Advertisement

Participating in Health: The Healthy Outcomes of Citizen Participation in Urban and Transport Planning

  • Ersilia Verlinghieri
Chapter

Abstract

Ringland is crow-brained and crow-funded road tunnelling project for a six billion euro investment that has been completely initiated and developed bottom-up by local citizens. It has been proposed in response to the government’s plan to complete the ring road around the city of Antwerp, with the aim to mitigate its damaging health impacts. What can we, as academics, practitioners and decision-makers, learn from this example? How can we use participation to implement innovative decision-making practices that contribute to the construction of healthy cities? In this chapter I explore possible answers to these questions. Considering in more details the various aspect of the Ringland project and building on the literature on participation in urban and transport planning, I explore the connections between citizens’ participation and health, showing their potentials and limits in an increasingly complex world. After giving some definitions, I consider the wide benefits and limitations of participation recognised by the literature. Subsequently, I provide a summary of the main planning traditions and consider how they approach participation in different ways. I then consider the specific benefits that participation can offer to health and reflect on which would be the most appropriate planning settings and practices to allow these to take place. I propose that we build a culture of participation across society in order to do so. I conclude with a reflection on the role of academics and of participatory research to support the construction of a culture of participation.

Keywords

Citizen participation Urban planning Transport planning Health Wellbeing 

References

  1. Abel, T., & Frohlich, K. L. (2012). Capitals and capabilities: Linking structure and agency to reduce health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine, 74(2), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.10.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht, G. (2005). “Solastalgia”: A new concept in health and identity. PAN: Philosophy, Activism, Nature, 3, 41–55.Google Scholar
  3. Albrechts, L. (2003). Planning and power: Towards an emancipatory planning approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(6), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1068/c29m.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Attree, P., French, B., Milton, B., Povall, S., Whitehead, M., & Popay, J. (2011). The experience of community engagement for individuals: a rapid review of evidence. Health & Social Care in the Community, 19(3), 250–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auger, M., Howell, T. and Gomes, T. (2016) ‘Moving toward holistic wellness, empowerment and self-determination for indigenous peoples in Canada: Can traditional indigenous health care practices increase ownership over health and health care decisions?’, Canadian Journal of Public Health 107(4–5) e393–e398. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/28026704/.Google Scholar
  7. Bach, M., et al. (2017). Participatory epidemiology: The contribution of participatory research to epidemiology. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 14(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-017-0056-4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bailey, K., & Grossardt, T. (2010). Toward structured public involvement: Justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903364259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bailey, K., Grossardt, T., & Ripy, J. (2012). Toward environmental justice in transportation decision making with structured public involvement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2320, 102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baum, F. E., et al. (2000). Epidemiology of participation: An Australian community study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 54(6), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.54.6.414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baum, F. E. (2016). Power and glory: Applying participatory action research in public health. Gaceta Sanitaria, 30(6), 405–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Glossary: Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979), 60(10), 854–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Becker, D. R., et al. (2004). A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., & Walker, G. (2002). Transport planning and participation: The rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boswell, J., Settle, C., & Dugdale, A. (2015). Who speaks, and in what voice? The challenge of engaging ‘The Public’ in health policy decision-making. Public Management Review., 17(9), 1358–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bowell, T. (n.d.) Feminist standpoint theory, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved May 9, 2017, form http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-stan/.Google Scholar
  18. Brusselen, D. V., et al. (2016). Health impact assessment of a predicted air quality change by moving traffic from an urban ring road into a tunnel. The case of Antwerp, Belgium. PLoS One, 11(5), e0154052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buchy, M., & Race, D. (2001). The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management in Australia: What is missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560120046070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cacari-Stone, L., et al. (2014). The promise of community-based participatory research for health equity: A conceptual model for bridging evidence with policy. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1615–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Campbell, C., & Jovchelovitch, S. (2000). Health, community and development: Towards a social psychology of participation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Castellani, S. (2014). Participation as a possible strategy of post-disaster resilience: Young people and mobility in L’Aquila (Italy). In L. M. Calandra, G. Forino, & A. Porru (Eds.), Multiple geographical perspectives on hazards and disasters (pp. 105–117). Rome: Valmar.Google Scholar
  23. Clark, P. A. (2000). The Ethics of alternative medicine therapies. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(4), 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: Social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Conklin, A., Morris, Z., & Nolte, E. (2015). What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: Results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expectations, 18(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.Google Scholar
