Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Public Participation Processes in Urban Management Decision-making; Examining the Experience of the “Arezoo-haye Tehran” Campaign

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Department of Urban Planning, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.349739.1746

Abstract

 A B S T R A C T
Over the past few years, urban planners and managers have increasingly realized the importance of citizens' participation in urban planning and management. They have taken steps to make participation closer from theory to practice. Although many of these efforts have yet to be very successful, it is essential to evaluate participatory processes to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public participation. In order to achieve more efficient participatory processes in the path of good urban governance, this study evaluates the "Arezoohaye Tehran" campaign as a public participation process to evaluate the impact of such processes on citizens' trust, with a particular focus on electronic participation. In this research, the qualitative approach is employed, and to evaluate the campaign, it has attempted to utilize the experience and perspectives of a variety of actors who have participated in this process, so several in-depth semi-structured interviews have been conducted with city managers, experts, and social activists involved in the project. Additionally, the messages of virtual networks have been analyzed to understand the experiences of citizens participating in this project. Qualitative content analysis and coding methods have been used to analyze the content of interviews and messages on virtual networks. The findings of this research show that pessimism and mistrust of citizens towards public and government institutions and the lack of a suitable environment and preparation for interaction are among the prerequisites for the failure of the campaign, inconsistency between the executive bodies during the process and the lack of mutual learning and not reaching a collective agreement as a result of the process. The dreams of Tehran are considered.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Over the past few years, urban planners and managers have become increasingly aware of the importance of citizen participation in urban planning and management. This realization has created a new urban management paradigm, especially since 1990. Many attempts have been made to bring participation closer to practice. However, many of these efforts have not been very successful; in some cases, participation is done only to increase public trust, pretend, and gather public information rather than genuinely seek public views. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the collaborative processes and check their effectiveness and efficiency in practice to derive their strengths and weaknesses. Reviewing the background of the research that has been conducted in this field, one asserts that the research on the evaluation of participatory processes has not been developed as much as other research fields on this topic. The majority of evaluations have not provided the evidence needed by decision-makers to assess the effectiveness of public interventions. Part of the difficulty of evaluating participation processes is due to vague and contradictory terms used to describe and classify public intervention methods and conditions and contexts in which they are implemented. The other part is due to different goals, expectations, and evaluations of different stakeholders. Although some formal evaluation of how exercises are conducted and measuring their impact on policy and social trust is necessary; because of the existence of some tokenistic participatory processes, In this regard, this study evaluated the “Arezoohaye Tehran” campaign as one of the actions and projects carried out in recent years to provide a foundation for citizens’ participation in decision-making and to increase citizens’ trust in urban managers, which naturally produced varying results. Also, to fill the gap in research conducted in the field of participation, citizenship trust, and their interactions, And it has also measured the extent to which this campaign has achieved its goals.
 
Methodology
The approach of this research in terms of data collection techniques is qualitative and its external goal is included in the category of applied research. In terms of internal purpose, it is included in the category of descriptive research. Based on indicators extracted from theoretical bases, it was attempted to evaluate this process from the perspective of various groups involved in the process. For this reason, to obtain the perspectives and experiences of different groups of actors who have been involved in the campaign concerning the process and result of the “Arezoohaye Tehran” campaign, in addition to studying documentation made from it, interviews have been used as the main method of data collection. The interview section was conducted in-depth and semi-structured according to the indicators extracted from the theoretical base with several urban managers, experts, and social activists who have been involved in this project. The selection of participants has been purposeful. Because it was not possible to examine the experiences of people who participated in the campaign, and in order to have proper access to the views and experiences of citizens and project participants, the content of messages on Twitter and Instagram (as social networks) was analyzed. Qualitative content analysis and coding at three levels of abstraction were used to analyze the content of conducted interviews and messages collected from social networks.
 
Results and Discussion
By comparing and matching the collected data in the research with the presented theoretical framework, it is possible to achieve a proper assessment of the effectiveness of the “Arezoohaye Tehran” campaign, which can strengthen future processes and enhance similar actions. This research has investigated the “Arezoohaye Tehran” campaign in three stages: the prerequisite of the process or starting point, the path or during the process, and the endpoint or the result. The findings of this study show that in the prerequisites of the process: incorrect choice of target group, a lack of theoretical and empirical support for the campaign, a digital divide, citizens’ pessimism and mistrust of public institutions and government institutions, lack of suitable spaces and lack of preparation for interaction of citizens and urban management, and during the process: inconsistency between executive institutions, deviation of the campaign from its main goals, predominance of top-down look, the negative influence of the campaign from the external environment, absolute demands from urban management, inappropriate timing of the campaign and the inability to create citizens’ inclusive participation and finally in outcome of the process: failure to continue the campaign, the lack of mutual interaction, lack of social learning, low effectiveness of the campaign, not building a public consensus and weakness of campaign in building trust considered as some of failure factors of the “Arezoohaye Tehran” campaign.
 
