Core values of participation

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2.org) sets out seven core values that should underpin public participation in any context, which certainly apply to collaborative approaches on spatial design projects, and would usefully inform the planning of any programme.

Public participation:

1. Is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
2. Includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
3. Promotes sustainable decisions by recognising and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision-makers.
4. Seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
5. Seeks input from participants in designing participation processes.
6. Provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
7. Communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

Types of events

Collaborative work is all about people-centred design. If participants can be involved in planning the collaboration process itself and helping to decide the forms of participation, even better. Some practices and clients will prefer to stick with tried and trusted methods, but collaborative approaches can and should use a range of different ways to involve people. There are ready-made toolkits such as Planning for Real, Crowd Wise, Enquiry by Design, Placecheck, Spaceshaper, and others, which offer templates and resources for local community participation events. There’s also a multitude of options for activities: planning days, visioning events, design workshops, charrettes, mapping and modelling sessions, transect walks, local surveys, community profiling, art projects and co-design programmes, to name but a few. Nick Wates’ indispensable The Community planning handbook (Wates, 2014) offers a wealth of ideas, and I strongly advise getting a copy or visiting the online version at communityplanning.net to explore the possibilities.

Working with groups

Creating enjoyable events is a serious matter; they’re more likely to generate good information, and good information helps generate good design. Collaborative activities are open to all, and people get involved for all sorts of reasons, with differing levels of investment and (self-)interest. But what all participants bring is local knowledge. Skilful facilitation is key to making the most this essential resource; if the team on the day can focus on building group cohesion, enabling everyone to contribute fully, listening well, and offering something back to participants, they should be more inclined to contribute their local expertise.

Figure 8.1a

Figure 8.1b

Figure 8.1c

A good participation programme should result in people feeling that a project reflects their wishes and needs, inspiring a sense of ownership and local pride, and building social capital. Equally important is that participants work not only with designers but also with each other, making connections and creating lasting relationships, thereby also building ‘emotional capital’ (Ermacora and Bullivant, 2015). Participation programmes should endeavour to provide people with opportunities to develop their networks, and their investment in the local area and its communities. It may cost designers a little more time and energy but this can be an invaluable legacy, especially in deprived areas and those undergoing major changes.

Figure 8.2 Look for ways to build social and emotional capital

Gathering data

Staff responsible for video recording, photography and note-taking have particularly important roles. They need to prepare thoroughly in terms of checking equipment and logistics, and on the day they need to observe as well as record interactions and group dynamics. It’s important to note participants’ decision-making processes or trains of thought in group activities, not just the outcomes of their deliberations. So ask questions while groups are working and find out what’s behind their choices. Observations on their priorities, criteria for decisions or alternatives they rejected can inform the ensuing design work as much as the plans they did produce. Err on the side of collecting too much material rather than too little. Without disrupting the proceedings, take plenty of photos, record lots of video, talk to participants, make notes and sketches, and generally record as much activity as possible, however insignificant it may seem at the time.

Community animation

The better the design team’s understanding of the local area and its communities, the more successful events are likely to be. This entails taking time to explore the area, talking to people in the street, generating interest and looking for ways to design events that will be relevant to the locality and local demographics: also known as community animation. It’s possible to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach and run the same event format in different localities, but if a diverse range of participants is sought – and it should be – this won’t always be the most effective way to engage them.

Practitioners working with local communities often encounter an endemic belief that there’s no point in getting involved in participation programmes. Many people believe – not without reason – that they have no voice, no influence and that no one wants to listen to them. Designers and clients shouldn’t underestimate the depth of this sense of powerlessness and exclusion, particularly in poorer areas and amongst marginalised groups. So how can designers respond to these feelings? They can initiate conversations from the outset, and listen, to try and understand the potential barriers. If practices look to build relationships, rather than merely harvest views, they’ll be better able to address cynicism towards the process as well as concerns about the development itself.

Publicity

Once the objectives are settled, the event planned, resources prepared, staff roles allocated and the community animated, it’s time to start on publicity. Collaborative approaches require a lot of time and energy from participants, but what’s in it for them? An event needs to be presented as something meaningful to the community with an immediate appeal. Stock phrases like ‘We want to hear from you’, or ‘Have your say’ aren’t always enough to persuade people to give up their leisure hours to attend an event, so be specific about what they can gain: learning new skills, meeting people, improving the neighbourhood, sharing ideas and knowledge and being part of creating something worthwhile, for a start. Attractive communications can be the deciding factor in capturing local interest. It’s possible to use the same house-style template for all events but, again, it may not draw in a diverse range of participants. A unique ‘brand’ identity referencing the location is a better approach, with a positive look and feel designed for a wide appeal in that area. Designing the brand can also help the team synthesise their desk research and observation, and focus on the locality’s defining characteristics.

