Difference between revisions of "Citizen participation"
(24 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | [[Category: |
+ | [[Category:Ethics]] |
[[Category:Social]] |
[[Category:Social]] |
||
+ | [[File:ae.png|25px|right|This is a page providing background in a specific field of expertise]] |
||
− | =Citizen participation= |
||
+ | Tracing back to classical principles of democracy, '''citizen participation'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29] is widely accepted and appreciated in community decision making, community development as well as the health and social sectors. Basically, citizen volunteering and involvement are considered to balance and control political decisions, and result in decisions more beneficial to citizens and increased public acceptance. Citizens always assess risks, threats and uncertainties on a subjective and individual basis. To a certain extent, gaps between felt and factual security are normal phenomena. Even if not supported by other, more technical ways of risk assessment, integrating citizens’ needs in urban planning will strengthen its addressing of security issues and contribution to enhancing urban [[resilience]]. |
||
+ | ==Security-related aspects== |
||
− | ==Citizen participation in urban development activities== |
||
− | + | * In security research, citizens have recently come to be regarded as the ultimate end-users of [[security]] solutions and technologies, and thus not as addressees of security measures, but as an essential group of [[stakeholders]], that should be [[Stakeholder involvement|involved]] in related planning processes. |
|
+ | * Citizen participation in planning of security measures allows for evaluation of culture related beliefs, attitudes and risk aspects, and for identification of group specific security needs. |
||
+ | * Moreover, public and social [[perception of (in)security and risks]] is gaining increasing recognition in risk and security policies and decision making. Local community perception of risk situations and of security enhancing measures can be evaluated through citizen participation, and should be considered throughout the planning process. |
||
+ | * Citizen participation methods are useful tools to address [[culture aspects]], [[legal aspects]] and [[ethics aspects]] in security related urban planning. |
||
− | ==Types of citizen participation for use in urban planning consultation processes<ref>United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT |
+ | ==Types of citizen participation for use in security-related urban planning consultation processes<ref>United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT): Enhancing urban safety and security. London: Earthscan, 2007, 20-21. Retrieved from: http://books.google.at/books?id=SmsbwAtSfE0C&pg=PA205&dq=legal+aspects+in+urban+planning+security&hl=de&ei=m-WzTu-tLMbQ4QST4vjQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=legal%20aspects%20in%20urban%20planning%20security&f=false.</ref>== |
{| class="wikitable" |
{| class="wikitable" |
||
Line 45: | Line 49: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
+ | ! Method !! Culture aspects !! Legal aspects !! Ethics aspects |
||
⚫ | |||
+ | | '''[[Activating opinion survey]]''' ||X |
||
+ | Allows for identifying culture related risk aspects |
||
+ | || ||X |
||
⚫ | |||
− | |||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | '''[[Advocacy planning]]''' || || X || |
||
− | ! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text |
||
|- |
|- |
||
− | | |
+ | | '''[[Appreciative planning]]''' || X || || X |
|- |
|- |
||
− | | |
+ | | '''[[Citizen jury]]''' || X || || X |
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Cooperative Discourse|'''Cooperative discourse''']] || || X || |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Dynamic Facilitation|'''Dynamic facilitation''']] || Allows for identifying culture aspects |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
+ | |||
+ | and perception of (in)security and risks |
||
+ | |||
+ | || || X |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Experimental participation method|'''Experimental participation''']] || || X || |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
|- |
|- |
||
− | | |
+ | | '''[[Focus group]]''' || X || X || X |
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Future Workshop|'''Future workshop''']] || || || X |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Local open dialogue|'''Local open dialogue methods''']] || X || X || X |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Neosocratic Dialogue|'''Neosocratic dialogue''']] || || || X |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Participatory Diagnosis|'''Participatory diagnosis''']] || Allows for identifying culture aspects |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
+ | |||
+ | and perception of (in)security and risks |
||
+ | |||
+ | || || X |
||
|- |
|- |
||
+ | | [[Planning for Real|'''Planning for real''']] || X |
||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
