitiutional learning
We should remember at all times that participation is a two-way process. It is not possible to
achieve any level of participation without commitment on the part of public agencies to adapt
their processes to it and to take account of the consequences.
• Capacity building
It is often not sufficient for public agencies to offer the opportunity to participate. Resident
involvement beyond the level of consultation or responding to surveys requires ongoing
capacity building and support for volunteers. This might include training in advocacy,
community development or presentation skills. Practical support in the form of childcare,
transport and refunding expenses is also necessary.
16
2
2.2. Participation in different types of regeneration process

Across Europe there are many different models of regeneration practice, operating within
different planning and development systems. Naturally, modes of participation must be
adapted to the context within which they operate. Many models of regeneration are led by an
agenda of physical improvement to the buildings and infrastructure of the neighbourhood.
The French method of ‘Generative and Participative Programming’, (PGP) is an
example of good practice for the building-led mode of regeneration, and is described in
section 2.2.1. Programming, or programmation, is the process of developing a detailed brief
and specifications for architectural and projects. As a professional activity mediating the
relationship between commissioning bodies and their architects, this specific
programming is specific to the French system, although its goals evidently overlap with
project briefing processes in other countries.
In some cases, regeneration is led by a social, rather than physical, agenda. Where physical
redevelopment is not the focus of activity, participation must be broad and flexible enough to
include a range of different types of project. In section 2.2.2, we briefly describe the
participation structure of our UK case study, the ‘Community at Heart’ (CAH)
neighbourhood in Bristol, which is an example of socially oriented neighbourhood
regeneration.
Both the PGP and the CAH approach are overall strategies for a participatory process,
within which a variety of different methods might be used. An alternative perspective on
participation is that of the developer.
2.2.1 - Generative and Participative Programming (Programmation

Générative et Participative: PGP)
The methodology presented is intended to promote not only an improvement in the quality of
the uses and appropriation4 of projects relating to local operations, but also a democratic
elaboration of such projects by means of a participative and concerted programming procedure.
This procedure can involve three types of objects or scales, which constitute the subject matter
of architecture and neighbourhood planning:
- public facilities and housing,
- operations to upgrade subsidized housing or public spaces,
- neighbourhoods and shops in major conurbations, small or even middle-sized towns.
The first two procedures were developed at CSTB by M. Conan5 and M. Bonetti6. The third
corresponds to the procedure proposed by Pierre Dimeglio (EPPPUR, IUP Paris).
EPPPUR7 (Evolution, Projets, Pratiques, Projets Urbains) is an association set up in
collaboration with the Paris town-planning institute (Institut d'Urbanisme de Paris: IUP) and
4
Jodelle Zetlaoui: "the concept of use seems too partial to evoke the relationships of individuals with a
space: its connotation is extremely instrumental and consumerist, eclipsing the more emotional and
symbolic dimensions relating to "dwelling places". It is therefore important to associate the concept of
appropriation with it", in "Modalités d’application des démarches programmatiques concertées et
participatives pour des projets de proximité", EPPPUR, October 2002, Study carried out for the Inter-
ministerial Delegation for Urban affairs, page 13
5
Michel Conan, "Method of design pragmatique en architecture", CSTB, 1989; "The method generative",
CSTB, 1988
6
Michel Bonetti, I. Marghieri, P. Humblot, "Méthode de conception pragmatique en architecture",
CSTB, 1989; "La méthode générativve", CSTB, 1988
17
2
the University of Paris XII. It aims to develop generative and participative programming
(Programmation Générative et Participative: PGP) as a method of ensuring the participation of
residents and users in urban projects.
Town-planning decisions are traditionally presented as the result of negotiations between the
central administration, local political power, technicians and society, within the framework of a
relatively simple process ranging from the preparation of the programme to the implementation
of the project and construction site, followed by its everyday management.
The place and the role of residents in these different stages are subject to many questions and
recommendations by law-makers and central and local administrations, although the
implementation conditions of this involvement is not always explained, particularly within the
framework of urban projects.
The proposed procedure is neither a joint effort, in which residents share responsibility with the
authorities, nor a direct democracy; but nor is it a formal consultation or dialogue, in which
nothing guarantees that the opinions, intentions or demands of residents will be taken into
account. The PGP breaks with traditional linear development processes, in which a project
manager proposes to a contracting authority (client) who has the proposed outlines and consults
the residents, etc.
By definition, the PGP aims to be both "generative" and "participative" 8:

- The generative procedure: generative programming involves entrusting to an operational
group – a project leader, the architect/sociologist duo – an exploratory task which
connects, in an iterative way, problems to be solved (uses, technical, economic, legal, etc.),
spatial and technical proposals or intentions and developmental and architectural answers
or possibilities. This process should make it possible to progressively adjust intentions in
relation to uses and technical possibilities.
- The participative procedure: this is the expression of the power relationships between
decision-makers and citizens, but also the maturing or expression of particular projects
derived from the processes of information, communication, consultation and dialogue.
7
EPPPUR's objective is to create the conditions for an encounter and comparison between the approaches of
architects, town planners, landscapers and specialists in the social sciences, who have hitherto built up
scientific approaches which are sometimes not very open to each other.
As the Paris town-planning institute (Institut d’Urbanisme de Paris), within the framework of its policy to
develop doctoral studies, would like to increase exchanges between academics and the many trades involved
in development thanks to the rise of professional itineraries and careers which bring together and alternate
training/research and practical town-planning, EPPPUR aims to deploy and support research into the concepts
of projects and urban landscapes, and into the modes of production and programming of space in general, not
to mention operational practices and procedures.
For several years, the Institutes researchers have been working in this direction, and intend to pursue it in the
following fields in particular:
• the design, implementation and evaluation of urban projects,
• representations, history, design and practices of urban landscapes,
• Generative and Participative Programming methods (PGP) in town-planning and
architecture: principles, application conditions, risks and rewards, resistance (limits to
classical forms of programming and design in town-planning and architecture,
implementation of new operational approaches based on participation, organization of an
iterative approach between the contracting authority, the transactional group, project
managers and constructive evaluation),
• research methods and survey techniques in urban studies (transversal to the three previous
topics).
8
September 2001 – Les méthodes de Programmations Génératives et Participatives en architecture et
en urbanisme – EPPPUR, Ecole d'Architecture Paris Malaquais, University of Paris XII, Val de Marne.
18
2
The PGP procedure is the result of the work of three groups:

- The decision-makers within the collective contracting authority (or steering group)
include the contracting authority (a mayor or a person designated by the town council) and
representatives of the local and central institutions concerned; this group should also
include partners with local influence, such as associations. The task of this group is to
debate intentions / proposals, designing and coordinating projects in order to achieve
overall consistency and modifying the project according to changing demands and
financial constraints. This group is the project's political decision-making hub. The
introduction of residents into this group is not desirable. The group's legitimacy derives
from its role as contracting authority (client) and in the case of a local authority, from the
election of the town council and mayor. The Steering Committee expresses the general
interest, free of pressure from any lobbies whatsoever.
- The programming team (architect, sociologist, manager, economist, etc.), along with the
contracting authority (client) within the operational group, draws up the project and
defines the problems of use associated with architectural proposals. The operational group
also prepares the work of the other two bodies, producing outlines, scenarios, hypotheses,
evaluations, etc. It also has to ensure communication and coordination with and between
the two other groups. To do this, the operational team must have multi-disciplinary skills.
The team can also be beneficially managed by a duo: two people with complementary
skills, defined according to the project (skills are more important than professional status).
- Residents and users, maintenance staff, and visitors are grouped together in what is
referred to as the transactional group. On the basis of their experience, these players have
skills relating to uses; the task of this group is to give projects a concrete content.
The contracting authority (client) plays a central coordinating role, belonging simultaneously to
both of the collective contracting authority and the operational group.
The generative and participative programming procedure is summarized in the table below,
which may serve as a guiding thread9.
The resident-participation procedure is implemented throughout the programming process:
a) Participation in the diagnosis is achieved through two types of action:
- public meetings which bring together the collective contracting authority and the residents
(and the entire transactional group),
- the "diagnosis on foot", which also associates associations and professionals.
This phase also aims to find out more about the problems of residents. The authors of the PGP
procedure are wary of the concept of need, which corresponds to a function to be fulfilled,
leading to prescriptive programming approaches (for example, the construction of high-rise
housing estates in the 1960's to fulfil an urgent need for housing). The functional approach
tends to eclipse thinking about uses, conflicts of use, the schemes of the players involved, and
to dissociate the specificites of a global problem to see only the standardized aspects, etc.
In addition to the concept of need, the authors of the PGP raise the question of methods.
The generative procedure represents a criticism (which we share) of the traditional linear
procedure:
- Initial survey of residents and users to find out their needs at a time T, without any effect
on the real decision but useful only to sound out opinion10.
9
EPPPUR, Ecole d'Architecture Paris Malaquais, University of Paris XII, Val de Marne, L’élaboration
du projet urbain et la démocratie participative : le cas de l’Ile-Saint-Denis (1988-2001), candidature for
the participative democracy trophies, 26 October 2001.
19
2
- Survey of a few executives or representative people at the moment of programming in

order to specify the programmer's orientations, without any guarantee of
representativeness, possibly leading to suspicion and doubts among those who were not
consulted.
Asking residents and users about their "needs" renders any preliminary work on objectives and
problems difficult. The objectives of sustainable development must be integrated into the
sustainable development diagnosis. Using these objectives as an analytical grid, the consultant,
working with the residents, has to bring out the district's problems.
It is important to make a distinction between the initial identification of problems (social,
environmental, economic, technical, etc.) requiring action to be taken, and the revelation of the
strategic problems of the district and residents, derived from the shared diagnosis (identified in
the HQE2R methodology as the district's risks and rewards).
The "diagnosis on foot"11

The objective is to produce a common diagnosis of the potential of a situation or territory. It
makes it possible to familiarize oneself with the field and with the viewpoints of the various
players.
The "diagnosis on foot" takes place in three phases:
- a field visit by groups of five or six people with diverse skills,
- the pooling of comments and observations
- the drawing up of a report which highlights the elements of the diagnosis and any
questions which remain unanswered.
b) The programme corresponds to the proposal phase. To draw up these proposals, resident
participation can take at least three forms:
- visits by day or by night make informal exchanges possible with residents, shopkeepers,
young people, etc.
- working groups: these groups are organized on the basis of of "transactional spaces", i.e.
according to the spaces which the district's residents and users may frequent, but with
different roles; the objective is not to define the needs of users or residents but to
understand not only the practices connected with facilities or spaces in a district or town,
but also the symbolic or emotional representations of certain spaces, as well as the
difficulties or obstacles encountered when using these spaces or facilities.
- participation workshops can take two forms: topic-based workshops and project
workshops:
- Topic-based workshops group twenty to thirty people who talk about a topic using the
following framework: "problems, dreams, solutions".
- Project workshops bring together people who work to draw up plans or projects.
Several groups coexist and a summary is drawn up in plenary session.
10
Usually individualized surveys which only bring out problems in a prospective or strategic way with
difficulty. The dissemination of ideas within a district is not rendered possible either, excepts for the
subsequent filters and depictions of the consultant and the contracting authority.
11
CSTB, Le diagnostic collectif rapide, study by Michel Bonetti and Patrice Séchet for the DHUHC
(French Housing Ministry)
20
2
c) The "search for solutions" phase is also an opportunity for meetings of users, public
meetings and participation workshops.
The project's final elaboration involves the presentation of topics and projects and the
gathering of residents' opinions.
21
2
The generative and participative programming procedure (Document EPPPUR/Ile St-DenisTable)

PHASE 1: DIAGNOSIS PHASE 2: PROGRAMMING PHASE 3: OVERALL PHASE 4:
(Nov-Dec 2001) (Jan 2001 – Feb 2002) DEVELOPMENT ELABORATION OF
PROGRAMME AND THE URBAN
SECTORAL PROGRAMMES PROJECT
(Feb-May 2002) (June-Aug. 2002)
(1) Formation of the CCA. Agreement on a (7) Validation of the diagnosis by the CCA (20) Presentation to the CCA of (21) Discussion and
project and on the procedure for the study of the (10) Choice of topics and projects to be proposed to the the results of the participation validation by the CCA
COLLECTIVE urban project for the Ile St-Denis, programming participation workshops and user-groups. workshop of the work of the
CONTRACTING of the procedure. workshops.
AUTHORITY Initial problems and projects for study. Recommendations for
(CCA) (2) Public meeting: Project, presentation of the the final report.
programming & design team and of the various
stages in the elaboration of the urban project, (23) Validation of the
surveys and forms of participation. final report
(4) Analysis of trends (demographic, economic, (8) Cursory survey of the residents by questionnaire (17) Elaboration of the overall (22) Writing and
social, built fabric, land-use). (current situation, problems, intentions). Possibilities development programme and presentation of the final
(5) Analysis of the risks and rewards, objectives for participation in the different stages of the process scenarios. report "Urban project
PROGRAMMING and strategies of the various internal players (9) Pre-operational studies of projects indicated by the for the Ile St-Denis"
& DESIGN TEAM (company managers, shopkeepers, associations CCA (studies of a site's potential). (phasing and funding).
(EPC12) etc.) and external players (community of (12) Summing-up of the results of the participation (19) Elaboration of sectoral
conurbations, Conseil Général (council of a workshops and user-groups. programmes.
French département), Plaine de France, DDE, (13) Sectoral programmes: housing, transport,
RATP, etc.) employment, public services, culture and leisure
(6) Report on the diagnosis. activities, protection of sites and risks.
(2) Public meeting CCA/residents. (14) Visits to districts with elected (15) User-groups. (24) Presentation of
(3) "diagnosis on foot" with the CCA, officials/residents/professionals. Registration on plan.: (16) Public meeting: topics and projects.
associations and professionals. (11) Participation workshops presentation of the results of the Opinion of the
TRANS- Topics and work on plans summing up of the participation residents.
ACTIONAL workshops.
GROUP (18) Participation workshops:
work on scenarios with the CCA
and associations.
12
Equipe de Programmation-Conception
22
2
Deliverable 14 HQE R
2.2.2 - Regeneration led by a social agenda : participation structure

for the New Deal for Communities, Bristol, UK
The New Deal for Communities (NDC) is one of the area-based initiatives that contribute to
the UK Government’s regeneration programme. It targets money on small neighbourhoods
with the aim of improving job prospects, bringing together investment in people and buildings
and improving neighbourhood management and services (DETR 199813). The distinctive
features of the New Deal for Communities are; that it targets very small areas of between 1,000
and 4,000 households and that the range of projects that can be funded is flexible. Strategy is
set, and projects selected at the local level, the projects chosen tend to be a mixture of social
initiatives (e.g. education and training, crime prevention, youth activities, health promotion),
supplemented by physical investment. Neighbourhoods are awarded up to £50M to spend over
a ten-year period. The NDC is the latest generation in an evolving area of public policy. Over
the last decade, partnership working and community participation have become increasingly
central to the delivery of regeneration programmes in the UK. The NDC gives greater scope
for local control over decision making and resource allocation than has been seen before. The
funds under this programme are managed not by local authorities, but by locally appointed
management boards composed of neighbourhood residents and representatives of other
stakeholders. Partnerships are monitored by central government to ensure that they comply
with the overall aims of the programme and that their work is correctly administered.
• The New Deal for Communities in Bristol: Community at Heart
The NDC was launched nationally by the Department of the Environment, Transport and
Regions (DETR) on 15 September 1998. Seventeen urban areas were invited to bid for the
programme, with the actual neighbourhoods being chosen at the local level. A number of
Bristol neighbourhoods were candidates: the selection process was devolved to representatives
of the candidate communities at a day event held in the autumn of 1998. Representatives
presented their ideas and discussed strengths and weaknesses, the final decision being reached
by a consensus. The nomination was awarded to ‘Community at Heart’ (CAH) a group of four
small neighbourhoods, Barton Hill, Lawrence Hill, Redfield and The Dings, to the East of
Bristol city centre.
A period of intensive work and community consultation followed the neighbourhood’s
nomination as Bristol’s candidate for NDC. The first task being to put forward an initial bid to
central government, followed by a detailed delivery plan. Final confirmation of the receipt of
£50M over ten years was given in January 2000. The Delivery Plan (Community at Heart,
199914) is the key document guiding the development of CAH. One of the key concerns of the
Delivery Plan is that there must be a flow of skilled local people with the ability to lead the
New Deal process. A total of £5M will be committed to capacity building through community
development.
13
DETR (1998) New Deal for Communities: Guidance for Pathfinder applicants, London, TSO.
14
Community at Heart (1999) Community at Heart: New Deal for Communities Bristol, Bristol.
23
2
The Delivery Plan sets out eight outcome areas, attended by ten year targets:
• Employment and business

• Sustainable health and well-being
• Tackling crime
• Raising educational achievement
• Housing
• Community Services
• Arts, sports and leisure
• Tackling racism.
• The Community at Heart Organisational structure; delivering

regeneration through community empowerment
The CAH delivery mechanism is based around a management board, consisting of 12 locally
elected residents, supported by 8 representatives of key agencies including; Bristol City
Council, Bristol Regeneration Partnership, Avon Health Authority, the police and the
Employment Service.
The Management Board is at the head of the resident-led structure of Community at Heart.
Three sub-committees support the main Management Board with oversight of Programme
Management, Project Appraisal and Best Practice (‘Vision and Values’).
Community at Heart (Bristol NDC) Organisational Structure

Resident-
based forums
Executive Main Management
Management Team Board
Project
Development
Best Practice Project Appraisal Program
Group Panel Management
Sub-theme
Groups
Best Practice Program

Finance
Management Development Outcome
Groups
Multi-agency
PROJECTS Groups
Resident-led element NDC staff-led element
24
2
Participation is tus central to the scheme on a number of different levels:

• Community leadership; a small number of individuals are closely involved in the
programme through board membership. These people commit significant amounts of time to
the project, and have collective responsibility for its success.
• Regular support for ‘outcome groups’ and specific projects; A larger number of
residents participate regularly via the outcome groups, which discuss priorities and projects
associated with different thematic areas. These participants make a major contribution to the
iterative development of the initiative. Others volunteer on specific projects, often giving
practical support, e.g. through youth work.
• Mass participation through surveys, events, consultation and voting; Regular
participants remain a minority of the population, although it is available to all. The views of the
majority are sought through a range of means. A number of large scale surveys have been
commissioned. These are supplemented through public meetings and events. People also have
the opportunity to vote for their local board members.
• Problems associated with the community-led approach

At the time of writing, the NDC in Bristol is in the fourth year of a ten year programme.
Participation has been sustained, although significant support and development is required.
There is a turnover of volunteers as people cease their involvement through ‘burn-out’, or any
number of personal reasons. There is thus always a need to keep attracting and supporting new
volunteers.
CAH is a major new presence within a small neighbourhood. The rapid development of a
central government funded body has led to certain difficulties. Establishing, from scratch, a
new organisation to deliver a complex range of projects is in itself a difficult task which has
not always gone smoothly. The fact that the community has high expectations of it and
demands transparency and accountability also has consequences. There have been accusations
that CAH is employing too many people from outside the neighbourhood, and that too much
money is going on organisational expenses, rather than on the residents themselves. Some
residents have felt that the organisation is not delivering enough visible successes to justify the
amount of funding it has.
25
2
3. PARTICIPATION IN THE HQE2R

