BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Miśkowiec Magdalena (Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie)
Title
Mechanizmy partycypacyjne oraz cechy partycypacji sąsiedzkiej w rewitalizacji podwórek miejskich w Polsce
Participatory mechanisms and Features of Community Participation in the Regeneration of Urban Courtyards in Poland
Source
Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna / Instytut Geografii Społeczno-Ekonomicznej i Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 2023, nr 63, s. 207-225, fot., rys., bibliogr.40 poz.
Keyword
Partycypacja finansowa, Rewitalizacja miasta
Financial participation, City revitalization
Note
streszcz., summ.
Abstract
Celem artykułu jest identyfikacja występujących prawidłowości i różnic w stosowanych mechanizmach partycypacyjnych oraz wskazanie i wyjaśnienie wpływu najważniejszych cech partycypacji sąsiedzkiej na osiągane efekty rewitalizacji przestrzeni podwórek miejskich. Badania prowadzono z uwzględnieniem 17 lokalizacji podwórek w sześciu miastach Polski. W badaniach wykorzystano głównie metody jakościowe, takie jak wywiady pogłębione oraz wizje studyjne. Wyniki wskazują na takie mechanizmy oraz cechy procesu partycypacji, które przyczyniły się nie tylko do osiągnięcia efektów przestrzenno-funkcjonalnych, ale przede wszystkim społecznych, takich jak integracja i aktywizacja społeczności sąsiedzkiej oraz oddolne przejęcie inicjatywy i odpowiedzialności za przestrzeń wspólną(abstrakt oryginalny)

The growing need to support urban areas facing an accumulation of different problems has resulted in the search for solutions through the regeneration process. The current direction of the urban regeneration policy indicates the necessity for the local community to participate in the decision-making process. For this aim, public participation is used as one of the crucial elements of the regeneration process. Until now, the regeneration undertakings have mostly concerned the development of public spaces, areas attractive for tourists or post-industrial areas. Unfortunately, in large urban agglomerations, access to micro semi-public spaces devoted directly to the local community is usually limited. The small semi-public spaces are the ones that have the potential to create a local net****work of places where recreation and neighborhood activities can take place. The community participa****tion in the redevelopment of the urban courtyard spaces creates opportunities not only to improve the quality of their lives but also to renew the degraded urban areas. Therefore, the purpose of the article is to identify the occurring regularities and differences in the applied participatory mechanisms, as well as to indicate and explain the influence of the most important features of community participa****tion on the achieved effects of regeneration of urban courtyards. The study was conducted consid****ering 17 locations of courtyards in six Polish cities. The research primarily used qualitative research methods such as in-depth interviews and field observations. The results indicate such mechanisms and features of the participation process that contributed not only to the achievement of spatial-func****tional effects, but primarily social effects such as integration and activation of the neighborhood community and the grassroots assumption of initiative and responsibility for the common space.(original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Arnstein S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
  2. Arvai J.L. 2003. Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: Effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 23(2): 281-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00308
  3. Babbie E. 2008. Podstawy badań społecznych. PWN, Warszawa.
  4. Brown G., Chin S.Y.W. 2013. Assessing the effectiveness of public participation in neighbourhood planning. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5): 563-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.820037
  5. Butterfoss F.D. 2006. Process evaluation for community participation. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1): 323-340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102207
  6. Domański B., Gwosdz K. 2010. Spojrzenie na problemy rewitalizacji miast w Polsce. [W:] Z. Ziobrowski, W. Jarczewski (red.), Rewitalizacja miast polskich - diagnoza. Instytut Rozwoju Miast, Kraków.
  7. Donderowicz M., Główczyński M., Wronkowski A. 2016. Partycypacja społeczna w rewitalizacji - rola stowarzyszeń lokalnych na przykładzie Poznania. Problemy Rozwoju Miast, 4: 41-51.
  8. Drazkiewicz A., Challies E., Newig J. 2015. Public participation and local environmental planning: Testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from Germany. Land Use Policy, 46: 211-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.010
  9. Falanga R. 2020. Formulating the success of citizem participation in urban regeneration: Insights and perplexities from Lisbon. Urban Research & Practice, 13, 5: 477-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2019.1607895
  10. Ferreira V., Barreira A.P., Loures L., Antunes D., Panagopoulos T. 2020. Stakeholders' engagement on nature-based solutions: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2): 640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020640
  11. Fung A. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66: 66-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
  12. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A., Öhrström E. 2010. Attractive "quiet" courtyards: a potential modifier of urban residents' responses to road traffic noise? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(9): 3359-3375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7093359
  13. Hałat P. 2010. Instrumenty partycypacji społecznej w lokalnych programach rewitalizacji miast w Polsce. [W:] K. Skalski (red.), O budowie metod rewitalizacji w Polsce - aspekty wybrane. Instytut Spraw Publicznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie, Kraków, s. 127-155.
