Covers photo "Mt. Tabor Rain Garden" by Portland Public Schools
EVALUATING COMMUNITY PROJECTS:
A comparison between participatory design approaches by Cristhian Barajas
DISCLAIMER: This is not an official publication by the institution.
Cristhian Barajas College of Environmental Design California State Polytechnic University Master in Landscape Architecture Revised by Lee-Anne S. Milburn October 25 of 2015 Pomona, CA, 91768
Executive Summary This work is a comparison between three participatory design approaches: advocacy planning, community empowerment and public assessment. Often in landsape architecture the challenge for successful communitybased projects doesn't rely in locating a potential site or performing a complete analysis, but in the capacity to integrate neighborhoods into a truly comprehensive program which advocates for, empowers and allows residents to participate. Thus, these type of initiatives may start with clear but robust goals; and in this "ambition" the project may sacrifice the good performance of a particular social objective, which in most cases is the proper involvement or engagement of the community members during the design process. The differences between these three approaches rather than radicating in the outcome of the project (regarding the scale of it), are visible during the planning process, either where community may be only consulted for a specific question (public assessment), where they are the main reason for developing the entire initiative in favor of social/environmental justice (advocacy planning), or where citizens may play a major role by deciding which things should be considered as priorities according to their ideals and experiences in their own environment (community empowerment).
Content
Community Projects? When? How?
04
Design Approaches
06
Case Studies: Public Assessment
07
Case Studies: Advocacy Planning
09
Case Studies: Community Empowerment
11
Discussion
15
Conclusions
18
References
19
List of Images, Figures and Tables.
Image 1. Alamar Creek
03
Image 2. Library-park Bethlehem
05
Image 3. Bayou Mercier
07
Image 4. Journal Square Station
07
Image 5. Holland House
07
Image 6. Library-park Moravia
09
Image 7. Alamar Pollution
10
Image 8. Mt. Tabor School Garden
10
Image 9. Runyon Canyon Trail
11
Image 10. Rock Hill Downtown
11
Image 11. Garfield Elementary Schoolyard
12
Image 12. Library-park Leon de Greiff
17
Figure 1. Community-placing Pyramid
16
Table 1. Project Comparison Table
14
03
Image 1. Environmental Health Coalition non-profit during site visit in the Alamar Creek, Tijuana (by Cristhian Barajas)
04
Community projects? where? how?
“Mini-gardens can be created under electrical transmission lines, in linear parking strips, on unused Street rights-of-way too steep for vehicle Access, and on residual parcels converted into pocket parks�. (Winterbottom 2008, p. 65)
Winterbottom (2008) describes the scenarios and situations that community landscape projects can become into opportunities. In big cities, there should not be too much trouble locating a potential site to involve the residents and neighbors into a sense-of-belonging developing initiative, all it takes to do is identifying even the smallest prospects: 1) Determine who owns the property and acquire access. 2) Perform a comprehensive site analysis. 3) Determine your budget prior to design. 4) Define your goals and start building community involvement. Participatory design is an opportunity not only to achieve a more socially responsible and successful design, but also to build stronger relationships between the community members and the external actors like planners, developers, designers, etc. However, it would be a good idea to grasp the basic understandings about the most common approaches to these types of initiatives in the design field.
05
Image 2. Library-park Bethlehem, Medellin (by Cristhian Barajas)
06
DESIGN APPROACHES
There are two major types of community design approaches: those which primarily focus in advocacy planning and those which seek out after community empowerment (Melcher 2013). The first concept was introduced in by Davidoff (1965), for describing the planning actions as a mean to an end for achieving what we now know as environmental and social justice for the population. In his theory, Davidoff describes how the planner should act as advocate of the masses, in order to satisfy their rights to a better place; concept described as ‘plurality’. The second concept, community empowerment, became popular first among the health fields in the 1986 (Laverack 2001). The campaign for strengthening community actions looked after a common objective, to take over “their ownership and control of their own endeavours and destinies” (WHO 1986). However, for the purpose of this project, I would also include a third well-known concept which I would just simply refer as “public assessment”. In very fact, all of the first two concepts had some amount of public participation. But communitybuilding-based projects are not always a priority, sometimes public assessment is a requirement or a document section more than a project goal; for example, Public Participation is a required process for Environmental Impact Assessments (Glucker et al 2013, Petts 2003). It could also be applied for getting to know more about the community preferences and the way they conceive their environments. Arnstein (1969) defined this type of participation as “a categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future” (p. 216).
