Participatory Design and Planning

Henry Sanoff

(The Encyclopedia of Housing, Second Edition edited by Andrew T. Carswell, 2012)

When people align their individual in-

Participatory design is an attitude about telli-
a force for change in the creation and
management of environments for peo- gences in shared undertakings, instead
ple. Its strength lies in being a move- of using their intelligence to undermine
ment that cuts across traditional profes- each other in pursuit of individual sta-
sional boundaries and cultures. Its tus, they are much more able to gener-
roots lie in the ideals of a participatory ate collective intelligence. Collective in-
democracy where collective decision- telligence has been suggested as being
making is highly decentralized through- partly responsible for favorable partici-
out all sectors of society, so that all in- patory design outcomes (Fischer et al.
dividuals learn participatory skills and 2005).
can effectively participate in various
ways in the making of all decisions that Participatory Democracy: The
affect them. Increasingly complex deci- essence of democracy itself is now
sion-making processes require a more widely taken to be deliberation, as op-
informed citizenry that has considered posed to voting, interest aggregation,
the evidence on the issue, discussed constitutional rights, or even self-gov-
potential decision options and arrived at ernment. The deliberative turn repre-
a mutually agreed upon decision (Abel- sents a renewed concern with the au-
son et al, 2003). thenticity of democracy, which is en-
gaged in by competent citizens
Today participatory design processes (Dryzek, 2000). To increase the effec-
are being applied to urban design, tiveness of our democracy, Atlee
planning, and geography as well as to (2003) advances the idea of Citizen De-
the fields of industrial and information liberative Councils (CDC), which are
technology. Research findings suggest small face-to-face groups of diverse cit-
that positive outcomes are associated izens that convene for short periods of
with solutions being informed by users’ time to consider some public concern.
tacit knowledge (Spinuzzi, 2005). More Deliberation, states Atlee, is a form of
recently, another factor has been sug- dialogue with the intention of producing
gested as being partly responsible for decisions, policies, recommendations
favorable participatory design out- or collective action. Deliberation in-
comes, which is described as collective volves a careful consideration of an is-
intelligence (Fischer et al., 2005). Atlee sue, examining the facts, viewpoints
(2003) describes collective intelligence and consequences related to it. Unlike
(CI) as a shared insight that comes an open participatory forum, a CDC is
about through the process of group in- an organized group of people selected
teraction, particularly where the out- such that their collective diversity re-
come is more insightful and powerful flects the diversity of the larger popula-
tion from which they were drawn. Un-
than the sum of individual perspectives. like public hearings, which are often

1
aimed at airing views, citizen delibera-
tive councils are small, usually between In northern Europe participatory design
ten to fifty people, and generate a spe- grew out of work beginning in the early
cific product such as a recommenda- 1970s in Norway when computer pro-
tion, which would generate further com- fessionals and union leaders strove to
munity dialogue. Specific methods us- enable workers to have more influence
ing a deliberative approach include citi- on the introduction of computer sys-
zens’ juries, planning cells, deliberative tems in the workplace (Winograd, 1996;
polling, consensus conferences and cit- Spinuzzi, 2005). Computer profession-
izens’ panels. Individual methods may als worked with members of the Iron
differ with respect to participant selec- and Metalworkers Union to enable the
tion, the number of participants the type workers to have more influence on the
of input obtained or the number of design and introduction of computer
meetings. Common to all, however, is systems into the workplace. Several
the deliberative component where par- projects in Scandinavia set out to find
ticipants are provided with information the most effective ways for computer
about the issue being considered, en- system designers to collaborate with
couraged to discuss and challenge the worker organizations to develop sys-
information and consider each others’ tems that most effectively promoted the
views before making a final decision or quality of work life. Pelle Ehn (1992)
recommendation for action (Abelson et describes a design philosophy called
al., 2003). the tool perspective whereby new com-
puter-based tools should be designed
Because participatory design (PD) as an extension of the traditional practi-
practitioners are so diverse in their per- cal understanding of tools and materi-
spectives, backgrounds, and areas of als used within a given craft or profes-
concern, there can be no single defini- sion.
tion of PD. However, PD practitioners
share the view that every participant in In the United States, the idea of partici-
a PD project is an expert in what they patory design emerged in the 1960s
do, whose voice needs to be heard; civil rights movement to describe a
that design ideas arise in collaboration process, which engages end users, al-
with participants from diverse back- though volunteer citizen participation
grounds; that PD practitioners prefer to continues to be one of the key concepts
spend time with users in their environ- in American society. Some historians
ment rather than ‘‘test’’ them in labora- support the notion that Americans have
tories. Participatory design profession- always wanted to be part of decisions
als share the position that group partici- affecting their lives. Freedom and the
pation in decision-making is the most right to make decisions on the early
obvious. They stress the importance of American frontier was the shaping force
individual and group empowerment. in grass roots democracy, i.e., a per-
Participation is not only for the pur- son’s right to participate (Billington,
poses of achieving agreement. It is also 1974). Community consciousness in
to engage people in meaningful and the 1960s led to direct involvement of
purposive adaptation and change to the public in the definition of their physi-
their daily environment (Sanoff, 2011). cal environment and an increased