NEIGHBOURHOODS
3.1 Introduction
This section offers a review of the process implemented by the HQE2R researchers to
complete the inventory and diagnosis phase of the project, with an emphasis on the nature and
extent of participation. Being influenced by both national and local contexts, the process varied
from country to country and from one city to another.
The shape of the process in each case study was determined by a multi-layered context with a
number of contributing factors:
• National laws and programmes
The existence at the national level of laws and/or programmes advocating participation in the
regeneration process is clearly a key driver in determining local action.
• Culture and tradition
Achieving effective participation is not as simple as passing laws or funding programmes.
Implementation is strongly dependent upon the culture of national and local governance.
• Local government practice in planning and regeneration
Implementation will also be strongly influenced by local practice in planning and regeneration;
the range of actors involved and whether the process enables public participation.
• The specific regeneration context of the case study
In addition to these levels of context, the scope of the HQE2R teams to act was determined by
the specifics of each case study. The nature of the regeneration project being studied might
make public participation in the inventory and diagnosis difficult (e.g. in the case of Vlissingen
where the regeneration site was a derelict shipyard). Factors influencing participation in
HQE2R included:
- whether local associations were active and had been involved in the regeneration
process,
- whether the regeneration process was advanced or in its early stages,
- fears about raising local expectations that could not be met,
- resources,
- freedom of the HQE2R team to act within the constraints set by the local council.
3.2 The participation context for HQE2R partner countries

In Deliverable 15, the HQE2R partners compiled a summary of the legal, regulatory and
practice context for public participation in planning and regeneration in their respective
countries. We have not conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of these national
frameworks, but are able to offer some brief comments.
In general, community participation is a more established part of local governance in
Denmark, Germany and the UK. In these countries, it is more usual for communities to have
the opportunity to participate at an early stage in the regeneration process. This opens up the
possibility for the public to influence major decisions, rather than subsequent details. The UK
case study is working with the New Deal for Communities regeneration programme, which is
pioneering a radical approach to community- managed regeneration. This approach
26
2
theoretically allows community members to take all the major decisions in relation to the
regeneration of their neighbourhood. In Denmark, there is not a legal framework for this type
of community decision making, but it is considered good practice for community involvement
to be a key part of the regeneration process from the beginning.
By contrast in France and Spain, it is generally perceived that community involvement only
occurs after the main decisions about a regeneration project have been taken. In France a
number of recent laws are bringing participation closer to the centre of planning and
regeneration, although the mechanisms for implementing them are unclear and local councils
face a steep learning curve if they are to put them into practice.
In Italy, participation in public affairs (local politics, schools, roads, spending on public
housing) is largely mediated through representative democracy. Direct participation in these
matters is not the norm. This situation is perpetuated both through resistance from local
politicians and officers to opening up decision making processes, and through communities’
being unaccustomed and hesitant to engage. Active participation in Italy occurs mainly in
relation to specific housing blocks and their immediate neighbourhood, and is rooted in the
tradition of close-knit communities of extended families.
A key principle that has been articulated by all the HQE2R partners is that examples of
effective participation are dependent upon local circumstances. We might also assert that
the relationship between national laws and programmes, and the local implementation of
participation is a complex one. It is thus possible for participation to succeed in places where
it is not strongly supported by national legislation. Likewise, strong guidance from the national
government does not guarantee effective participation in cities and neighbourhoods. The key
factors in bringing about effective participation are a high level of social organisation
among the community, combined with openness and transparency on behalf of the
council or other regeneration agency.
3.3. Case studies from the HQE2R neighbourhoods

In each of the case studies, we briefly describe the current phase of the regeneration process,
and the participation activities that have contributed to it. We then describe how these activities
contributed to the HQE2R inventory and diagnosis, and participation activities initiated
specifically by the HQE2R research teams. Each case study ends with a short reflection on
participation in relation to the scale developed by the HQE2R team (section 1 of this report),
and suggests which other methods from the catalogue (section 3 of this report) might be
applied.
3.3.1 - Frederiksberg – Copenhagen - Denmark

• Participation in the regeneration programme
The overall regeneration program has been decided upon and a major part of the projects
included in the programme have been implemented. Some projects are still to be validated and
implemented.
Local residents and groups have been involved in the process. At the very beginning of the
process every household in the neighbourhood was invited to participate in the regeneration
process. Households have been informed regularly about the process and the projects by direct
mail. The process has been open for everyone to participate throughout, by means of public
meetings and working groups. The different groups have formulated the overall programme
and the designs of the individual projects in collaboration with council officers.
27
2
In the Danish urban renewal law participation is mentioned as an important part of the renewal
process - it is considered that a holistic urban renewal process is not possible without
participation.
• Participation in the inventory
Municipality officers and other agencies
The following departments contributed information to the inventory; Environment, building
and planning, housing and real estate, roads and parks, land register, industry, different
services in the directorates of cultural and social services.
The local energy company and Statistics Denmark also supplied information.
Local residents, or resident’s associations were not involved in the inventory.
• Participation in the diagnosis
Municipality officers
Officers from the housing and real estate, environment, roads and parks, the general office of
the directorates of cultural and social services contribute to the diagnosis.
They are represented in a steering committee for the implementation of the regeneration
process and they join the relevant working groups where the priorities are being decided upon.
Local politicians
The municipal council – that means all the local elected politicians, but in particular the
politicians in the committee on residences and real estate.
They validate and decide upon the overall programme for the regeneration process and larger
projects. There has been informal informational meetings with the committee on residences
and real estate, individual politicians have joined the public meetings.
Residents groups
In general local groups of any kind and individual residents have been involved in the priority
setting through public meetings and working group meetings. Approximately 100 persons have
involved during the process.
• Frederiksberg : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other
methods could be used in this context
In terms of the scale of participation, the initiative has achieved participation and a degree of
empowerment. The citizens do not formally have the competence to make final decisions, as
the local authority has to validate the programme and the projects. But that is merely the legal
formality – the recommendations from the working groups are usually followed by the council.
The next stage on the participation scale would be one of the more advanced forms of
cooperation, i.e. devolved power or self-management. This would require an appropriate
political and legal framework, which would probably need to be decided at the national level.
It cannot be assumed that residents would demand this higher level of participation and
responsibility.
3.3.2 - Quartier Viscose – Echirolles - France

• The regeneration process in the neighbourhood
The process is at the stage of project definition for the Cite Viscose and the whole Western
Sector of the city.
Residents association and youth groups as well as many individual residents have been
involved in the process. Consultation has taken place through a series of 5 thematic
workshops in order to gauge the expectations of the inhabitants : 1) leisure, sport,
culture, 2): economic development, 3) youth and school, 4) housing, 5) centrality. Each of
these workshops attracted 20 to 50 people, and each was held twice. Participation resulted in
28
2
proposals from the residents to improve the transport system, quality of life, the school system,
housing and the quality of services and facilities.
Officers from the Urbanism, Housing, Transport, Environment, Works, green spaces, social
services of the city contributed to the inventory through interviews. The research team also
analysed relevant studies and projects.
Local politicians
The inventory was presented to local politicians.
Residents groups and individual residents
The residents association, young peoples association, remote inhabitants and representatives
of different parts of the neighbourhood were involved. Workshops were held, attracting around
150 people. These enabled the exchange of information and led to empowerment for local
management of the neighbourhood (cleaness, dogs, waste, open spaces with a bad
maintenance, parking, safety. Small group meetings were held in local centres on a range of
themes.
Others
Social housing owners, local businesses (small and large shops), teachers, social workers, were
involved in thematic workshops. Also numerous services from the Conurbation, the
employment association (ANPE) and social associations (CCAS, PLIE). That was linked to the
Local Agenda 21 which is at its first beginning.

The research team carried out the diagnosis of priorities for the social policy officers for the
city and the conurbation, in partnership with the city’s urbanism councillor, the mayor of the
city and the president of the conurbation. The social housing owner and central government
representatives met with the partners to discuss the diagnosis. Residents groups and local
people were not included in this part of the process. That will be done further because the
neighbourhood diagnosis for SD must be linked to the Local Angenda 21 of the whole city and
the Action plan for the neighbourhood has to be in coherence and within synergy with this
Local Agenda 21.
• Other problems or issues
There is a discontinuity between the participation of people in giving their opinions and the
participation of people to the final decision, which completely belongs to the elected people
from the municipality. There was good participation from residents interested in the future of
their city. A lot of work has been done by the municipal services for the Local Agenda 21 and
it is difficult to do everything together…
• Cite Viscose : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other
Participation in the Cite Viscose and the Western sector equates for the moment to
consultation. The results of the workshops contributed to the preparation of the neighbourhood
project by the local council. The city council decided to carry out a LA21 following a ‘charte
d’ecologie urbaine’ from 1995, in which residents and associations were involved.
The next level of participation for this neighbourhood would be to support resident
empowerment and develop partnership working, with the goal of giving citizens more access to
decision making.
29
2
3.3.3 - La Roseraie – Angers - France

At the stage of definition of the regeneration project.
Local residents and residents groups are involved through a range of interactions:
• Public meeting
• Permanent place to receive people and to give information in the neighbourhood (one
day a week)
• Register and mailings
• Commissions and meeting
• Personal appointments and meetings
• Presentation of the project by files and documents
• Video
• DVD
Influence of national and local policy on the process: LAW SRU, Law on local democracy
(December 2002). There was a local will to develop participation to overcome exclusion,
which is in part caused by a lack of involvement in civil society. The will of the mayor and the
municipal team was important in deciding to implement a Local Agenda 21.

The inventory was written by the research team with the help of a previous one done in a
traditonnal way and paid by the municipality for giving to the 3 teams selected through a call
for tender.
The results of the 3 teams or the 3 scenarios were then presented and discussed in a lot a public
meetings during summer 2002.
Responsible officer for Urban Renewal Policy. A definition study was carried out by three
teams (architect, urbanist) and the city was assisted by the research team to include the field of
the SD in the analysis. Studies were presented to the city authorities then to the different local
groups which held discussions about the different options and defined the main priorities for
the project (cf above).
Local politicians
The Housing director and the Mayor were involved in the inventory.
Residents groups & Individual residents
The local traders’ association and the residents association were involved. Many responses
were received to the register, and there was strong participation in a public meeting where the
three definition studies were presented. The residents “voted” for their project and given their
views on the best improvements to make. In total around 350 were involved in the process.
Others
Teachers, social workers, social housing owners.
Municipality officers and politicians
Representatives were involved from a wide range of services; urban renewal, social policy
services, education, housing, transport, youth, welfare and culture. The housing councillor also
contributed.
The first test of the INDI model (still as a prototype from La Calade and CSTB) was done upon
this neighbourhood... This test allowed to finalize the model and helped for the choice of the
indicators (before the discussion with all the research partners and the final European
consensus...).
Residents groups & individuals & others
The views of all those consulted during the inventory were taken into consideration.
30
2

A lot of work was required to achieve this level of participation, partly because the
neighbourhood is rather large, with 17,000 residents.
• La Roseraie : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other
Participation led to empowerment to reach a consensus among the population and among the
political class. This led to the decision to immediately implement some new facilities including
meeting centres and a launderette. Participation in this instance equates to empowerment.
The next stage on the participation scale might be to foster partnership working between
residents and the local council in the management of the new facilities that are being
developed.
3.3.4 - Mimont- Prado- Republique – Cannes - France

Definition, execution and approval of the housing renewal project are all currently under way.
Meetings have been held with the retail association and residents association. Individual
owner-occupiers who can benefit from subsidies to retrofit their housing or retail stores have
also been involved.
A permanent office has been opened in the neighbourhood to give information and advice to
people about the overall renewal project for the neighbourhood as well as their own housing
renovation project.
The result of participation to date has been to take more account of parking and traffic
problems. Participation to date equates to information.
Representatives of the urbanism, environment, energy, water and transport services were
involved in the inventory. They took part in meetings and provided information and reports (2
studies had been already paid by the municipal services: one to an architect about urban
furniture and the architectural quality of the buildings, and one for a traditional inventory).
Some meetings were held with “resources persons”. The environment and urbanism
councillors took part in meetings.
Residents groups and individuals
About 20 members of the local traders’ association are working in partnership with the council
to develop the local retail trade.
Individual residents were not involved in the inventory, except through a questionnaire
(elaborated by the research team) to fulfill when they came to the municipal office.
Others
Meetings were held and information exchanged with the social housing owner (who has very
few housings in the neighbourhood) and the energy company (which has a great space inside
the neighbourhood and which could sell this space to the municipality...).

The diagnosis was discussed in partnership with the city’s urbanism service, and the
environment and urbanism councillors.
• Comments
The neighbourhood has few resident’s associations, this would make participation exercises
harder to initiate.
31
2
• Mimont- Prado- Republique : reflection on the scale of participation, and

which other methods could be used in this context
The presence of a neighbourhood office represents good practice in the dissemination of
information. The fact that there are few local associations indicates a need for development
work in the neighbourhood, to identify and support the people who could act as local
representatives. The use of Participative and Generative Programming (PGP) could ensure that
local views are heard by decision makers throughout the regeneration process. The worging
groups already suggested by the research team might also contribute to the empowerment of
the local residents.
3.3.5 – Anzin
The regeneration process in the neighbourhood
The regeneration process of the city centre is linked to the new Master Plan for the whole city
and also to the Urban transport plan at the conurbation level with the implementatuon of a new
tram (TCSP). The conurbation is in charge of the management of the regeneration project and
not the city.
The regeneration projet is about an industrial (miner) brownfield in the city centre and the
stake is about the integration of this new area in the city center (buildings as well as residents
or inhabitants).
The research team met all themunicipal services and a lot of local (municipal as well as inside
the whole conurbation around Valenciennes) agencies.
Local politicians
The Mayor was an active member of the different municipal working meetings organised.
Residents groups
The residents were not involved in the inventory.
Retailed shops association
An inquiry was managed at the end of 2002 and the first beginning of 2003 in order to take
their wishes and views into account.

The diagnosis was completed in discussion with all these local actors. A public presentation
was held in May 2003. So until now, we had only information…
The area which is concerned has not yet any resident so it is rather difficult to imagine their
participation at this first stage but the residents of the city centre who are already there must be
informed of course but also listened...
A call for tender has been organised in March 2003 with the inventory and diagnosis done by
the research team and the research team was consulted for the choice of the project selected
(during Summer 2003). The briefing document was structured according to the 21 HQE2R
targets and to the main stakes of the diagnosis for SD and to the local SD objectives
selected by the Mayor of Anzin and the conurbation responsible for this project.
• Anzin city centre : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other
As in Angers, the real participation of inhabitants and users should be managed now with some
public meetings about the project for this new area. A public inquiry should be managed soon.
But the conurbation is in charge of this project so the municipality cannot do erething…
32
2
3.3.6 - Loebtau – Dresden - Germany

Regeneration is seen as a continuous process. The borders of the formal regeneration area have
been redefined recently. All the formal steps of the regeneration process need to be fulfilled
once again taking into account the new borders and the changes occurred since the formal
regeneration area was defined. Nevertheless the inventory for this new process might be seen
in part as a validation/approval of the former actions (especially renovation of a large share of
the buildings)
Within the formal regeneration process there was a public meeting where all the residents and
all other interested people were invited. There the private company which is in charge the
implementation of the regeneration process explained the idea of this process. There has been
intensive consultation between land owners and the company running the regeneration process.
It is difficult to tell the direct effects of participation; the priorities stated by the residents in
questionnaires correspond broadly with the priorities of the planning administration. The
establishment of a subsidised job for a person working for the initiative of local business
people in order to promote the area was due to the initiative of this group.
The administration and especially the private company which is in charge of the
implementation of the regeneration process does only the legal minimum, or to what it is
politically forced to by a strong initiative of the people.
A broad range of public services supplied information for the inventory; Town Planning
department and municipal statistical office of the City of Dresden, regional school department,
local water supply company, environmental department (Dresden), department for
environment and geology of the state of Saxonia, Ministry for environment and agriculture of
Saxonia, police department (Saxonia), building inspection of Dresden-Cotta (borough of
Dresden which Loebtau belongs to), local refuse disposal service, department for monumental
protection (Dresden).
Local politicians
The chief of the local administration was interviewed.
Residents groups
Five interviews were held with representatives of local groups; the youth club, centre for
elderly people, local business association and local church. These groups are have all worked
with the local council in the policy areas relevant to their interests.
Individual residents
Five active members of the community were chosen, representing a cross section of the
neighbourhood’s population. Semi-structured interviews were held with these representatives
to gain qualitative data on life in the neighbourhood. The topics covered were based on the
HQE2R analytical grid and the 5 objectives for sustainable development.

The diagnosis was completed in discussion with the planning department of Dresden, taking
the views of local associations and residents into account.
The planning authority was cautious about carrying out participation that might raise
expectations of residents that could not be met. The HQE2R research team were asked not to
hold a neighbourhood workshop.
33
2
• Loebtau : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods

could be used in this context
The extent of participation follows the regulations valid in Saxonia for the execution of the
federal Building Code in special redevelopmet areas (“consultation” in the ladder of
participation). Further steps are also possible but not mandatory (in Berlin e.g. the mandatory
step equates to “consultation” in the ladder of participation but in practice it is mixed with
elements of “partnership”). In Dresden these further stages are thus only developed when the
people in the area strongly insist on a larger participation, as occurred in another part of
Dresden (Dresden-Neustadt). But in our investigation area Dresden-Loebtau there was no
strong initiative in this direction (which itself actually is an indication for a lack of community
and part of the problem of the neighbourhood). As in Cannes, the lack of local associations is a
sign that there is scope for developing local activity and supporting potential volunteers.
3.3.7 - Melegnano - Italy

Most of the action plans still require development. To date, there has been progress on
integration between rail and bus services. Some actions have been implemented in respect of
reducing noise pollution from road and rail traffic.
No residents have been involved to date. The municipality plans to involve local people in the
future.
The techniques to be used for participation are still under discussion, but the main options are:
- showing the project proposals in a public conference (April/May 2003)
- conducting a questionnaire survey with residents to help establish priorities (April
2003)
- opening a new web page on the municipality’s website where it will be possible
for local people to read news and submit their opinions abour HQE2R by E-mail
(April/May 2003).

The following municipality services contributed to the inventory; Registry Office, Town
Planning Office, Environment Council Office, Social Services, Housing service, Ecology and
Sport. With each of these there were exchanges in writing, and face to face interviews. The
following agencies were also consulted; ASL (Sanitary Enterprise), MEA (Melegnano Energy
and Environment), ARPA (Regional agency for Environment), Police, ALPSES Centre.
No local politicians or residents groups were involved in the inventory.
The HQE2R diagnosis was completed in discussion with officers and elected councillors from
the Town planning office and the Environment council office.
A local architect was consulted with regard to the energy plan.
• Melegnano : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other
There are cultural and political constraints on participation in Italy, and these contribute to the
fact that there is thus far no participation process in the neighbourhood. It was not seen as
appropriate for the HQE2R team to initiate participation. The municipality perceives the
following risks with respect to participation:
a) Raising expectations which cannot be met,
b) Disputes between the Municipality and residents.
The proposal to invite comments via the council’s website is an innovative one, which will
start to develop dialogue. In the local political culture, it will not be possible for residents to be
34
2
directly involved in decision making. If it wanted to improve participation however, the

council might develop dialogue through a method such as Planning for Real, or Scenario
Workshop. The limits of the consultation should be clearly defined, in order to avoid the
problem of raising false expectations.
3.3.8 - Cinisello Balsamo - Italy

The process has just started, the municipality is planning to present a programme to obtain
financial support from the Italian national regeneration programme. Residents have not yet
been involved, participation will only be initiated if the programme is awarded funding.
The HQE2R team carried out a process of consultation on current conditions in the
neighbourhood involving the following actors.
Municipality officers:
Technical officers, co-ordinator of the LA21 project (the LA21 project had only just started
when the inventory was carried out). Much of the quantitative data came from the planning,
environment, social welfare and registry offices. Technical officers were asked to provide
available data (HQE2R indicators + specific indicators according to the local situation) and
were asked to explain the situation in the neighbourhood according to each SD target of
HQE2R. Local politicians were not involved in the inventory phase.
Local residents groups:
1) Neighbourhood inhabitants group for “safety and security” issues,
2) Neighbourhood inhabitants group for “mobility” issues,
3) North-African women’s association of Cinisello.
The geographical scope of each of these groups is larger than the case stdy
neighbourhood.The North African women’s group represents the entire city of Cinisello.
Membership of the other two groups is limited to the administrative area of Cinisello Balsamo.
Structured interviews were held with a total of five representatives from these groups. Each of
these groups has previously worked in partnership with the local council, on social welfare,
community safety and social integration projects.
In addition to the community groups above, some 20 people were interviewed during a ‘walk
through’ the neighbourhood. A group of school children between the ages of 6-14 years were
also interviewed as part of a special project funded by the local council, ‘The sustainable city
of children’. Discussions were held with the local priest, who is seen as a key person in the
social life of the neighbourhood.