⚫ | |||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
⚫ | |||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
⚫ | |||
− | | Example || Example || Example || Example |
||
⚫ | |||
+ | Allows for identifying culture related risk aspects |
||
+ | || || |
||
⚫ | |||
+ | | '''[[Safety audit]]''' || X |
||
+ | Allows for identifying culture related risk aspects |
||
+ | || || |
||
⚫ | |||
==Links and further information== |
==Links and further information== |
||
− | * For research, education, training and consultancy in the field of public participation see the [http://www.brunel.ac.uk/shssc/research/ccp Centre for Citizen Participation (CCP)] [2012-10-23]. |
+ | * For research, education, training and consultancy in the field of public participation see the [http://www.brunel.ac.uk/shssc/research/ccp Centre for Citizen Participation (CCP)] [last access: 2012-10-23]. |
− | * For general information see [http://www.iap2.org/ International Association for Public Participation] [2012-10-23] |
+ | * For general information see [http://www.iap2.org/ International Association for Public Participation] [last access: 2012-10-23]. |
{{references}} |
{{references}} |
||
− | |||
− | = MAP = |
||
− | |||
− | <websiteFrame> |
||
− | |||
− | website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Citizen_participation |
||
− | |||
− | height=1023 |
||
− | |||
− | width=100% |
||
− | |||
− | border=0 |
||
− | |||
− | scroll=auto |
||
− | |||
− | align=middle |
||
− | |||
− | </websiteFrame> |
||
− | |||
− | |||
− | <headertabs/> |
Latest revision as of 10:42, 13 June 2013
Tracing back to classical principles of democracy, citizen participation[1] is widely accepted and appreciated in community decision making, community development as well as the health and social sectors. Basically, citizen volunteering and involvement are considered to balance and control political decisions, and result in decisions more beneficial to citizens and increased public acceptance. Citizens always assess risks, threats and uncertainties on a subjective and individual basis. To a certain extent, gaps between felt and factual security are normal phenomena. Even if not supported by other, more technical ways of risk assessment, integrating citizens’ needs in urban planning will strengthen its addressing of security issues and contribution to enhancing urban resilience.
Contents
- In security research, citizens have recently come to be regarded as the ultimate end-users of security solutions and technologies, and thus not as addressees of security measures, but as an essential group of stakeholders, that should be involved in related planning processes.
- Citizen participation in planning of security measures allows for evaluation of culture related beliefs, attitudes and risk aspects, and for identification of group specific security needs.
- Moreover, public and social perception of (in)security and risks is gaining increasing recognition in risk and security policies and decision making. Local community perception of risk situations and of security enhancing measures can be evaluated through citizen participation, and should be considered throughout the planning process.
- Citizen participation methods are useful tools to address culture aspects, legal aspects and ethics aspects in security related urban planning.
Type of participation | Concept |
---|---|
Information |
|
Consultation |
|
Consensus building |
|
Decision-making |
|
Risk-sharing |
|
Partnership |
|
Self-management |
|
Method | Culture aspects | Legal aspects | Ethics aspects |
---|---|---|---|
Activating opinion survey | X
Allows for identifying culture related risk aspects |
X | |
Advocacy planning | X | ||
Appreciative planning | X | X | |
Citizen jury | X | X | |
Cooperative discourse | X | ||
Dynamic facilitation | Allows for identifying culture aspects
and perception of (in)security and risks |
X | |
Experimental participation | X | ||
Focus group | X | X | X |
Future workshop | X | ||
Local open dialogue methods | X | X | X |
Neosocratic dialogue | X | ||
Participatory diagnosis | Allows for identifying culture aspects
and perception of (in)security and risks |
X | |
Planning for real | X
Allows for identifying culture related risk aspects |
||
Safety audit | X
Allows for identifying culture related risk aspects |
Links and further information
- For research, education, training and consultancy in the field of public participation see the Centre for Citizen Participation (CCP) [last access: 2012-10-23].
- For general information see International Association for Public Participation [last access: 2012-10-23].
Footnotes and references
- ↑ United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT): Enhancing urban safety and security. London: Earthscan, 2007, 20-21. Retrieved from: http://books.google.at/books?id=SmsbwAtSfE0C&pg=PA205&dq=legal+aspects+in+urban+planning+security&hl=de&ei=m-WzTu-tLMbQ4QST4vjQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=legal%20aspects%20in%20urban%20planning%20security&f=false.