2
sense of social responsibility consti- ment (1994) defines participation as a
tuted a new movement. process whereby stakeholders influ-
ence and share control over develop-
Influenced by Paul Davidoff’s (1965) ment decisions and resources which af-
advocacy model of intervention, many fect them.
design and planning professionals re-
jected traditional practice. Instead they Different Perspectives: In an alliance
fought against urban redevelopment, called Computer Professionals for So-
advocated for the rights of poor citi- cial Responsibility (CPSR) participatory
zens, and developed methods of citizen design is described as an approach to
participation. Federal programs of the the assessment, design, and develop-
1960s, such as the Community Action ment of technological and organiza-
Program and Model Cities, encouraged tional systems that place a premium on
the participation of citizens in improve- the active involvement of workplace
ment programs. With these programs, practitioners in design and decision
people outside the professions were al- making processes. CPSR advocates
lowed to make decisions about plan- co-designing new opportunities for ex-
ning and financing. Citizens were given ercising creativity; increasing worker
the right to participate in planning and control over work content, measure-
implementation processes through ment and reporting; and helping work-
grants and technical assistance ers communicate and organize across
(Sanoff, 2006). From this time commu- hierarchical lines within the organiza-
nity participation was perceived to be tion and with peers elsewhere. They
synonymous with community develop- recognize that workers are a prime
ment. Often, however, the term partici- source of innovation, that design ideas
pation is modified with descriptors such arise in collaboration with participants
as community participation, citizen par- from diverse backgrounds, and that
ticipation, people’s participation, public technology is but one option in ad-
participation, and popular participation. dressing emergent problems (Sanoff,
The way participation is defined also 2007).
depends on the context in which it oc-
curs. For some, it is a matter of princi- The Participatory Geographies Working
ple; for others, practice; for still others, Group (PyGyWG) reflects a surge of in-
an end in itself. Westergaard (1986) terest in the study and application of
viewed participation as collective efforts participatory research methods such
of those citizens traditionally excluded that geographic research should have
from control to increase their ability to benefits for those affected by the social,
manage resources and institutions. economic and environmental issues,
Brager, Specht, and Torczyner (1987) which are at its heart. A range of partic-
defined participation as a means to ed- ipatory principles underpins participa-
ucate citizens and to increase their tory geographies, such as a focus on
competence. It is a vehicle for influenc- empowerment and collective action
ing decisions that affect the lives of citi- where participants learn from their en-
zens and an avenue for transferring po- gagement in the process. They believe
litical power. The World Bank’s Learn- that participatory work should be proac-
ing Group on Participatory Develop- tively inclusive with practitioners ac-

3
tively attempting to include and seek about power and is in many situations
out people who are often ignored or do the central theme in sustainability.
not take part in community develop-
ment or research processes. Participa- Social Sustainability: In recent years,
tory geographers, therefore, often seek participation in interactive governance
to work in bottom-up ways with the goal and public involvement in the planning
of actively engaging and benefiting of development projects have been re-
groups outside academia so that tradi- garded as fundamental elements of so-
tional barriers between ‘expert re- cial sustainability and the delivery of
searcher’ and ‘researched community’ sustainable development policies.
are broken down (PyGyWg, 2006). (Colantonio, 2007) As Rydin and Pen-
Advocates of participatory action re- nington (2000) note, the desirability of
search (PAR) distinguish between re- public involvement is part of a tradition,
search for the people and research by which seeks to make the planning pro-
the people, where participatory meth- cesses transparent and to expand the
ods have had parallel developments in scope of public involvement in the pol-
such fields as public health, resource icy delivery process. The overarching
management, adult education, rural de- concepts at the core of social sustain-
velopment, and anthropology. Re- ability include basic needs and social
search is seen not only as a process of wellbeing, social capital, equity and so-
creating knowledge, but simultaneously cial and cultural dynamism (Bramley et
as education and development of con- al, 2006). Korten (1990) describes de-
sciousness, and of mobilization for ac- velopment as a process by which the
tion. Action research can be described members of a society increase their
as a family of research methodologies, personal and institutional capacities to
which pursue change and understand- manage resources to produce sustain-
ing at the same time. It is thus an emer- able and equitable improvements in
gent process, which takes shape as un- their quality of life.
derstanding increases, where the sub-
ject of the research originates in the The importance of participation for the
community itself and the problem is de- social sustainability of communities and
fined, analyzed and solved in the com- places is that participation allows for
munity (Taylor, 2004). communities to express their needs
and aspirations, which subsequently
Particularly crucial in the conception of impacts the policy-making processes
participatory design is the idea of de- (Healey, 1999). Participation also fo-
mocratization of decision-making within cuses on the democratic right to be in-
all local and private organizations as a volved in the public policy process. A
necessary prerequisite for political more democratic participation can raise
democracy at the national level. Colfer awareness of the cultural and social
et al. (1999) argue for the importance of qualities of localities at the policy-mak-
local people in involvement, decision- ing stage and avoid conflicts that may
making, and sustainable management. emerge in policy implementation later
The debate about balancing local with (Rydin and Pennington, 2000). Key in-
national interests, particularly in the gredients for achieving the social sus-
case of public lands, is a discussion tainability of communities include:

4
 and the methods must fit with the pur-
•Promise the public’s contribution will poses, which is about creating change
influence the decision through participation, working with peo-
•Those affected by a decision have a ple, rather than doing things for or to
right to be involved them. A guiding principle therefore is to
•How can participants/stakeholders ensure that the methods used do not
best participate undermine the work that has occurred.
•Provide participants with information Evaluation, in its simplest form, is a
they need to participate in a meaningful continual process of reviewing what
way has occurred and looking for ways to
•Recognize and communicate the improve it (Laurie, 1994).
needs and interests of all participants
Involve those potentially affected by or The most comprehensive attempt to
interested in a decision develop an evaluation framework is
•Communicate to participants how their based on a theory of public participa-
input affected decisions tion, which identifies two key principles:
fairness and competence, against
As the level of participation increases, which participation processes can be
the capacity for learning also rises for judged (Webler, 1995). The fairness
all stakeholders and participants includ- goal requires the equal distribution of
ing researchers, experts, and policy opportunities to act meaningfully in all
makers. This shift in emphasis from aspects of the participation process in-
gathering data to increasing learning cluding agenda setting, establishing
has been a trend in international partici- procedural rules, selecting the informa-
patory development theory and practice tion and expertise to inform the process
over the last twenty years (Seitz, 2001) and assessing the validity of claims.

Evaluation: The aim of any evaluation The competence goal deals more with
is to identify where change has and has the content of the process. A compe-
not occurred, in order to make future tent process ensures that appropriate
work more effective. A good evaluation knowledge and understanding of the is-
assesses what has been achieved sue is achieved through access to infor-
against what was intended and ex- mation and the interpretation of the in-
plains why this happened in order to formation. Competence also requires
derive some lessons for future work that appropriate procedures be used to
(Graessle and Kingsley, 1986). Learn- select the knowledge that will be con-
ing is at the core of any evaluation. For sidered in the process (Abelson et al.
community participation projects, evalu- 2003).
ation is a learning process for everyone
Conclusion: The purposes of partici-
involved. It is an interactive and egali-
tarian process, which must value all pation have been more modestly de-
contributions and develop a sense of fined to include information exchange,
empowerment. (Laurie, 1994) resolving conflicts, and to supplement
planning and design. Participation re-
Evaluation is not just a measure of duces the feeling of anonymity and
change but can be a tool for change, communicates to the user a greater de-