The technical officers and A21 co-ordinators who had contributed to the inventory reviewed
the results of the interviews and the indicator values. These were used as the basis of the
diagnosis. As in Mantova, there was some divergence between the officers’ views and those
presented by the inventory data. This resulted in the ‘unresolved questions’ in the diagnosis.
Local groups, individual residents and the local priest
The results of all the interviews with local people were fed into the process of the diagnosis,
which was carried out by the research team and the municipality officers.
35
2
• Cinisello Balsamo: Reflection on the scale of participation, and which

other methods could be used in this context
It was very difficult to obtain information on existing resident’s groups and representative of
these groups. Working in partnership and exchanging knowledge and information proved to be
a challenge for the council officers, as they are not accustomed to working in this way. This
shows the need for institutional development within the council, which is necessary before
more participatory approaches can be implemented. The council may thus feel more
comfortable with structured consulatation techniques such as the Citizen Hearing, the Planning
Cell or Planning for Real. These techniques offer the opportunity for good quality consultation
and would start to develop dialogue, without transferring decision making power to residents.
The council should always be clear about the limits of what is up for discussion, and
demonstrate that it has taken account of the citizens’ views.
3.3.9 - San Leonardo, Porta Mulina – Mantova - Italy

The process is in its early stages, with the local council planning to develop initiatives to
promote sustainable regeneration across the whole city of Mantua, based around a city-wide
LA21 project. HQE2R is the only additional project being implemented in the San Leonardo
Porta Mulina neighbourhood (i.e. there is no regeneration project here beyond that which is
being applied to the city as a whole).
Officers from the Technical services of the municipality contributed to the inventory. The
LA21 project co-ordinator and co-ordinators of the LA21 topic groups were involved in
defining the indicators. Qualitative information on users needs and wishes was provided by
officers responsible for; social welfare, education and culture, registry office and the municipal
police. Much of the quantitative data came from the planning, environment and registry
offices. The task was greatly assisted in Mantova because there was a single contact person
who co-ordinated data collection and sent formal requests to external agencies.
These partners responded to a structured interview. The results of the interviews were
presented within a grid and checked by the municipality officers and the local priest. These
results formed the basis of the diagnosis. A meeting was held for officers who might be
interested in the inventory and who could suggest data collection methods.
Elected politicians
The Councillor responsible for environment proposed some specific indicators during a
meeting with all the partners involved and reviewed the final list of indicators of the inventory.
Local residents groups
Six representatives of the city-wide LA21 topic groups (“environment preservation”, “traffic
and mobility”, “resources management”) were interviewed and proposed locally-specific
indicators.
Around 20 people were interviewed during a walk through the neighbourhood.
Others
The local priest was interviewed, and reviewed the results of the other interviews.

The same officers were involved as for the inventory. The technical officers reviewed the
results of the interviews and the values of the indicators in order to reach their diagnosis. Some
36
2
of these factors differed from the vision of the technical officers, and the ‘unresolved
questions’ in the diagnosis reflect this divergence of opinion.
Politicians
Councillor responsible for environment.
The councillor has reviewed the shared diagnosis and highlighted some “unresolved
questions” which have been approved by all the partnesr involved in the diagnosis.
Local residents groups, individuals and residents.
The same groups as for the inventory. The representatives of the LA21 topic groups
highlighted their expectation for the neighbourhood according to the 21 HQE2R target
(responding to structured interviews) and participated in the final decision about local priority
(taken during a meeting). The same applies for the individual residents and the priest.

There were no difficulties in gaining participation in San Leonardo, the process was aided
because the research team was able to make use of the ongoing LA21 process. The only
constraint was that most of the local residents groups were on the scale of the municipality,
being involved in LA21 at that scale.
• Mantova : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other
Participation, and a degree of partnership working, has been initiated through the LA21
process. This will be a good foundation for developing dialogue through consultation
techniques.
3.3.10 - Bon Pastor – Barcelona - Spain

• Participation in the regeneration programme
The council’s plans have been shown to the residents, the project has been approved and work
will start soon. The Neighbourhood Association and the Social Centre have been involved.
Meetings have been held between council officers and members of the Neighbourhood
Association to discuss the plans and the future of the neighbourhood.
These meetings are important, but residents are informed and interested to varying degrees and
this can be a barrier to widespread participation.
Information was gathered from the following agencies; Urbaser is the municipal enterprise of
waste and cleansing services in Barcelona North, who gave some data about waste collected.
Parcs i Jardins works on parks and gardens maintenance; they explained their future work in
the parks of the borough. Idescat and Centre de Documentació Estadística are two
administration departments that collect data of very different nature; information (demography,
equipment, housing…) was extracted from its web pages. Staff from the Social Services Centre
were also interviewed.
Residents
Residents from the Neighbourhood Association, the Bon Pastor Social Centre and the Youth
Service were interviewed for the inventory.

The local housing office.
37
2
• Bon Pastor : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other

The level of participation reached in this programme is consultation. The legal requirement is
for one period of consultation when the plan is being developed, and one after the plan has
been approved. Both of these are rather short, and some residents are not able to take
advantage of them because of a lack of information. Participation could thus be improved by
extending the consultation period beyond the statutory minimum, and by providing better
quality information to the residents. Plan development could be opened up to residents through
participation methods such as the Future Workshop or Scenario Workshop.
3.3.11 - Manresa - Spain

• Participation in the regeneration process
The Manresa’s old town regeneration case started before 2001 through the PAM –
Municipal Action Plan-. In 2001, the PIRNA was approved –old town’ s rehabilitation integral
plan-, which starts from a diagnosis, it proposes to obtain a model and to arrive to a strategy –
it has got a similar scheme than the HQE2R- during a 10 years period. The PIRNA includes
programmes for following, evaluation and participation.
From the town council and the FORUM –municipal society which entrusts of the old town
regeneration – have been elaborated the different plans, proposals and projects as a result of an
open citizen meeting between all the implicated social agents: neighbours, traders, technicians,
owners, surveys enterprises, people who works in the old town, entities and associations
linked to the territory and citizens whom show interest for the future of Manresa.
One part of the inventory information has been extracted for the research team, directly of the
previous inventories before elaborated and inside PIRNA, by technicians and FORUM agents.
The missing data of this previous inventory have been research by the project team by means
of fieldwork inside the neighbourhood -interviews with the town council responsible, the
FORUM responsible, architects, town planners, citizens…
By means of PIRNA, has been obtained a diagnosis elaborated after one participation process
with neighbours meetings, enquires, posters explaining the proposals, the implicated agents
surgeries… The research team has compiled these work done, making their own diagnosis –
having as a base the PIRNA diagnosis and the 21 Agenda references- and contrasting with the
municipal responsible and the FORUM technicians. Previously the research team had been
present in some neighbourhood meeting.
• Manresa: reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods
The process followed in Manresa through the PIRNA includes a transversal programme of
participation and of neighbourhood regeneration plan following. Inside this programme are
included community invigoration plans, understanding that the community is formed by the
population, entities and associations, local and autonomic administration and the disposed
recourses. These invigoration plans research the establishment of links between the implicated
agents in all the project phases and in the neighbourhood functioning following regeneration.
The approach in Manresa includes consultation, and the involvement of residents in an iterative
process of project development, which is a form of partnership working. Given that there
appears to be a good level of dialogue between residents and the town council, it would be
appropriate to use participatory consultation techniques such as planning for real, and to
explore how partnership working could be developed with local associations.
38
2
3.3.12 - Raval, Ciutat Vella - Barcelona

The operations are approved, and most are being implemented. The local groups, such as ‘The
Resident Associations’, are involved in the definition of some projects, but only after the first
ideas and concepts have been approved by the municipality. The municipality decide if the
opinions of those groups are integrated to its projects or not. Sometimes the pressure exerted
by these groups can force the municipality to change its plans. The groups took part in
meetings and were consulted on designs.
Other groups are informed and can give their opinions and recommendations.
In general, individuals only participate when they want to solve a problem that affects them
directly. Most of the time they do not have an overall view of the functions and the needs of
the neighbourhood beyond their personal needs and problems. The individual residents only
receive information in respect of neighbourhood renewal. They can participate in the local
processes of Agenda 21 giving their opinions by answering some inquiries about needs and
problems.
Participation sometimes has an impact on decision making, but the ‘great’ decisions are always
decided by the municipality. Not by politicians, but by the professionals (architects,
economists, …) working there. On the other hand, sometimes the protest of citizens can avoid
some projects and many times the projects are lightly adapted according to citizens’
requirements. The problem is that many times those groups of residents (in our neighbourhood
some of them only represent a part of the neighbourhood, concrete streets, etc…) have a partial
‘’view’ of the problems, and defend their discreet problems.
For the individual citizen: information (projects) or consultation (plans).
For the groups, consultation. Mechanisms for plan development are prescribed by law, but
participation is dependent on the social life of each neighbourhood.
The impact of local policy is important. It depends on every neighbourhood that the residents
can influence more or less in the decision processes. In the ancient or historical
neighbourhoods where the social cohesion is ‘higher’ and the feeling of belonging to that
territory is stronger, the residents are more motivated to supervise the operations.
Officers of the social services, architecture and urbanism services, statistical services and
environmental services contributed. The officers were interviewed and helped to collect public
information. The local councillors for the environment and social affairs were also involved.
Residents groups and individuals
Resident associations, commercial associations and social groups all contributed. These were
local groups belonging to the neighbourhood. A total of 6 members were interviewed. These
have constant relationships with the municipality. The municipality has a specific adviser in
charge of dealing with all the social and resident groups.
50 individuals were interviewed.
Others
Architects, urbanists and planners were interviewed.

Municipal planners, architects and social advisers contributed to the diagnosis through
interviews and written documents. The local councillors for the environment and social affairs
were also involved.
39
2
Residents groups
Two members of the local groups were involved in deciding priorities for the inventory.
• Comments
There are a lot of local resident’s groups representing different parts of the neighbourhood. As
it is a central neighbourhood with a lot of commercial activity, there are many commercial
associations, representing almost every commercial street. Sometimes they have more
influence on the municipality than the resident groups.
• Raval : reflection on the scale of participation, and which other methods

Participation of residents early in the process is the only way for them to influence major
decisions, as opposed to minor details. This will only happen if the local council is more open
in its procedures. It should be possible to avoid problems such as raising expectations, or
risking conflict, by using a structured consultation method.
3.3.13- Community at Heart, Barton Hill - Bristol - United Kingdom

• Participation in the regeneration process
The case study is of a ten year regeneration process, during which new projects are continually
being initiated and implemented. The scheme is part of the UK government ‘New Deal for
Communities’, which requires the establishment of a management board led by residents of the
neighbourhood. In addition to community participation at this executive level, there is a great
deal of effort to involve local people in all aspects of decision making, implementation and
monitoring of projects. The aim is thus to empower local people to manage the regeneration
process.
Significant progress has been made towards achieving this, but the process is not without its
problems. Community at Heart has established a large new organisation within a small
neighbourhood, with approximately 50 members of staff, many from outside the
neighbourhood. It is inevitably unable to satisfy all the residents expectations in the short term,
and thus becomes a target for peoples’ dissatisfaction. There are also problems inherent in
setting up new structures and systems, which must be inclusive and transparent, in a short time
scale. At present, many residents of the Barton Hill neighbourhood do not feel that Community
at Heart is acting on their wishes, despite the fact that there are local residents at the centre of
the organisation.
Much of the secondary data used for the inventory was collated from surveys of local people
and businesses carried out by Community at Heart, and from quality of life indicators collected
by the city council. This was completed by the research team following meetings with the
Community at Heart manager with responsibility for sustainability and evaluation.
Residents groups and individual residents
The main piece of work for the inventory was a consultation with local people carried out by
the research team, in partnership with one of the locally elected members of the Community at
Heart management board. The consultation used open ended, participatory techniques.
Researchers attended meetings of a number of local groups, including schools, church groups,
elderly people’s groups and youth groups. There were also a series of sessions held outside the
local shops, where individuals could come and talk to the researchers if they chose to. A total
of 85 people contributed to the consultation process.
40
2

The diagnosis is an ongoing process that will continue through consultation events that
Community at Heart is holding in the early months of 2003. At these events, the findings of the
inventory will be presented to local people, and they will be invited to comment on them and
also suggest ideas for how to measure sustainability in the neighbourhood. The culture of the
organisation meant that it was inappropriate for the research team to work only with managers
or professionals to decide upon sustainability priorities for the neighbourhood. The team has
presented initial findings to Community at Heart managers, but it is seen as a necessity to go
back to the community to finalise the diagnosis.
• Comments
Working with a new organisation such as Community at Heart presents opportunities, but also
challenges, as it is not always easy to identify the most appropriate people to get involved in
this type of work. However, the organisation is extremely supportive of the principle not only
of participation, but of community leadership in decision making.
• Community at Heart : reflection on the scale of participation, and which
other methods could be used in this context
Residents have been empowered to take on a degree of self-management. However, this level
of responsibility is accepted only by a small minority, and there is still much work to do in
gaining the support and participation of the majority. Community at Heart is working in a
policy context where a high degree of participation and empowerment is expected. The will is
there, but gaining widespread participation is not easy and always requires development work
and support. Improving participation in the neighbourhood depends on good and transparent
management of the regeneration process, as well as good support systems for volunteers and
ongoing community development.
3.3.14 -Vlissingen - RSG area

In the beginning of January 2003 at least the owner of the Shipyard and the municipality
reached a principal agreement (with one dissolving condition: the necessary financial
contribution of the national government).
The negotiations lasted several years and were indeed expected to be concluded in 1999/2000!
All sorts of actions have already been started; one of them being the
communication/participation process.
First ideas are to follow the “Leidsche Rijn” communication idea (ref. deliverable 15), hereby
repeated as follows:
• “ The Leidsche Rijn Approach

The Plan of Communication Steps, designed for the largest new built area in the Netherlands
(Leidsche Rijn: 30.000 dwellings, 700.000 m2 office space and planned inhabitants per
2010/2015: 100.000) gives a good overview and is representative for local approaches.
41
2
This plan has been organised as follows:
Steering group
Project group
Working group Communication
Administration Private Municipal Regional
Inhabitants and
Media
The plan comprises the following:

Introduction
Communication strategy
Communication objective and inventory of actors
Communication means
Communication channels
Costs
Preconditions and “rules of the game”
Communication per target group
Relation to the Masterplan and the ground policy
Communication per step
Communication tasks and responsibilities
Workgroup communication
The communication phases (steps) are:

0. First draft of the communication plan.
This plan will be drafted by the steering group and discussed in the municipal
administrative and political organisation.
1. Programmes scenarios with routing
2. The spatial plan concept
3. Financial feasibility
4. The concept-Masterplan
The steering group decides to publish the plans for presentation and comments.
Presentation to the political organs (Raadscommissies, College van B & W and
Gemeenteraden).
42
2
A large number of presentations to

- Official services
- Public utilities
- Actors on the market
- Inhabitants and interest groups
- Etc.
The plan will be exhibited and the reports may be seen and distributed.
Reactions, comments and recommendations are being collected and provided with
recommendation for plan adaptation.
The steering group decides on the recommendations.
5. The procedure for the definite Masterplan (steering group and policy organs)
The tasks and responsibilities are:
Members of the steering group: responsible for the communication between project
organisation and the political organs and the media
The project manager has the end responsibility for the communication between the project
organisation and: The steering group
All actors involved excluding administrative (policy) bodies
Media (in close consultation with the steering group)
Contact officials are responsible for the communication between the project organisation and
the official services and platforms. They always have to report to the project manager.
The contact officials are grouped in the working group “Communication”. Chairman is the
project manager. An information officer/spokesman is member of the working group.
Tasks of the working group:
Tuning of the different communication expressions
Supervising the different communication expressions (to fit into the strategy of the project
organisation)
All publications have to pass the working group
“Antenna” function for all (external) information related to the project
Supervising all communication for and by the project organisation. Information of
insufficient quality will be observed and corrected in close consultation with the
persons/bodies concerned.
After the Masterplan has been concluded the working group “Communication” will (amongst
others) initiate the following actions:
Development of procedures and quality requirements for communication-expressions (with
supervising task)
Drafting of a communication planning
Drafting of an information plan in which the format of decision documents and assignment
of duties are being elaborated.
”
That means that on the HQE2R participation scale the starting point for the discussions of the
initiators (mainly the municipality) can be pointed out as follows:
Coercion
Information
Awareness
Consultation
Present intention
Empowerment effort Ambit
Self-government
43
2
3.4 Summary and discussion

The case studies demonstrate a variety of experience. This is summarised in the tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 shows the context for each case study, i.e. the participation ongoing as part of the
regeneration process in the neighbourhood. Table 2 summarises the activities undertaken
specifically for the HQE2R inventory and diagnosis.
44
2
Table 1: Participation of Residents in the Regeneration Process

Neighbourhoods Publicity, leaflets, Public meetings Working groups Responsibility Comments: timing + impact of participation
surveys, other for decisions +
resources
Frederiksbersg, Direct mailings to Yes Yes The council generally follows the residents’ ideas.
Copenhagen every household Participation occurs throughout the process.
Cite Viscose Local newspapers 5 themed work- Yes Up to the Consultation contributed to the preparation of the
Echirolles linked to the Local shops, held twice municipality and to neighbourhood project by the council.
Agenda 21 the social owner
only
La Roseraie Mailings, neigh’hood Yes Local political will led to a process through which
Angers centre, DVD, video consensus was reached with residents.
Mimont, Prado Neighbourhood centre Yes Meetings with retail and residents’ associations.
Cannes Exchange of information.
Anzin Yes Up to the Information about the new Master Plan linked to the
conurbation regeneration project
Loebtau Survey of residents Yes No No Participation equates to the legal minimum in special
Dresden views regeneration areas. Lack of local social capital is a
barrier.
Melegnano No participation to date. Proposals will be shown to
residents in April/May 2003.
Cinisello Participation will only take place if the proposals gain
Balsamo funding from the government.
San Leonardo, LA 21 groups for the The neighbourhood does not have a specific
Mantova whole city. regeneration project.
Schelde Yard, As there are no residents, consultation is planned with
Vlissingen the whole town of Vlissingen.
Raval, Meetings with Account is taken of consultation, but the main
Barcelona residents groups decisions are usually taken by professionals.
Bon Pastor, Meetings with
Barcelona associations
Old Town, Yes
Manresa
Barton Hill, N’hood centre, Yes Yes Yes, locally elected A partnership of residents and agencies manage the
Bristol surveys, newspaper Board process. Broad participation is sought.
45
2
Table 2: Participation in the HQE2R Inventory and Diagnosis Process

