Planning Theory

Community Participation | Types, Process & Facilitation

Community participation is provided and facilitated by various legal provisions. In many countries constitution provides the basic framework for empowerment of both the urban local government and the citizens. The mechanism of creation of Wards Committees, local groups, self help groups etc provides the structure for citizens’ participation. Institutions of local government are highly participatory, primarily by virtue of their close interface with local communities. It enables ownership of local development initiatives, which contributes to successful implementation of local development initiatives. Participation, in order to be meaningful, requires institutional capacity of the local governments to come up to the aspirations of local communities. Fiscal strength constitutes the most important parameter of institutional capacity. Citizen and Community participation, therefore, becomes an imperative in strengthening fiscal strength of local government through generation of local government revenue and efficient allocation of the locally raised resources to various local development initiatives. Community Participation aims at involving the citizens in municipal functions, e.g., setting priorities, budgeting provisions, etc. They provide for the participation of citizens in the decision making process on local issues.

Related: Public Participation & Why to encourage public Participation

Types of Community Participation

Participation can be viewed from different perspectives and there are several types of participation. They include:

  • Passive Participation: People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened through unilateral announcement by administration.
  • Participation in Information Giving: People participate by answering questions posted by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches and do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings.
  • Participation by Consultation: People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to views and may modify these in the light of people’s responses but do not involve them in decision-making.
  • Participation for Material Incentives: People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash, or other material incentives, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end.
  • Functional Participation: People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project after major decisions have been made.
  • Interactive Participation: People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans, and formation or strengthening of local institutions.
  • Self-mobilisation: People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and the technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used.
You might be interested in  Example of Systemic Change

Community Participation

Citizen and Community participation can be facilitated

  • by stressing the benefits to be gained. This will work only so long then the benefits must become obvious. The intangible benefits as well as the tangible should be emphasized. These are frequently omitted and are, by far, the true gains of community action.
  • by adopting online participating model, The Internet facilitates sharing of the key ingredient of participation – information – to assist vision formation, informed decision-making, scenario-building and the like.
  • with an appropriate organizational structure available for expressing interest. This may require organizing a more neutral group than may be in existence in a community. However, in some situations, existing groups are adequate. Situation judgment is required by persons with appropriate experience and competency.
  • by helping citizens find positive ways to respond when their way-of life is threatened. Most people want to act responsibly. Use these situations to help people find positive ways to deal with threatening predicaments.
  • by stressing the commitment or obligation each of us have toward improving the community. However, people will not continue to participate unless the experience is rewarding, or at least not too distasteful.
  • In crisis situations have long been successfully used as a basis for gaining citizen participation. Crises should not be invented but, if they exist, they become powerful motivation. The closing of a major plant, closing of a school, loss of train service, and a major drug problem are examples of threats to a people’s way-of-life that have served as rallying points for citizen participation.

The most positive of all approaches to facilitate greater participation is to provide citizens with better knowledge. Obviously, the knowledge has to be in their value system. When it is, experience shows they usually act accordingly. Adequate time and means of diffusing the new knowledge must be employed for satisfactory results.

Improving Community Participation

Helping new or potential volunteers feel comfortable with the group probably has the greatest potential for getting and keeping citizens in community development work. This aspect is often overlooked in community participation because people are reluctant to say why they are uncomfortable. Reasons often given are that they are too busy or don’t have time. But, they really are uncomfortable with the group. Careful consideration of these problems can greatly reduce these concerns.

You might be interested in  Critical minimum effort Theory

Related: Examples of PPP Projects

Ideal condition for citizen or community participation

Innes et al. (1994), Margerum (2002), Beierle (1999), and Howell, Olsen, and Olsen (1987) provide a comprehensive array of strategies to employ in constructing effective participatory practices in environmental management. Commonly cited strategies are careful selection of a representative group of stakeholders; a transparent decision-making process to build trust among the participants; clear authority in decision-making; competent and unbiased group facilitators; regular meetings; and adequate financial resources to support the group process through the potentially long learning and decision-making process. However, even if the above strategies are employed, the success of the initiative in achieving significant outcomes (more-effective community decision-making and a public that accepts the new policy as the most effective choice) may depend strongly on the locale. Concrete ways to determine whether collaborative or participatory decision-making may work are provided with typologies using environmental (Yoder 1999) and stakeholder descriptions. Yet none of these typologies provide a unifying decision structure that is germane for the administrator with limited resources Given a finite budget and a set of policy outcomes to produce, what issues are critically in need of stakeholder involvement prior to (and even during) implementation? What decisions, on the other hand, would be unusually laborious to accomplish in a participatory format? Following are several considerations that may be described as ideal conditions for implementation of enhanced citizen participation in agency decision-making:

Low-Cost Indicators

  • Citizens readily volunteer for projects that benefit the entire community.
  • Key stakeholders are not too geographically dispersed Participants can easily reach meetings.
  • Citizens have enough income to attend meetings without harming their ability to provide for their families.
  • The community is homogenous, so the group requires fewer representatives of interest groups. Smaller groups speed decision-making.
  • The topic does not require representatives to master complex technical information quickly.

High-Benefit Indicators

  • The issue is gridlocked and a citizen mandate is needed to break the gridlock.
  • Hostility toward government entities is high, and the agency seeks validation from community members to successfully implement policy.
  • Community representatives with particularly strong influence in the community are willing to serve as representatives.
  • The group facilitator has credibility with all representatives.
  • The issue is of high interest to stakeholders, and may even be considered at ‘crisis stage’ if actions are not changed
You might be interested in  Collaborative Planning Theory

Related: Rational Planning Model, Healthy City Project, Advocacy Planning Concept

Post Comment

20 Shares
Share20
Tweet
+1
Share
Pin