1 / 29

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE vs. SELF-HELP CITY Participatory Planning and Outcomes in Inclusive Public Transport Jamie Osborne | jamieo@mit.edu. ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY. Community Organizing Advocacy Planning Participatory Design Capacity and Knowledge Building Consensus Building.

efia
Download Presentation

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MAXIMUM FEASIBLE vs. SELF-HELP CITYParticipatory Planning and Outcomes in Inclusive Public TransportJamie Osborne | jamieo@mit.edu

  2. ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY • Community Organizing • Advocacy Planning • Participatory Design • Capacity and Knowledge Building • Consensus Building

  3. I. COMMUNITY ORGANIZING • Organizers help communities to solve their own problems • Recognize and assemble power • Adversarial and disruptive • Innovative tactics = creative empowerment • Does not shy away from conflict • Strong organizational structure

  4. Saul Alinsky / Industrial Areas Foundation (1940)

  5. Disability Rights Protest (1977)

  6. Los Angeles Philadelphia American Public Transport Association (APTA) Protests

  7. American’s with Disabilities Anniversary (1993)

  8. II. ADVOCACY PLANNING • Planners leverage their professional skills to enhance democratic action (1960s) • More educational than adversarial roles • On the inside as well as on the outside of municipal and regional bodies • Federal programs made resources available to groups to hire professional planners to develop plans for those in need

  9. Maximum Feasible Participation • The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 promised maximum feasible participation(MFP) of the poor. • The poor are able and perhaps better qualified to make judgments on their needs. • The participatory process itself as a powerful lesson in self-agency and self-respect. • MFP promising, but too vague.

  10. Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)

  11. III. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN • Group decision making by collaborations between users and experts • Capitalize on tacit (unspoken yet understood) knowledge • Puts great faith in the process • Process can be challenged by power (and expertise) differences between participants

  12. IV. KNOWLEDGE AND CAPACITY BUILDING • Legitimizes the lived experiences and expertise of marginalized groups • Encourages self-efficacy • Strengthens the potential of building participants’ knowledge by addressing personal capacity: • Confidence, enthusiasm, or inherent talents. • Especially important for PWDs • Skill levels / access to information hindered by structural inequalities, societal attitudes, or built environment.

  13. V. CONSENSUS BUILDING • Advanced group deliberation, problem solving, and conflict negotiation. • Relies heavily on a skilled neutral facilitator to develop groups of agreements – packages. • All stakeholders are representatives from specific organizations • Stakeholders seek unanimity, trust process • Consensus reached when overwhelming majority of participants “Can live with” a proposal / package • How permanent and long lasting is the consensus outside of such a controlled setting?

  14. ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY • Community Organizing • Advocacy Planning • Participatory Design • Capacity and Knowledge Building • Consensus Building

  15. JUST PROCESS = JUST OUTCOME? • Does an emphasis on participation provide outcomes that are equitable or just? • Meaningful justice may only be obtainable through “Better representation,” not broader participation. • How do community engagement techniques recognize conditions outside a stable framework of power. • How is justice / effectiveness valued?

  16. PRACTICING PARTICIPATION • Multimodal Accessibility Advisory Committee (MAAC) • Setting an Agenda • Capacity Building / Transit Literacy • Imperfect participants / information • Finding User Experts / Embodied Auditors • Institutional stagnation – Disrupting patterns

  17. MAAC ? Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)

  18. ENGAGING THE INSTITUTION • Power • Institutional Hegemony • Evolving Professional Roles • Who Participates? • Rational / Skilled Participants • Resource Allocation • Shifting Participation Requirements • What Outcomes?

  19. PARTICIPATION LIMITS • Privilege / Valorize “The Local” / Civil Society • Subjective Observations / Informal data • Raised Expectations / Impossible Commitments • Access to Information / Facilitation / Logistics • Shared Decision-making / Redistribute Power • Engagemement ≠ Involvement or Social Responsibility

  20. QUESTIONS • Who benefits from participation? • Does larger disability community benefit? • What are the possibilities and constraints of community engagement within this institutional structure? • What are municipal agency’s responsibilities to empower advisory committees? • What are expectations of participants?

  21. MORE QUESTIONS! • What kind of political / economic / social structure? • What does empowerment mean? • Participation to meet what ends? • Do just / equitable outcomes follow? • Any outcomes outside of participation?

  22. THANK YOU!

More Related