07
CASE STUDIES
Assessing Visual Preference for Louisiana River Landscapes Michael S. Lee (1979)
PUBLIC ASSESSMENT
This research project had as a motivation the "uniqueness" of the area of study; refering to the way the landscape's geological and cultural history could impact into the social perception of the water bodies and all of its components. The author focused in developing a visual preference model, which through surveys would generate a scale of values, features or experiences that the expectators could prioritize. Jersey's City’s Central Business District Vision Plan Nelessen et al (2008)
Public assessment projects can vary in terms of volume and depth of citizenship involvement. The Journal Square in the city of Jersey launched a vision plan which had as the basis for design the tastes and choices for the types of streets, urban furniture, vegetation, crosswalks and other urban elements. The planners used many different methods like workshops, questionnaires and lectures; but the main tool was the developing of the Visual Preference Surveys.
Holland House White Young Green (2004)
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) often requires a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in which the public will provide a possitive or negative reaction towards a potential new object in their environment. In this case, the Holland House project used photomanipulation techniques for providing a more realistic approach to the new incorporated fencing system, which could later be presented to the residents in order to qualify their level of acceptance.
08
Image 3. Bayou Mercier, Louisiana (by J E Theriot)
Image 4. Journal Square Path Station, Jersey (by Grant Hardeway)
Image 5. Holland House Fencing (by WYG 2005)
09
Medellin Public Library Parks System Medellin City Hall (2004)
ADVOCACY PLANNING
The combination of a library surrounded by a green public open space was the key to transform the face of the city of Medellin, Colombia. Library Parks are in fact a strategy for Crime Prevention, these spaces are cultural centers especifically built for promoting recreational and educational activities, thus facilitating the strengthening of internal and external community relationships. There is a whole network of these facilities around the entire metropolitan area, counting about 30 of them.
Image 6. Moravia Public Library Planter (by Cristhian Barajas)
10
Arroyo Alamar
IMPLAN (2007)
The Alamar River in the city of Tijuana, Mexico, experienced several times of uncertainty during the last years. The pledging of the non-profit activist organizations, the residents of the area, and the intervention of architecture schools and planning agencies reconsidered the future for this area, which will now become a conservation zone equipped for open space recreation activities. The future projects are still during the planning phase, but rescuing the area became a major priority when the resident's began to speak out their concerns. Image 7. Pollution and invasive species along the creek (by Cristhian Barajas)
Mt. Tabor School Rain Garden Bureau of Environmental Services (BES 2007)
With an approximate cost of $523,000 the Mt. Tabor Middle School was equipped with a fantastic stormwater management technology, a rain garden promoted by the BES which was conceived primarily to avoid and protect residents from sewer backups. During the raining season, the residents of Portland may experience this problem due to the existing inefficient systems. The ASLA awarded this project, but most important, the residents also awarded this initiative by seeing it with love and caring. Image 8. Rain Garden (by ASLA)
11
Runyon Canyon Master Plan
Rock Hill Vision Plan
Rock Hill Development Corporation, South Carolina Downtown Development Corporation (1989)
The Community Development Planning and Design, headed by Hester, convinced the Department of Parks and Recreations of L.A. to involve citizens into a creative design process to provide insight and feedback about the future of the recently acquired land. The planning team made several tours to the site to provide knowledge regarding native ecology and the importance of conservation. The developing of a sense of ownership and responsibility was a major goal for this Participatory Action Research (PAR).
The declination of the Rock Hill Downtown Area was a major concern for regional administration, and the best way to bring the economic activities back was to assess the issue with the residents in a genuine, compenetrating way. Âť
Image 9. Runyon Canyon Hiking Trail (by Roger Howard)
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
Hester (1987)
12
Garfield Elementary Schoolyard
The public participation, called Empowering the Vision (ETV) consisted in an initial agreement, a steering committee, theme groups, the ETV staff, special events, charrettes, models, the general public and time tables. The themes were a success for knowing the attributes of the city but the charrettes provided the real insight for design ideas.
Urban Ecology (2005)
Image 11. Painting Activities (by Urban Ecology)
Image 10. Rock Hill Downtown Area (by City Data)
A famous case study because of its ability to conceive a true community empowerment sense. The main purpose ofthis project was to build a strong parental community for identifying the needs and expectations that the students and the families should have regarding the educational infrastructure. This project, rather than improving the existing amenities, it built the sense of commitment and engagement among the academic circles. The design firm decided that empowering the users was the best way to decide which things should be improved in the schoolyard.
13
The following table (See Table 1) discusses the different objectives, methods and results of the mentioned projects according to their approach and scale. In the following discussion section, other information is pointed out, like some differences between these approaches in a practical way.