Conclusion
Some weaknesses of the campaign, such as the political conditions of the whole country and the COVID-19 pandemic, have been inevitable, but by responding appropriately to those conditions, it could be possible to decrease the limitations and weaknesses caused by these conditions. Despite the limitations mentioned previously, among the strengths of this campaign, it can be mentioned that this campaign was completed at the local phase, unlike many other projects, because many local and urban projects have been abandoned before reaching significant results, whereas the “Arezoohaye Tehran” has achieved practical and beneficial results at least at its local level. The organizations affiliated with the Tehran municipality have been compared to an archipelago that formed a whole and at the same time had no connection with each other, thereby the strength of the campaign lies in the effort to establish coordination among the organizations associated with the municipality.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work.
 
Conflict of Interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
 
 

Keywords


  1. Abelsona, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E., & Mackean, G. (2007). Examining the Role of Context in the Implementation of a Deliberative Public Participation Experiment: Results from a Canadian Comparative Study. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2115-2128.
  2. Abtahi, S. H., & Shiani, M. (2021). Acknowledging people's participation obstacles in Tehran's urban management: an analyses of qualitative content. Community Development (Rural and Urban Communities), 12(2), 643-655. [in Persian].
  3. Ataman, C., Herthogs, P., Tuncer, B., & Perrault, S. (2022). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Digital Participation-A framework to evaluate participation in urban design processes. In Pak Burak, Wurzer Gabriel & Stouffs Rudi (Eds.), Co-creating the Future: Inclusion in and through Design (401-410), Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe; KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture.
  4. Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Policy Studies Review, 16(3–4), 75–103.
  5. Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for planning Projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242-262.
  6. Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., & Turton, I. (2001). Public Participation, GIS, and Cyberdemocracy: Evaluating on-Line Spatial Decision Support Systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(6), 907-921.
  7. Conrad, E., Cassar, L. F., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning. Environment and Planning C, 29(5), 761-782.
  8. Cruz, N. F., Rode, P., & Mcquarrie, M. (2019). New Urban Governance: A Review of Current themes and Future Priorities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 1-19.
  9. Chugunov, A. V., Kabanov, Y., & Panfilov, G. (2020). Regional E-Participation Portals Evaluation: Preliminary Results from Russia. In EGOV-CeDEM-ePart (71-78), Linköping University, Sweden.
  10. Daneshpour, S. A., Behzadfar, M., Barakpour, N., & Sharafi, M. (2017). Participatory Planning Environment: A Conceptual Model for Analysis of Effective Factors in Citizen Participation in Planning. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, 9(18), 23-42. [in Persian]
  11. Davies, A. R. (2001). Hidden or Hiding? Public Perceptions of Participation in the Planning System. TPR, 72(2), 193- 216.
  12. De Blasio, E., Colasanti, C., & Selva, D. (2020). Public Communication and the Barriers to Participation: The Case of Rome from an Open Government Perspective. Partecipazione e conflitto13(2), 1152-1167.
  13. Demirdoven, B., Cubuk, E. B. S., & Karkin, N. (2020). Establishing relational trust in e-Participation: a systematic literature review to propose a model. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 341-348.
  14.  Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory. Public Administration Review, 66 (3), 437-447.
  15. Falanga, R. (2020). Formulating the success of citizen participation in urban regeneration: Insights and perplexities from Lisbon. Urban research & practice, 13(5), 477-499.
  16. Falanga, R., & Ferrão, J. (2021). The evaluation of citizen participation in policymaking: Insights from Portugal. Evaluation and Program Planning, 84, 101895.
  17. Hofmann, M., Münster, S., & Noennig, J. R. (2020). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of massive digital participation systems in urban planning. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, 4(1), 1-12.
  18. Imani-Jajarmi, H. (2017). Citizens’ Participation in Historical and current Urban Management Systems in Iran, M. Reza Shirazi, Sabine Schroder and Jenny Schmithals (Eds.), Citizens’ Participation in Urban Planning and Development in Iran (11-27). New York: Routledge.
