Difference between revisions of "Methods to integrate culture, ethics and legal aspects"
(Created page with "=Methods to integrate culture, ethics and legal aspects= Exlanatory text. * Activating opinion survey * Advocacy planning * Citizen Jury * [[Cooperative discou...") |
|||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[Category:Ethics]] |
||
| − | =Methods to integrate culture, ethics and legal aspects= |
||
| + | [[Category:Legal]] |
||
| + | [[Category:Social]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | Exlanatory text. |
||
| + | [[Urban planning]] should reflect urban [[resilience]] to be grounded in a holistic view of sustainability; and social, economic, political, demographic, and environmental functional components should be considered. To integrate these components [[citizen participation]] methods should be integral part respectively common standard of the planning process, already starting at concept level. |
||
| + | |||
| + | ==Citizen participation methods for use in security-related urban planning processes== |
||
| + | Citizen participation methods are useful to identify culture, legal and ethics aspects and to gain an insight in the citizens' perspectives, their needs and requirements. These are important factors in security and resilience enhancing urban planning and in a holistic approach to find according planning and design solutions. Following participation methods, that help planners gaining valuable information on security and risk views, were identified: |
||
* [[Activating opinion survey]] |
* [[Activating opinion survey]] |
||
* [[Advocacy planning]] |
* [[Advocacy planning]] |
||
| − | * [[Citizen |
+ | * [[Citizen jury]] |
| − | * [[Cooperative discourse]] |
+ | * [[Cooperative Discourse|Cooperative discourse]] |
| − | * [["Designing out" approach]] |
||
* [[Dynamic Facilitation]] |
* [[Dynamic Facilitation]] |
||
| − | * [[Environmental design]] |
||
* [[Experimental participation method]] |
* [[Experimental participation method]] |
||
* [[Focus group]] |
* [[Focus group]] |
||
| Line 18: | Line 22: | ||
* [[Planning for Real]] |
* [[Planning for Real]] |
||
* [[Safety audit]] |
* [[Safety audit]] |
||
| + | |||
| − | * [[State of the art technologies to integrate security information]] |
||
| + | For more detailed assignment see: [[Determination of security aspects - methods for urban planners]]. |
||
Latest revision as of 16:50, 14 August 2013
Urban planning should reflect urban resilience to be grounded in a holistic view of sustainability; and social, economic, political, demographic, and environmental functional components should be considered. To integrate these components citizen participation methods should be integral part respectively common standard of the planning process, already starting at concept level.
Citizen participation methods are useful to identify culture, legal and ethics aspects and to gain an insight in the citizens' perspectives, their needs and requirements. These are important factors in security and resilience enhancing urban planning and in a holistic approach to find according planning and design solutions. Following participation methods, that help planners gaining valuable information on security and risk views, were identified:
- Activating opinion survey
- Advocacy planning
- Citizen jury
- Cooperative discourse
- Dynamic Facilitation
- Experimental participation method
- Focus group
- Future Workshop
- Local open dialogue
- Neosocratic Dialogue
- Participatory Diagnosis
- Planning for Real
- Safety audit
For more detailed assignment see: Determination of security aspects - methods for urban planners.
