Places and Participation: Comparing Resident Participation in Post-Wwii Neighborhoods in Northwest, Central and Southern Europe

Abstract

: The participation of residents in improving their neighborhood, and especially variations in participation between places, has been the topic of research in various articles published in the last few years. What is still missing in these studies is an international comparative perspective, since national differences might be expected to account for at least part of the variation in participation. This article, therefore, includes an analysis of national differences. We assess how much relevance these national differences have in comparison with the influence of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Using multivariate modeling procedures, we address the following questions: To what extent can differences in participation be ascribed to neighborhood level variations (share of unemployed, share of ethnic minorities, share of owner‐occupied housing, average experience of problems, share of residents active in a social organization)? And to what extent do national context variables (democratic history, empowerment policy) account for these differences? The findings suggest that both neighborhood and national context variables have explanatory power. The article provides an important starting point for a closer study of the role of national level factors.

How Do Community Planning Features Affect the Place Relationship of Residents? An Investigation of Place Attachment, Social Interaction, and Community Participation

“…In an attempt to avoid these inconsistencies and the resulting confusion, this study will use the term place relationship as the most general concept describing an individual's relationship with a place (Figure 1). Of the studies examining the relationships between the outdoor environment and place attachment [6,7], social interaction [6,8,9], and community participation [10][11][12], none, to the best of our knowledge, have analyzed the effects on all three concepts at the same time. In addition, almost all of this research has been conducted at the larger neighborhood scale [10,11,13].…”

“…These studies have revealed that social interaction can be enhanced through the presence of outdoor courtyards [34], common gardens [35], and trees and grass [36,37] in apartment complexes and public housing communities, and also front porches and narrow setbacks in traditional community layouts [28,38,39]. Research concerning factors that enhance community participation has concentrated on individual characteristics, such as socioeconomic and demographic variables, or social networks and shared norms [10,40,41]. Of the handful of studies examining the connections between community participation and features of the built environment, most have been conducted at the neighborhood scale.…”

“…Of the handful of studies examining the connections between community participation and features of the built environment, most have been conducted at the neighborhood scale. Participation can be encouraged by attractive, walkable, safe neighborhoods where opportunities to socialize are supported by the provision of meeting places (e.g., local shops, eating places, parks) [10][11][12].…”

“…In addition, almost all of this research has been conducted at the larger neighborhood scale [10,11,13]. Nevertheless, planners and designers of the urban environment often focus on site scale features.…”

Being Strategic in Partnership – Interpreting Local Knowledge of Modern Local Government

“…These changes manifested themselves in the growth of partnership government -firstly with area-based partnerships to tackle the "wicked issues" in neighbourhoods, such as New Deal for Communities and Social Inclusion Partnerships (Johnstone & McWilliams, 2005;Lawless, 2004) and latterly across a local authority area through larger strategic partnerships, Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and Community Planning Partnerships (Cowell, 2004;Skelcher, 2000;Sullivan, 2007). While these partnerships proliferated in the UK, global reforms to local governance are producing similar place-based and public service partnerships (Dekker & Van Kempen, 2004;Dekker & Van Kempen, 2008;Stoker, 2011;Wagenaar, 2007) These partnerships were meant to break down the barriers between different public sector organisations and prioritise action based on a strategy agreed with the community (Lloyd & Illsley, 2001;Sinclair, 2008;Sullivan, 2007) This article focuses on the categories of "strategic" and "strategic partnership working" as a political and management practice and seeks to problematise it. The majority of the literature focusing on partnership working within local government and urban studies, while recognising these developments as part of the New Public Management, predominantly focus on the political novelty of partnership working and local governance (Skelcher, 2000;Sullivan, 2007).…”