Teoría del color: las causas del color

The majority of respondents indicated the importance of public participation as Extremely Important or Somewhat Important. This suggests that participants have a keen interest on the issue of public participation. Analysis of the answers about the reasons of why it is so important or not important raised four primary topics:

• Democracy, politics

• Use of knowledge (Social Learning)

• Public support and understanding

• Other (not important or somewhat important)

Respondents indicated representative democracy as an important element of democratic societies. Others mentioned that public participation is politically important, but not practically. Some respondents indicated pubic participation as important due to political reasons. For example, it is important as a citizen’s right to voice and expression of their opinions and concerns are critical.

The survey highlighted information on the importance of the use of citizens’

knowledge for the better decision-making. Some of the responses supported the use and sharing of knowledge between citizens and practitioners. The importance of local peoples’ knowledge was discussed as a key element to understanding citizens’ needs and wants. Overall, one third of respondents indicated the importance of understanding and supporting local people as a primary reason of public participation as being important.

People have to understand the reasons behind the decisions that practitioners make and the difficulties that decision-makers face.

Some respondents were of the opinion that it is a “claim” that public participation is important, or it is important only at the local level. Also, the respondents discussed that the level of importance of public participation varies depends on the set of factors.

The majority of the respondents agreed that public participation practice has increased since the 1960s. Respondents indicated advanced communication technologies and the role of mass media as a crucial element of public participation development.

New technologies made public participation easier to achieve. Legitimization of public participation was a major step toward the increased input of the public in the planning process. Other respondents pointed out that the process became more routinized but not helpful for the citizens because of the lack of influence on the decision-making process.

The level of public participation today remained at the same level as it was forty-fifty years ago based on the answers from academics. For example, one of the respondents indicated that they did not see any future changes in public participation as they have has observed it for a long period of time with no changes in the progress direction.

Figure 4.1. The level of Public Participation in Planning Practice

Based on the responses, according to many respondents, the level of engagement today is Inform and Consult and less than a half of respondents indicated as Involve and Collaborate. Comments from respondents included discussion about difficulties to answer this question in general because the levels vary from case to case and from city to city.

Manipulation is still present today but it is more hidden and complicated. For example, it is quasi participation that is aimed at giving the public a sense that they are involved in the process. Avoid if it is possible is the common practice for the planning process.

Respondents indicated many factors that delay the progress of public participation. The majority of them chose more than two options from the list and one third of them chose “all of the above” option. The main reasons were indicated by the respondents as unwillingness to share power and the lack of fundings. Other respondents’ comments included the fear of politicians to lose their power, opposing positions between public and developers (NIMBYism), lack of trust, time and interest of the general public in the proscess.

Fifty percent of the respondents answered that all of the offered options would enhance the progress with a slight preference to the openness of the process and respectful dialogue. More than 50% of respondents chose the option “other” and indicated the reasons that are more important in their opinion or were not given in the answer options. For example, some respondents suggested improving the design of the process, and involving the public in the planning process from the first step. Also, public benefits should be tangible in the outcome of the process.

The majority of the respondents indicated that there is a gap between theory and practice. Some respondents indicated the need for an improved linkage between theory and the practice. Others argued that there is no need to worry about the gap because it is

natural. The respondents indicated that not all practices are noticed and mentioned in the literature, and this makes this question difficult to answer. Additionally, respondents indicated that there is general progress and movement in the public participation that is aimed to close or at least to reduce the gap.

The respondents suggested many options to enhance the progress of public participation. Openness of the process was a main theme from the comments - open in the sense of sharing of information about the specific cases, successes, and failures, and applying new methods and techniques. Careful design of the public participation process was suggested to make the process more interactive with a two-way flow of information and respect. Training and re-educating the planners to be good listeners, more respectful to the public, and skilled facilitators was another suggestion. Overall, respondents indicated the importance of interactive dialogue between public, developers, and planners in order to make the process more social.

Future directions of public participation were discussed in the final question of the survey. The general trend in the answers is the use of new technologies and as a result more easy-accessed the process. The respondents forecast many experiments and innovations in public participation and also dialectical relationships between theory and the practice. “Planning with people” was the main direction for public participation development as indicated by academics surveyed. Along with positive prognoses, some respondents indicated not much change of the practice in the future without substantial changes to the planning process.