MAXIMUM FEASIBLE vs. SELF-HELP CITY
Participatory Planning and Outcomes in Inclusive Public Transport
Jamie Osborne | [email protected]
ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY
I. Community OrganizingII. Advocacy PlanningIII. Participatory DesignIV. Capacity and Knowledge Building V. Consensus Building
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
Saul Alinsky / Industrial Areas Foundation (1940)
Disability Rights Protest (1977)
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
American Public Transport Association (APTA)Protests
American’s with Disabilities Anniversary (1993)
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
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.
Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)
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
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.
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?
ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY
I. Community OrganizingII. Advocacy PlanningIII. Participatory DesignIV. Capacity and Knowledge Building V. Consensus Building
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?
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
Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)
MAAC ?
ENGAGING THE INSTITUTION
• Power • Institutional Hegemony • Evolving Professional Roles• Who Participates? • Rational / Skilled Participants• Resource Allocation• Shifting Participation Requirements• What Outcomes?
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
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?
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?
THANK YOU!