Participatory mechanisms and features of community participation in the regeneration of urban courtyards in Poland
pdf (Język Polski)

Keywords

participation
urban regeneration
urban courtyard
participatory mechanisms

How to Cite

Miśkowiec, M. (2023). Participatory mechanisms and features of community participation in the regeneration of urban courtyards in Poland. Rozwój Regionalny I Polityka Regionalna, 14(63), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.14746/rrpr.2023.63.12

Abstract

The growing need to support urban areas facing an accumulation of different problems has resulted in the search for solutions through the regeneration process. The current direction of the urban regeneration policy indicates the necessity for the local community to participate in the decisionaking process. For this aim, public participation is used as one of the crucial elements of the regeneration process. Until now, the regeneration undertakings have mostly concerned the development of public spaces, areas attractive for tourists or post-industrial areas. Unfortunately, in large urban agglomerations, access to micro semi-public spaces devoted directly to the local community is usually limited. The small semi-public spaces are the ones that have the potential to create a local network of places where recreation and neighborhood activities can take place. The community participation in the redevelopment of the urban courtyard spaces creates opportunities not only to improve the quality of their lives but also to renew the degraded urban areas. Therefore, the purpose of the article is to identify the occurring regularities and differences in the applied participatory mechanisms, as well as to indicate and explain the influence of the most important features of community participation on the achieved effects of regeneration of urban courtyards. The study was conducted considering 17 locations of courtyards in six Polish cities. The research primarily used qualitative research methods such as in-depth interviews and field observations. The results indicate such mechanisms and features of the participation process that contributed not only to the achievement of spatial-functional effects, but primarily social effects such as integration and activation of the neighborhood community and the grassroots assumption of initiative and responsibility for the common space.

https://doi.org/10.14746/rrpr.2023.63.12
pdf (Język Polski)

Funding

Narodowe Centrum Nauki w Polsce (grant nr 2019/33/N/HS4/01670)

References

Arnstein S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Arvai J.L. 2003. Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: Effects on the perceived acceptability of risk‐policy decisions. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 23(2): 281-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00308

Babbie E. 2008. Podstawy badań społecznych. PWN, Warszawa.

Brown G., Chin S.Y.W. 2013. Assessing the effectiveness of public participation in neighbourhood planning. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5): 563-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.820037

Butterfoss F.D. 2006. Process evaluation for community participation. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1): 323-340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102207

Domański B., Gwosdz K. 2010. Spojrzenie na problemy rewitalizacji miast w Polsce. [W:] Z. Ziobrowski, W. Jarczewski (red.), Rewitalizacja miast polskich - diagnoza. Instytut Rozwoju Miast, Kraków.

Donderowicz M., Główczyński M., Wronkowski A. 2016. Partycypacja społeczna w rewitalizacji - rola stowarzyszeń lokalnych na przykładzie Poznania. Problemy Rozwoju Miast, 4: 41-51.

Drazkiewicz A., Challies E., Newig J. 2015. Public participation and local environmental planning: Testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from Germany. Land Use Policy, 46: 211-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.010

Falanga R. 2020. Formulating the success of citizem participation in urban regeneration: Insights and perplexities from Lisbon. Urban Research & Practice, 13, 5: 477-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2019.1607895

Ferreira V., Barreira A.P., Loures L., Antunes D., Panagopoulos T. 2020. Stakeholders’ engagement on nature-based solutions: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2): 640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020640

Fung A. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66: 66-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x

Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A., Öhrström E. 2010. Attractive “quiet” courtyards: a potential modifier of urban residents’ responses to road traffic noise? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(9): 3359-3375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7093359

Hałat P. 2010. Instrumenty partycypacji społecznej w lokalnych programach rewitalizacji miast w Polsce. [W:] K. Skalski (red.), O budowie metod rewitalizacji w Polsce - aspekty wybrane. Instytut Spraw Publicznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie, Kraków, s. 127-155.

IAPP. 2007. IAP2 spectrum of public participation.

Innes J.E., Booher D.E. 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4): 419-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170

Jarczewski W., Huculak M., Janas K. 2013. Rewitalizacja podwórek. Kompendium. Instytut Rozwoju Miast, Kraków.

Kleinschroth F., Kowarik I. 2020. COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the urgent need for urban greenspaces. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(6): 318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2230

Kotus J., Sowada T. 2017. Behavioural model of collaborative urban management: extending the concept of Arnstein’s ladder. Cities, 65: 78-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.02.009

Krysiński D., Banaś J. 2017. Wrocław. Wejście od podwórza. Raport ewaluacyjny projektu.

Lawson L., Kearns A. 2010. Community Engagement in Regeneration: Are We Getting the Point? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(1): 19-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-009-9168-7

Lerner J. 2014. Urban acupuncture. Island Press, Washington, DC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-584-7

Li X., Zhang F., Hui E.C.M., Lang W. 2020. Collaborative workshop and community participation: A new approach to urban regeneration in China. Cities, 102: 102743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102743

Meyer C.B. 2001. A Case in case Study Methodology. Field Methods, 13(4): 329-352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0101300402

Miśkowiec M., Gorczyca K.M. 2018. Public participation in local regeneration programmes in Poland: case study of Olkusz. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 7(4): 44-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2018100103

Miśkowiec M., Masierek E. 2022. Factors and levels of community participation using the example of small-scale regeneration interventions in selected neighbourhood spaces in Polish cities. Urban Research & Practice, 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2022.2099758

Parés M., Bonet-Martí J., Martí-Costa M. 2012. Does participation really matter in urban regeneration policies? Exploring governance networks in Catalonia (Spain). Urban Affairs Review, 48(2): 238-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087411423352

Raszka B., Zienkiewicz A., Kalbarczyk R., Kalbarczyk E. 2014. Revitalization of urban courtyards in Wrocław (southwestern Poland). Polish Journal of Natural Sciences, 29(3): 225-237.

Reed M.S., Vella S., Challies E., de Vente J., Frewer L., Hohenwallner-Ries D., van Delden H. 2018. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26: 7-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541

Risse T. 2004. Global governance and communicative action. Government and Opposition, 39(2): 288-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00124.x

Rosen J., Painter G. 2019. From Citizen Control to co-production: Moving beyond a Linear Conception of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(3): 335-347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1618727

Rowe G., Frewer L.J. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(4): 512-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259197

Rowe G., Frewer L.J. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2): 251-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724

Sagan I., Grabkowska M. 2012. Urban regeneration in Gdańsk, Poland: Local regimes and tensions between top-down strategies and endogenous renewal. European Planning Studies, 20(7): 1135-1154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.674347

Sim D. 2019. Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life. Island Press.

Skanavis C., Koumouris G.A., Petreniti V. 2005. Public participation mechanisms in environmental disasters. Environmental Management, 35(6): 821-837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0120-z

Teernstra A.B., Pinkster F.M. 2016. Participation in neighbourhood regeneration: Achievements of residents in a Dutch disadvantaged neighbourhood. Urban Research & Practice, 9(1): 56-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1045931

White S.C. 2011. Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Developmnet in Practice, 6(1): 6-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452961000157564

Voorberg W.H., Bekkers V.J., Tummers L.G. 2015. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9): 1333-1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

Ustawa z dnia 9 października 2015 r. o rewitalizacji (t.j. Dz.U. z 2021 r. poz. 485).

Wytyczne w zakresie rewitalizacji w programach operacyjnych na lata 2014-2020. Minister Rozwoju, MR/H 2014-2020/20(2)08/2016.