Residents: input Residents: Local politicians Municipality Officers Others
Neighbourhoods from previous consultation
2
consultations initiated by HQE R
team
Frederiksbersg, Yes No No Environment, building, planning,
Copenhagen housing, roads & parks, cultural,
social, industry departments
Cite Viscose Yes No Mayor, urbanism Environment, Urbanism, Housing, Social housing owner,
Echirolles councillor Transport, social services conurbation services
La Roseraie Yes No Mayor, housing director Urbanism, social, education, Teachers, social housing
Angers housing, transport, youth, etc. owners
Mimont, Prado Yes Few but through their Environment and Urbanism, environment, energy, Social housing owners,
Cannes associations urbanism councillors water, transport energy company, National
government
Anzin No No At the conurbation level The Mayor and the Urbanism
and the mayor service from the conurbation
Loebtau Yes Yes, interviews with 5 Interview with chief of Planning, statistics, environment Schools, water company,
Dresden local people local administration buildings, refuse, monuments Saxony geology dept.
Melegnano No No Planning and Registry, planning, environment, Refuse & energy co.s,
Environment cllrs social, housing, ecology, sport regional env. agency
Cinisello Balsamo No Yes, local groups + Technical, LA21, planning, Local priest
individ’l interviews environment, social
San Leonardo, No Yes, LA21 reps + Environment councillor LA21, technical services, social, Police, local priest
Mantova individ’l interviews education, culture, registry
Schelde Yard,
Vlissingen
Raval, Ciutat Vella, ? Yes, 6 group reps, 50 Environment and social Social services, architecture,
Barcelona individuals affairs cllrs statistics, environment
Bon Pastor, Yes Yes, meetings with Housing
Barcelona local associations
Old Town, Manresa Yes Catalan Government, Manresa
Urban rehab. Company
Barton Hill, Bristol Yes Yes, consultation with Neighbourhood Board Quality of Life indicators team National evaluation of NDC
80 people member programme
46
2
4. APPROACHES TO PARTICIPATION
The first section of this chapter introduces three sociological standpoints, which form the basis of
many approaches to participation. The second part of the chapter presents a catalogue of
participation methods. Again, we stress the point that many of these methods cannot deliver a
participatory approach in isolation, but must be part of a wider strategy. Furthermore, some
methods may be unsuited to certain national or local contexts, so we cannot advocate all as
universal ‘best practice’. To clarify their scope and application, each method is presented in the
following format:
- Purpose
- Description
- Conclusion
- Participation scale
- Process phase
This catalogue gives only some examples of the range of approaches available, it is
supplemented at the end by a list of references for further reading.
4.1. Sociological perspectives on participation methods

The expectations and problems of residents are often analysed by sociological studies and
surveys, using methods which can be ascribed to several schools of thought, although
sociologists often use a mixture of these different schools.
- The sociotechnical school, represented in particular by Crozier's analyses, for which the
sociologist carries out an appraisal external to the players, leading to proposals which can
subsequently be discussed with the players, who were involved in their elaboration.
- The interactionist school, which helps players to express their difficulties and
expectations, testing their representations and trying to make them propose changes
themselves. The sociologist participates quite broadly in expounding and constantly
reformulating the proposed changes. The main objective of this school of thought is to help
players to understand and express their difficulties, thus enabling contracting authorities to
take these into account.
- The institutional analysis school analyses the role of organizations in the structuring of
social and emotional relationships. These analyses make it possible to reveal conflicts as
well as the roles of the various players.
M. Bonetti of the CSTB15 feels that the last two schools of thought are insufficient in
themselves, and that they should be seen as complementary16. The interactionist school does not
allow modes of organization and working methods to be modified, and does not build projects
which modify decision-making processes. Although institutional analysis makes it possible to
modify the rules, as it involves the analysis of modes of regulation, it does not make it possible,
in return, to modify the behaviour patterns upon which the success of many urban projects is
based.
Unlike the other two methods, the sociotechnical method can trigger more global studies which
may perhaps promote thinking about sustainable development, which is to a certain extent an
15
Michel Bonetti, "Recherche et intervention sociologique sur la requalification des grands ensembles, la
programmation générative", paper presented to the international conference on current research, CIRFIP,
Paris, 8-9 March 2001
16
see also a very famous author Scharpf: actor-centred institutionalism
47
2
ideological position (sustainable urban development is opposed, for example, to very liberal
schools of thought). This method promotes the introduction, prior to any discussion, of
objectives and targets which may appear trivial to residents although they are important in terms
of the principles of sustainable development. Sociotechnical thought must find a compromise
between an interventionist (planning-based) vision and the demands and expectations of local
players.
In the final analysis, these three schools of thought are complementary, giving rise to different
ways to take residents and users into account in renewal processes and urban projects.
4.2. Methods to guide the whole participation process
4.2.1 - Future Workshop

Purpose
The future workshop is suitable when new initiatives are being started and when running projects
has been stuck. So it can be used in both the identified phases of an improvement project.
The future workshop is a creative method of work which opens up for the possibilities that every
group can participate on equal terms. Depending on the number of participants in the future
workshop there is an interaction between small groups and large assemblies concerning the
implementation.
Description
In order to succeed with the future workshop it is important that the theme for the workshop is
clearly worded so that everybody exactly knows what to discuss in each group. The process
itself is managed by a foreman and a notetaker. All suggestions proposed during the sessions are
written on large posters which are mounted on a wall.
In the future workshop the inhabitants try to create a better future for their living area. For this
purpose three phases are to pass through: firstly the participants are requested to express criticism
in respect of their neighbourhood. As a next step they shall find images showing how it would
look the best. Finally these two phases are to combine in order to what in reality can be done to
eliminate the critical points and to change them for good. This working process should allow a
private co-operation and creativity. Supporting the process there should be available uninvolved
people as mediation between the participants. Finishing it is recommended to give a report on the
solutions and to introduce them to the other inhabitants and to the authorities responsible for
spatial planning.
As an example the successful project of the adult education centre (Volkshochschule) in Freising
can be instanced. There the participants were invited to produce ideas under the topic „ Freising –
A Town with Future?”.
The future workshop holds the following phases:
Criticism: Here only verbal criticism is allowed. Of course the criticism has to fall within the
frames of the future workshops’ theme. No criticism is too comprehensive no criticism is too
small. All constructive suggestions and ideas are forbidden in this phase. The objective of the
phase is to identify the problems and all problems are equally important.
Utopia phase: Here the idea is to be constructive and to look ahead. Only positive contributions
are allowed and thoughts as to whether the suggestions are actually practicable are not allowed.
Thus sceptical objections are not allowed. The purpose of this phase is to collect all possible
suggestions for improvements and changes and to set loose creativity. Nothing is too simple and
nothing is too wild or unrealistic.
48
2
Realisation phase: Here the aim is to give priority to criticism and utopia. Where are the actual
problems and what is the realistic thing to do? In this phase it is important to set up task groups
obliged to continue working with the decisions. Further it is a good idea to follow up upon these
groups’ work.
The future workshop is a democratic work model aiming to stimulate the participants’ creative
resources. This can help strengthening the co-operation and network in the local community. The
participants become aware of new possibilities and relations and in this way it helps
strengthening the debate and reflections of a group.
Conclusion
This is an interesting method which has inherent exciting perspectives and which can help to
identify problems as well as visions. There is no preparation work nor does it require any
qualifications in order to participate.
Participation scale: Consultation
Process phases: Analyses, decision, implementation, monitoring
4.2.2 - Scenario workshop

Purpose
The method is very similar to the future workshop but different in the way that it uses different
scenarios to inspire, qualify and provoke the participants. The method is good to create a
constructive dialog between participants with different backgrounds – for example between
citizens, public servants and politicians.
The scenario workshop can be used for starting initiatives as well as for getting on with
initiatives.
Description
The scenario workshop is a development of the future workshop and it contains the same phases
but differ in the following points:
• Future scenarios are used which further the discussion and assure a common starting point.
• There can be an interchange between role groups and theme groups. (The role groups take
their starting point in the participants’ background, the theme groups work crosswise with
starting point in topics).
• Preparation is required. In advance the organisers have worked out a number of scenarios and
it is assumed that the participants have read and understood the material before the workshop
starts.
The phases which are examined have the same main title as the future workshop, however, the
contents are more focused.
Criticism phase: Here the participants criticise and relate to the future scenario they have been
introduced to.
Utopia phase: Here positive solution scenarios are being developed.
Realisation phase: Here the work is about the concretisation of some of the visions to something
practical.
The scenario workshop ought to, as opposite to the future workshop, be based on key persons in
connection to the current debate. Two work foremen and one notetaker are required in each
group.
49
2
This method requires extensive preparation from both the organisers and the participants.
Conclusion
An existing method which can be used in order to create a dialog between citizens, politicians
and administration. Maybe especially for participants thatare already engaged in the environ-
mental debate and are expected to be able to relate constructively to the drawn up scenarios.
Process phases: Analyses, decision, implementation, monitoring
4.2.3 - Planning Cell (Planungszelle):

Purpose
This technique, developed by the sociologist Peter C. Dienel, is targeted to make the citizens deal
with problems of planning in order to create their living space as they imagine it is worth living.
Description
About 25 citizens for every planning cell are chosen by a systemetic random sampling in the age
of 18 to 68. Afterwards the people are informed about the contents of the task and are asked to
participate. In the case of agreement they get a contract of employment and a financial allowance
to ensure their full engagement. This guarantees that the chance to take part is open to almost
everyone – also to those who are in other respects not available because they have no time or are
not interested in participation processes - and in this way the planning cell represents the
population of the examined area.
The treatment of the task in form of making suggestions, clues and valuations is done in smaller
groups of about 5 persons and in co-operation with experts, who inform about the basement of
the planning process, but do not influence. The working process is structured in different parts of
the task with exactly defining how long every unit can last / takes time. In the end the
participants represent the solutions in a “citizen’s expert report” that the administration gets at
their disposal.
The technique came to successful appliance in several planning processes e.g. in Cologne to
work with the problem of drawing a new concept of usage of the district around the city hall
Guerzenich and the reorganisation of the Hanover public transport system.
Conclusion
This is a valuable method for gaining detailed citizen input to specific planning proposals. It
contrasts with many participation methods in drawing in people who may not usually be
motivated to participate. It also establishes the principle of paying citizens for their participation,
an idea which is growing in popularity as the demands on volunteers increase.
Participation scale
The planning cell is primarily a sophisticated form of consultation. The close work between
citizens and planning experts however might be described as a form of partnership. Involvement
is likely to be a valuable learning process for the participants, contributing to the skills and
knowledge of their community.
Process phase: project development.
50
2
4.2.4 - Planning for Real

Purpose
The technique of planning for real allows independently from the educational level of the
participants to find out the needs of the citizens, because it contains playing elements. It was
invented by Tony Gibson and originally meant to activate the pupils’ attention and to participate
at school. But it is also capable for the designing of living areas in co-operation with the
inhabitants.
Description
In planning processes the starting point can be a three-dimensional model of a whole living area
or just a street where there are problems to remove or where there is something new to plan. With
the help of cards the participants make aware of possible modifications. Everybody disposes of
cards which they can place on the model – and in the end it can not be reconstructed who added
which card on what place so that anonymity is assured. At the same time it enables all
participants to put forward their ideas instead of only allowing dominant persons to form the
result. Participants can be the inhabitants together with professional planners and members of the
local administration. The opinions are exchanged on an equal level. The cards can picture
buildings or can be lettered with words like “conserve“, “reconstruct“ and “knock down“. After
having placed the cards the ideas will be discussed and the cards can be removed if necessary.
Conclusion
This way of creating environment appears to the people as interesting because the handling of the
problem is visualised and close to everyday-problems and that‘s why it is also practical for
people not used to behave within formal structures – e.g. for children.
Participation scale
Planning for Real is a creative and participatory consultation technique. If the process includes
residents working together with officials and politicians, it may help to develop dialogue and
partnership working.
Process phase
Planning for Real could be used at the analysis (diagnosis) phase, or during project development.
4.2.5 - Campaign “Village Idea“

Purpose
‘Village Idea’ is meant to activate residents to participate in the developing of their living area.
Description
After enabling the inhabitants of the village (or alternatively of a neighbourhood in a town) to
meet and get to know each other, they can found working groups, in which they should analyse
the situation of their living space. Therefore the advantages and disadvantages seen by the people
need to be to taken into consideration which in order to find out the special image of the village.
Using this the inhabitants in the working groups should elaborate a concept to enhance the
circumstances and to create a new vision of their village. The results need to be published. This
allows their public discussion. A round tour through the village should be arranged. Finally an
improved concept can be developed which is helpful for further formal plans of the planning
authority.
51
2
Conclusion, participation scale

‘Village Idea’ combines a participatory consultation method with community capacity building.
Process phase
This method is relevant to the analysis (diagnosis) phase of local issues and priorities. The
interest and capacity generated through establishing working groups should be continued and
developed into the subsequent phases of project development.
4.2.6 - Advocate Planning

Purpose
This is a technique of participation invented by Paul Davidoff to support social disadvantaged
groups of inhabitants in planning processes.
Description
The advocate is meant as an independent authority supporting the people and helping to
understand and cope with planning processes and the problems within this process. Following
this they try to put forward their attitudes in the planning process by working out suggestions
together with the disadvantaged people how to improve their situation. In a slightly varied way
this technique has been applied in Germany for about 30 years. A good example is the usage in
Hanover in the preparing time for the exhibition EXPO 2000.
Conclusion
This methodology of participation is based on the idea that planning processes are never neutral,
which is why it is important to put the focus also on the groups not being able to represent their
interests themselves. But nevertheless these people should not be dictated but activated.
Participation scale
Advocate planning is tool for a consultation and empowerment.
Process phase
The advocate planner should represent their group throughout the project process.
4.2.7 - Participatory Learning and Action

Purpose
PLA, Participatory Learning and Action, is an approach that has been used extensively for
capacity building and consultation in developing countries (Pretty et al, 199517) in contrast to
traditional ‘top down’ approaches. It has evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), which
was employed by development workers from the 1970s onwards to give timely, on-the-ground
information to assist in the deployment of development funding. ‘PLA’ was a term coined in the
mid ‘90s to emphasise that beneficiaries should be involved not only in assessing problems but
in acting on their solutions.
17
Pretty, J., Gujit, I., Thompson, J., Scoones, I., Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainers Guide,
London, IIED.
52
2
Description
PLA rests on three pillars, all of which are essential for it to be authentic. Firstly the attitudes
and behaviour of the external agent should be respectful, reflecting a genuine belief in the
capacity of beneficiaries to come up with appropriate assessments and solutions for their
situation. Secondly they should share their skills and power as facilitators, not directing change
as experts. Thirdly PLA consists of a range of mainly visual techniques based on mapping,
diagramming and matrices, but also using drama or any culturally appropriate method. The tools
and techniques are intrinsically participative, playful and creative, thus well suited to analysis of
environmental and design problems.
In using the tools, PLA gives participants the freedom to establish their priorities through a
facilitated discussion, in contrast for example to the traditional questionnaire, which seeks a
response to a set of priorities fixed by the commissioning body. By encouraging the participant
to take a more active role in the consultation, and stimulating follow-up action in response to the
issues raised, PLA contributes more generally to community capacity building. The following
are two examples of the many PLA techniques possible. They can be used with groups of
varying sizes.
The discussion starter, an image or model (for example a housing block or city street) is used as
the central focus of a discussion. It should be a complex and emotive scene posing the
‘problem’ (e.g. an image of a litter-strewn subway) and not the ‘solution’ (e.g. a planner’s smart
drawing of a foot bridge). The facilitator asks a series of open questions to elicit observation,
feelings and ideas, with some guidance letting the group determine the direction of the
discussion. As with most PLA tools placing emphasis on the image ensures a shared point of
departure, where as using words creates different mental images in people’s heads, though they
may assume common ground. A discussion starter also encourages participation by reducing
focus on the facilitator.
Preference ranking/matrix scoring, these methods use a matrix to compare and contrast a
number of options or criteria, which, for instance, may have been thrown up by the discussion
starter. This can be done using easily available resources, for instance lengths of string on the
floor or table, or using large sheets of paper. In preference ranking, each item is compared
against the others until they are ranked from highest to lowest. In matrix scoring, items are
compared against criteria selected by the group through a facilitated discussion. Both of these
methods involve a graphic representation of peoples’ concerns, which can then be prioritised.
Conclusion
PLA introduces the important principle of equality between the commissioning authority and
the ‘researched’, that should be considered in all such interactions.
Participation scale
A consultation method that also aims to empower participants and lead to autonomous action.
Process phase
Could be used throughout the process.
4.2.8 - Information – neighbourhood newsletters

Purpose
Giving information to residents is clearly not a participation method, although it is widely
accepted as the first step in developing participation. Clear, accesible and timely information is
a basic requirement. Involving residents in the production of information can be a way to
increase participation.
53
2
Description
A regular newsletter is a good way to inform people of the progress of a regeneration project in
their area. Circulating information about this, and about the everyday life of the neighbourhood
can also help build community capacity and be a vehicle for awareness raising about
environmental issues. Involving residents in the production of the newsletter will add to its
value. People will be interested to read what their neighbours have to say, rather than always
receiving ‘top down’ information from the authorities. Many people are interested in media and
journalism, making this a good way to attract volunteers. The degree of control given to
residents, whether they have editorial power, or are only invited to contribute articles, will
depend on the local context.
Conclusion
A method with potential for spreading information, developing participation and local skills.
Participation scale
Information, with potential to contribute to empowerment if local people are involved.
Process phase
The information flow should continue throughout the process.
4.3. Tools for individual events
4.3.1 - Surveys
Purpose
Surveys are the most commonly used method for gaining information about residents’ views.
They are thus not a participation tool, but only a consultation tool. Their value in developing
participation and local skills can be improved if local people are employed to carry out the
survey, and if local people are involved in deciding on the questions.
Description
Surveys usually take the form of written questionnaires, which are conducted face-to-face, by
telephone, or by post. They usually aim to reach a high proportion of the population.
Conclusion
Surveys are important, because they are generally the only way to get a response from the
majority of residents. They should be used with care, however, because the repeated use of
surveys can lead to cynicism if people do not see evidence of their views being listened to. The
purpose of each survey should be made very clear.
Participation scale
Surveys are the crudest form of consultation, because they are not interactive. However, if local
people are employed in completing them, they gain value through developing employment
skills.
Process phase
At the early stages of identifying local issues (diagnosis), might also be used for evaluation.
4.3.2 - Participatory survey technique

Purpose
To generate qualitative information to supplement large-scale surveys.
54
2
Description
The technique was developed through the UK case study of HQE2R, where the researchers
wanted to gain information on local views, but believed that questionnaires had been over-used,
and did not with to add to the numerous public meetings being held in the area. This alternative
seeks to be less intrusive and more responsive. ‘Open air’ sessions were held, where passers-by
were attracted by a display of photographs of the neighbourhood. If people chose to stop, the
researchers held and informal interview with them. Neutral questions were used, so that people
spoke about their own concerns, rather than responding to fixed questions (as is the case with
most surveys). The results were recorded in the form of notes, which could then be analysed
according to different topics. This approach was developed from the principles of Participatory
Learning and Action (PLA), described in section 3.2.14.
Conclusion
A useful consultation technique, which has the potential to engage people who do not attend
public meetings.
Participation scale
Consultation.
Process phase
At the early stages of identifying local issues (diagnosis), might also be used for evaluation.
4.3.3 - Citizen meetings

Purpose
Citizen meetings are suitable for conveying information about, or good to get support for a
specific project. Town meetings can also be suitable for passing the information that the starting
up of a process resulting in a strategy for a neighbourhood development action plan is underway.
The purpose of a citizen meeting is to reach many citizens at once, and further to get in direct
contact with these.
Description
The procedure of a citizen meeting is to invite the citizens of the municipality to a meeting where
politicians and the local authority inform of the activities about to start, in progress or the result
of finished activities.
Citizen meetings are not suitable for engaging or involving the citizens actively or to create a
dialog or creative suggestions. Therefore, they are not specially suited in connection with the
wording of specific suggestions to a particular activity or planning process. Here the demand is
that the participants in the process engage actively in the dialog and that they are able to
formulate which measures in their opinion will be an advantage for the social and environmental
situations in the area.
Conclusions
Citizen meetings are not to be considered a relevant tool when a particular sustainable
development strategy is to be developed and formulated. Citizen meetings could be relevant in
connection with information on the start up of a process or when the result of the process is made
public.
Participation scale: Information
Process phase: Analyses (early in this phase), implementation (after completion)
55
2
4.3.4 - Citizen Hearing.