  27. Crawford, M. J., et al. (2002). Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ, 325(7375), 1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dally, J., & Barr, A. (2008). Understanding a community-led approach to health improvement. Glasgow: Scottish Community Development Centre. Retrieved from http://www.scdc.org.uk/media/resources/what-we-do/mtsc/Understanding%20a%20community-led%20approach%20to%20health%20improvement.pdf.Google Scholar
  29. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. De Oosterweelverbinding. (2015). The Oosterweel link, oosterweelverbinding.be. Retrieved Sept 3, 2017, from https://www.oosterweelverbinding.be/oosterweel-link.
  31. De Vries, R., & Lemmens, T. (2006). The social and cultural shaping of medical evidence: Case studies from pharmaceutical research and obstetric science. Social Science & Medicine. (Part Special Issue: Gift Horse or Trojan Horse? Social Science Perspectives on Evidence-based Health Care), 62(11), 2694–2706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. den Broeder, L., Uiters, E., ten Have, W., Wagemakers, A., & Schuit, A. J. (2017). Community participation in Health Impact Assessment. A scoping review of the literature. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Díaz, D., et al. (2015). The eudaimonic component of satisfaction with life and psychological well-being in Spanish cultures. Psicothema, 27(3), 247–253.Google Scholar
  34. Dooris, M., & Heritage, Z. (2013). Healthy cities: Facilitating the active participation and empowerment of local people. Journal of Urban Health, 90(S1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9623-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from http://www.palgrave.com/home/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A., & van Schie, N. (2011). Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ekirapa-Kiracho, E., et al. (2016). Unlocking community capabilities for improving maternal and newborn health: Participatory action research to improve birth preparedness, health facility access, and newborn care in rural Uganda. BMC Health Services Research, 16(S7), 638. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1864-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Elvy, J. (2014). Public participation in transport planning amongst the socially excluded: An analysis of 3rd generation local transport plans. Case Studies on Transport Policy. (Social Exclusion in the Countries with Advanced Transport Systems), 2(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2014.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. New York: Apex Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Farmer, J., Taylor, J., Stewart, E., & Kenny, A. (2017). Citizen participation in health services co-production: A roadmap for navigating participation types and outcomes. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 23(6), 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ferreira, A., Sykes, O., & Batey, P. (2009). Planning theory or planning theories? The hydra model and its implications for planning education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4(2), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2009.04020029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Flandersnews.be. (2016). Concerns about air quality in Antwerp, flandersnews.be. Retrieved Sept 3, 2017, from http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/Antwerp/1.2696243.
  43. Flanderstoday. (2017). Largest-ever European air quality tests carried out in Antwerp. Retrieved Sept 3, 2017, www.flanderstoday/innovation/largest-ever-european-air-quality-tests-carried-out-antwerp.Google Scholar
  44. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998, 210). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? The British Journal of Sociology, 49(2). https://doi.org/10.2307/591310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Frahsa, A., et al. (2014). Enabling the powerful? Participatory action research with local policymakers and professionals for physical activity promotion with women in difficult life situations. Health Promotion International, 29(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  48. Freire, P. (2013). Education for critical consciousness. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Gallagher, M. (2008). Foucault, power and participation. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 16(3), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181808X311222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gallacher, L. A., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research? Thinking Through ‘Participatory Methods Childhood, 15(4), 499–516.Google Scholar
  52. Gallent, N., & Ciaffi, D. (Eds.). (2014). Community action and planning: Contexts, drivers and outcomes. Bristol: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447315162.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. George, A. S., Mehra, V., Scott, K., Sriram, V., & Li, X. (2015). Community participation in Health Systems Research: A systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0141091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Guareschi, P. A., & Jovchelovitch, S. (2004). Participation, health and the development of community resources in southern Brazil. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(2), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105304040896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hall, P. (2014). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design since 1880. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  56. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. The Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Heiman, M. K. (1997). Science by the people: Grassroots environmental monitoring and the debate over scientific expertise. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(4), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701600405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hickman, R., & Banister, D. (2014). Transport, climate change and the City. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hilbrandt, H. (2017). Insurgent participation: Consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of berlin-Tempelhof airport. Urban Geography, 38(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1168569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kaufmann, M. (1997). Differential participation: Men, women and popular power. In M. Kaufmann & H. D. Alfonso (Eds.), Community power and grassroots democracy: The transformation of social life (pp. 151–171). London: Zed Books. Retrieved Sept 4, 2017, from http://www.michaelkaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/differentialparticipation.pdf.Google Scholar