Longer-term participation programmes and those relating to more complex sites or large populations need to use social media, and use it well. Social media functionality is evolving too rapidly to discuss here without the risk of immediate obsolescence, but there are some eternal verities to note, regardless of platform or audience:

• Social media channels should have specific individuals responsible for updates and development.
• Be selective about channels; only start using a new one if it’s certain to be maintained.
• Post the same key messages and announcements across all platforms.
• Always give a response to queries and comments, and quickly.
• Expect people who are opposed to the development or unhappy with the process to take to social media to air their grievances; respond with courtesy, professionalism and openness.
• Avoid prolonged public arguments – but don’t dodge questions.

Communication

In a collaborative process, designers and local people sit down together to work. This means staff facilitating design activities, answering questions and enabling people to make informed decisions, as well as gathering material. This close level of interaction requires staff to be aware of how they present themselves, without becoming painfully self-conscious – to choose their words carefully, staying neutral, professional and clear. It’s my perception that listening skills make all the difference to being accepted as an honest broker by participants and communities. When designers appear not to be listening, participation programmes become seen as tick-box exercises. This means listening both at a personal interaction level and as a practice in its relationship with a community.

Experienced practitioners say that honesty from the start is also essential, so be open about the range of possible outcomes and the influence that the public can have on the proposal. And be clear about which aspects are negotiable, as well as budget, planning constraints, the client’s requirements and other parameters. (Interviewees in Chapter 10 refer to believing that collaborative processes would have given them more say in the final design than was the case, for instance.)

Designers take on a moral obligation to communities when they invite them to collaborate as partners on a project. Local hopes and aspirations are stirred and expectations are raised. Whatever the scope of the project, the designer’s role is to work with local people to get the best outcomes for them. Each community is different and has different priorities, so listening and learning about those priorities from the start is the key to gaining trust and building good relationships. The final plans generated by collaborative approaches should reflect the aspirations and needs communicated during the programme as far as possible. This means working the material into the design impartially and honestly (and offering an honest explanation if popular ideas were rejected).

Figure 8.4 A guided walk

Giving to participants

I’ve already mentioned that participants should receive something worthwhile in exchange for the considerable time and energy they’ll devote to collaborative events. Longer-term processes can provide participants with valuable learning opportunities, offering not only personal development but also enabling their more meaningful ongoing contribution, and building community capacity and confidence. However keen people are to get involved, a principle of reciprocity is vital, and even more so when enthusiasm is less abundant. What then can participants take away with them?

Skills and knowledge. Collaborative programmes can give an insight into design processes and how designers work, a world shrouded in mystery for many. Participants will often be interested in trying out the software tools that designers work with and learning some basics; this is an especially worthwhile offer for young people or marginalised groups. Are there opportunities to share knowledge or teach other skills, design-related or otherwise? Then make the most of them. All participants should leave having learned something new. For instance, this could be an introduction to aspects of design work, architecture, landscape or local history, or visiting other sites or projects. Charrettes involving specialists in a range of areas are particularly ripe for providing learning opportunities and sharing expertise.

Fun and stimulation. Fun activities have a deceptively important function. They build cohesion and identity, help participants get to know each other, give a chance to relax mentally and a break from thinking about difficult issues, bring some physical exertion into what can otherwise be very sedentary work, and allow laughter and a release for any tension. Games and quizzes can break up the day by doing something just for fun, whereas activities with maps and models, or creating collages or artwork, for instance, can provide also useful material.

New relationships. Community participation programmes bring people together with a shared purpose, if not necessarily shared views, and can be a fertile environment for growing new connections and networks. Giving participants space to find common ground with each other and develop relationships is a valuable opportunity that designers can and should offer. It builds a greater sense of belonging to, and an awareness of, the local area and its issues, which can only benefit the process in hand, as well as building social capital for further community-driven initiatives.

Improving the site. Include some activity around the site if possible. This could be a community clean-up, planting, decorating, art projects, photography, video or performances featuring the site in some way. These help generate a sense of commitment and ownership, and can also raise awareness of the participation programme and the proposals.

A good event will first and foremost be engaging, relevant and appropriate to the intended participants. A mix of approaches that includes some sit-down group work, some outdoor activities, some cohesion-building time, some fun, some learning and some socialising should offer something for everyone – and provide a good range of material. As public events are open to all, aim to design activities everyone can join in equally and won’t exclude anyone with, say, reduced mobility, sensory impairments, English as a second language or low literacy. Keep in touch with participants afterwards, if possible, and get their feedback. Encourage everyone to sign up for email updates; most will want to see any reports on the outcome of the events in which they participated, and hear about the project’s progress.

Preparing and analysing data

The ‘Quick guide to analysing qualitative data’ on p. 60 suggests structures for sorting, categorising and coding qualitative material for analysis. Qualitative material is always likely to be more complex and offer multiple interpretations, so have more than one person analysing the material if possible to reduce bias, as well as to share the workload. An advantage in analysing large datasets is that significant patterns and trends can be easier to spot, and data is more likely to fall into obvious clusters. Data that doesn’t fit into emerging clusters shouldn’t be disregarded though. Even if a strong majority view is clear, for instance, differing views ought still to receive the same level of analytical attention, and a large dataset will probably contain a greater range of views to consider. The principle remains that the analysis includes the full range of views; check the ‘Quick guide to reporting research’ on p. 136 for more advice.