Purpose
This method is suitable for identifying and reaching a concretisation of visions for a sustainable
development strategy so it is suitable for the conceptualisation phase of an urban improvement
project. If the citizens can be motivated it would also be suitable for a reshaping development.
With a citizen hearing the purpose is “to strike two birds in one blow”: to get in contact with a
large number of citizens simultaneously - and at the same time establish a form of commitment
and creativity. It is a method where there is interchange between work in small groups - and
discussions in plenum involving all participants. The participants are found through advertising
in local media and by sending letters to a number of citizens chosen on basis of their age and
geographic habitat.
Description
The procedure of a town hearing is that the participants of the hearing are divided into a number
of workshops depending on the total number of participants. The opening of the hearing is
devoted to participants’ brainstorming as to which challenges each especially are aware of. Then
the participants of the hearing discuss which challenges in their opinion are most important and
at the same time state their reason for this. This takes place in small groups with approximately 6
persons in each group. Each group has appointed a chairperson. When the group has decided,
which 4-6 challenges they want to give priority to, the chairpersons from each group meet in
order to decide which of the suggested challenges shall be treated further. The chairpersons must
not choose more than a predefined number (for example:12) challenges in order to assure a
relevant and clear discussion.
When the chairpersons reach an agreement all the participants meet and all the chosen challenges
are presented. Allotment of points to the challenges are given by the participants and again only
some of the challenges will be discussed further. In the afternoon each group get their challenge
for which they have to set their targets. Again all the participants are assembled and once again
the challenges are presented now together with the suggested targets. The participants allocate
points to the targets and by doing so they give assign priority to the targets.
In the process a refinement is continuously going on and at the end it is send what the citizens
have chosen to be the most important to focus on. The citizens’ recommenddations and
evaluations are collected during the hearing - thus at the end of the hearing a catalogue can be
written containing the challenges and targets which have been formulated in the course of the
day. The results will be made public available so they can be inspected by the participants,
politicians, the media and other interested parties.
The possibility of getting really many responses is good, however, the decision to delegate out
the groups’ results into smaller groups usually means that the suggestions to be presented at the
final presentation are/can be marked by the attitude of a few persons. Another problem is that it
calls for the commitment of a large number of persons for one whole day.
Conclusion
Citizen hearings are suitable if one wishes to reach/hear the opinion of a large number of citizens.
The method is not overly time-consuming compared to the number of citizens one gets in contact
with.
Process phases: Analyses, monitoring
56
2
4.3.5 - Interviews with residents

Purpose
The objective of an interview survey is to reveal trends and to provide qualitative factors of
evaluation or discussion.
Description
This method involves choosing a small sample of people who are well-integrated into local
relational networks and who know the district well (some twenty or thirty people for a district of
3,000 residents). These people are interviewed in their capacity as residents of the district,
speaking on their own behalf, and as people who can provide information about how other
residents, with whom they are in contact, relate to the district18.
It is extremely important to choose these people well, as their relational skills and their ability to
express the questions and problems of the other residents are emphasized rather than their
representativeness.
Generally, these people are chosen from networks known to the contracting authority (client).
The questionnaires generally deal with neighbourhood spaces and housing: dwelling spaces such
as housing, indoor and outdoor collective residential spaces, nearby urban spaces and landscapes,
etc. Other problems may come to light such as mobility, perceptions and representations of
space, individual and family practices (sport, leisure activities, culture, etc.), residential histories,
etc.
Conclusion
The advantage of this system is that these people can be mobilized very quickly, while the main
disadvantage is that a large proportion of the discourse escapes sociological surveys. Interviews
with key players can reveal a level of detailed information about local issues that it is impossible
to gain from more superficial survey techniques such as questionnaires. They can help to explain
and understand local conflicts and a variety of different viewpoints. Seeking the views of people
who are active in the neighbourhood can also be a first step to building relationships with them
and the groups they represent.
Participation scale
Consultation
Process phase
Analysis of issues and priorities (diagnosis).
4.3.6 - Constructive evaluation

Purpose
This method is derived from generative and participative programming and is applied to the
rehabilition of public facilities.
The method aims to define projects involving the rehabilition of public facilities, optimally
integrating the demands and expectations of users19.
18
For example, Brigitte Guigou, Generative Urban Sociology Laboratory, CSTB
19
Source: Eric Daniel-Lacombe, in collaboration with Michel Conan, "Evaluation de la qualité d’usage
des groupes scolaires. Morceaux choisi d’une expérimentation", DGUHC, 1986.
Eric Daniel-Lacombe, Jodelle Zetlaoui, "Pratiques de programmation des conducteurs d’opération dans
le cadre de la réalisation de groupes scolaires", DGUHC, CSTB, 1998
57
2
Description
The procedure can be broken down into four phases:
1) the division of the facility into transactional spaces
2) a critical examination of the facility's architectural plans
3) a critical tour of the facility
4) the interpretation of users' accounts of observed situations of use.
1) The division of the facility into transactional spaces

The facility studied is divided into several spaces, each of which is characterized by:
- different everyday practices;
- various component places;
- players whose roles within these places are defined by the nature of the facility.
This division should make it possible to consider players and places.
2) A critical examination of the facility's architectural plans

A graphic architectural document, a development project is subjected to a critical examination in
order to find out how the space answers the questions asked. (See following table presenting
examples of questions for a nursery school: range of questions relating to the use of space.
Source: footnote)
The answers provided may be directly added to the plan; they make it possible to compare
schemes of overall design and use. The exercise is limited by the difficulty of working on a plan
and by the lack of information inherent in the plan itself.
Such a critical examination can allow the project manager to engage in dialogue with partners
from outside the facility and also with the users of the space.
Constructive evaluation: Sample questions
The nursery school and its extensions : A critical examination of a plan: list of
questions
This list is not exhaustive and remains open to any suggestions

1. When wearing their slippers, should the nursery-school children walk in the corridor or in
places where other people wear wet shoes when it's raining?
2. Is there a risk that workshop activities could escape the surveillance of teachers or auxiliary
staff?
3. Do the cloakrooms have enough room to allow the children to put away their things and tie
their shoelaces without falling over each other?
4. Is it possible to teach the children to use the toilets on their own?
5. Is there a risk that children sleeping during the early afternoon could be woken by the noise
of other children playing in the neighbouring corridors or playgrounds?
6. Do the children have private spaces?
7. Do the teachers have storage space (especially in the exercise room) which can be accessed
while continuing to watch the children?
8. ………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
etc.
58
2
3) A critical tour of the facility

The visit to the facility should provide information about the practices observed and reported by
users, which can prove to be very different to those imagined during the critical analysis of the
plans. It should make it possible to convey the modes of use of spaces and fittings. On the other
hand, the internal fittings are directly visible and the space is not necessarily used as planned.
Each transactional space is visited and the users in each space are involved according to their role
within the space studied.
The critical visit involves three phases:
- a free explanation of the activities of the people who use the space,
- with the people encountered, a tour of the space which they use within the building in order to
note all its particularities (difficulties or advantages),
- an attempt to establish dialogue with the people encountered in each space.
4) The interpretation of users' accounts of observed situations of use.

This involves preparing a summary of the situations of use encountered during the visit. The
document should reflect the different approaches of users and express the author's understanding
of the space.
Conclusion
This method provides a strong structure for linking the refurbishment of a building to the way in
which people use it. In this it is reminiscent of post-occupancy evaluation (POE).
Participation scale
This is a well structured and focussed form of consultation.
Process Phase
This method would be used when the decision to refurbish the building had been taken, and the
project was being developed.
59
2
5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

5. 1. Recommendations
Our case studies demonstrate a wide variety of practice throughout Europe. This reflects the
findings of the HQE2R Deliverable 15 (on the web site) “Participation by residents and users:
legal and regulatory context”, which are summarised in section 3.2. of this document.
Differences in participation practice are not coincidental, but are the result of differing
approaches to regeneration, and broader political and cultural traditions.
We propose our scale of participation as a tool to help different neighbourhoods and cities to
analyse their current practice. We do not believe it is possible to recommend a single approach
to participation, but that each locality should analyse its current situation, and attempt to move
forward from there.
Based on the experience gained through our case studies, the HQE2R partnership has developed
a checklist to follow when developing a regeneration initiative. We recommend that those
managing, and those participating in regeneration initiatives consider the following checklist
when applying the scale of participaiton to their neighbourhood.
• Checklist for developing participation in regeneration intitiatives
1. Analysis of past practice and current plans according to the scale of participation. Bearing in
mind that practice might be uneven, achieving better participation in some parts of an initiative
than in others.
• What lessons have been learnt from past participation or consultation exercises?
2. What are the limiting factors within the local council to improving participation?
• National policies or laws (difficult to change)?
• Local policies or practices (possible to change)?
• Local attitudes (possible, although perhaps slow to change)?
3. Are there limiting factors within the local community to improving participation?
• Distrust of authority (to be addressed through good communications, transparency and
good management)
• Lack of local associations (to be addressed through development and support)
• Lack of skills (to be addressed through use of appropriate participation techniques,
through training for community leaders)
4. Given a consideration of the current situation, and limiting factors, what sort of participation
does this regeneration programme aim to achieve?
5. Which participation methods might be suitable to improve participation in our locality?
6. What other sources of advice or support do we need?
5.2. Discussion
In March 2003, the HQE2R partnership held a conference in Copenhagen, of which participation
was a major theme. From the discussions held at the conference, a range of questions and
challenges emerged, reflecting the concerns of participants from towns in 9 European countries.
Some of these questions are reproduced here, with the aim of showing how the participation
scale (see Introduction) and the checklist (above) might be used to address them.
60
2
• How to bring participation into the domain of local government?
In many European countries, participation is firmly in the domain of local government. In

countries where participation is not central to local government activity, both top-down and
bottom-up pressure is needed to alter the situation. Change through legislation is likely to take
time. Local associations and professionals might, however, apply bottom-up pressure on local
councils in individual cases. In such situations, findings of European research projects such as
this one may be useful in demonstrating the range of practice in different countries and pointing
out the range of possibilities.
How not to raise hopes which cannot be fulfilled?
It is often feared that participation will have a negative effect by raising unrealistic hopes of
residents about what can be achieved in their area. This is a valid concern, but it should not be
used as a justification for limiting participation. The HQE2R scale of participation shows that
information, awareness raising and consultation are the first steps towards a participatory
process. If these activities are conducted successfully, the local council should have the
opportunity to clarify the scope of the process. A number of points must be made clear at the
earliest opportunity;
• what is and is not possible in terms of the regeneration of the area
• which decisions the community has the chance to influence
• which parts of the process, if any, will be controlled by the community
• what are the financial constraints
• how the local council will take account of the participation – transparency.
How to deal with conflict between ‘professional’ understanding and ‘amateur’

perceptions?
How do we take Sustainable Development away from the ‘experts’ and recognise
that it belongs to everyone?
The first question in itself suggests a bias towards favouring the legitimacy of professionals;
they ‘understand’ the issues, while residents only have ‘perceptions’ of them. Challenging this
type of viewpoint is central to the ‘institutional learning’ that we identify in section 2.1 as a
precondition of participation, which is also discussed in the final section of the HQE2R
Deliverable 15. In order for participation to succeed, professionals and politicians must
recognise the legitimacy of local views; residents of an area are the people best placed to
understand its problems. If mutual respect is developed, then conflict is less likely to arise.
Experts cannot claim to have a monopoly on the understanding of concepts, such as sustainable
development, with a strong social element. They can, however, monopolise the language of
sustainable development. It is thus the responsibility of the professional to ensure that the
language they use is accessible to all. Professionals should also be open to the possibility that
‘amateurs’ have an understanding of sustainability issues that is expressed in an entirely
different vocabulary.
There are undoubtedly areas of professional expertise which will not be shared by the majority
of local people, in design, construction and other technical fields. If elements of these activities
are to be opened up to participation, the professionals should again ensure that residents are
provided with the information they need, in accessible language.
61
2
• How to achieve a real representative participation?

Is there a proper distribution of ages?
How to associate young people with participation in a poor neighbourhood?
Clearly, a participation process should aim to involve all the groups that will be affected by the
regeneration in question. The agency managing the process should have a good knowledge of
the demography of the neighbourhood. It is probable that special efforts will have to be made to
involve ‘hard to reach’ groups, including young people. For ideas on how to do this, readers
should refer to section 4 of this document, and our bibliography. Those managing a participation
process should be aware that many traditional consultation techniques are unlikely to attract a
broad cross-section of people.
The question of representation is complex, and is different in relation to different consultation

and participation tools. For a quantitative tool such as a questionnaire survey or a vote,
responses should be gained from a representative sample of the population., and it should be
possible to calculate their statistical significance. Activities higher up the participation scale,
however, are process-oriented and likely to involve a smaller number of people; their outcomes
are not quantifiable in the same way. For these types of activities, the concept of
‘representativeness’ is more difficult;
• It cannot be assumed that a person from a particular group represents the views of that
group as a whole
• For ongoing committees and working groups, it can be difficult to sustain participation, due
to the demands placed on volunteers, and a degree of turnover is inevitable. It is unrealistic
to expect such a group to fully reflect the demography of the neighbourhood.
The person or group responsible for taking decisions based on the outcome of participation will
always have to use their judgement. This judgement should be informed by a knowledge of the
participation process, who was involved in different elements of it, and who was not involved.
The participation process may result in conflicting demands, and there may be groups or
individuals involved with competing claims to legitimacy. A comprehensive participation
process is complex, it will involve many different people in different types of events and
activities. It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate whether such a process was truly
representative of the population. The most important thing is that a genuine and appropriate
effort is made to engage with all groups within the neighbourhood.
5.3. Further reading on participation (annotated bibliography)

As it is commonly recognized, the notion of participation is a basic fundamental principle,
included in many operating programs carried on especially by the United Nations in order to
promote urban sustainable development, starting back from 1990.
Although participation and consensual agreement are more and more conceived as the basis for
a new planning methodology in the institutional framework of advanced economic systems and
they are considered within the best planning practices carried on by UE nations, in some
European countries this praxis is not yet consolidated or it is applied in a discontinuous and
ineffective way.
In many cases, both the possibility of a friendly use of shared planning procedures and the real
understanding of what they mean are not homogeneously applied and the results of uncertain
efforts may cause a general mistrust, involving both planners and politicians. Moreover a failure
experience could cause uneasiness and the loss of credibility.
The aim of this paragraph is therefore that of providing an additional tool - a sort of guideline -
for those who want to experience a shared planning procedure in order to facilitate the
participation approach. Or simply, it can be considered a useful framework for those who are
62
2
interested in going deeper on these topics, in a concrete way, going beyond the theoretical and
legal approach.
This paragraph provides a general bibliography, even if it is not intended to be exhaustive and it
can always be updated, first of all following territorial areas - the countries participating in the
HQE2R project - and then dividing the documents in General references (to focus the attention
on the methodology research on the theme of participation) Detailed references, experiences
(dealing with projects and researches promoted by other subjects in the same field, as concrete
experiences and methodology adjustment to the practice) Web references (WebPages where it is
possible to find additional data, and download other documents etc.).
The next sections give further references to different published texts in Europe, not strictly
related with the HQE2R partners, several texts about experiences carried on in the USA and
finally a Websites survey.
In general the selected texts are published after 1980 (excepted a few important publications)
also because the oldest texts are usually mentioned by the most recent one’s.
UNITED KINDOM
• General references
- John F. CHARLEWOOD TURNER Housing by people: towards autonomy in
building environments - introduction by Colin Ward. - Marion Boyars, London -
New York 1991.
- B. CHECKOWAY (editor) Strategic Perspectives on Planning Practice, Lexington
Books, Lexington 1986.
- D. DAY “Citizen Participation in the Planning Process: an Essentially Contested
Concept?”, in Journal of Planning Literature, n. 3, 1997.
- J. ELLIOTT Action Research for Educational Change, Allen and Unwin, London
1991.
- J. FRIEND, A. HICKLING Planning under Pressure, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford 1997 (second edition).
- J. HOLSTON “Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship”, in Architectural Design,
monographic issue "Architecture & Anthropology", 1996.
- Ch. LINDBLOM Inquiry and Change. The Troubled Attempt to Understand and
Shape Society, Yale U.P., New Haven, London l990.
- S. J. MANDELBAUM “Communitarian Sensibilities and the Design of
Communities”, in Planning Theory, n.10-11, 1994.
- Patsy HEALEY Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies,
MacMillan, Basingstoke, London 1997.
- P. REASON Human Inquiry in Action. Developments in New Paradigm Research,
Sage, London 1988.
- P. REASON Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage, London 1994.
- Gerald D. SUTTLES The man-made city: the land-use confidence game in
Chicago, The University of Chicago press, Chicago, London c1990.
- Graham TOWERS Building democracy: community architecture in the inner cities,
UCL, London 1995.
• Experiences, detailed references

- R. GOETHERT, N. HAMDI (editors) Making Microplans: A CommunityBased
Process in Design and Development, IT Publications, London 1988.
63
2
- A.R. HART Children’s Participation in Planning and Design, Earthscan, London

1997.
- E.T. STRINGER Action Research. A Handbook for Practitioners, Sage, London
1996.
- Nick WATES Action planning: how to use planning weekends and urban design
action teams to improve your environment - compiled and edited by Nick Wates ;
foreword by HRH the Prince of Wales - The Prince of Wales Institute of
Architecture, London 1996.
• Web references
- New Economics Foundation Participation Works! 21 techniques of community
participation for the 21st century.
A guidebook, with examples and contacts for a range of innovative techniques.
Includes many participatory techniques that focus on dialogue. Many examples of
visual techniques and games. E.g.: Citizens juries, Community appraisals Future
search, Local sustainability model, Participatory theatre. Taken from:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?pid=16
- Faiths, Hope and Participation Celebrating faith groups’ role in neighbourhood
renewal. Taken from:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/Faiths,%20hope%20and%20participati
on.pdf
FRANCE
- A.A.V.V.Territoires et pratiques de démocratie locale, Celavar (Comité d'Etude et
de Liaison des Associations à Vocation Agricole et Rurale), Mairie-Conseils, Parcs
naturels régionaux de France 2001.
- A.A.V.V. La prise en compte de l’usage (actes du séminaire du 7 octobre1999),
2000.
- ADELS - Association pour la Démocratie et l’Éducation locale et sociale Les
habitants dans la décision locale, Territoires 2000.
- Michel BONETTI La programmation générative des opérations de réhabilitation,
Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1990.
- Michel BONETTI, Michel CONAN, Barbara ALLEN Développement social
urbain. Stratégies et méthodes, L’Harmattan, 1991.
- Michel BONNET (editor) Les maîtrises d’ouvrages en Europe: évolutions et
tendances, Vol. 4, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 2000.
- Centre de Recherches Administratives Politiques et Sociales, Centre Universitaire
de Recherches Administratives Politiques de Picardie La démocratie locale.
Représentation, participation et espace public, actes du colloque d’Amiens des 5 et
6 février 1998, PUF, 1999.
- Florent CHAMPY L’architecte, le sociologue et l’habitant, Plan Construction et
Architecture, 1997.
- Bruno COLIN Action culturelle dans les quartiers, culture et Proximité, 1998.
- Michel CONAN La programmation générative, Centre Scientifique et Technique
du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1988.
- Michel CONAN Méthode de conception pragmatique en architecture, Centre
Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1989.
64
2
- Michel CONAN (editor) Perspectives pour la maîtrise d’ouvrage publique, Centre

Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1995.
- Michel CONAN, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE L’expérience d’une ville nouvelle au
service de l’amélioration des groupes scolaires, Centre Scientifique et Technique
du Bâtiment (CSTB), Paris 1995.
- Michel CONAN, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Craig ZIMRING Maisons de
l’Étudiant - Ouvrage + Mémento, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment
(CSTB), 1995.
- Michel CONAN, Patrice SECHER, Joëlle BORDET, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE,
Jean-Dider LAFORGUE Memento-stock de programmation générative pour
l’habitat des personnes âgées, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment
(CSTB), 1989.
- Conseil d’État L’utilité publique aujourd’hui, La Documentation Française, 1999.
- Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE Évaluation de la qualité d’usage des établissement pour
personnes âgées, DGUHC-CSTB, 1999.
- Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, with Michel CONAN Évaluation de la qualité d’usage
des groupes scolaires. Morceaux choisis d’une expérimentation, Direction Générale
de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de la Construction - Centre Scientifique et
Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1998.
- Maryvonne DE SAINT PULGENT Le syndrome de l’Opéra, Robert Laffont, 1991.
- Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville Une analyse des modes de participation des
habitants et des acteurs sociaux dans la définition et la mise en œuvre au plan
local, des actions menées au titre de la politique de la ville, Contribution n°5 au
rapport sueur, 1997.
- Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville, Direction de l’Architecture et de
l’Urbanisme Place des habitants et leur participation aux processus d’élaboration
des projets urbains, 1997.
- Pierre DIMÉGLIO “Pour la programmation générative et participative des projets
urbains”, Urbanisme, October 2001.
- Pierre DIMÉGLIO, Jean-Dider Laforgue “Intervention de projets urbains pour les
habitants” in “Perspectives pour la maîtrise d’ouvrage publique”, Plan Construction
et Architecture, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1996,
pp.88-96.
- Jaques DONZELOT L’État animateur, Esprit, 1994.
- Jaques DONZELOT, Catherine MEVEL “La Politique de la Ville. Une
comparaison entre les USA et la France. Mixité sociale, et développement
communautaire”, 2001 Plus. Veille internationale n°56, May 2001, DRAST-
DGUHC.
- Philippe ESTINGOY, Michel RABATEL Montage et suivi d’une opération de
construction, Le Moniteur, 1994.
- Fédération Nationale des Agences d’Urbanisme Participations des habitants aux
projets urbains, 1997.
- Tarso GENRO, Ubitaran de SOUZA Quand les habitants gèrent vraiment leur
ville, Charles Léopold Mayer.
- Jaques GODBOUT La participation contre la démocratie, Saint-Martin, 1983.
- Georges GONTCHAROFF 2001, L’Odyssée municipale - Tome 8 - La reprise en
main de la politique par les citoyens ou la démocratie locale participative, ADELS
(Association pour la Démocratie et l’Éducation locale et sociale) 2001.
- Georges GONTCHAROFF Connaissance des institutions publiques, L’Harmattan.
65
2
- IAURIF Démocratie participative et aménagement régional, 4 volumes “Points de

vue croisés”, April 2000, “Actes de la table ronde du 27 avril 2000”, August 2000,
“Actes de la table ronde du 28 novembre 2000: construire un projet de territoire”,
March 2001, “Une méthode de participation dynamique et ses applications aux
projets renouvellement urbain, compte rendu de la réunion d’information du 7 juin
2001”, July 2001.
- Patrizia INGALLINA Le projet urbain, PUF.
- Jean-Dider LAFORGUE, Patrice SECHER Mémento dynamique sur les espaces
semi privatifs, espaces collectifs, espace urbain et de voisinage, Centre Scientifique
et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1992.
- Françoise LUGASSY with Philippe DARD, Jaqueline PALMADE L’impossible
participation, Centre de Recherche en Urbanisme, 1977.
- Jan Marc MADOSIO Après l’effondrement, L’Encyclopédie des Nuisances, 1999.
- Ministère Délégué à la ville La démocratie locale - Des pratiques en mouvement.
Rencontre nationale des conseils de quartier et de la démocratie locale, March -
April 2001.
- Martine PATTOU Entre normes et usage, Plans construction et architecture, 1998
- Michel RAGON L’architecte, le prince et la Démocratie. Vers une démocratisation
de l’architecture? Albin Michel, 1977.
- Pierre ROSANVALLON La démocratie inachevée. Histoire de la souveraineté du
peuple de France, Gallimard, NFR-bibliothèque des histoires, 2000.
- Ignacy SACHS Développer les champs de planification, Université Coopérative
Internationale, Paris 1984.
- Patrice SECHER, Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Jean-Dider LAFORGUE Rapport
sur l’évaluation du programme SEPIA et de la méthode de programmation
générative pour l’habitat des personnes vieillissantes, Centre Scientifique et
Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), 1992.
- Jean-Pierre SUEUR Demain la ville, La Documentation Française, Tome 1, 1998.
- Dominique TESSIER “Activité en entreprise et conception de l’architecture”, Plan
Construction et Architecture, 1992, pp.9-22.
- H. THOMAS La production des exclus. Politiques sociales et processus de
désocialisation sociopolitique, PUF, Paris 1997.
- John THOMSON & Partners Atelier d’urbanisme d’Aubergenville - Compte-rendu
des journées de participation du 10 au 24 novembre 1998, 1999.
- Jodelle ZETLAOUI L’universitaire et ses métiers. Contribution à l’analyse des
espaces de travail - introduction by Robert Hérin, l’Harmattan coll. “villes et
entreprises”, 1999.

- A.A.V.V. Actions culturelle dans la ville, Culture et Proximité, 2000.
- A.A.V.V. Actions culturelle dans les quartiers, Culture et Proximité, 1998.
- ADELS - Association pour la Démocratie et l’éducation locale et Sociale - (editor)
Conseils de quartier - modes d’emploi, ADELS 2003 (second edition).
- Michel BONETTI, Joëlle BORDET, Brigitte GUIGOU, Jodelle ZETLAOUI
Évaluation d’une opération de réhabilitation de logements HLM à Nangis (Seine et
Marne), CSTB, March 1995.
- Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Jodelle ZETLAOUI “L’évaluation au service de la
qualité d’usages des équipements publics: le métier de conducteur d’opération”, in
Les métiers de l’urbanisme, Annales de la recherche urbaine n°88, December
2000, pp.39-48.
66
2
- Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, Jodelle ZETLAOUI “Les maisons de l’Étudiant: quels

projets de vie pour quels espaces”, in “Université en ville”, Urbanisme, March-
April 2001, pp.68-72.
- Éric DANIEL-LACOMBE, JODELLE ZETLAOUI Pratiques de programmation
des conducteurs d’opération dans le cadre de la réalisation de groupes scolaires,
Direction Générale de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de la Construction - Centre
Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), November 1998.
- Plan Urbanisme, Construction et Architecture La Formulation de la Commande
Urbaine et Architecturale, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB),
30th novembre - 1 décembre 2000.
- Jodelle ZETLAOUI “Enjeux et obstacles à la prise en compte de l’usage en matière
de constructions universitaires: Proposition d’une démarche d’évaluation au service
de la qualité d’usages”, in Pourquoi évaluer a posteriori nos réalisation, Mission
Interministérielle pour la Qualité des constructions Publiques - Institut de
Programmation en Architecture et en Aménagement, 19 novembre 1999, actes dans
la Lettre de l’IPAA, November 2000.
• Web references
- Éric Daniel-Lacombe, Jodelle Zetlaoui De la programmation générative à
«l’évaluation constructive». L’exemple de la production des équipements publics.
Taken from: http://www.univ-paris12.fr/iup
ITALY
- Comune di Roma Manuale di autoprogettazione per piccoli interventi di
riqualificazione dell’ambiente urbano, Roma 1999.
- Comune di Roma Periferia, sviluppo sostenibile, metodi di progettazione
condivisa. Il ruolo della progettazione partecipata nei programmi di sviluppo
urbano, Roma 1999.
- M. BOOKCHIN Democrazia diretta. Idee per un municipalismo libertario,
Eleuthera, Milano 1993.
- Fausto CURTI, Maria Cristina GIBELLI Pianificazione strategica e gestione dello
sviluppo urbano Alinea, Firenze c1996.
- Gian Franco ELIA, Roberto FAENZA Urbanistica e comunicazioni di massa: la
partecipazione in Francia, Franco Angeli, Milano c1981.
- John FORESTER Pianificazione e potere: pratiche e teorie interattive del progetto
urbano (Planning in the face of power), epilogue by Dino Borri, Dedalo, Bari 1998.
- Mauro GIUSTI Urbanista e terzo attore: ruolo del pianificatore nelle iniziative di
autopromozione territoriale degli abitanti, L'Harmattan Italia, Torino c1995.
- F. GOVERNA Il milieu urbano. L'identità territoriale nei processi di sviluppo,
Franco Angeli, Milano 1997.
- KHAKEE “Scenari partecipativi per lo sviluppo sostenibile: temi metodologici”,
Urbanistica, n. 112, gennaio-giugno 1999.
- Raymond LORENZO La città sostenibile - Partecipazione, Luogo, Comunita’,
Eleuthera, Milano 1998.
- Alberto MAGNAGHI, S. DE LA PIERRE [et al.] Il territorio degli abitanti:
società locali e autosostenibilità, Dunod-Masson, Milano c1998.
67
2
- Alberto MAGNAGHI La dialettica locale/globale per uno sviluppo locale

autosostenibile, Firenze 1997, unpublished.
- Alberto MAGNAGHI, Raffaele PALOSCIA (editors) text by Mariarita
ANDREOLA [et al.] Per una trasformazione ecologica degli insediamenti, Franco
Angeli, Milano c1992
- Francesco Domenico MOCCIA Collaborazione tra pubblico e privato nel recupero
urbano: Pittsburgh 1945-1988, Clean, Napoli c1990.
- G. PABA “Sofferenza e competenza. Su alcuni dilemmi del rapporto tra bambini e
città”, in La Nuova Città, n. 1, 1997/98.
- Gabriele PASQUI (editor) La costruzione del "locale" nelle politiche pubbliche del
territorio, DAEST- Dipartimento di analisi economica e sociale del territorio,
Venezia 1998.
- G. PELLICCIARI Pianificazione, ricerca, partecipazione. Un metodo per le
politiche sociali, Franco Angeli, Milano 1992.
- Ignacy SACHS, edited by Maurizio FRABONI I nuovi campi della pianificazione
(Déveloper les champs de planification), Edizioni lavoro, Roma c1988.
- Alberto ZIPARO Pianificazione ambientale e trasformazioni urbanistiche:
problemi e metodi di integrazione delle procedure di bilancio di impatto
ambientale nelle pratiche di piano (chapter 6 about participation), Gangemi, Roma
c1988.
• Detailed references, experiences

- AA.VV. La guida alle città sostenibili delle bambine e dei bambini, Ministero
dell'ambiente, 1998.
- Luigi AMODIO (editor) Atelier del futuro: la metodologia European Awareness
Scenario Workshop per promuovere la partecipazione nei processi di innovazione e
sviluppo sostenibile, Cuen, Napoli c1999.
- (Please find enclosed: European Awareness Scenario Workshop: idee e strumenti
per l'adattamento in Italia, edited by Gerardo de Luzenberger, 1999).
- John F. CHARLEWOOD TURNER L’abitare autogestito (Housing by people), con
nota conclusiva per l’edizione italiana di Robi Ronza, Jaca Book, Milano 1978.
- J. ELLIOTT A. GIORDAN, C. SCURATI La ricerca-azione. Metodiche,
strumenti, casi, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1993.
- LAMEDICA La progettazione partecipata: metodologie ed esperienze, Comune di
Fano, Fano 1998.
- Giancarlo PABA Luoghi comuni: la città come laboratorio di progetti collettivi,
Franco Angeli, Milano c1998.
- G. PABA “Progettare insieme. Partecipazione e comunità nella città di oggi”, in I
confini della città, n. 21, 1996.
- Giorgio PIZZIOLO, Rita MICCARELLI L’arte delle relazioni, Alinea, Firenze
2003.
- Marianella SCLAVI Avventure urbane - Progettare la citta’ con gli abitanti,
Eleutera, Milano 2002.
- Francesco TONUCCI La città dei bambini : un modo nuovo di pensare la città,
Laterza, Roma - Bari 1996.
68
2
• Web references
- Commissione urbanistica partecipata e comunicativa dell’istituto nazionale di
urbanistica (editor) Cultura e prassi della partecipazione nella pianificazione delle
città e del territorio. Taken from:
http://www.planum.net/partecipazione/clip/dossier-final.PDF
- List of projects and pratical examples.
Taken from: http://www.irs-online.it/pubbli/ric_poli.htm
- http://www.focus-lab.it/en/research/partecipation.php
- http://www.progettarepertutti.org/index.asp
DENMARK
- Ida Elisabeth ANDERSEN, Birgit JAEGER Involving Citizens in Assessment and
the Public Debate on Information Technology, TMV, University of Oslo 1997.
- I.E. ANDERSEN, L. KLÜVER, R. BILDERBEEK, O. DANIELSEN “Feasibility
study on new awareness initiatives. Studying the possibilities to implement
consensus conferences and scenario workshops”, European Commission, DG,
Interfaces III, Brussels 1995.
- See also DBT (1999) and EU Innovation Programme (1999).
- I.E. ANDERSEN, S. STRIPP, R. BILDERBEEK, J. GEURTS “The local
information society, development and descriptions of possible scenarios for the
assimilation of the new information technologies by the European society in the
next decades”, EU Innovation Programme, European Commission, DGXIII,
Brussels 1996. See also EU Innovation Programme (1999).
- Wiebe E BIJKER Dutch, Dikes and Democracy, Technology Assessment Texts no
11, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby 1993.
- M. ELLE Byøkologiske Fremtidsbilleder (Scenarios on urban ecology), Danish
Board of Technology, Copenhagen 1992. See also EU Innovation Programme
(1999).
- S. JOSS “Danish consensus conferences as a model in participatory technology
assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and
Danish public debate”, Science and Public Policy, 25(1), pages 2-22 (1998).
- Ministry of Environment Byøkologiske anbefalinger”, Betaenkning fra det
rådgivende udvalg om byøkologi (Urban ecology recommendations), Ministry of
Environment, Copenhagen 1994.
- Eva SØRENSEN, Allan DREYER HANSEN, Carsten GREVE Demokrati i
forandring (Democracy in Change), Projekt Offentlig sektor, Copenhagen 1996.
- This article is a revised and updated version of an article which was first published
in Science and Public Policy, October 1999, Vol. 26, No. 5, PP331-340.

- I.E. ANDERSEN, L.D. NIELSEN, M. ELLE, O. DANIELSEN “The scenario
workshop in technology assessment”, paper presented at The Third European
Congress on Technology Assessment, Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen
1992.
69
2
- I.E. ANDERSEN, L.D. NIELSEN, M. ELLE, O. DANIELSEN Byøkologiske

øjebliksbilleder. Visioner, barrierer og muligheder for at handle, report from
Danish project, Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen 1993.
- R. BILDERBEEK, I.E. ANDERSEN “Raising awareness among citizens:
experience from European local scenario workshops on sustainable urban
development”, EPTA Newsletter, 10 (1995).
- Toini S. FLORIS, Charlotte BIDSTED Brugerbestyrelser på tvaers - erfaringer fra
kommuner og amter (User-boards across-experience from municipalities and
counties), AKF Forlaget, Copenhagen 1996.
• Web references
- DBT, Danish Board of Technology: http://www.ing.dk/tekraad/
- E. ANDERSEN, B. JAEGER Danish participatory models Scenario workshops
and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Taken
from:
http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue6/andersenjaeger.htm
GERMANY
- Saul ALINSKY Anleitung zum Mächtigsein: ausgewählte Schriften, Lamuv-
Verlag, Bornheim-Merten 1999.
- Matthias BARTSCHER Partizipation von Kindern in der Kommunalpolitik,
Lambertus-Verlag, Freiburg 1998.
- Ariane BISCHOFF, Klaus SELLE, Heidi SINNING Informieren, Beteiligen,
Kooperieren: Kommunikation in Planungsprozessen. Eine Übersicht zu Formen,
Verfahren, Methoden und Techniken, Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und
Planungsliteratur, Dortmund 1996 (second edition).
- Claudia BRUNSEMANN, Waldemar STANGE, Dieter TIEMANN - edited by
Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk und Aktion Schleswig-Holstein - Land für Kinder. In
Kooperation mit dem Schleswig-Holsteinischen Landkreistag und dem
Städteverband Schleswig-Holstein. (Ministerium für Frauen, Jugend, Wohnungs-
und Städtebau des Landes Schleswig-Holstein), Mitreden - Mitplanen - Mitmachen
: Kinder und Jugendliche in der Kommune, Berlin 1997.
- Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung: Urban Development and Urban
Policy in Germany, Bonn 2002.
- Wolfgang GESSENHARTER, Warum neue Beteiligungsmodelle auf kommunaler
Ebene? Kommunalpolitik zwischen Globalisierung und Demokratisierung. In: Aus
Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament. B 50 / 96; p.
3-13, 1996.
- Gerhard de HAAN, Udo KUCKARTZ, Anke RHEINGANS-HEINTZE:
Bürgerbeteiligung in Lokale Agenda 21-Initiativen. Analyse zu Kommunikations-
und Organisationsformen; Opladen: 2000.
- Heike HERRMANN Institutionalisierte Öffentlichkeit, Bewohnerbeteiligung oder
Alibi? Die Funktion von initiierten Stadtteilforen. In: Monika Alisch (publisher),
Stadtteilmanagement: Voraussetzungen und Chancen für die soziale Stadt, Leske +
Budrich, Opladen 1998.
- Wolfgang HINTE Mit Bürgern gemeinwesenbezogen arbeiten: Perspektiven und
Visionen. In: Wolf Rainer Wendt Zivilgesellschaft und soziales Handeln:
70
2
Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in eigenen und gemeinschaftlichen Belangen

Lambertus, Freiburg im Breisgau 1996.
- Wolfgang HINTE Bewohner ermutigen, aktivieren, organisieren – Methoden und
Strukturen für ein effektives Stadtteilmanagement. In: Monika Alisch (publisher),
Stadtteilmanagement: Voraussetzungen und Chancen für die soziale Stadt, Leske +
Budrich, Opladen 1998.
- Lars HOLTKAMP Bürgerbeteiligung in Städten und Gemeinden. Ein
Praxisleitfaden für die Bürgerkommune; Berlin; 2000.
- Bernd KAMMERER (editor) Beteiligung von Kindern, für Kinder, mit Kindern,
Emwe-Verlag, Nürnberg 2001.
- Ministerium für Stadtentwicklung, “Wohnen und Verkehr des Landes Brandenburg
1995: Bürgerbeteiligung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit bei der Weiterentwicklung
industriell errichteter Wohngebiete: Instrumente Beispiele und
Handlungsempfehlungen”, Schriftenreihe Heft N.17.
- Georg MÜLLER-CHRIST (publisher) Nachhaltigkeit durch Partizipation -
Bürgerbeteiligung im Agendaprozeß; Sternenfels; 1998.
- Marga PRÖHL, Heidi SINNING, Stefan NÄHRLICH, (editors) Bürgerorientierte
Kommunen in Deutschland. Anforderungen und Qualitätsbausteine, Band 3:
Ergebnisse und Perspektiven des Netzwerkes CIVITAS, Verlag Bertelsmann
Stiftung, Gütersloh 2002.
- Martin SCHLEGEL Städtische Lebensqualität auf dem Prüfstand - Die kommunale
Umfrage als Element der Bürgerbeteiligung in: RaumPlanung (1997)76, S. 34-38.
- Gerd SCHMIDT-EICHSTÄDT Städtebaurecht, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1998 (3rd
edition).
- Andreas SCHMITZ, Andreas PÄTZ Lebendige Städte bauen - Bürgerbeteiligung
im Rahmen der Gestaltung des öffentlichen Raumes - Ansatz, Ergebnisse und
Evaluation des Prozesses in: RaumPlanung (2000)89, S. 67-71.
- Klaus SELLE Kooperatives Problemlösen. In: Stefan Brochnig, Klaus Selle
(publisher) Freiräume für die Stadt: sozial und ökologisch orientierter Umbau von
Stadt und Region, Bauverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden-Berlin 1993.
- Adelheit STIPPROWEIT, et al. Bürgerbeteiligung und Lokale Agenda 21 - Eine
Fallstudie zur Lösung lokaler Umweltproblemen in: Pro Regio (2001)26-27, S. 38-
46.
- Anja WENDLAND Mitbestimmung oder Beteiligung im Laufstall? Zur Diskussion
um Partizipation in der sozialen Stadtteilentwicklung, Kleine Verlag, Bielefeld
2002.
- Wolf RAINER WENDT Bürgerschaft und zivile Gesellschaft: Ihr Herkommen und
ihre Perspektiven. In: Wolf Rainer Wendt Zivilgesellschaft und soziales Handeln:
Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in eigenen und gemeinschaftlichen Belangen,
Lambertus, Freiburg im Breisgau 1996.

