METHODOLOGICAL GUIDE Best Practices in Citizen Participation

2,03

MB

for Brownfield Regeneration: Work Package 5 - Deliverable 5-1

149

stron

3119

ID

RESCUE consortium Land Quality Management Group

2004

rok

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

REFERENCES 8

1. INTRODUCTION 11

1.1 RESCUE's specific focus on "citizen participation" 11

1.2 Presentation of the guide to citizen participation methods 12

1.2.1 Aims 12

1.2.2 Objectives 12

1.2.3 Intended audience 13

1.2.4 Expected value of the guide 13

2. METHODOLOGY 16

2.1 RESCUE's general methodology 16

2.2 Observations: difficulties and challenges 17

2.3 Preliminary definitions: What is "participation"? 19

2.3.1 Background to citizen participation 19

2.3.2 Concepts of citizen participation 20

2.3.3 The growing need for citizen participation 21

2.4 RESCUE's definition of citizen participation 24

2.4.1 Who participates? Who should participate? 24

2.4.2 When do citizens fit in the decision-making process? 27

2.4.3 How do brownfield regeneration projects become more acceptable? 31

2.5 A RESCUE common typology of participation levels 31

2.5.3 A development of citizen participation in time 34

3. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS 36

3.1 Quality of the Decision-Making Process 37

3.1.1 Objective 5.1: To obtain a better quality of information 37

3.1.2 Objective 5.2: To obtain a better quality of information flow in the process 38

3.1.3 Objective 5.3: To have a fairer discussion process and a better resolution of conflicts 39

3.1.4 Objective 5.4: To increase the legitimacy of the decision making process 40

3.1.5 Objective 5.5: To improve the efficiency of the process in terms of duration and costs 41

Methodological guide of best practices in citizen participation - D 5.1 6

3.2 Favourable Conditions for Participation in the General Social Context 42

3.2.1 Objective 5.6: To empower citizens, especially those representing non-organised interests 42

3.2.2 Objective 5.7: To delegate responsibility to lower decision levels and to stimulate a sense of

ownership 44

4. EVALUATION OF NATIONAL APPROACHES BASED ON COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TABLES

47

4.1 Impacts of international and European evolutions on RESCUE's four national approaches 47

4.1.1 The "Rio Conference" 47

4.1.2 The "Aarhus Convention" 48

4.2 A comparative analysis of RESCUE four country approaches 50

4.2.1 Objective 5.1: To obtain a better quality of information and Objective 5.2: To obtain a better

quality of information flow in the process 50

4.2.2 Objective 5.3: To have fairer discussion process and better resolution of conflicts 52

4.2.3 Objective 5.4: To increase the legitimacy of the decision making process and Objective 5.5:

To improve the efficiency of the process in term of duration and costs 52

4.2.4 Objective 5.6: To empower citizens, especially those representing non organized interests. 53

4.2.5 Objective 5.7: To delegate responsibility to lower decision levels and to stimulate a sense of

ownership. 54

4.3 What are the Strengths, Weaknesses and Gaps in the 8 RESCUE sites? 56

4.3.1 Objective 5.1: To obtain a better quality of information 56

4.3.2 Objective 5.2: To obtain a better quality of information flow in the process 58

4.3.3 Objective 5.3: To have a fairer discussion process and a better resolution of conflicts 59

4.3.4 Objective 5.4: To increase the legitimacy of the decision making process 59

4.3.5 Objective 5.5: To improve the efficiency of the process in terms of duration and costs 61

4.3.6 Objective 5.6: To empower citizens, especially those representing non-organised interests 61

4.4 The need for literature review and external examples 63

5. GOOD/ BEST PRACTICE DISCUSSION 66

5.1 Introduction 66

5.2 Overview of practices 68

5.3 Spreading of practices 70

6. TOOLS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73

6.1 Introduction 73

6.2 Table of tools and intended users 76

6.3 Recommendations and tools 78

6.3.1 Objective 5.1: To obtain a better quality of the information itself 78

6.3.2 Objective 5.2: To obtain a better quality of the information flow in

the decision-making process and a more efficient use of information 88

6.3.3 Objective 5.3: To have a fairer discussion process and a better resolution of conflicts 98

6.3.4 Objective 5.4: To increase the legitimacy of the decision-making process 113

6.4.5 Objective 5.5: To improve the efficiency of the process in terms of duration and costs 124

6.5.6 Objective 5.6: To empower citizens, especially those representing non-organised interests 127

6.5.7 Objective 5.7: To delegate responsibility to lower decision levels and to stimulate a sense of

ownership 139

7. CONCLUSION 147

ANNEXES 150

ANNEX I: WP5 SPECIFIC E.U/NATIONAL/REGIONAL BACKGROUND AND TYPOLOGIES OF

CITIZEN PARTIZIPATION 156

ANNEX II: QUESTIONNAIRE 183

ANNEX III: PROJECT PROFILES AND DECISION CHARTS - RESCUE 8 CASE STUDIES 187

ANNEX IV: INDICATORS 239

ANNEX V: SUSTAINABILITY CROSS CHECK 253

ANNEX VI: COMPILATION OF GOOD, BEST, PROMISING GOOD AND PROMISING BEST

PRACTICES 263

ANNEX VII: RESULTS OF THE TOOLS TRANSFERABILITY CHECKS 358

ANNEX VIII: LIST OF INTERVIEWS AND DOCUMENTS 366