PARTICIPATORY DESIGN TOOLS

Learning Objectives

1. To understand the ways of using design tools to engage with marginalised communities in urban development processes.

2. To understand the complexities and challenges of applying a participatory approach in design processes.

3. To be introduced to some different types of tools and how these can be adapted for different contexts/purposes.

Please read ‘module 11. Participation’ before completing this module.

Recap: the value of participatory tools

A discussion about participatory tools and methods assumes that the foundations for a meaningful participatory process have already been established with all stakeholders, including those affected by the process of urban change. [See module 11. Participation] Even when there is a will to involve people in urban development processes, the ways in which they are able to get involved will have a significant impact on their ability to affect change. As a result, the value of participatory design does not solely focus on the end result, but instead lies within the process.

When communities are given the means to diagnose existing conditions and map potential alternatives, underrepresented communities can challenge existing understandings of places that are often imposed from ‘above’. Knowledge about places that may otherwise remain invisible can be unearthed, for example by including a range of different perspectives that are usually not heard, or by exposing tacit knowledge.

Participatory tools can give actions greater impact, triggering a higher dissemination rate and increased transformative potential. At the same time, they can facilitate the participants’ ownership of outcomes, and enable changes from within, rather than them being imposed from the outside.

As a result, participatory tools can create opportunities for marginalised communities or groups to jump to broader scales of inclusion; to challenge existing power structures and relations; and to reimagine alternative futures.

The Challenge of Designed Constraints in Participation

Designing is a process of discovery. To design in an inclusive way means creating outcomes that are the product of multiple perspectives coming together, and which bridge the gap between the designer/creator and the user. Participatory design can often be a source of conflict because it provides opportunities for those who are not usually given a voice to express themselves and to challenge those who have greatest influence. The external agents or dominant local groups that typically run a design process are often reluctant to ‘let go’ and to redistribute power, as this puts the outcome beyond their control. [See module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice] For many authorities, therefore, opening up the process in this way is seen as a real risk. Rather than running the risk of going through a process that can create unintended results, local involvement is often used as a way of legitimising existing proposals. For this reason, it is important that there are a clear set of parameters and opportunities, so the risk of unrealistic outcomes can be mitigated. However, too much constraint upon the scale and scope of change can make the process tokenistic.

It is sometimes argued that, “since the adoption of the concept of participation into mainstream development practice it has become co-opted and ‘modified, sanitised, and depoliticised’ (Leal, P.A. 2010:95) as a tool to better serve the dominant neo-liberal agenda in order to maintain rather than challenge the status quo and current inequities’’. (Caroline Cage and Mathew Okello, 2012) In practice, this means that sometimes tools overcomplicate or distract from challenges that would be more effectively addressed through a simple conversation.

The Position of the Designer

Often, urban practitioners take on the role of an intermediary. This can mean that dialogue is mediated by someone from outside, without a vested interest, who can ensure that the process is transparent, inclusive and meaningful, and that the scope is not too limited. On the other hand, this can result in less continuity as the mediator may not be around to ensure the outcomes are respected; or, if they are contracted by an authority, this can jeopardise the mediator’s ability to remain independent. It is therefore important to avoid “vampire projects” (Root, 2011) where the expert extracts knowledge from the community and uses it for individual advances, or for resourcing topdown policy delivery.

Facilitators should also be aware of the power they have in this position. [See module 10. Ethics in Built

Environment Practice] How they frame the design process will have a direct impact on the outcomes. Therefore, determining which tools and methods are to be used should also be decided collectively.

Selecting the Right Tools for Inclusivity

It is important that participatory tools and activities are carefully matched to the context to ensure that different actors, who may normally be excluded from design processes, are actively engaged. Participants must be well equipped to use the selected tools otherwise they can become a constraint, excluding some from the conversation and perpetuating existing power dynamics. Common examples of this are complicated digital engagement and ‘game’ style engagement techniques. These can prove difficult for facilitators to explain and for people to use, however, done in the right context in the right way, they have proved very successful. Explaining a workshop or participatory task well is essential, otherwise dialogue can be restrained. Trained facilitators are key.

Involving people with different perspectives and backgrounds can result in the process becoming much longer and complex than necessary. As a result, it can be difficult to maintain momentum and to ensure that people stay engaged in the long term. A common mistake is to prematurely interpret this challenging process as a failure. Experienced facilitators learn to guide participants to gather and record diverse opinions in different ways. They also design a process that keeps key people engaged throughout, while allowing others to contribute when and how they are able. The aim is to avoid ‘extracting information’ which may not fully represent the real picture or people’s true views. [See module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice]

The Importance of Flexibility and Emergent Design

Tools should not be rigid. Instead, they should provide room for unexpected answers or findings, thereby allowing for greater discovery and discussion. There can be danger when transferring a model into another context, as one tool designed for a specific context may not be appropriate for another. “Tools are the means with which to achieve ends. All will have limitations and most time, in the swamp of practice, one finds one has to adapt or invent tools as one proceeds.” (Hamdi 2010)

Creativity and Graphics

Creativity and graphic output are also important. The tools used must be visually captivating. They should enable participants to take part into a meaningful and stimulating conversation. Through using visual tools (such as mapping and diagrams) people can point, discuss, manipulate and alter the information, ensuring that triangulation will take place as others cross check and correct data. (Chambers, 1992) However, “Diagrammatic abstraction can be easily misunderstood”: using a problem tree diagram might not be appropriate for a community with few trees; whereas abstract block models may not clearly represent the same ideas to all participants. (Hamdi, 2010) Clarity on who the target population is will influence how participatory tools can be used to share knowledge graphically so that it can be understood.