5
gree of concern on the part of the man- various techniques that are available,
agement or administration. With it, res- each of which performs different func-
idents are actively involved in the de- tions. In the last several decades, there
velopment process; there will be a bet- have been numerous efforts to accu-
ter-maintained physical environment, mulate knowledge about various partici-
greater public spirit, more user satisfac- pation techniques, as well as the func-
tion and significant financial savings. tion that these techniques perform. Citi-
The main purposes of participation are zen surveys, review boards, advisory
(Sanoff, 2001): boards, task forces, neighborhood and
community meetings, public hearings,
• To involve people in design decision- public information programs, interactive
making processes, and as a result it will cable TV, have all been used with vary-
increase their trust and confidence in ing degrees of success, depending on
organizations, making it more likely that the effectiveness of the participation
they will accept decisions and plans plan. Since community participation is a
and work within the systems when complex concept, it requires consider-
seeking solutions to problems. able thought to prepare an effective
• To provide people with a voice in de- participation program (Sanoff, 2001).
sign and decision-making in order to
improve plans, decisions and service References
delivery.
• To promote a sense of community by Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin,
E., and Gauvin, F.P. (2003). Deliberations about de-
bringing people together who share liberative methods: issues in the design and evalua-
common goals. tion of public participation processes. Social Science
& Medicine 57: 239-251.
An important point in the participatory Atlee, T. (2003). The Tao of democracy. Cranston,
process is individual learning through RI: The Writers Collective.
increased awareness of a problem. In
Billington, R.A. (1974). American’s frontier heritage.
order to maximize learning the process New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
should be clear, communicable and
open. It should encourage dialogue, Brager, G., Specht, H., & Torczyner , J.L. (1987).
Community organizing. Columbia University Press.
debate and collaboration. Thus, partici-
pation may be seen as direct public in- Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S. and Brown, C.,
volvement in decision-making pro- (2006). What is social sustainability and how do our
existing urban forms perform in nurturing it? Paper
cesses where people share in social presented at the Sustainable Communities and
decisions that determine the quality and Green Futures Conference, London: Bartlett School
direction of their lives. This requires the of Planning, University College London.
provision of effective communication Colantonio, A. (2007). Social sustainability: An ex-
media in order to provide suitable ploratory analysis of its definition, assessment meth-
grounds for user participation in design- ods, metrics and tools. 2007/01: EIBURS Working
Paper Series. Oxford: Oxford Brooks University.
ing.
Colfer, C.J.P., Brocklesby, M.A., Diaw, C., Etuge, P.,
Good planning for community participa- Günter, M., Harwell, E., McDougall, C., Porro, N.M.,
Porro, R., Prabhu, R., Salim, A., Sardjono, M.A.,
tion requires careful analysis. While it is Tchikangwa, B., Tiani, A.M., Wadley, R.L., Woelfel,
critical to examine goals and objectives J. and Wollenberg, E. (1999). The BAG (Basic as-
in planning for participation, there are sessment guide for human well-being). Criteria & In-

6
dicators Toolbox Series No. 5. CIFOR, Bogor, In- case studies in urban and small town environments.
donesia. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in plan- Seitz, V. (2000). A new model: Participatory planning
ning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners for sustainable community development. Race
31:331-338. Poverty & the Environment: Reclaiming Land &
Community. Volume VII, No 3. San Francisco: Urban
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and Habitat Program and the Center on Race, Poverty,
beyond. London: Oxford University and Environment. Pp. 8-11,38.
Press.
Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participa-
Ehn, P. (1992). Scandinavian design: on participa- tory design. Technical Communication (52) 2:163-
tion and skill in P. Adler and T. Winograd (eds) Us- 174.
ability: Turning technologies into tools. London: Ox-
ford University Press. Taylor, P. (2004). User Participation in research.
University of Sussex: Institute of Development Stud-
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M. ies.
and Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: integrat-
ing individual and social creativity. Human-Computer Webler, T. (1995). ‘‘Right’’ discourse in citizen partic-
Studies 63:482-512. ipation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. We-
bler, & P. Wiedelmann (Eds.), Fairness and compe-
tence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for
Graessle L. and Kingsley S. (1986). Measuring environmental discourse (pp. 35–86). Boston, MA:
change, making changes. An approach to evalua- Kluwer Academic Press.
tion. London: London National Health Resource. Westergaard, K. (1986). People's participation, local
government and rural development: The case of
Healey P., (1999). Institutionalist analysis, commu- West Bengal, India. Copenhagen: Center for Devel-
nicative planning, and shaping places, Journal of opment Research.
Planning Education And Research 19 (2):111-121.
Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing design to software.
Korten, D. C. (1990). Getting to the 21st Century: Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Voluntary action and the global agenda. West Hart-
ford, CT: Kumarian Press. World Bank. (1994). The World Bank and participa-
tion. Report of the Learning Group on Participatory
Laurie, E. (1994). Ideas for the evaluation of commu- Development. World Bank, Washington, DC.
nity participation initiatives. Occasional Paper Royal
College General Practitioners 64:33-35.

Mathbor, G.M. (2008), Effective community participa-

tion in coastal development. Chicago, IL: Lyceum
Books.

PyGyWg (2006). Participatory Geographies Working

Group
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/research/pygywebsite/about.ht
ml

Rydin Y. and Pennington M., (2000). Public partici-

pation and local environmental planning: The collec-
tive action problem and the potential of social capital,
Local Environment, (5) 2:153-169.

Sanoff, H. (2001). Community participation methods

in design and planning. New York: Wiley.

Sanoff, H. (2006). Origins of community design. Pro-

gressive Planning 166:14-17.

Sanoff, H. (2007). Editorial, Special issue on partici-

patory design. Design Studies (28) 3: 213.

Sanoff, H. (2010). Democratic design: Participation