- Foerderverein für Jugend- und -Sozialarbeit e.V. (fjs, no year given); PLANNING
FOR REAL - Ein ganzheitlicher Ansatz gemeinwesenorientierter
Projektentwicklung; Einfuehrung in Arbeitsweise, Arbeitsmaterial und Methode;
Dokumente zweier Workshops im September 1993 in Neubaugebieten von Berlin
und Potsdam, fjs-Arbeitshefte, Schriftenreihe des Foerdervereins für Jugend- und -
sozialarbeit e.V., Bd. 6, Berlin.
71
2
- Helgrit FISCHER-MENZEL, Michael Wernecke Bürgerbeteiligung bei der

Stadterneuerung. Beispiel: Karl-Theodor-Straße, Hamburg Schriftenreihe des
BMBau - Stadtentwicklung. 02.020 Bonn, 1980.
- Detlef GARBE, Hubert Heimann Bürgerbeteiligung und Stadtentwicklung - Das
Konzept der Stadt Solingen aben in: RaumPlanung (1992)57, S. 82-87.
- Oliver IBERT Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Bürgerbeteiligung - Erweiterte
Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen der Planungen zur Expo 2000 in Hannover in:
RaumPlanung (1998)82, S. 145-150.
- Maria LÜTTRINGHAUS “Stadtentwicklung und Partizipation Fallstudien aus
Essen Katernberg und der Dresdener Äußeren Neustadt”, Demokratieentwicklung
N.17.
- Alexander Riesen, Christoph Hagen, Johannes Fulgraff Bürgergutachten als
Instrument partizipativer Stadtplanung - Ein Praxisbericht aus den Städten Apolda,
Meiningen und Nordhausen in: Standort 23(1999)2, S. 26-31.
- Barbara SCHATZ, Reinhard SELLNOW Ökologische Stadterneuerung Nürnberg
Gostenhof-Ost in: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (1997)8/9, S. 543-556.
- Volker von TIEDEMANN, Ursula KLEIMEIER, Christian KOPETZKI,
Hildebrand MACHLEIDT Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Stadterneuerung. Beispiel:
Strategien für Kreuzberg Schriftenreihe des BMBau - Stadtentwicklung. 02.021
Bonn, 1980.
• Web references
- www.wegweiser-
uergergesellschaft.de/politische_teilhabe/modelle_methoden/beispiele
- www.ehrenamt.de/sec4/item3a.htm#vorwort1
NETHERLANDS
- Daniel KATZ, Robert L. KAHN The Social Psychology of Organizations,
Hardcover 1978.
- Ministry of VROM and Foreign affairs (NL) Milieu en Ontwikkeling - Agenda 21
(Results of Rio 1992).
- NOVEM Energy-saving policy in municipalities GEA (1992) - BANS,1998-2001.
- Rijkshogeschool IJsselland Communicatie en Milieubeleid, College Reader 1998.
- SAMSON / Van ENGELEN-De FERRAN, De KNECHT etal. Handboek Energie
& Milieu, 1997-2001.
- SDU Handboek Wet Milieubeheer - Praktijkboek voor bedrijf en overheid, 2000-
2001.
- A.P. SLUMP / AMBIT Communicatie als energiebesparingsmiddel, Twente
University 1994.
- SMO/W. BREEDVELD Wat Burgers Beweegt, 1993.
- SMO / W.J. de RIDDER Communicatie, 1994.
- J.C.M. VEENMAN Buurtgerichte Voorlichting en Energiebesparing, 1986.
- J.L. ZIECK Communicatie en Techniek, 1987.
- J.L. ZIECK Energy saving effectiveness by communication, 1999.
- J.L. ZIECK / University of Amsterdam Consumerism and the introduction of
district heating systems/1980 (Consumerism means the program to promote
72
2
consumer interests including protection of the environment, restraints or abuse by

business etc.; the policy or program of protecting the interests of the consumer).

- Gemeente Utrecht Jaarverslag 2000: Dialoog in de Stad.
- Gemeente Zoetermeer GEA Informatie Milieucommunicatie - doelgroep scholen,
1996.
- P.J. GOEDHART Zoetermeer - Lokale Agenda 21, 2000.
- KUKA Hannover (Kronsberg Umwelt Kommunikations Agentur 2000) Wohnen
auf dem Kronsberg: Informationen für Hausbesitzer.
- KUKA Hannover Umweltkommunikation in der nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung,
1998.
- Projectgroep Leidsche Rijn: Stappenplan/Communicatieplan, 1994.
• Web references
- http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite
SPAIN
- Anna BALLETBO PUIG “Articulación y coordinación de los trabajos”, Jornadas
sobre la actividad parlamentaria en torno a la situación jurídica, política,
económica, social y cultural de la mujer. – Madrid, Congreso de los Diputados,
1985.
- Jordi BORJA SEBASTIA’ Descentralización y participación ciudadana, Instituto
de Estudios de Administración Local, Madrid 1987.
- Jordi BORJA SEBASTIA’ “Espagne : la décentralisation par la participation”, In
Territoires : correspondance municipale n. 312, November 1990.
- Pedro LORENZO Metodología de intervención socio cultural, analisis urbanísticos,
intervención urbanística, 1985.
- Josep Maria MUNTANYOLA La Participació en l'arquitectura de la ciutat:
instruments per a una animació sòcio-cultural, Llars Mundet , Barcelona 1984.
- A. NAYA et al. (editor) La Barcelona dels barris, FAVB, Barcelona 1999.
- M.J. RODRIGO (editor) Contexto y desarrollo social, Síntesis, Madrid 1994.
- Miguel SANCEZ MORON La Participación del ciudadano en la administración
pública, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid 1980.
- F. TONUCCI La ciutat dels infants, Barcanova, Barcelona 1997.

- Ayuntamiento de Bilbao Reglamento de Organización de los distritos y de la
participación ciudadana : aprobado en sesión plenaria de 16-II-89, Ayuntamiento
de Bilbao. Area de Relaciones Ciudadans y Descentralización, 1989.
- M. DOMINGO, M. BONET Barcelona i els moviments socials urbans. Barcelona,
Mediterrània, 1998.
• Web references
- http://www.diba.es/flordemaig/oafm/cpc/index.htm
Centre per la Participació Ciutadana.
73
2
GENERAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN EUROPE
- European Commission Community involvement in urban regeneration: added value
and changing values, Office for official publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg c1997
- European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions
Innovations for the improvement of the urban environment: a european overview,
EFILWC, Dublin c1993 (generale)
- S. JOSS “Participation in parliamentary technology assessment: from theory to
practice”, in N. J. Vigand Hpaschen (editors) Parliaments and Technology: the
Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, State University of New York
Press, New York.
- S. JOSS, J. DURANT (editors) Public Participation in Science: the role of
consensus conferences in Europe, Science Museum, London 1995.
- James G. MARCH, JOHAN P. OLSEN Rediscovering Institutions, The Free Press,
New York 1989.
- Igor MAYER Debating Technologies, A Methodological Contribution to the
Design and Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis, Tilburg University Press,
Tilburg 1997.
- R. E. SCLOVE Democracy and Technology, Guilford Press, New York - London
1995.
- R. E. SCLOVE Using democratic design criteria in participatory technology
assessment, 1997 (unpublished).
• Web references
- EU Innovation Programme, DGXIII (1999) in
http://www.cordis.lu/innovation/home.html with self-training hypertext and CD
multi-media slide show, in 11 European languages.
- Fleximodo (1999), http://www.cittadellascienza.it/fleximodo/fleximodo.html is
under development and will be gradually updated from the Fleximodo project.
This site offers all the necessary information and the ready-to-use package of tools
to organise in your city a local European Awareness Scenario Workshop on one or
more of these subjects: Urban Ecology, Urban Mobility, Urban Information and
Communication, Urban Regeneration.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
- M. ELDEN Varieties of Participative Research, in A. Cherns [et al.] Communities

in Crisis, Gower, Brookfield (Vt.) 1985.
- C. ARGYRIS, D. A. SRÖN, Participatory Action Research and Action Science
compared: a Commentary, in W. F. WHYTE (editor), Participatory Action
Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park (CA) 1991.
- Barbara BECKER, [et al.] Community Planning: An introduction to the
Comprehensive Plan, Paperback.
- O.F. BORDA, M. A. RAHAMAN Action and Knowledge: breaking the Monopoly
with Participatorv Action-Research, Apex Press, New York 1991.
74
2
- Nancy BRAGADO, Judy CORBETT, Sharon SPROWLS Building livable

communities: a policymaker's guide to infill development - prepared by the Center
for livable communities, a Local government commission initiative - Local
Government Commission, Sacramento (CA) 1995.
- John M. BRYSON, Barbara C. CROSBY Leadership for the common good:
tackling public problems in a shared-power world, Jossey-Bass publishers, San
Francisco c1992.
- B.CASSARRA Participatory Research: Group Self-directed Learning from Social
Transformation, University of Georgia, Adult Education, 1985.
- Roger W. CAVES Land use planning: the ballot box revolution, Sage, Newbury
Park 1992.
- David D. CHRISLIP, Carl E. LARSON Collaborative leadership: how citizens and
civic leaders can make a difference - foreword by John Parr - Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco 1994.
- James L. CREIGHTON The public involvement manual, Abt Books, Cambridge
(Mass.) c1981.
- Jack DE SARIO, Stuart LANGTON (editors) Citizen participation in public
decision making - prepared under the auspices of the Policy studies organization. -
Greenwood press, New York 1987.
- Michael P. DURKEE [et al.] Land-use initiatives and referenda in California Point
Arena (CA), Solano Press Books 1990.
- Merrelyn EMERY, Ronald E. PURSER The search conference: a powerful method
for planning organizational change and community action, epilogue by Fred
Emery, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (CA) c1996.
- Eben V. FODOR Better not bigger: how to take control of urban growth and
improve your community, New Society, Stony Creek, Conn. 1999.
- John FORESTER The Deliberative Practitoner Encouraging Participatory
Planning Processes, Paperback.
- John FORESTER Planning in the face of power, University of California press,
Berkeley c1989.
- William FOOTE (editors) Whyte Participatory action research, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park (CA) c1991.
- Jinny GRAVES [et al.] Walk around the block, Center for understanding the built
environment, Prairie Village (Ks.) c1992.
- Nabeel HAMDI Housing without houses: partecipation, flexibility, enablement -
with a foreword by John F.C. Turner - Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York c1991.
- Bernie JONES Neighborhood planning: a guide for citizens and planners, APA,
Chicago - Washington c1990.
- Bruce W. Mcclendon Customer service in local government: challenges for
planners and managers, American planning association, Chicago - Washington
c1992.
- C. Nicholas MOORE, Dave DAVIS Participation tools for better land-use
planning: techniques and case studies - prepared by the Center for livable
communities, a project of the Local government commission - Judy Corbett and
Sharon Sprowls - Local Government Commission, 2nd ed., Sacramento (CA) 1997.
75
2
- John MONTGOMERY, Andy THORNLEY (editors) New directions for urban

planning in the 1990s - in association with Planning practice and reseach Radical
planning initiatives - Gower, Aldershot c1990.
- Douglas R. PORTER, Patrick L. PHILLIPS, Colleen GROGAN MOORE Working
with the community: a developer's guide - sponsored by the executive group of the
Development regulations council of ULI-the Urban land institute - ULI,
Washington 1985.
- Lynda H. SCHNEEKLOTH, Robert G. SHIBLEY PLACEMAKING The art and
practice of building communities, John Wiley, New York c1995
- D.A. SCHON The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice,
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York 1991.
- R. Scott FOSLER, Renee A. Berger (editors) Public-private partnership in
american cities: seven case studies, Lexington Books, Lexington-Toronto c1982.
- Frank S. SO, Irving HAND, Bruce D. McDOWELL (editors) The practice of state
and regional planning, APA, Chicago (Ill.) c1986 (chapter. 12).
- S. Mark WHITE [et al.] Planning and community equity: a component of APA's
agenda for America's communities program, APA, Chicago-Washington c1994.
- Nick WATES The Community Planning Handbook: How People Can Shape Their
Cities, Towns and Villages in Any Part of the World, Paperback (USA).
WEBSITES - GENERAL INTERESTS
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/particip/information/links.html
Useful links about: Participation WWW sites, Organisations, networks and participatory
projects, Pratical manuals - full texts.
The Eldis - Participation page is a comprehensive listing of major Participation
resources online with description of organisations, site content, contact details -
Practical manuals - Major www sites - Bibliographic sources - Organisations and
networks - Discussion lists.
http://www.bestpractices.org
This searchable database contains over 1600 proven solutions from more than 140
countries to the common social, economic and environmental problems of an urbanizing
world.
http://www.planum.net/editorial.htm
A proposal for an on-line European Journal of Planning.
http://www.parnet.org PARnet (The Cornell Participatory Action Research Network),

Cornell University.
In "PARarchives". Searching "Youth, Participation, Action Research" it is possible
finding 168 titles in English.
http://www.iap2.org/index.html
International Association for Public Participation.
http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/case-examples/index.html
76
2
A selection of Case examples illustrating specific issues and provide insights for project
design and development.
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/public.htm or:
http://www.cityoftucson.org/planning/public.htm Several documents about Planning
activities in Tucson.
www.un.org Official website of United Nations.
77
2
Appendix .
Communication and participation procedure
from the marketing perspective
Communication procedure towards
the inhabitants and users participation
Written by Jan ZIECK, Ambit
78
2
I. Introduction
Definition
Participation in a process is taking an active part in the development of that process and
recognise yourselves in the end product.
Justification
It is general understood that in urban planning and changing processes persons and institutions
involved have to be informed and have to participate in the developing process.
The Maslov Need Hierarchy for human needs:

Physiological needs: the basic requirements for survival (food, clothing, shelter)
Safety needs: requirements for some level of security, freedom from threat
Social needs: the requirements to feel wanted, loved, cared for, to belong
Esteem needs: the requirements for a sense of personal worth and identity, for status, for
personal recognition, etc.
Self-actualisation: the requirement for self-fulfillment, to become what one is capable of
becoming.
Consumer protection
Looking to the individual as a consumer of urban space the basic rights are (1975: Council of
European Communities):
The right to protection of health and the right to safety
The right to protection of economical interests
The right to compensation
The right on information and on education
The right on representation
Dimensions of participation/Governance (ref.: HQE2R Participation scale)

Coercion
Information
Awareness
Consultation
Empowerment
Self-government
So the conclusion is:
“We will listen to and include the needs of the inhabitants and users and
take into account the local context”.
Key objectives
To reach the set target in the most efficient way
To organise an effective communication
To bring social and economical costs of communication or caused by lack of
communication to a most efficient level
To obtain an atmosphere of willingness and acceptance around the project by realising and
open communication of unavoidable limitations thus avoiding unreachable expectations and
disappointments
To avoid negative group processes
79
2
Costs
Communication and the organising of communication/participation have to be financed mostly
out of the project budget, however, to be justified out of:
the rights of the consumers/users
optimised effective communication costs can reduce the total project costs
A rough indication is given in the next illustration:
sc
pc
Communication costs (cc)

Project costs (pc)
Social/ quality costs (sc)
cc
Communication intensity
Communication number of contacts
The graphic is just indicative but it should be noticed that there is an optimum. So increasing
investments in communication does not automatically lead to better results.
II. Considerations
In this chapter general schemes are presented to define starting points for the approach of
participation in urban rehabilitation programmes.
The project process

In scheme 1 (annex) the process-flow is indicated with the motives leading to that process.
Three main categories of actors are indicated: politics, proprietors and (other) private bodies
and/or individuals.
So (1): in the communication/participation process the motives, the project stage and the
position of the actor play a deciding role (or: relating to costs, a restrictive role?)
The simplified communication scheme

In figure 1 the sender and the receiver are indicated. Communication-distance and “disturbing
or loosing of contents” of the message are the important items,
together with the state of ”synchronised minds” of the actors.
80
2
INTERNAL FACTORS EXTERNAL FACTORS
- Image/Cultivation/Recognation - Countervailing power
- Direct communication lines yes/no
- Comprehensibility of a message
COMMUNICATION DISTANCE
Interference
SENDER RECEIVER
(municipality) (inhabitants/users)
. - Task (education/participation)
.- Objective .- Interests
.- (Future) expectations
.- Social needs
FEED-BACK
Figure 1: Communication scheme
So (2): a message must be embodied in a communication strategy, the communication distance

must be as short as possible (or: avoid anonymous actors and take care for a fair and same
level of information of sender and receiver (instruction programme/strategy).
Detailed communication scheme

Figure 2 must be used as a summarised overview and be used as a reminder by the design of a
communication plan. It has been based on a conception of producer (urban space) and consumer
(urban space market).
81
2
"Environment"
(general administration/agency/consumer organizations, line of
business organizations, influential private actors, public utility,
municipality).
- General public relations

- Design, building-up and
guarding of positive image
- planreputation
Target/Planning/
Budgetting/ communicationplan target groups
Organization knowledge/contacts
expertise/information desk
- model function ACTIONS

Market file
- model projects
first inventory
- prestige
indicators
actors/targetgroups
File Knowledge and
experience
dissemination media
information/instruction choice
Training
Publicity
Direct marketing
Rewards
contest elements
Testing
Commissioning
Specifications
regulations Quality Control
Figure 2: detailed communication scheme
So (3): In the urban rehabilitation process you cannot avoid sometimes looking at it as a
product put into a market. That makes it possible to use existing tools (formulation ethic
starting points!) and makes a cost reduction possible. Transparency and open
communication/participation cannot rule away the necessity to define a goodwill-strategy and
take the organisational measures to meet that.
And (4): It is very important to draw up an inventory/investigate in a general way the attitude
of the “consumers” of the urban space. Their attitude is influenced by their personal
82
2
background and the society. Counteracting (consumerism) power is induced by being ignored
(so communicate and give possibility to participate), feeling inability, discontent and
discomfort.
Configuration of powers on the market

In scheme 2 (annex) the powers of the different actor categories (government/ municipality;
society; investor/developer/designer and consumer) meet on the (urban space) market and
influence each other.
So (5): There are always powers (communication pressure) working on the market. Receiving
no feedback does not mean agreement. Exceeding a certain threshold value gives a counter
reaction that has no relation anymore to the relevant incident and can be very costly for the
project. Active communication is under all circumstances a necessity including monitoring of
the feedback.
Decision-making model
In the dialogue between the actors it is often said that the ultimate decision only depends on the
price (payback period). In figure 3 it is shown that other motives play a role in the decision
making process (economical/social aspects).
Figure 3: Decision making
COMMUNICATION
Energy saving Investment
Pay-back period
Image/prestige
Financing
DECISION
MAKING
Comfort
Future expectations Idealistic motives
So (6): Participation/communication is a necessity. Decision-making on lowest prices only, is

not realistic. In this respect the quality of the project will be increased and the total project and
social costs often reduced.
The one-face principle