Participants also need to see the results of their contributions in order to build trust with the process.

Quantitative to Qualitative

There is often a desire to obtain data that proves that a study has been done and presents concrete, qualitative data to authorities. One reason participatory techniques have been developed is to find a quicker, more cost-effective way of understanding a place and implementing a project. “Questionnaire surveys tended to be long drawnout, tedious, a headache to administer, a nightmare to process and write up, inaccurate and unreliable in data obtained, leading to reports, if any, which were long, boring, misleading, difficult to use, any anyway ignored.” (Chambers, 1992)

Information can be collected in a short time through participatory assessment methods that often provide more detailed, context-specific information than surveys can. The quality of the information gathered through participatory methods helps to design more context-specific projects, and avoid solutions that may later prove irrelevant or impossible to implement. The active inclusion of local stakeholders reduces project and maintenance costs, increases coverage, and improves time-effectiveness.

From Surveys to Community Control

Poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups should be seen as partners and active agents of change in the design and development activities. In this way, participation may allow for the longer-term, more meaningful involvement of marginalised members of that society. [See module 11. Participation) It has also been proven that, in many cases, longer and more sustained development projects have been community organised. [See module 7. Informal Settlements] The table below explains the types of participation and the tools associated with them:

Type of Participation

Passive participation

The affected population is informed of what is going to happen or what has occurred. While this is a fundamental right of the people concerned, it is not one that is always respected.

Example Tools

Public Meetings

Posters

Websites

Notice Boards

Media – Radio, Newspapers, TV

Participation through the supply of information

The affected population provides information in response to questions, but it has no influence over the process, since survey results are not shared and their accuracy is not verified.

Surveys

Participation by consultation

The affected population is asked for its perspectives on a given subject, but it has no decision-making powers, and no guarantee that its views will be taken into consideration.

Interviews

Focus Groups

Public Workshops

Online

Questionnaires

Participation through material incentives

The affected population supplies some of the materials and/or labour needed to conduct an operation, in exchange for payment in cash or in kind from the aid organisation.

Paid Participation

Participation through the supply of materials, cash or labour

Interactive participation

The affected population supplies some of the materials, cash and/or labour needed for an intervention. This includes cost recovery mechanisms.

The affected population participates in the analysis of needs and in programme conception, and has decision-making powers.

User / Crowd Funding

Resource Mapping

Problem Tree Task

Appreciative Inquiry Processes

World Cafes

Digital Democratic Voting

Local initiatives

The affected population takes the initiative, acting independently of external organisations or institutions. Although it may call on external bodies to support its initiatives, the project is conceived and run by the community; it is the aid organisation that participates in the people’s projects.

A typology of participation (Adapted from Pretty, 1994)

Capacity Building Workshops

Some Examples of Participatory Methods and Approaches

Several approaches have been developed in an attempt to standardize participation in development practice. The approaches combine some of the above tools and either present a stepby-step targeted participatory plan, or simply a general attitude to participatory activities for easy replication and scaling. These include, among others: Participatory Urban Appraisal (PUA); Participatory Learning Methods (PALM); Planning for Real; Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA); Community Action Planning (CAP); and Strategic Action Planning (SAP). PRA, CAP and SAP are described in more detail below.

Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA)

Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) is a methodology used for working in a community. Surveys are abandoned in favour of collaborative discussions and the mapping of ideas. Introduced in the 1980s, it gained widespread popularity in the 90s and has set the foundation for other methods, such as Community Action Planning.

PRA focuses on gathering information and making decisions in a manner where the outsider is the only facilitator. It encourages discussion to gather “local physical, technical and social knowledge”. (Chambers, 1992) The process, described by Chambers as ‘handing over the stick’, is the first step in building trust and rapport when working in the community. In doing so, the information that is generated is shared, and not extracted, and you may find answers to questions that you would have never thought to ask. (Chambers, 1992)

This approach is about spending time: being relaxed and not rushing, listening not lecturing, and seeking to triangulate and verify information through communal discussion.

Key tools: communal diagramming, communal mapping, transect walks, seasonal calendars, social mapping, participatory resource mapping, semi-structured interviews.

Community Action Planning (CAP)

In contrast to PRA, CAP focuses on enabling communities to identify shared problems and to organise and act to make immediate improvements. Community Action Planning can manifest as an active and intense communitybased workshop which empowers communities to direct their own development. It can be a short and intensive process over a period of two-five days. It enables groups to design, implement and manage their own settlement plans. It is grounded in a participatory methodology and moves towards a development plan which identifies problems and considers potential strategies and programmes for action.

Hamdi identifies four sets of action vital to good development practice, and that are therefore essential to both CAP and SAP. These are: Providing, Enabling, the capacity to be Adaptive, and the capacity to Sustain (PEAS). (Hamdi, 2010) He discusses both CAP and SAP as approaches that “give purpose to practice beyond just practical work, a commitment to structural and not just remedial change, in the interests of lasting development”. (Hamdi, 2010)

Key tools: community mapping, problem tree, prioritisation workshop.

Strategic Action Planning (SAP)

In reaction to the catalytic changes that CAP enables, SAP is a methodology that tries to preempt the strategic value of small interventions, “rather than left somewhat to chance, while not ignoring that chance has a big role to play in planning ahead.” (Hamdi, 2010) SAP deals with less immediate actions and addresses access to resources, rights and power. It does this while reducing constraints, discrimination and any lack of legislative support. While CAP is small scale and community based, SAP addresses a larger scale with more organisational impacts.

Key tools: resource mapping, asset mapping, talent surveys, social maps, role play.