IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v5y2020i1p22-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diverging Ambitions and Instruments for Citizen Participation across Different Stages in Green Infrastructure Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Jannes J. Willems

    (Department of Public Administration & Sociology, Erasmus School of Behavioural and Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Astrid Molenveld

    (Department of Public Administration & Sociology, Erasmus School of Behavioural and Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands / Research Group on Politics & Public Governance, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium)

  • William Voorberg

    (Department of Public Administration & Sociology, Erasmus School of Behavioural and Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Geert Brinkman

    (Department of Public Administration & Sociology, Erasmus School of Behavioural and Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Both theory and practice increasingly argue that creating green infrastructure in order to make cities climate-proof requires joint public service delivery across the green infrastructure’s lifecycle. Accordingly, citizen participation in each green infrastructure project stage is required, but the type of participation may differ. So far, limited research has been conducted to detangle how participation in green infrastructure projects is operationalised along the different project stages. This article, therefore, presents a comparative case study of nine European green infrastructure projects, in which we aim to determine: (1) how participatory ambitions may differ across green infrastructure project phases; and (2) which instruments are used to realise the participatory ambitions for each phase and whether these instruments differ across stages. The cases demonstrate different participation ambitions and means in the three project phases distinguished in this article (i.e., design, delivery, and maintenance). The design and maintenance stages resulted in high participation ambitions using organisational instruments (e.g., living labs, partnerships with community groups) and market-based instruments (e.g., open calls). In the delivery phase, participation ambitions decreased significantly in our cases, relying on legal instruments (e.g., statutory consultation) and communicative instruments (e.g., community events). Altogether, our exploratory study helps to define participation across the green infrastructure lifecycle: Early stages focus on creating shared commitment that legitimises the green infrastructure, while later stages are also driven by instrumental motives (lowering management costs). Although theory argues for profound participation in the delivery stage as well, our cases show the contrary. Future research can assess this discrepancy.

Suggested Citation

  • Jannes J. Willems & Astrid Molenveld & William Voorberg & Geert Brinkman, 2020. "Diverging Ambitions and Instruments for Citizen Participation across Different Stages in Green Infrastructure Projects," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 22-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v5:y:2020:i:1:p:22-32
    DOI: 10.17645/up.v5i1.2613
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2613
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.v5i1.2613?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Scholl & René Kemp, 2016. "City Labs as Vehicles for Innovation in Urban Planning Processes," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(4), pages 89-102.
    2. Daniel Henstra, 2016. "The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 496-521, May.
    3. Stephen P. Osborne, 2006. "The New Public Governance?-super-1," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 377-387, September.
    4. Jost Wilker & Karsten Rusche & Christine Rymsa-Fitschen, 2016. "Improving Participation in Green Infrastructure Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 229-249, May.
    5. Liping Dai & Rebecca Wörner & Helena F. M. W. van Rijswick, 2018. "Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 652-674, July.
    6. Caroline J. Uittenbroek & Heleen L. P. Mees & Dries L. T. Hegger & Peter P. J. Driessen, 2019. "The design of public participation: who participates, when and how? Insights in climate adaptation planning from the Netherlands," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(14), pages 2529-2547, December.
    7. Rebekah Brown & Richard Ashley & Megan Farrelly, 2011. "Political and Professional Agency Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Water Research," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(15), pages 4037-4050, December.
    8. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    9. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    10. Jean Hartley, 2005. "Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 27-34, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jannes J. Willems & Astrid Molenveld & William Voorberg & Geert Brinkman, 2020. "Diverging Ambitions and Instruments for Citizen Participation across Different Stages in Green Infrastructure Projects," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 22-32.
    2. Ada Scupola & Lars Fuglsang & Faiz Gallouj & Anne Vorre Hansen, 2021. "Understandings of Social Innovation within the Danish Public Sector: A Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, May.
    3. McMullin, Caitlin, 2018. "Co-production and the third sector: A comparative study of England and France," Thesis Commons 578d3, Center for Open Science.
    4. Fuglsang, Lars & Hansen, Anne Vorre, 2022. "Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab context: Processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    5. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.
    7. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public service innovation networks (PSINs): an instrument for collaborative innovation and value co-creation in public service(s)," Working Papers halshs-01934284, HAL.
    8. Cinar, Emre & Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif & Acik, Ahmet Coskun & Simms, Chris, 2024. "Public sector innovation in a city state: exploring innovation types and national context in Singapore," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    9. Lars Fuglsang & Anne Vorre Hansen & Ines Mergel & Maria Taivalsaari Røhnebæk, 2021. "Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, June.
    10. Landriani, Loris & Agrifoglio, Rocco & Metallo, Concetta & Lepore, Luigi, 2022. "The role of knowledge in water service coproduction and policy implications," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Anna Francesca Pattaro & Marco Ranuzzini & Luca Bonacini, 2019. "Inter-municipal cooperation as a solution for public services delivery? The case of Unioni di Comuni in Emilia-Romagna Region," Department of Economics 0144, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    12. Markus M Bugge & Lars Coenen & Are Branstad, 2018. "Governing socio-technical change: Orchestrating demand for assisted living in ageing societies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 468-479.
    13. Laura Mariani & Benedetta Trivellato & Mattia Martini & Elisabetta Marafioti, 2022. "Achieving Sustainable Development Goals Through Collaborative Innovation: Evidence from Four European Initiatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(4), pages 1075-1095, November.
    14. Cristina Campanale & Sara Giovanna Mauro & Alessandro Sancino, 2021. "Managing co-production and enhancing good governance principles: insights from two case studies," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(1), pages 275-306, March.
    15. Desmarchelier, Benoît & Djellal, Faridah & Gallouj, Faïz, 2021. "Which innovation regime for public service innovation networks for social innovation (PSINSIs)? Lessons from a European cases database," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    16. Mette Sønderskov & Rolf Rønning, 2021. "Public Service Logic: An Appropriate Recipe for Improving Serviceness in the Public Sector?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, June.
    17. Euripidis Loukis & Marijn Janssen & Sharon Dawes & Lei Zheng, 2016. "Evolving ICT and governance in organizational networks - Conceptual and theoretical foundations," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(1), pages 7-14, February.
    18. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Les réseaux d'innovation de service public (RISP) : un instrument d'innovation collaborative et de co-création de valeur dans le(s) service(s) public(s)," Working Papers halshs-01934290, HAL.
    19. Bennich, Amelie, 2024. "The digital imperative: Institutional pressures to digitalise," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    20. Hendrik Wagenaar & Matthew Wood, 2018. "The Precarious Politics of Public Innovation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 150-160.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v5:y:2020:i:1:p:22-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.