Figure 4 shows that it is an absolute necessity to organise one voice in the communication
process. Nothing leads to such an annoyance as to receive on different times, from different
actors, different and uncoordinated messages.
83
2
The “one-face” principle towards the client
Government
One co-ordinated message
Government
company
Municipality
Consultant Intermediar Clients
SME’s
Utility company
Etc.
© Copyright Ambit 2002
Figure 4: The one-face principle towards the client
So (7): Communication/participation must be organised to reach clearness in one co-ordinated

message on logic moments, speaking with one voice. Also, however, the actors should take
initiatives and assistance to organise the “receiver-side”. Motives are the reality to enable the
communication in physical and feasible sense, spreading responsibility and hoping for (trusting
in) a process of social cohesion that leads to active participation,
and (8): make use of the existing (municipal) communication channels. Often the municipal
organisation has a good communication network and a structure of suboffices in the
neighbourhood nearby the actors.
Data-processing of communicating process

The opening of a communication (mailing) procedure to the numerous individuals (households:
small house owners and tenants) must be carefully prepared. The use of municipal data and
automatic processing of data are necessary (see scheme 3: annex). A limiting factor is the need
to guarantee privacy.
So (9): The use of municipal data to inventory “small” actors to communicate with and to make
use of automatic processing (cost-effective and less faults) are strongly recommended. The
84
2
guarantee for privacy is a must (general data to be processed in a black-box and framing of an
ethical protocol?)
Flow scheme mailing

In scheme 4 (annex) a mailing process is presented, which has proven itself in practice
(Thermie-plus project Utrecht.NL). The procedure demands an active approach, which is
unavoidable in the communication process towards participation. Anyhow, every
communication/participation process to numerous participants starts with a mailing procedure.
Attention, however, should be paid to the quick developing use of e-mail.
So (10): The mailing process is an important means in the communication process and often
marks the start of a project. An active follow-up of the mailing is a must. Attention must be paid
to a possible use of other, strongly developing, communication means (e-mail; interactive
techniques; use of cable TV).
III. Applications/ method/ organisation

General accepted is that communication/participation is a necessity for a successful project and
a right of the consumers of urban space (inhabitants/users).
The objectives have been formulated, while ten general points to be considered are presented.
Further, the system should be one horizontal structure with “equal” actors (participating).
However, to give a structure to the system we define the project team (with municipality as
initiator) as the active (direct) part (supply-side) and the other parties concerned as receivers
(indirect actors).
Starting document
Action 1: The municipality takes the initiative with the project-organisation to draft a starting-
document with the project objectives, the communication/
participation objectives and with the operative directions. This results in an assignment to the
project organisation to design a communication strategy and make a first estimate of costs and
benefits.
Organisation structure
Action 2: The project organisation is developed (see as a possible structure scheme 5: annex).
The appointment of a responsible person makes it possible to organise a one-face structure
towards “the receiver-side” (see scheme 6: annex: organisation structure
communication/participation).
Summarised communication strategy

Action 3: The communication manager must first make an analysis to prepare the draft of the
communication strategy. He has to make an inventory of all actors involved divided in:
Present Direct (project organisation)

Actors
Future Indirect
A first note of a listing of all actors involved and their interests and motives, must be drafted
(market research, questionnaire, interviews, open meeting).
85
2
Working document
Action 4: The communication manager must now formulate first ideas about the necessity of
organising “the receiver-side”, inventory existing representative organisations and the possible
use of existing (municipal) communication channels.
Action 5: A first working document on communication/participation must be drafted with a

general communication strategy projected on the (general) project objectives and modified to
get the optimum project results with an estimation of costs and benefits. The activities must be
given a budget.
Action 6: The proposals must now follow a procedure to obtain approval and commitment. This
process is mostly a political affair.
After this a momentum has to be reached with four fixed points:
1. Project objective(s)
2. Communication and participation objectives
3. (Amended) communication strategy
4. Limitations (budget/activities)
Remark: up till this moment participation is only limited to the main actors in the field (project
team, large organisations/industry and real estate owners). Legal participation procedures must
be included in the further communication plan development.
Detailed communication plan

Action 7: A detailed communication plan/participation plan must be drafted, starting with an
analysis of actors with their needs and interests. The following datasheet is recommended:
scheme 7 (annex).
It should be born in mind that there is a main division in the actor categories: the business
oriented contacts and the “concerned ones”. Although the first category must be included in the
plans (strategy, information) the second category is the objective for participation because the
initiative lies by the project organisation/municipality.
Communication means
Action 8: In the communication/participation plan a first selection of communication means can
be made by use of the data as given in figure 5 (summarised overview of communication
means).
From this point on the communication side of the project team is operative and they know
whom to contact and they know their own objectives and motives, interests and needs of the
actors involved.
A first round must follow for a mutual acquaintance on the hand of a well to be prepared agenda
with a further objective to get a feedback on the planned communication/ participation plan and
to hand over further project information with the planning.
The group of “future interests” actors is to be defined as far as possible. The instrument is the
analyses of the project objectives (developments directed to what target groups) with a possible
market research to form a panel, representative for these expected future inhabitants/users.
86
2
re
Means
ai
nn
ts
en
t)
t io
/ E icip tio tion

en
em
es
m rt sta ta
In uct n (v ten Qu
St h tu ls el
se
-m a t n
co pa fe ul
ai ion
un tru an on
le l ni ns
rti
/
st tio r s
ve
st ion er )
Te tur ma Co
Pu ct (w al)
In ma n (w ure
Ed a ve n)
La S )P ti
R ati ns l)
ct er pe
ad
e
a
e
b
l
it
l
uc cti rb
fo tio ch
bl on itt
ru ing ra
m
ew on (
r
In ma Bro
D sum /Co
c
(
o
r /
Actors
a
on s
In ngs
(C a rd
c
c
ru
(indirect)
c
i
li
r
r
ire
fo
ai
M
Representatives / Organisations Actor Status:
Inhabitants small owners Leaving the area
Inhabitants tenants Staying in the area
Panels - permanent
Consumer organisations - temporary other accommodation
Interest groups required
Small business / Services Future inhabitants / users
Business organisations/ Industry Other interest groups / Individuals
Chamber of Commerce
SME's organisations
Institutes / Associations
Real estate owners houses
Real estate owners others
Health / Sport associations
Figure 5: Summarised overview of communication means
The start of the process

Action 9: Try to give an actual start on the project/the dialogue with the actors by e.g. a striking
start event and try to get as much publicity as possible for this event. Such a start is strongly
recommended, because it gives some sort of acknowledge to the project communication and the
initiatives taken and the recognition of messages by the “receiver- side”.
Further development is required to come to a participation level. This includes “transparency of

the project”: project information and education/instruction (by preference to be organised via an
independent ”third” party). It must be mutual agreed upon how to structure the participation
process and how to structure horizontal co-operation and co-ordination (between different
categories of actors).
It is of high importance that the actors get well informed about the limitations of
their participation (costs/project and city objectives) to avoid disappointments
and cynicism.
The developed participation process

Action 10: The participation process now has to be fully developed. This means that internal
and external activities must now be fitted in an organisation structure:
Internal:
1) A part of the communication workgroup must form a taskforce together with project
planners/technicians. The group must receive a clear assignment in accordance with the
project objectives and communication strategy. The members report to their own working
groups.
2) The project procedures must be adapted to the participation process. That means that
explanation/information must be presented and discussed. It is necessary that this process
results in a dialogue and that there is room for contribution under the general clear and
mutual accepted limitations.
87
2
3) It is necessary that the participation procedure will be adapted and co-ordinated with the
legal procedures and that the existing (municipal) communication lines will be used and/or
will be fitted in (co-ordination; one-voice; cost-effective).
External:
The participation group must invite (representative) actors to determine the required ways of
communication. In open meetings it must be decided (within the project strategy!) which
combinations of groups can be made and for the representatives from groups how the
communication with their groups will be organised (budget available?) and which objectives to
be considered.
The communication process will mostly be organised via mail (note e-mail, Internet, interactive
techniques and cable TV) and open meetings. Actions and answers must be watched and
stimulated via reminders, the objective of messages and meetings must always clearly be
defined. Meetings have to be seriously prepared (agenda). Open dialogues to be professional
conducted and prepared (use of questionnaires).
The participation process must be structured and fixed administrative procedures of (project)
documents and progress reports with feedback must be laid down, with a report procedure of
the results of the feedback.
Note that beforehand it must be clearly stated what the possible range of contribution into the
project means to avoid disappointments. A procedure for conflicts/complaints must be fixed
with deadlines for periods for conclusions/answers. Also activities must be started to instruct all
actors with the objective (to start a communication/participation process from an accepted
same “platform of information” and to gain first commitment).
In the participation process (excluding the actors in direct business orientated categories like
land property e.g.) a fixed strategy must be laid down for the following main interests of the
indirect actors:
(a) Actors leaving the area (free, forced, compensation?)
(b) Actors staying in the area
Permanent (causing of inconvenience during construction works, traffic problems,
damage risks, e.g.)
Temporary other accommodation required (compensation, temporary
accommodation, services, removing facilities, participation on rehabilitation works).
(c) Future inhabitants/users (participation on building design, shaping of the environment,
(public) transport, available services e.g.)
(d) Other interest groups/individuals (inconvenience during construction work,
consequences of the change of the neighbourhood/environment compared with the
present situation).
For cost efficient reasons it is recommended to use figure 5 and analyse the possibility of
combinations of activities.
The required organisation of the larger groups of indirect actors (mainly inhabitants, households
and SME’s) must be realised and mostly the project team must take the initiatives.
Representability and commitment from all concerned are required. In figure 6 (communication
scheme with groups) this situation has been expressed.
In future special attention should be given to electronic communication because commitment

can be (easier) built and the feedback is simplified. However, it should be born in mind that
anonymous systems always tend to less understanding of problems of other groups/individuals
and/or the project (So: direct contacts remain even more required). In larger projects it is
recommended to open an information centre where people can freely walk in and out and ask
questions.
88
2
Actor categories:
Leaving
Staying: permanent
temporary removing
Future (formation of a representative panel

Actorgroup
Actor group existing contacts/market research)
Others
Plenary
Opinion leaders Groups Elected

Elected Panels
Groups representative Panels
representative
associations
associations
Directand
Direct andopen
open
consulting/meetings Project
Project
consulting/meetings
fixedstructures
structures communicationgroup
communication group
fixed
correspondence
correspondence
professional accompaniment
professional accompaniment
Participation
Participation
Mailings
Mailings
Cable
Cable TVTVlocal
localnews
news
Interactivetechnics/internet/e-mail
technics/internet/e-mail Conflicts/
Interactive
Hearings/open meetings complains
Hearings/open meetings
Walk-inevenings
Walk-in evenings
Education/Informationevenings
Education/Information evenings
Demonstrations
Demonstrations
© Ambit 2002
Figure 6: Communication scheme with groups
89
2
IV. Coherence methodology and communication procedure

In figure 7 the basic coherence between the HQE2R methodology and the
communication/participation is expressed. The scheme forms a starting point for the drafting of
a communication strategy and further plan development.
HQE2R methodology
Five main objectives
21 sub objectives
Indisputable indicators
Neighbourhood
Neighbourhood Basic
Basicneeds
needs
typology Project
Project and wishes
typology and wishes
Possible
Possiblegeneral
generalplenary
plenarysession/
session/
first inventory
first inventory
Local
LOCAL needs and
ISSUES wishes
Communication/
Communication/
Technical
Technicaldevelopment
development participation
participation
Legal Project
procedure
Figure 7: Cohesion methodology and communication strategy/plan
90
2
In Action 10 and datasheet scheme 7 (annex) the actor categories with their basic needs and
wishes have been described. Together with the local needs and wishes (to be framed into the
basic needs and wishes scheme) and after consulting the actors (individuals, groups,
representatives) the final strategy and plans can be drafted.
The use of the following datasheet is recommended:
Actorgroup: …………
Organised/represented: yes/no, contact: ………..
Number of contacts: ………..
Basic needs and wishes (refer to page 77/78)
Local issues/needs/wishes
Ref. deliverable 14
Figure 8: Datasheet “needs and wishes” for the communication process
91
2
Initiative Motive Plan- development/ Projectprocess
urban development
1. Site Location
politics/ municipality social
2. Rough planning
economical Landuse/Rehabilitation/Demolishing-recycling
Quality/Planning/Budgetting
INITIATIVE
Legal bilatoral relation
3. Detailled planning
Actors, being social-economical Landuse/Rehabilitation/Demolishing-recycling
ground and/or object
proprietors 4. Property transfer
imago/prestige process
5. Building design
technical necessity
(state of building and
neighbourhood) 6. Building process
Private
infra-structural
development 7. Commissioning
safety
8. Management
Maintain process
others
C 2002 Ambit
•
92
• Scheme 1: The project process Selling
Financial economic
MANUFACTURER GOVERNMENT
PROJECT Marketing
DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY
Resulting power via Social

inserted instruments
(4P´s)
Social marketing Laws, general policy, instruction/advice, directions and inspections
c
Resulting counterforce C1
a
by marktbalance
MARKET
(consumerism)
* individual
* collective
* ad hoc.
b
* organized
a b
Ideas and perceptions c

c1
Ethics
Culture
(marketing research)
Progressive
b Resulting power C1
a
b
Consumer rights
Absorption area CONSUMER OF

SOCIETY Conservative
(threshold value by URBAN SPACE
exceeding a reaction arises)
93
MUNICIPALITY Scheme 2: Configuration of powers on the market
Real Estate data
Object data (neighbourhood code/date of construction)
Unique code: postal code/ housenumber

Special projects Real Estate taxes
Priority factors BASIS Databank
Actor profile (address/name/status)
Cadastral data
(housing/owners associations)
Consumption data public utilities

BLACK
(energy/water/waste)
BOX
Names/addresses
Input
Data file
output
Priority Actors
dBASE
Project data
input
Scheme 3: Data-processing of communicating process

Participants © Ambit 2002
94
Schema 3: Data-processing of communicating process
LETTER
MAILING LEAFLET
LETTER REPLY CARD
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT DATE INFO-SESSION
REPLY CARD
NO REACTION 1st REMINDER
ANNOUNCEMENT LETTER
NO REACTION
CONFIRMATION
INFO-SESSION INFO FILE
FREE GIFT Returners from
SEVERAL LEAFLETS LETTER negative decision
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT
NO REACTION 2nd REMINDER REPLY CARD
NO REACTION
FILE
ONE OR MORE QUOTATIONS
QUOTATION Returners from
ENERGY ADVICE LETTER
negative decision
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT
REPLY CARD
NO REACTION 3th REMINDER
NO REACTION
QUOTATION ONE OR MORE CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS
EVENTUAL GRANT ASSIGNMENT LETTER Returners from
SPONT. ANNOUNCEMENT REPLY CARD negative decision
NO REACTION 4th REMINDER

NO REACTION
Returners from fall
negative decision off
Scheme 4: Flow scheme mailing
95
2
The
EU
Linking-pin
system
(by Likert)
Steering
Committee
Management
team
Coordination team
Work Work Work Work Work

group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4 group 5
© Ambit-2002
Scheme 5: project organisation
86
One-face principle
feedback
communication channels
message receipt notice awareness action
communication
/ participation
methods
actors organisation means
objective - strategy - plan - execution

present
direct actors
future project organisation
matrix structures
steering committee
coordination group Linking Pin System
workgroups
Communication centre
One face principle
communication
indirect actors strategy
representatives / organisations
plenary inhabitants small owners
individuals tenants
panels
consumer organisations
interest groups
small business / services
business organisations / industry

chamber of commerce
SME’s organisations
groups
institutes/ associations
real estate owners houses
others
© Ambit 2002 health / sport associations/culture/social
institutions
Scheme 6: Organisation structure communication/participation
87
2
Actorgroup Number of contacts Status of the actor Organised

Leaving the area Staying in the area Future inhabitants Other interestgroups Yes No Required
/ users and neighbours yes / no
Permanent Temporary other Representation Representation
accommodation required general accepted poor accepted
For each actorgroup the following datasheet should be completed:

Actorgroup:
Number of contacts:
Discription of interests:
Discription of needs:
Contacts / data inputs / sources:
Individual contacts required:
Representative organisations: yes no / contacts:
Formation of a representative organisation required: yes no:
Strategy and actions required for reaching an acceptable level of communication/participation:
Existing communication channels (municipality contacts):
Scheme: 7 Datasheet actor
88

HQE2R Guide Du Quartier - Participation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

HQE2R Guide Du Quartier - Participation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://hqe2r.

Sustainable renovation of buildings for

Philippe Outrequin, La Calade

HQE2R is a project co-financed by the European Commission within the

Philippe OUTREQUIN La Calade, France

Celia ROBBINS UWE, U.K.

Ove MORCK Cenergia, Denmark

Catherine CHARLOT – VALDIEU CSTB, France

With specific contribution by:

1.1. Summary of the HQE2R European project and methodology .......................11

2. PARTICIPATION AND THE REGENERATION PROCESS ....................... 16

3. PARTICIPATION IN THE HQE2R NEIGHBOURHOODS ........................... 26

4. APPROACHES TO PARTICIPATION ........................................................ 47

4.2.8 - Information – neighbourhood newsletters .............................................................. 53

5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.................................................................. 60

Memorandum: the HQE2R approach

1.1. The objectives of the HQE²R project

sustainable development. It is a question of providing operational tools for a concrete

1.2 - The HQE2R approach and the expected project results

THE HQE²R APPROACH TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE

PHASE 1 : DECISION PHASE 2 : ANALYSIS

3. Inventory based on the

Source: HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr) SD: Sustainable Development

Definition of 6 SD Choice of 5 SD Development of a shared SD

Elaboration of Recommendations to improve

• briefing documents or guidelines for non built elements in a neighbourhood;

1.2. Where are we in the HQE2R process and methodology?

Participation at the centre of the HQE2R approach:

PHASE 1 : DECISION PHASE 2 : ANALYSIS

3. Inventory based on the

Source: HQE²R Project (http://hqe2r.cstb.fr) SD: Sustainable Development

1.3. What about the content of this deliverable ?

We thus represent participation on a three-dimensional diagram:

Monitoring to long term

From short term

Source: CSTB – La Calade for the Brochure HQE²R n° 13

2. PARTICIPATION AND THE REGENERATION

2.1. Preconditions for participation

2.2. Participation in different types of regeneration process

2.2.1 - Generative and Participative Programming (Programmation

By definition, the PGP aims to be both "generative" and "participative" 8:

The PGP procedure is the result of the work of three groups:

- Survey of a few executives or representative people at the moment of programming in

The "diagnosis on foot"11

The generative and participative programming procedure (Document EPPPUR/Ile St-DenisTable)

2.2.2 - Regeneration led by a social agenda : participation structure

• The New Deal for Communities in Bristol: Community at Heart

• Employment and business

• The Community at Heart Organisational structure; delivering

Community at Heart (Bristol NDC) Organisational Structure

Best Practice Program

Resident-led element NDC staff-led element

Participation is tus central to the scheme on a number of different levels:

• Problems associated with the community-led approach

3. PARTICIPATION IN THE HQE2R

3.2 The participation context for HQE2R partner countries

3.3. Case studies from the HQE2R neighbourhoods

3.3.1 - Frederiksberg – Copenhagen - Denmark

3.3.2 - Quartier Viscose – Echirolles - France

• Participation in the diagnosis

3.3.3 - La Roseraie – Angers - France

• Participation in the inventory