  66. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research : Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 559–603). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. van de Kerkhof, M. (2006). Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sciences, 39(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9024-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kesby, M. (2005). Retheorizing empowerment-through-participation as a performance in space: Beyond tyranny to transformation. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2037–2065. https://doi.org/10.1086/428422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Khreis, H., et al. (2016). The health impacts of traffic-related exposures in urban areas: Understanding real effects, underlying driving forces and co-producing future directions. Journal of Transport & Health, 3(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kickbusch, I., et al. (2014) Smart governance for health and well-being: The evidence. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131952/1/Smart%20governance%20for%20health%20and%20well-being%20the%20evidence.pdf.
  71. Kickbusch, I., & Gleicher, D. (2013). Governance for health in the 21st century. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  72. Kiernan, C. (1999). Participation in research by people with learning disability : Origins and issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities., 27(2), 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (Eds.). (2007). Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Laverack, G., & Labonte, R. (2000). A planning framework for community empowerment goals within health promotion. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lawrence, A. (2006). ‘No personal motive?’ Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethics Place and Environment, 9(3), 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Leeuw, E. de, et al. (2014). Healthy cities, promoting health and equity – Evidence for local policy and practice: Summary evaluation of Phase V of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137512/1/Healthy%20Cities%20-%20promoting%20health%20and%20equity.pdf.
  78. Levine, J. (2013). Urban transportation and social equity: Transportation-panning paradigms that impede policy reform. In N. Carmon & S. S. Fainstein (Eds.), Policy, planning, and people: Promoting justice in urban development (pp. 141–160). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  79. Lewis, G. J., et al. (2014). Neural correlates of the “good life”: Eudaimonic well-being is associated with insular cortex volume. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(5), 615–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Light, D. W., Lexchin, J., & Darrow, J. (2013). Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 41(3), 590–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Lindelöw, D., Koglin, T., & Svensson, Å. (2016). Pedestrian planning and the challenges of instrumental rationality in transport planning: Emerging strategies in three Swedish municipalities. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(3), 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Loe Fisher, B. (2017). Mass protests in italy highlight global vaccination agenda and the resistance movement. Vaccine Impact. [Online]. Accessed 3 Sep 2017. Available from: https://vaccineimpact.com/2017/mass-protests-in-italy-highlight-global-vaccination-agenda-and-the-resistance-movement/
  83. Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., & Stoker, G. (2001). Trends in public participation: Part 1 – Local government perspectives. Public Administration, 79(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  85. Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  86. Morgan, S. T. (2012). Justifying a methodological approach : Action research. [Online]. Accessed 10 Dec 2015. Available from: http://www.stmorgan.co.uk/justifying-a-methodology-action-research.html
  87. Mowat, H.. (2011). Alan Irwin, citizen science, Opticon1826, (10). Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, from http://ojs.lib.ucl.ac.uk/index.php/up/article/view/1368.
  88. Mumpower, J. L. (2001). Selecting and evaluating tools and methods for public participation. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 1(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2001.001745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Munn-Giddings, C., & Winter, R. (2013). A handbook for action research in health and social care. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., et al. (2017). Participatory quantitative health impact assessment of urban and transport planning in cities: A review and research needs. Environment International, 103, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.03.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Nind, M. (2014). What is inclusive research? Edinburgh: A&C Black.Google Scholar
  92. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. T. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  93. Ocloo, J., & Matthews, R. (2016). From tokenism to empowerment: Progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(8), 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Padilla, M. A. S., et al. (2007). Approaches to participation: Some neglected issues. In 5 a Conferência critical management studies. Retrieved May 25, 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Sahagun/publication/264839037_Approaches_to_participation_some_neglected_issues/links/54e773830cf277664ffa9b5e.pdf. Google Scholar