Table 1. Comparison between projects (most descriptions are based on Sanoff 2000)
14
Public Assessment
Louisiana River Landscapes
Michael S. Lee (1979)
Visual Assessment
Landscape
Public Assessment
Jersey’s City’s Central Business District Vision Plan
Nelessen et al (2008)
Vision Plan Preferences
Urban
Public Assessment
Holland House
White Young Green (2005)
Environmental Impact Assessment
Sitespecific
Advocacy Planning
Arroyo Alamar, Tijuana
IMPLAN (2007)
Ecological Restoration
Public Library System in Medellin
Medellin City Hall (2004)
Education and Crime Prevention
Advocacy Planning
Advocacy Planning
Mt. Tabor School Rain Garden
Bureau of Environmental Services (BES 2007)
Protection of Residents
Community Empowerment
Runyon Canyon Master Plan
Community Development Planning and Design, Hester (1987)
Ecological Restoration
Community Empowerment
Rock Hill Vision Plan
Rock Hill Development Corporation, South Carolina Downtown Development Corporation (1989)
Vision Plan Preferences
Community Empowerment
Garfield Elementary Schoolyard
Urban Ecology (2005)
Improvement & Community Building
Landscape
Urban
Sitespecific
Landscape
Urban
Sitespecific
Visual Preference Surveys using Ranking Scales 1) Visual Preference Surveys using Ranking Scales + Photo manipulation 2) Demographic, Market and Policy Questionnaire 3) Vision Translation Workshop Photo manipulation based Visual Preference Survey. 1) Conventional analysis and design methods 2) Community Workshops 3) Interdisciplinary task teams and conferences 1) The Elaboration of the city’s Development Plan 2004-2007. 2) Conventional analysis and design methods. 3) Encourage community engagement through different activities in the libraries. 1) Conventional analysis and design methods. 2) Field evaluation of soil texture. 3) Shallow infiltration tests 4) Shared responsibilities between the Portland Public Schools and the BES. A three-step model and a twelve-step participatory planning process: 1) Place knowing 2)Place understanding 3) Place caring 1) Creation of five different theme groups for developing a plan and performing site visits. 2) Other events like workshops, lectures, tours, receptions and a conference. The design process involved staff, parents and students: 1) Surveys 2) Parent’s recruiting 3) Field trips 4) Workshops 5) Student’s drawings with design ideas 6) Visitor Employed Photography
The study provided insights in how people perceive the different landscape components. And it could be used as model to “locate key recreation areas, bridges or power lines” (p. 62).
The stakeholders and the residents provided valuable feedback that “helped to define the visual and spatial characteristics desired for Journal Square” (in two separate workshops, p. 10).
The study demonstrated that the credibility factor is a significant component for EIAs, its processes and planning decisions, it also helped to provide a better understanding of the photomontage technique (Kyung & Hoon 2012). The common agreement between residents, private companies and public institutions of different government levels to protect and preserve the third stage of the Arroyo Alamar creek, as well as to provide a vision plan that provides new recreation areas and urban development opportunities.
Perhaps the most worldwide-known case study for representing Advocacy Planning for Crime Prevention through a Civic-Pedagogic Urbanism. The initiative has already received numerous awards, like the 2009 Bill Gates prize “Access to Knowledge (A2k)”. Thanks to these types of projects the city reduced 80% of the crime rate in the latest 20 years (El País Internacional 2014).
“The project has been very well received by the school community […] The rain garden in particular is valued by the school for the shade and cooling […]. The rain garden received a 2007 design award from the American Society of Landscape Architects […] The cost of construction was substantially lower than the alternative of replacing the local combined sewer system to protect residents from sewer backups” (p. 9)
“As a result, the master plan included natural areas where a child could explore, climb and learn about animal habitats […] More than 400 citizens participated, representing such diverse interests as native plants restoration, homelessness, historic preservation, children, crime prevention, and property values.” “All themes pointed to returning Rock Hill to a village atmosphere […] Rock Hill won two major awards for the ETV process: the 1989 Planning Award from the South Carolina Association for American Planners and the 1990 South Carolina Municipal Association Achievement Award. The strategic planning process has made Rock Hill more livable, strengthened the economic development aspects, and instilled a sense of unity among the various groups in the community” (p. 48)
Awareness of the community’s interest. “By the end of the process, parents would hopefully be more involved in school issues, and the entire community would have a sense of pride and ownership of the schoolyard” (Melcher 2013, p.173).
15
DISCUSSION In the last pages of this document, a brief description was provided for each case study, for identifying the goals for each one of them and its relation to the participatory design approaches. The three first projects are characterized by a strong emphasis of enlightning the 'opinion' of the community, whether it is an already built object or a conceptual idea about. Public assessment is not a goal, but a tool for evaluating the people's perception towards an already designed element, it doesn't really involve proper planning opportunities for the residents. However, the results of such projects/researches could potentially change the direction of the design that landscape architects use in that specific context. In contrast, the planning advocacy is an end in process, a goal but at the same time an approach. The main difference between public assessment and planning advocacy in design is that the first one may disregard some important pro-social elements, like the development of sense of identity, security and ownership of the space. Planning advocacy may be planning for the community by the community; but sometimes it is not possible to achieve these results and architects or landscape architects would assume that they're doing the best for the people, all of this based on previous analyses and researches of course. Planning advocacy may be linked to a more socially responsible way of designing, however it must not fall into the planning enlightened despotism: "Everything for the people, nothing by the people", it must also include some forms of public participation in important visible ways.
16
In
t...
ojec r p r u yo
u plac
Wh
uld yo ere wo
nity?
ommu c e h t e
TOP
(SPECTATORS)
CORE
(IN FOCUS)
BASE
(MAIN ACTORS)
Figure 1. Community-placing Pyramid
Community empowerment project (the last three) are characterized by a strong commitment among the participants in the planning and design processes. It is not about just "taking into consideration the resident's opinion", it is about informing the participants how to truly turn their opinions into actions by their own. By its nature, community empowerment projects have more tangible interactions during the design phases; although the larger the scale of the projects the smaller the contribution to the design and the larger contribution to planning (Rock Hill Vision Plan and Runyon Canyon Master Plan); and the smaller the scale the more visible contributions to design are than contributions to planning. If small scale projects had to be compared in frameworks of the three different approaches we would see a substantious difference. For example, an empty space, like Mt. Tabor School or Garfield Elementary School. A conventional design project using public assessment tools would only ask feedback for the population in terms of acceptance and potential use. A planning advocacy approach would come out with a solution done by designers which could benefit most people by providing space to satisfy the needs of the students or residents. And finally, a community empowerment initiative would gather the participants so they could crate solid interactions with each other and come out with a solution by their own. To graphically represent the three approaches without ranking which has the most community involvement participation; we present this pyramid (see Figure 1) were if the designer places the community in top they would play a role as spectators/judges (public assessment); if they're placed in the middle it means they are being studied in depth and they will be the main subject for justification (advocacy planning); and finally, if they're placed in the base that means the participant's actions will be the fundament and the main engines for the project to work.
17
18
CONCLUSIONS There is no such thing as 'correct' approaches to develop participatory design strategies, but it is possible to identify the ideal one through analyses and research of the social environments. The choice should not be up just to the designer or developers, but also to the consensus achieved by the city and the residents. Not results, but things like the role of the designer, the scale, the social concerns and the objectives will define the best approach to board solutions that match satisfactions for all sides. Also time and money are always important factors, keep in mind that the way public participation becomes a factor for lengthening the analysis/ design schedules and the budget for transportation and tools. It is best if participatory design projects avoid strictly conventional planning methods to overcome these issues (Gat贸o 2015). Participatory design is also involved to the composition of the groups, cultural values plays a major role in terms of evaluating whether or not these approaches should be used (Muller & Druinn 2002). Image 12. Library-park Le贸n de Greiff, Medellin. (By Cristhian Barajas)
19
REFERENCES
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of public participation. J Am Inst Plan 1969 (Vol. 35(4) pp. 216–24) Bureau of Environmental Services. (n.d.). BES Design Report: Stormwater Retrofit at Mt. Tabor Middle School. Portland, Oregon. Davidoff, Paul. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31(4): 331–338. El País Internacional. (2014). Los parques en Latinoamérica son aliados contra el crimen. Retrieved October 25, 2015. Gatóo, Ana. (2015). Building from the ground up: participatory design in Kenya’s oldest slum. University of Cambridge. Retrieved October 25, 2015. Glucker, A., Driessen, P., Kolhoff, A., & Runhaar, H. (2013). Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 104-111. Laverack, G. (2001). Measuring community empowerment: A fresh look at organizational domains. Health Promotion International, 179-185. Lee, Michael. (1979). Landscape preference assessment of Louisiana river landscapes: a methodological study. In Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource (p. 572-580). Berkeley, CA.
20
Kyung J & Hoon . (2012). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Photo-Manipulation Techniques, in Computer Applications for Bio-technology, Multimedia, and Ubiquitous City. Edited by Tai-hoon Kim, Jeong-Jin Kang, William I. Grosky, Tughrul Arslan and Niki Pissinou (pp 360-368). Gangneug, Korea: Springer. Melcher, K. (2013). Equity, Empowerment, or Participation: Prioritizing Goals in Community Design. Landscape Journal, 167-182. Muller, M., & Druinn, A. (2009). Participatory Design. Development Process Human Factors and Ergonomics Human-Computer Interaction, 165-185. Nelessen Associates & Dean Marchetto Architects. (2008). Vision Journal Square: A Vision Plan for Jersey’s City’s Central Business District. New Jersey. Petts J. (2003). Public participation and Environmental Impact Assessment. In Petts J, editor. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol. 1) London: Blackwell Science. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley. Winterbottom, Daniel. (2008). Pocket Parks and Small Community Gardens. In Community Garden Handbook by Kirby & Peters (Vol. 190, pp. 64-73). Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Botanic Garden. World Health Organization. (1986). The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Retrieved October 25, 2015.