Planning for Dissent

Participatory planning traditionally requires face-to-face meetings with the public in community fora, design charrettes, planning commission meetings, and so on. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic and aided by online participatory technologies, planners have been translating their face-to-face practices for use in digital forums. These new tools are equipping planners with greater ability to control meeting interactions, including the ability to stifle dissent. In this Viewpoint, we argue that planners should devise the means to protect modes of digital dissent if they want to avoid propagating the injustices of physical participatory processes in the digital world. Based on ongoing research, we offer guidance to planners about how to begin discussing the meaningful roles dissent could play and how it might effectively and fairly be incorporated into virtual participatory planning processes. In practice, this means that planners must pay more explicit attention to the norms and rules of participation as they evolve for online settings and to avoid hasty judgments when confronted with dissenting voices.

Facilitating Online Participatory Planning During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Problem, research strategy, and findings Takeaway for practice The COVID-19 pandemic temporarily shifted participatory planning processes from face-to-face to online meetings. Prior to the pandemic, public participation included online components, but only in support of face-to-face public meetings. Thus, there was very little guidance for practitioners on how to design and host online public meetings. We interviewed 32 professional planners and facilitators with experience hosting public meetings during the summer of 2020 and asked them to discuss their experience moving their practices online. We expected to see drastic changes in how these professionals approached their work, but our expectations were only partially met. Instead of revolutionizing participatory planning, online meetings only required modest adjustments to the practices used in face-to-face meetings. Our findings are limited because they represent a narrow window in time. More substantial changes to participatory planning practices may have taken place because of the pandemic and may not be reflected in our interview data.Face-to-face and online meetings may not be as different as popular opinion suggests, and many of the practices that planners have used to host face-to-face public planning meetings could be applied to online meetings. Moreover, the successful transition to online meetings during the pandemic also suggests that remote public meetings are a viable and legitimate option for participatory planning processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of the American Planning Association is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Participation and the pandemic: how planners are keeping democracy alive, online

The COVID-19 pandemic has paved the way for a multitude of experiments in e-democracy as local governments strive to continue to hold public meetings;make and implement plans;issue permits, variances and zoning decisions;and gather input while under quarantine. This paper anecdotally discusses the role of online participatory technologies (OPTs) during this time.

Planning for Dissent

Participatory planning traditionally requires face-to-face meetings with the public in community fora, design charrettes, planning commission meetings, and so on. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic and aided by online participatory technologies, planners have been translating their face-to-face practices for use in digital forums. These new tools are equipping planners with greater ability to control meeting interactions, including the ability to stifle dissent. In this Viewpoint, we argue that planners should devise the means to protect modes of digital dissent if they want to avoid propagating the injustices of physical participatory processes in the digital world. Based on ongoing research, we offer guidance to planners about how to begin discussing the meaningful roles dissent could play and how it might effectively and fairly be incorporated into virtual participatory planning processes. In practice, this means that planners must pay more explicit attention to the norms and rules of participation as they evolve for online settings and to avoid hasty judgments when confronted with dissenting voices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of the American Planning Association is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)