Sect. 5. Section 6 concludes and summarizes the
main findings of the project.
2 Participation as a Key Element
of Cooperative Planning
The planning and design of people’s living
environment have a direct impact on the quality
of life of residents and on future developments.
The participation of citizens or representatives of
interest groups in planning and development is
increasingly seen, promoted and encouraged as a
meaningful addition to planning processes.
Therefore, planning is currently understood primarily as a process of communication and consensus building (see Ritter 1998; Selle 1996;
Healey 2004; Poister and Streib 2005).
Since Arnstein’s “ladder of citizen participation”, a large variety of studies have focused on
the objectives, forms and intensities of participation (Arnstein 1969; Biggs 1989; Farrington
1998; Goetz and Gaventa 2001; Johnson et al.
2004; Lawrence 2006). Participation can thus be
distinguished not only in terms of the stakeholders who promote participation but also in
terms of different objectives and intensities, the
project phases in which they occur, the forms or
activities of participation, as well as the underlying topics. On one hand, influencing factors for
successful participation are analyzed, and on the
other hand, the effects on the outcome of a project or planning process are examined. Studies
show that the benefits of participation directly
depend on the participation form and design:
(1) a professional support for the process, (2) the
application of structured methods for aggregating
information, (3) the provision of information,
(4) a balanced power relationship between participants, and (5) a similar influence on the
negotiation and decision-making process for all
participants (Drazkiewicz et al. 2015; Jobert et al.
2007; Kastens and Newig 2008; de Vente et al.
2016). Applied studies prove the positive effects
of participation in general (Drazkiewicz et al.
2015; Irvin and Stansbury 2004). Richards et al.
(2004) assume that stakeholder participation can
increase trust and confidence in decisions if the
process is transparent and conflicts are considered seriously. It is also claimed that participation
may increase the likelihood that decisions are
perceived to be holistic and fair, accounting for a
diversity of values and needs. Wallerstein (1999)
analyzes the empowerment of stakeholders by
co-generating knowledge with researchers.
According to de Vente et al. (2016), the
involvement of stakeholders is linked to the
successful achievement of goals and a higher
quality of decisions by improving the negotiation
process. It is assumed that the results of such
dialogue processes are often more broadly
accepted and can decisively enrich the outcome
of a planning process because of higher ownership of the stakeholders involved.
In planning, participation is regularly required
by law.
2 This requirement applies to spatial
planning, (transport) infrastructure planning or
residential and environmental planning. In Germany, e.g., participation in spatial planning
processes is regulated by paragraphs 3 and 4 of
the Federal Building Code (BauGB). Here, concrete procedure steps are described to ensure that
the public in general, as well as public and other
authorities, can react adequately to planning.
Practice, however, shows that the actual participation, especially of citizens, is often rather low
or too little. Looking for reasons for this phenomenon, citizens, associations and authorities
identified the following issues to be addressed
(Bock 2017):
• Participation comes too late, at a point when
the project has already achieved spatial and
design-technological concretization.
• Restricting participation in formal procedures
prevents citizens from openly and seriously
discussing the advantages and disadvantages
of a project or project alternatives.
• The participation of citizens is not achieved
continuously overall procedural stages of
planning.
• Decisions are not always communicated
transparently.
2
In this paper, the legally binding participation is called
the linear planning approach.
242
S. Eichhorn et al.
main findings of the project.
2 Participation as a Key Element
of Cooperative Planning
The planning and design of people’s living
environment have a direct impact on the quality
of life of residents and on future developments.
The participation of citizens or representatives of
interest groups in planning and development is
increasingly seen, promoted and encouraged as a
meaningful addition to planning processes.
Therefore, planning is currently understood primarily as a process of communication and consensus building (see Ritter 1998; Selle 1996;
Healey 2004; Poister and Streib 2005).
Since Arnstein’s “ladder of citizen participation”, a large variety of studies have focused on
the objectives, forms and intensities of participation (Arnstein 1969; Biggs 1989; Farrington
1998; Goetz and Gaventa 2001; Johnson et al.
2004; Lawrence 2006). Participation can thus be
distinguished not only in terms of the stakeholders who promote participation but also in
terms of different objectives and intensities, the
project phases in which they occur, the forms or
activities of participation, as well as the underlying topics. On one hand, influencing factors for
successful participation are analyzed, and on the
other hand, the effects on the outcome of a project or planning process are examined. Studies
show that the benefits of participation directly
depend on the participation form and design:
(1) a professional support for the process, (2) the
application of structured methods for aggregating
information, (3) the provision of information,
(4) a balanced power relationship between participants, and (5) a similar influence on the
negotiation and decision-making process for all
participants (Drazkiewicz et al. 2015; Jobert et al.
2007; Kastens and Newig 2008; de Vente et al.
2016). Applied studies prove the positive effects
of participation in general (Drazkiewicz et al.
2015; Irvin and Stansbury 2004). Richards et al.
(2004) assume that stakeholder participation can
increase trust and confidence in decisions if the
process is transparent and conflicts are considered seriously. It is also claimed that participation
may increase the likelihood that decisions are
perceived to be holistic and fair, accounting for a
diversity of values and needs. Wallerstein (1999)
analyzes the empowerment of stakeholders by
co-generating knowledge with researchers.
According to de Vente et al. (2016), the
involvement of stakeholders is linked to the
successful achievement of goals and a higher
quality of decisions by improving the negotiation
process. It is assumed that the results of such
dialogue processes are often more broadly
accepted and can decisively enrich the outcome
of a planning process because of higher ownership of the stakeholders involved.
In planning, participation is regularly required
by law.
2 This requirement applies to spatial
planning, (transport) infrastructure planning or
residential and environmental planning. In Germany, e.g., participation in spatial planning
processes is regulated by paragraphs 3 and 4 of
the Federal Building Code (BauGB). Here, concrete procedure steps are described to ensure that
the public in general, as well as public and other
authorities, can react adequately to planning.
Practice, however, shows that the actual participation, especially of citizens, is often rather low
or too little. Looking for reasons for this phenomenon, citizens, associations and authorities
identified the following issues to be addressed
(Bock 2017):
• Participation comes too late, at a point when
the project has already achieved spatial and
design-technological concretization.
• Restricting participation in formal procedures
prevents citizens from openly and seriously
discussing the advantages and disadvantages
of a project or project alternatives.
• The participation of citizens is not achieved
continuously overall procedural stages of
planning.
• Decisions are not always communicated
transparently.
2
In this paper, the legally binding participation is called
the linear planning approach.
242
S. Eichhorn et al.