澳洲論文代寫 > essay代寫 > 墨爾本essay代寫 > > 正文


Participatory Planning代寫reproducing

ENVG340 Lecture 13 
April 10th

This lecture critically examines what participatory planning
means, and how it now dominates planning practices in
multiple forms.  We consider the range of possible participatory
planning – from tokenistic to meaningful – and examine a case
study of Mapoon Aboriginal settlement.  The ‘ways of doing’
research and development projects increasingly rely on the
rhetoric of participation and through unpacking the focus and
context for doing such, we see how inequitable
power relations can result unless reflexive decision-making and
consideration of more than the built environment occurs with
the participatory process.  
? Why pursue participatory planning?
? Different approaches, different contexts
? Possibilities of linking conservation and poverty reduction –
looking at multiple goals in participatory planning
? Case study:  Mapoon Aboriginal Settlement
Putting the last first?
? Participatory planning aims
to shift the ‘development’
process, and ‘put the last
first’ – Chambers (1983)
? Critiquing planning
practice in developing
countries in 1980s
? The opposite of what’s
happening in Horacek’s
cartoon here
Public participation in planning -
? Participation ubiquitous – central feature of making and
implementing policy
? Government replaced by governance. 
‘…the world has become too complex and our leaders too fallible
for anything approaching a universal good even to exist, let alone
be reliably located.  The new political culture no longer places
much faith in solutions imposed from above, increasingly relying
instead on a network of decision-making relationships that link
government and civil society across many scales (Van Driesche
and Lane 2002, 237).
Third way approaches
? Public-private partnerships eg BOOT
? Decentralisation of governance to civil society
? Involve citizens NGOs, social movements directly in the
devpt and implementation of policy (Lane 2005, 284)
? Not strictly a case of top-down vs bottom-up approaches in
governance today
? Not about just participation in planning but accountable,
inclusive processes that work within pre-existing contexts.
Ladder of participation – Arnstein’s
? ‘The idea of citizen
participation is a little like
eating spinach: no one is
against it in principle
because it is good for you.’
(Arnstein 1969, 216).
? Examined differences
between meaningful and
superficial participation
Power and public participation
? If involving public, then refigure power relationships.  Give
decision making to those involved to make it more than tokenism!
? Participation as therapy or manipulation of participants if no
power devolved (Lane 2005, 284)
?  Allow for cultural diversity and social justice outcomes to be
? But is possible that public participation merely reconstitutes
previously existing power relations if not conscious of
refiguring/seeking out difference
? Lane (2005)
? ‘What this historical review shows is that public participation can only
be understood in terms of the decision-making context in which it is
embedded.’ (297)
Action research
? Dual interests/goals - study of social change and active
involvement in processes of change
? ‘…critical research, reflexive activism and open-ended
pedagogy are actively combined in an evolving collaborative
methodology.’ (Nagar 2004:4).
? Questions the role of researcher as objective outsider and
argues that aiming to find out about the oppressed ‘Other’ is
a continuation of the hegemonic regime.
? Involve research subjects as intellectual collaborators in the
entire process of knowledge production.
? Notions including ‘participation’, ‘transformation’ and
‘empowerment’, have currency and can be misused – is
participation a means or an ends.
? If it’s a means – Poetivin (2002) says it can be manipulative –
missionary zeal of urban researchers
? If it’s an ends – can become an effective democratic process.
Action research – subject to
poststructuralist critique
? Prior to 1980s – unproblematic – not theory laden, basically
empowering and therefore GOOD.
? BUT 
? Need to consider the partial nature of all knowledge –
translation, mediation and representation
? Action research must be ‘attentive to the existence of multiple
situated knowledges’ that are ontologically different
? ‘specifying the limits of dominant discourses can generate
dialogues across difference in ways that disrupt hegemonic
modes of representation.’ (Nagar 2009:5).   
Possibilities to link conservation and
poverty reduction
? Efforts to pursue participatory approaches proliferating
? Community based natural resource management, Co-
management, Integrated Conservation and Development
Projects, Protected Areas.
? Methods to research: Participatory Rural Appraisal, Rapid
Rural Appraisal, Participatory Action Research, Ecosystems
Approach… 9/04/2013
Entry points for implementation of
approaches addressing poverty from a
conservation framework 
Dimension of poverty  Entry points  Local/site-level
l) interventions
Problem: lack of assets and
Solution: provide
build/restore assets
Value added
Access to capital,
technology, markets
Trade   pol ic y
Competition policy
Resource tenure
Forest restoration
Wa t e r sh e d protection
NTFP marketing
Improved access to
resources and tenure
Microcredit progs
Tenure reform
Trans fe r mechanisms to
compensate loss, reward
Environment and poverty
concerns inbuilt inter’al
Access and benefit-sharing
related to genetic
Problem: lack of power
Solution: empowerment
and access
Democratic decision
Rule of law (equality)
Access to info
User groups support
Gender and equity focus
Citizen report cards
Power relations that limit
access are addressed
Tenure reform
User networks support
Public admin reform
Devolve power to
Strengthen recognition of
From Fisher, Maginnis, Jackson, Barrow, Jeanrenaud (2008) 
Indigenous participatory planning
Comparable to
participation ladder
in some ways –
showing range of
engagements but
more specific to
Indigenous cultural
Moran 2004, 340.
Participatory planning at Mapoon,
Aboriginal settlement 
? Usually at the level of household scale, and ‘engages and
negotiates with legislation, standards, economies,
representation, expectations, assumptions and government
policy at greater regional state, national and international
scales. (Moran 2004, 340) 
? Moran focuses on remote discrete Indigenous settlements
rather than dispersed houses in urban centres.
? Emphasises that Indigenous settlements are not unitary,
homogenous spaces as use of the term ‘community’ suggests. 
Political divides present and social cohesion fluxes.  
Mapoon: Planning for a healthy
? ‘Old Mapoon – Planning for a healthy
community project’ began in 1994, finished
? Centre for Appropriate Technology  facilitated it.
? Two Mapoon people employed as health
promotion workers
? Was a large mission on the Cape. Closed in 1960s
by Presbyterian Church and Qld govt
? Against community wishes
? Some people forcibly removed 1963. 
? Moved from Old Mapoon to New Mapoon
? People began to return to Old Mapoon from
1970s – rebuilding homes there.
? Owner-built humpies as govt didn’t support –
salvaged materials from dumpsite of bauxite mine
at We i pa   9/04/2013
Brief timeline
? Early 1960s begun relocations
? 1984 Marpuna Aboriginal
Corporation formed
? 1999 Mapoon awarded Local
government status
? 1998 – Deed of grant in Trust
awarded to Mapoon people
? 2000 – first Aboriginal
Community Council elected
in Mapoon
? 2001 – Beattie apologised 
1995 Old Mapoon Plan
? Took 18 months to negotiate
? Broad participation – not just
elected individuals
? Process was not pre-
determined, but iterative,
? Decided on many things
including: planning officer,
household survey
questionnaire, election and
training of planning
committee, focus groups and
community meetings
(Moran 2004, 345)
Improvements over 1996-2000  
? Roadworks, water and power
over 10km length of
settlement, airstrip, 30 new
houses, primary school,
? 2000 – 200 people living in
? Approach to Mapoon
replicated elsewhere- Port
Stewart and Mona Mona.
? Replicated but not
? 71% of interview participants
were living at Mapoon during
the Plan
? Most people thought Mapoon
was changing for the better
(70%) or not changing at all
? 1995 plan produced a
pictorial summary and a
technical report – ownership
of the latter within Mapoon
? BUT focused on built
environment primarily. 
Participatory planning on ‘soft’
technologies left out
? Native title, health,
education, legislation,
governing structures
? Successful because of it’s
narrow scope (Moran
? Did not engage at local and
regional levels but did well
at household and
individual, and State and
Federal levels (funding for
? Not much capacity building
? Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First,
Prentice Hall.
? Fisher , R., Maginnis, S., Jackson, W., Barrow, E., Jeanrenaud, S.
2009. Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Landscapes, People
and Power. Earthscan, London.
? Lane, M. 2005. ‘Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual
history.’ Australian Geographer, 36:3, 283-299.
? Moran, M. 2004. ‘The Practice of Participatory Planning at
Mapoon Aboriginal Settlement: Towards Community Control,
Ownership and Autonomy’, Australian Geographical Studies, 42 (3):
? Nagar, R. 2009. ‘Action Research’ in The Dictionary of Human
Geography, pp5-6.  


Contact us / 聯系我們

QQ: 273427
QQ: 273427

Online Service / 在線客服

Hours / 服務時間

熱情 專業 誠信 守時
Copyright ? 2008-2018 assignment代寫