打印

作者

Nisha D. Botchwey;Nick Johnson;L. Katie O’Connell;Anna J. Kim

来源

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION,Vol.85,Issue3,P.255-270

语言

英文

关键字

citizen participation,community participation,youth in planning,youth participation,youth programs

作者单位

摘要

AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findings: Youth are traditionally excluded from participation within planning venues, though planners increasingly recognize the value and knowledge that youth can bring to planning efforts. Yet planners struggle to find ways to incorporate youth ideas and decision making that are not exploitative, tokenizing, or coercive. Arnstein’s “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” provides useful insights into how youth can participate in decision making through partnerships with adults for whom the ladder was designed. In this article, we use case studies of youth-focused planning initiatives to examine the potential for including youth in Arnstein’s original ladder. These include Youth–Plan Learn Act Now (Y-PLAN), Youth Engagement and Action for Health (YEAH!), and Growing Up Boulder (GUB). Within each case study we analyze the goals, methodology, and projects of each program to determine how each expands or limits youth participation. The case studies vary based on the degree of participation, youth experience, and their geographical and institutional bounding. We then propose new rungs located between “placation” and “partnership” that offer youth an opportunity to partner with adults to engage in a planning project. Each new rung offers youth opportunities to participate in the planning process, though adults retain decision-making power. These rungs are divided by their directionality of power and whether youth are granted power to participate or seek it themselves. Further research could refine these rungs, especially within larger contexts of planning theory and the history of shared decision-making processes. Methodological challenges to this study could be addressed in some of these future research efforts.Takeaway for practice: Practicing planners are challenged with ways to authentically include youth voices in productive and nontokenistic decision-making frameworks. Planners can apply these lessons to engage youth in different contexts to support the elevation of their involvement, voice, and power in the planning process.Keywords: citizen participation, community participation, youth in planning, youth participation, youth programsAdditional informationAuthor informationNisha D. BotchweyNISHA D. BOTCHWEY (nisha.botchwey@design.gatech.edu) is an associate professor of city and regional planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology and director of the Healthy Places Lab.Nick JohnsonNICK JOHNSON (njohnson92@gatech.edu) is a city and regional planning master’s candidate at the Georgia Institute of Technology and member of the Healthy Places Lab.L. Katie O’ConnellL. KATIE O’CONNELL (l.katieoconnell@gatech.edu) is a city and regional planning doctoral student at the Georgia Institute of Technology and member of the Healthy Places Lab.Anna J. KimANNA J. KIM (anna.kim@sdsu.edu) is an assistant professor of city planning in the School of Public Affairs at San Diego State University, and co-principal investigator on the Youth Engagement and Action for Health! (YEAH!) project.FundingFunding support was received from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant No. 73742).RESEARCH SUPPORTFunding support was received from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant No. 73742).Notes1 This view echoes the arguments that youth were once seen as “victims of urban-industrial society” found in Checkoway et al. (1995 Checkoway, B., Pothukuchi, K., & Finn, J. (1995). Youth participation in community planning: What are the benefits? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2), 134–139. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Youth + Participation + in + Community + Planning#2[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 134).2 Osborne (2015 Osborne, N. (2015). Intersectionality and kyriarchy: A framework for approaching power and social justice in planning and climate change adaptation. Planning Theory, 14(2), 130–151. doi:10.1177/1473095213516443[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) defines intersectionality, through critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw’s framework (1991 Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), as “a way to approach and understand intragroup difference and the existence of multiple axes of identity that may govern an individual’s relationship to power” (p. 132).3 Arnstein (1969 Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Hart (1992 Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. (Innocenti Essays 4). Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/100-childrens-participation-from-tokenism-to-citizenship.html [Google Scholar]) can also be compared with Rocha’s “ladder of empowerment” (Rocha, 1997 Rocha, E. M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), 31–44. doi:10.1177/07399863870092005[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), which seeks to unify discourse about empowerment through a similar ladder typology. Rocha’s ladder mirrors Arnstein’s in the amount of power held by citizens, but does not characterize the participatory structure in which this power is exerted.4 Though we review the popular conceptions of youth and how they have evolved over time in this study, we do not explore the evolution of the planning profession, especially how social and political contexts have shaped planning structures. Modern planning has transitioned from a primarily state-led enterprise to one based on partnerships between many institutional actors. The public–private partnership model has been criticized for limiting participation through tokenistic appointments to advisory boards, placative listening sessions with communities, and elaborate networks that create citizen confusion (Ghose, 2005 Ghose, R. (2005). The complexities of citizen participation through collaborative governance. Space and Polity, 9(1), 61–75. doi:10.1080/13562570500078733[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]).5 The Chicago Architecture Center provides an invaluable resource for planners who work with youth. Full scans of Wacker’s Manual (Moody, 1911 Moody, W. D. (1911). Wacker’s manual of the plan of Chicago. Chicago, IL: Henneberry. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/wackersmanualofp00mood/page/n11 [Google Scholar]) can be found on their website, as well as information about No Small Plans, a graphic novel that teaches youth about planning.