  14. IAPP. 2007. IAP2 spectrum of public participation.
  15. Innes J.E., Booher D.E. 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4): 419-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
  16. Jarczewski W., Huculak M., Janas K. 2013. Rewitalizacja podwórek. Kompendium. Instytut Rozwoju Miast, Kraków.
  17. Kleinschroth F., Kowarik I. 2020. COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the urgent need for urban greenspaces. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(6): 318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2230
  18. Kotus J., Sowada T. 2017. Behavioural model of collaborative urban management: extending the concept of Arnstein's ladder. Cities, 65: 78-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.02.009
  19. Krysiński D., Banaś J. 2017. Wrocław. Wejście od podwórza. Raport ewaluacyjny projektu.
  20. Lawson L., Kearns A. 2010. Community Engagement in Regeneration: Are We Getting the Point? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(1): 19-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-009-9168-7
  21. Lerner J. 2014. Urban acupuncture. Island Press, Washington, DC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-584-7
  22. Li X., Zhang F., Hui E.C.M., Lang W. 2020. Collaborative workshop and community participation: A new approach to urban regeneration in China. Cities, 102: 102743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102743
  23. Meyer C.B. 2001. A Case in case Study Methodology. Field Methods, 13(4): 329-352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0101300402
  24. Miśkowiec M., Gorczyca K.M. 2018. Public participation in local regeneration programmes in Poland: case study of Olkusz. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 7(4): 44-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2018100103
  25. Miśkowiec M., Masierek E. 2022. Factors and levels of community participation using the example of small-scale regeneration interventions in selected neighbourhood spaces in Polish cities. Urban Research & Practice, 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2022.2099758
  26. Parés M., Bonet-Martí J., Martí-Costa M. 2012. Does participation really matter in urban regeneration policies? Exploring governance networks in Catalonia (Spain). Urban Affairs Review, 48(2): 238-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087411423352
  27. Raszka B., Zienkiewicz A., Kalbarczyk R., Kalbarczyk E. 2014. Revitalization of urban courtyards in Wrocław (southwestern Poland). Polish Journal of Natural Sciences, 29(3): 225-237.
  28. Reed M.S., Vella S., Challies E., de Vente J., Frewer L., Hohenwallner-Ries D., van Delden H. 2018. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26: 7-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541
  29. Risse T. 2004. Global governance and communicative action. Government and Opposition, 39(2): 288-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00124.x
  30. Rosen J., Painter G. 2019. From Citizen Control to co-production: Moving beyond a Linear Conception of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(3): 335-347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1618727
  31. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(4): 512-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259197
  32. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2): 251-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
  33. Sagan I., Grabkowska M. 2012. Urban regeneration in Gdańsk, Poland: Local regimes and tensions between top-down strategies and endogenous renewal. European Planning Studies, 20(7): 1135-1154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.674347
  34. Sim D. 2019. Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life. Island Press.
  35. Skanavis C., Koumouris G.A., Petreniti V. 2005. Public participation mechanisms in environmental disasters. Environmental Management, 35(6): 821-837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0120-z
  36. Teernstra A.B., Pinkster F.M. 2016. Participation in neighbourhood regeneration: Achievements of residents in a Dutch disadvantaged neighbourhood. Urban Research & Practice, 9(1): 56-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1045931
  37. White S.C. 2011. Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Developmnet in Practice, 6(1): 6-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452961000157564
  38. Voorberg W.H., Bekkers V.J., Tummers L.G. 2015. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9): 1333-1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
  39. Ustawa z dnia 9 października 2015 r. o rewitalizacji (t.j. Dz.U. z 2021 r. poz. 485).
  40. Wytyczne w zakresie rewitalizacji w programach operacyjnych na lata 2014-2020. Minister Rozwoju, MR/H 2014-2020/20(2)08/2016.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2353-1428
Language
pol
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/rrpr.2023.63.12
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu