Case 1: Local Area Planning (FIRE-D, USAID) , Delhi 10
Top-down approach. In order to deal with the inconsistencies between the Master Plan and reality, MCD started a reform process by the end of 2003.
Participants involved
Lead partners: Municipal Corporation of Delhi & USAID
Other partners: Local consultancy firms(hired by USAID) & Local stakeholders Methodology of public participation
The local area planning processes led by USAID had three main phases: •Data gathering and production (surveys and creation of maps); Participation to define each area limits and understanding •Data analysis; stakeholder involvement in the form of consultations to guide the work by consultants and assure their ideas and proposals were aligned •Proposals. so far has not included local input
Challenges of public participation:
Stakeholders can often concentrate in their own interests and overlook others’ concerns. Urban settings, in particular, can present a complex quilt of stake-holders and competing interests. Hence, participation processes need to use tools that lead towards unity and consensus.
Case 2: Bhagidari Scheme , Delhi 10
Top-down approach. The Delhi government, with aid from a consultancy firm, created the program’s concept and structure and launched it in 2000.
Participants involved
Lead partners: Initiative of the Chief Minister of Delhi & Resident Welfare Associations
Other partners: Market and Industrial Associations , Government and Public Utility Departments (Such as the MCD, Delhi Development Authority, NDMC, DVB, DJB and Delhi Police and the Department of Environment and Forest) and Consultancy firms
Methodology of public participation •Membership workshops: Conducted three times a year, to introduce new Bhagdars to the scheme and train them •Thematic workshops: participants discuss specific issues in small groups to produce a solution by consensus •Review process: Meeting with RWA members in each revenue area to check status of projects
Challenges of public participation:
Bhagidari had to deal with resistance, both from government officials and citizens. Bureaucrats felt threatened by the perceived erosion of power, as well as, for some, the increased accountability that would shed light into and hinder corrupt practices.
Case 3: Janaagraha, Bangalore
Given this context, in 2001, Janaagraha, a non-governmental organization (NGO) was created to promote democratic participation as a means to improve the city.
Participants involved
Lead partners: Janaagraha (NGO)
Other partners : Citizens (strong middle class in-volvement) , Corporators , Bangalore Municipality Corporation (BBMP)
Methodology of public participation •First campaign (2002): Meetings in 65 wards and get all actors involved to negotiate local budgets. •Third campaign (2003): 5 workshops, bringing together over 2000 people in 10 wards to produce a ward vision and suggested projects, including technical and financial requirements. •Recent developments: Programs with focus on the urban poor. E-governance – allowing citizens to voice their concerns online and reach Metropolitan Agencies.
Challenges of public participation:
Lack of institutional mandate or support: the lack of a formal mechanism for its recognition by the government apparatus may still prevent it from being implemented
Case 4: NextBengaluru , Bangalore 10
In 2009, under Germany’s National Policy for City Development, the city of Hamburg received a project entitled Next Hamburg, aimed at creating a vision for the city through a collaborative process. n 2013, Next partnered with MOD Institute to implement Next Bengaluru.
Participants involved
Lead partners: MOD institute
Other partners Citizens , Civic Societies , Activists
Methodology of public participation •Any citizen could send suggestions, either via their website or their local urban studio. This space held events, meetings, discussions, and workshops. •Through workshops in particular, the ideas from visitors and online suggestions were discussed and polished into possible projects. •Field trips or a cart was carried around and used to collect opinions from citizens to reach out to all populations
Challenges of public participation:
Next Bangaluru produced an array of tangible solutions for urban improvement. These ideas, however, have not been further developed — there are no technical specifications or financial information.
Case 5: The Neighbourhood Improvement Partnership Challenge , Bangalore
In 2015, the Citizens for the City initiative was set up by United Technologies Corporation (UTC) to support community engagement for sustainable development. Under this initiative was set up the Neighbourhood Improvement Partnership challenge in the city of Bangalore to encourage citizen to engage with the city as problem solvers with local governments.
Participants involved
Lead partners; UTC , Citizens of the city group
Other partners : Resident Welfare associations , NGOs , CBOs/Civic Societies , Bangalore City municipality (BBMP)
Methodology of public participation •The model looked at engaging citizens as partners of change •The citizens could engage in the challenge through their local resident welfare associations or civil societies ensuring consensus and a broader and inclusive approach to problem solving. •The challenge invited ideas for across the city through a website conducting multiple capacity building workshops on formulation of ideas, projects, implementation and budgeting plans.
Case 5: The Neighbourhood Improvement Partnership Challenge , Bangalore
Methodology of public participation •The selected teams would be provided with financial assistance to implement the project working in collaboration with the local government agencies
Challenges of public participation:
Apprehensions of engagement from the municipal corporation
Though the initiative and ideas put forth by the citizens have been widely appreciated amongst the government officials, the lack of set principles of citizen engagement led the official to take a less active role in the challenge. Also the limited engagement of local councillors /elected representatives in the wards in which these projects have been proposed was seen as possible hurdle in the successful implementation of these projects
Limited citizen capacity to formulate replicable and scalable solutions
While many of the robust communities were able to formulate workable neighbourhood solutions, a large majority lacked the capacity to analyse the problem to its root causality, leading to many of the proposed projects being myopic in their impact. The limited ability to recognise the type of skill sets required in the team also restricted their ability to propose implementable and financially viable solutions.
Register & Download PDF for Educational Purposes Only
Planning Legislations Study notes for M. plan Sem-II
Register as member and login to download attachment [pdf] by right-click the pdf link and Select “Save link as” use for Educational Purposes Only
Disclaimer
Information on this site is purely for education purpose. The materials used and displayed on the Sites, including text, photographs, graphics, illustrations and artwork, video, music and sound, and names, logos, IS Codes, are copyrighted items of respective owners. Front Desk is not responsible and liable for information shared above.