  19. Jahani Dolatabad, R. (2021). The social study of “Arezoohaye Tehran” Campaign. City Knowledge, 542. Tehran Urban Research and Planning Center. [in Persian]
  20. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 58 (4), 317-326.
  21. Mahmoudi pati, F. & Fallahzade, S. (2018). Evaluating the urban participation barriers in Iran using Fuzzy Interpretive Structural Modeling. sabz-scds, 7(2), 119-145. [in Persian].
  22. Migchelbrink, K., & Van de Walle, S. (2021). A Systematic Review of the Literature on Determinants of Public Managers' Attitudes towards Public Participation. Local Government Studies, 00(00), 1-22.
  23. Musai, M.; & Razavi Alhashem, B. (2011). SWOT Analysis of Citizens’ Participation in Civic Affairs in Tehran. Refahj, 11(41), 123-152. [in Persian].
  24. Nikpeyma, M.; & Zarei, M. (2019). Barriers to Participation in Urban Plans from the Perspective of Citizens’ Behavioral Patterns in Qazvin’s Bolaghi Neighborhood. Refahj, 19(74), 369-418. [in Persian].
  25. Piran, P. (1997). The Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations of Participation. Publisher: Planning Research Institute. [in Persian].
  26. Rafieian, M. (2013). Collaborative Planning. In Planning Theory: Traditional and New Perspectives. Publisher: Agah. [in Persian].
  27. Rahnema, M. (2020). Participation. In The applied theatre reader (143-149). Routledge.
  28. Ran, B. (2012). Evaluating Public Participation in Environmental Policy-Making. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 9 (4), 407-423.
  29. Rowe, G. & Frewer L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Value, 25(1), 3–29.
  30. Rowe, G. & Frewer L. J. (2004). Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Science, Technology and Human Value, 29 (4), 512-556.
  31. Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29 (1), 88-121.
  32. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J.,& Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009). eParticipation Designing and Managing Political Discussion Forums. Social Science Computer Review, 000(00),1-27.
  33. Shams Dolatabadi, H. (2018a). Executive Stage; The Beginning of The Trial Phase in Yousafabad from November 2018. Tehran Urban Research And Planning Center.
  34. Shams Dolatabadi, H. (2018b). The First Stage; From Ideation to The Unveiling Ceremony. Tehran Urban Research And Planning Center.
  35. Sharepour, M., & Hojjati, H. (2018). Analysis of Effective Social Factors on Citizen Participation: an Experience-based Evaluation of Social Capital Theory. Urban Sociological Studies, 8(28), 1-32. [in Persian]
  36. Shirazi, R. (2017). Paradox of Citizen Participation in Iran. In Hans-Liudger Dienel, M. Reza Shirazi, Sabine Schroder and Jenny Schmithals (Eds.), Citizens’ Participation in Urban Planning and Development in Iran (327-331). New York: Routledge.
  37. Song, R., Li, S., & Feldman, M. W. (2021). Public Participation and Governance Performance in Gender-Imbalanced Central Rural China: The Roles of Trust and Risk Perception. Social Sciences, 10(7), 1-20.
  38. Sun, S., Chen, R., Qin, S., & Liu, L. (2022). Evaluating the Public Participation Processes in Community Regeneration Using the EPST Model: A Case Study in Nanjing, China. Land, 11(9), 1405.
  39. Van Dijk, T., & Ubels, H. (2015). How Dutch professionals conduct interactive design sessions to foster ‘shared understanding’. Envionment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 0(0), 1–16.
  40. Wang, X., & Wan Wart, M. (2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions. Public administration review67(2), 265-278.
  41. Wang, Hao; Zhao, Yizhu; Gao, Xichen; & Gao, Boyang. (2021). Collaborative decision-making for urban regeneration: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Land Use Policy, 107, 105479.
  42. Williamson, W., & Ruming, K. (2020). Can social media support large scale public participation in urban planning? The case of the# MySydney digital engagement campaign. International Planning Studies25(4), 355-371.
  43. Yang, K., Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation: When Does Citizen Involvement Lead to Good Outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880-892.
  44.  Yetano, A., Royo, S., Acerete, B. (2010). What is driving the increasing Presence of Citizen Participation Initiatives?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28, 783-802.
  45. Zhao, M., Lin, Y., & Derudder, B. (2018). Demonstration of public participation and communication through social media in the network society within Shanghai. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(3), 529-547.
  46. Zimmermann, H. D. (2018). Evaluation of an eParticipation project against eparticipation success factors. In International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia (295-307). Springer.