  95. Pagatpatan, C. P., & Ward, P. R. (2017). Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: A realist synthesis. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 23(6), 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Paterson, M. (2007). Automobile politics: Ecology and cultural political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Petts, J., & Brooks, C. (2006). Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decisionmaking: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rawcliffe, P. (1995). Making inroads: Transport policy and the british environmental movement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 37(3), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1995.9929227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research : Participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  100. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Reed, M. S., et al. (2017). A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. M. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rifkin, S. B. (2009). Lessons from community participation in health programmes: A review of the post Alma-Ata experience. International Health, 1(1), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rifkin, S. B. (2014). Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: A review of the literature. Health Policy and Planning, 29(suppl 2), ii98–ii106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Ringland. (n.d.). Grassroots design of a large infrastructure project. Ringland. Retrieved Aug 10, 2017, https://ringland.be/grassroots-design-a-large-infrastructure-project/.Google Scholar
  106. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2016). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research Agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(4), 512–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sager, T. (1992). Why plan? A multi-rationality foundation for planning. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 9(3), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739208730300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Schiefelbusch, M. (2010). Rational planning for emotional mobility? The case of public transport development. Planning Theory, 9(3), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209358375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Schwanen, T., & Ziegler, F. (2011). Wellbeing, independence and mobility: An introduction. Ageing and Society, 31(05), 719–733. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10001467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Smith, S. E., Willms, D. G., & Johnson, N. A. (1997). Nurtured by knowledge : Learning to do participatory action-research. New York: Apex Press.Google Scholar
  112. Souza, M. J. L. (2001). Mudar a cidade: uma introdução crítica ao planejamento e à gestão urbanos. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil.Google Scholar
  113. Stangl, P. (2008). Evaluating the pedestrian realm: Instrumental rationality, communicative rationality and phenomenology. Transportation, 35(6), 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Stringer, L. et al. (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: A critical review’, Ecology and Society, 11(2). Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/main.html
  116. Tickner, J. A. (2001). Democratic participation: A critical element of precautionary public health decision-making. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 11(2), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Tippett, J., Handley, J. F., & Ravetz, J. (2007). Meeting the challenges of sustainable development—A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning., 67(1), 9–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Van Brussel, S., Boelens, L., & Lauwers, D. (2016). Unravelling the Flemish mobility Orgware: The transition towards a sustainable mobility from an actor-network perspective. European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1336–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1169248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Velasco, X. C. (2013) Participatory action research (PAR) for sustainable community development. Post Growth Institute Ashland. Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, from http://postgrowth.org/participatory-action-research-par-for-sustainable-community-development/.Google Scholar
  120. Verbeek, T. (2014). Reconnecting urban planning and public health: An exploration of a more adaptive approach. In Annual congress: From control to co-evolution (AESOP-2014). Retrieved Aug 10, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Verbeek/publication/288668035_Reconnecting_urban_planning_and_public_health_an_exploration_of_a_more_adaptive_approach/links/5721ff5208ae586b21d3b816.pdf.
  121. Verlinghieri, E.. (2016). Planning for resourcefulness: Exploring new frontiers for participatory transport planning theory and practice in Rio de Janeiro and L’Aquila. Ph.D. University of Leeds. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16709/.Google Scholar
  122. Willson, R. (2001). Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation, 28(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005247430522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. Policy Sciences, 50, 449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9275-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Woodall, J. et al. (2010) Empowerment & health and well-being: Evidence review. Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/2172/.Google Scholar
  125. World Health Organization. (1986). Ottawa charter for health promotion. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70578/5/9788499841335_cat.pdf.
  126. World Health Organization. (2003). Community participation in local health and sustainable development: Approaches and techniques/text editing: David Breuer. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  127. Wright, M. T., Cook, T., et al. (2013a) ‘The International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research’, in Action research, innovation and change, International perspectives across disciplines: Routledge, pp. 56–72.Google Scholar
  128. Wright, M. T., Brito, I., et al. (2013b). What is participatory health research. Position paper no. 1. Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, http://www.icphr.org/uploads/2/0/3/9/20399575/ichpr_position_paper_1_defintion_-_version_may_2013.pdf.
  129. Yiftachel, O. (1998). Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. CPL Bibliography, 12(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229801200401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Yiftachel, O., & Huxley, M. (2000). Debating dominence and relevance: Notes on the “communicative turn” in planning theory ‘debating dominence and relevance: Notes on the “communicative turn” in planning theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 907–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport Studies UnitUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations