The theme (title) of this project is participatory design in an urban context. By now, I hope the reader has some idea of what I mean by that. In this final chapter, I will try to gather all the threads laid out so far. With an outset in Utopian thinking about the city (chapter 1), I present some thoughts on my abstract Utopia in the political-philosophical discussion about a democratic perspective in the urban context (chapter 2). In the next chapters I go deeper into the issue of putting this idea into practice and methodology, and make the abstract Utopia more concrete.
In my work, PD is related to the work of my sensei, Prof. Hijikata. With him, the conceptual background of DSS is explored in order to establish a GDPSS framework for regional planning. The idea of DSS has traditionally been referred to in terms of the functions of a single decision maker within the context of group or organisational decision making situations. The product of DSS is simply information, that may have a purpose in the analytical stage, but not in the design stage. There are discrete gaps between analysis and design activity. Hijikata's GDPSS should not only aid the analysis of the problem situation, but should also clarify the design needs and constraints. The main objective of GDPSS is to create information environments which enable the formation of social contexts for group decision making, and thus makes way for participatory design. Regional planning starts with problem finding and ends up with a conclusion. The important issue of regional planning is to shape a self-organising decision making structure and to develop a systemic planning process that shapes a common future. The fruits of a participatory planning process are that people who participate in this process are motivated to shape their own future in a cultural sense, thus making the planning and design viable and sustainable.
Hijikata's idea is strongly focused on functions of information in the planning process. His basic point is that creative communication processes change people's attitudes to "the problem". This idea is coming from his experiences of participating in many practical urban design and regional planning projects, where he has learned that the characteristics of conflicts are dynamic, not static. Participants are not rigid, but flexible, because they want to influence the real situation, he says. Another point of his is to offer guidance on how to deal with the increase of information. For him, the big proposition of regional planning is that all diversified ideas should be absorbed in the planning, and this means that "whole citizens" should be included in this process. The important point is that the diversity of opinions should be taken into account, rather than the range and number of participants. When we apply this methodology to the real situation, we would expect, or hope, that a collaborative learning process would occur during the process. If participants have their own rigid objectives and stick to them throughout the planning process, the whole process becomes limited to the negotiation field, or even bursts out in open struggle.
The Ørestad case would be suitable as a test-bed for large-scale usage ofHijikata's ideas, even though the (metropolitan) Master Plan level so far has been given less attention by Hijikata than the local plan level. Ørestad is suitable in the sense that it is very complex indeed; also, it is filled with conflicts; and it is rather young, so "we" (not our ancestors and historians) know much of the history behind it, and, perhaps most important, it is in itself a "frontier" development, starting from "scratch" in terms of urbanity and community in the Ørestad.
What would the Amager context look like today, if the idea of democratic, participatory design had been realised in urban development and strategy making? The idea of going back in time to see what the process around the Ørestad might have looked like, had participatory design been practised, is worth some consideration, I think. I will approach this by tentatively answering these two questions:
If the process had to start all over, in a participatory "format", but without using ICT, what might have happened?
If the process had to start all over, in a participatory "format", and using ICT "democratically", what might have happened?
The GDPSS methodology will provide the framework for both answers, although I, in the former, have made some minor modifications, and, in the latter, have expanded it to embrace not only the GDPSS idea, but also some of my own ideas as presented in chapter 3.
In the following, I have compiled a rough framework for an implementation in the Danish context on Amager. Obviously, we have to go back to the very first phases of the Ørestad project, not only because that was when the concept was formed, but also because the first "democratic mistakes" were made when initially forming the plan, i.e. in the work leading to the Act on the Ørestad (c.f. Gaardmand, Petterson, etc.). The Ørestad process has to some extent been "backwards" compared to GDPSS, the steps in the decision making process being focused more on an act(ion) than on the "real problems".
If the Ørestad project had been handled in a more democratic way, from the very beginning, it could have been a process that looked like this.
This section is inspired by Gaardmand (1996) who sees more democracy coming, if these following ideas were realised:
(We are back in the late 1980's / early 1990's)
We will assume that the plan for a link to Sweden has already been decided upon, as was in fact the case (although the actual decision was made later), so that the national attention to Amager is already there.
Of course, we assume that the Ørestad is still just an idea. In the following, I don't speak of Ørestad, but an area I call Det Rosa. (which is Danish for "The pink area" - and coincidentally an anagram for Orestad)
We also know that the 1989 National Plan Statement and other official surveys point to the "decline of Copenhagen". In addition, we follow the historical development with the dismantling of Greater Copenhagen Council, and a lack of regional authorities and regional planning for the capital region.
The Municipality of Copenhagen has not been able to make a coherent regional, strategic plan for years, and is in a deep economic crisis. In 1990, two major issues are dominating the debates in parliament and in the public debate about the region:
And now, we start imagining what could have happened in the following years ... the history that could have been ....
National and regional politicians and planners are concerned about the development of the capital region, and so are citizens, organisations and scholars from the region. Both the government and the opposition have been criticised in the media and by the public for their handling of the bridge case (and other cases, for that matter), for their lack of public involvement and their indifference towards "the public opinion".
With its strategic location, and not only half the harbour areas and the coming bridge, but also the airport, the exhibition centre, the university, etc., Amager has come into focus in many of the debates on the region. The very poor public transport systems on the island makes it a "born" participant in the debates about infrastructure.
The growth-theoreticians and "banana-thinkers" have also put Amager on the agenda on the "transregional" level - they've relaunched the old debate (from the 1950's or earlier) about urban development on Amager's green fields. Based on geographical, demographic, and statistical studies, some scholars pinpoints a certain location on Amager to be the very centre of the whole Øresund region. In a famous drawing made by a scholar, in a column in a national newspaper, this area is marked in pink colours, and since then popularly known as "Det Rosa".
An intense and heated debate in the media, in planning journals, in parliament and ministries, in the municipality, and on Amager, follows. Provoked by the idea about "Det Rosa", but soon much broader: Should Copenhagen have an urban development project? - if so, should it be placed on Amager ? If not, what should then happen on Amager?
Parliament decides to fund the establishment of an Urban Development Centre (UDC) on Amager, a "third party" institution, in the sense that is is neither public nor private. It gets some public funding in the start up phase, but will need to achieve independent status after some years (and then do consultancy work for the public sector!).
The UDC gets commissioned to do regional and sub-regional (community-oriented) audits with compulsory information back-up from public authorities, mainly from within the municipalities and counties, but also institutions like the Danish Statistical Institute, the various ministries and departments, and others. In addition, the UDC would get a not insignificant amount of money to spend on professional consultancy, financing of research projects and research grants at universities; conferences and seminars, publications, competitions, etc.
Institutionally, UDC would have self-governing status, but would be submitted to regulations on publicity and transparency for both public and private corporations, whichever is the "strongest" regulation. In addition, the UDC would be controlled by a board, which would consist of one third "laymen" (citizens), one third politicians, and one third experts.
The UDC's first assignment was to develop a framework for the future of strategic planning and urban design in the region, in particular for and on Amager. The UDC was given two years to develop a framework for public policy on Det Rosa. Public authorities, e.g., Copenhagen Municipality, is to be involved in the process.
ANALYTICAL STAGE
The UDC sets out to get a rich and solid picture of the general awareness among citizens, organisations and authorities about the circumstances relating to Amager in general, and to the idea of "Det Rosa" in particular.
Within the UDC project team an internal "checklist" is devised for how to approach the task methodologically. The list contains the key questions the team wants to build the strategic planning on:
These questions are not kept secret but in the public material the UDC makes, emphasis is put on other methodological issues, most importantly the public involvement strategies and the concrete activities.
They start out by inviting interest groups, professionals, politicians and citizens to participate in some concrete activities. The project team makes use of methodologies such as card collecting and future workshops, but also of more traditional workshops, seminars and conferences, and these are all mixed participantwise. Over the coming years, concrete activities like these will be organised by the UDC, or with support from the UDC, with a variety of participants, and in different formats.
In the early stages, the thematisation is still very broad. The UDC arranges activities on both the broad theme itself - such as a big conference for local and regional citizens, organisations and authorities on the broad theme of "The Future of Amager", and a range of future workshops on the same theme, some with mixed participants, some within more closed circles, e.g. with local networks, local corporations, among urban planners, etc. - and on more specific themes - such as the traffic situation on Amager; the employment situation on Amager; the airport, the university, the harbour areas, etc. (typically arranged in cooperation with relevant partners).
All these activities are facilitated by the UDC, and to ensure the democratic and open process, a set of rules are made for all activities directly supported by the UDC:
100% financing only for publicly accessible activities (which everyone can join).
Co-sponsoring for closed arrangements only when a "proper" report is made publicly available immediately after the activity is carried out.
All activities supported are evaluated by 1. independent evaluators (e.g., researchers), 2. the UDC Board, and 3. the UDC staff. Also the evaluations should be made publicly available.
In addition to these rules for the participatory activities, the UDC also sets up rules for how they employ their own work, and the knowledge base they build up through all these processes:
1. reciprocity and "intimacy" between the UDC staff and their "clients" is not possible if everything should be publicly recorded, and there will have to be some kind of "clearing" system, for example when the press is involved, in order to ensure a high level of trust. On the other hand, the UDC must have very "free hands" in dealing with the information resources.
2. The normal rules on registration of course have to be followed strictly, and a concrete set of procedures must be formulated and made clear for all participants. In most cases, it will make sense to use the rule of anonymity, at least when "lay men" are involved. For "key persons", this might be a problem area, potentially conflicting with the interest in open processes. For example, there will definitely be many cases where for example the social relations among certain groups of politicians, bureaucrats and citizens, will influence how ideas develop and strategies are made. In the internal work in UDC, it might thus be sensible to make a division between "internal information resources" and "external information resources", even though this can easily lead to legitimisation problems.
Following successfully these sets of rules, the UDC establishes itself in the regional and national context, and during the first year it gets a reputation as a credible institution, with its third-party status not in direct competition with neither regional nor national authorities (e.g., the planning office in Copenhagen Municipality), nor any local institutions.
ANALYTICAL STAGE II
UDC makes great efforts to provide public access to the (external) information resources, and to provide open opportunities for public participation.
UDC employs a group of good journalists or writers, whose main task is to produce various publications:
In addition, some resources are spent ensuring not only a high quality information content, but also a high quality in the presentation and layout - the publications need to be "appetising" for the general reader.
All this printed matter is only one part of the communication strategy held by UDC. In addition, other spheres of publicity are approached, e.g.:
ANALYTICAL STAGE III
Based on a critical evaluation of all the data (mainly qualitative) from the first phases, the UDC staff now takes on a more active role. They start building concrete scenarios, detailed rich pictures, as well as causal models etc. about various aspects of the context.
This process is supplemented by a range of state-sponsored research projects at universities and public research centres. The research projects have two purposes (but each project will typically only relate to one):
1. To provide state-of-the-art scientific research in specified areas, e.g., public transport in dense urban areas, acknowledged by a broad range of Danish researchers. Here, competing "paradigms" can co-exist through a multi-faceted approach.
2. To contribute qualified material to a "think tank" arranging open roundtable sessions in cooperation with the UDC and local stake holders.
The scientific foundation of the scenarios must be presented and presentable in more popular forms. Rather than providing "truth", the scientists must give concrete, documented, augmented answers to questions raised during the process.
At this stage, the prime task for the UDC is to bring problems and ideas together and undertaking an assessment of realisation strategies. This is done by using a combination of soft systems methodology for the more structural, systemic content, and the scenario technique for the more creative, story-telling content, both of which are applied in the process.
UDC will here work concretely with the urban context, based on a thorough stake holder analysis. Since "Det Rosa" is largely unpopulated, there are no direct citizen stakeholders per se, but the existing citizens' organisations on Amager will be involved, not just consulted, throughout the process.
Now, on to the next question. If ICT was indeed used, how might the (same) process have looked?
Throughout the whole process, modern information and communication technologies should be applied. As described in chapters 3 and 4, there are various IT-tools that could be applied to the stages in the process. Most of these are likely to be off-the-shelf software packages, perhaps modified and adapted to the project. Thus Hijikata's systems are based on various popular tools, such as FileMaker Pro or HyperCard; my own on standard internet-tools (WWW (with cgi, Perl, etc.), email (listproc or WWW for lists). Hijikata's most recent system, the Mediator, is a prototypical system, and is yet to be developed for and used in concrete experiments; the first version was made with HyperCard, but will be changed to an internet application in upcoming versions.
In the scenario I go back to the late 1980s. Since public access internet is a phenomenon of the 1990s, or perhaps rather, "the 21st Century", a few anachronisms would be needed, if the internet should be used from the beginning. Technically, however, a technical solution would had been possible at that time, for example, using Usenet newsgroups, email, BBSs, etc., and the problem would rather be that of (lack of) public interest and engagement.
The "timing" in the scenario below is changed a bit, because I want to "use" the internet in the initial stages, to show its use in the whole process. Even though many will probably regard this as
The whole process would have a "mirror" in cyberspace. All reports, notes and plans would continuously be put on-line. Various electronic conferences, webforums, newsgroups and mailingslists would be offered, and the Mediator concept would be implemented in the process itself, where it would become an important communication tool for both the decision makers, the professionals involved (e.g. planners) and the involved citizens.
Using modern ICT, specialised software tools and applications would be developed, for example, a traffic simulator ("scenario-builder") where alternative models can be analysed by the computers expert system. Virtual models and spatial models would be developed for various alternatives. On-line GIS-like applications would also be developed, with simulation and calculation interfaces, preferably using natural language interfaces, so that "normal people" can use them (so everyone can make their own maps etc.).
The facilitator would have the responsibility for running this information base. The public authorities would be obliged to participate actively in providing material, as well as to participate actively in the communicative part (e.g., to respond to queries in the newsgroups). All interest groups would be invited to create their own spaces on the server, and they are offered technical support for their own, internal work; e.g., their own electronic workspaces, with closed conference systems, mailinglists, meeting places and other computer-services needed in their (net)work. Also, they would be offered technical support for publicity work, and are for example encouraged to build their own public webpages.
Amager would be a true pioneer on the internet. If following the state-of-the-art development on the net, the UDC and its collaborators would principally have been able to technically realise the scenario, even at the time of the actual development.
The UDC would be established as a physical entity (with offices, meeting rooms, library, etc.), but its organisation would be networked and have employees working at different locations. Some at universities, in companies, at public institutions, at home, etc. All employees would have personal computers with network access on site and remotely. A virtual organisation, with an experimental re-mix of traditional values of organisational structure, hierarchies, division of work, would be created in the computer network, fostering collaborative work, sharing of ideas, engagement and inclusion.
The UDC computer network would be functioning as an intranet as well as an internet service. The closed intranet system would have shared workspaces (e.g., file sharing, notice boards, "groupware") and utilities for asynchronous communication, and employees would be urged to expose themselves and their hereby enter a collaborative learning process. The computer network cannot stand alone in this process, and the computer mediated communication should be seen as a supplement to the "normal" social organsation and work forms (as described in the non-ICT scenario).
The internal UDC Net is the core in the facilitator's information system, in fact, the system and the virtual community it facilitates, should be regarded as the framework for the whole corporate work of the UDC.
The UDC Net would be more transparent to the public than most corporate networks (and intranets) are. While acknowledging a need for legitimate privacy and support hereof, the system would in most parts be designed to be a very open system, with public access opportunities to most document archives and databases.
The UDC Net would make use of state-of-the-art internet tools. The web would by 1997 have been used for several years, and the website would be much more than the well-known "brochure-ware" type corporate website. Besides "normal" webpages (HTML-files), the UDC Net would make use of all major kinds of advanced web technologies, such as cgi-scripts, search machines, database integration, Java-applications, RealAudio and RealVideo, QuickTime and QuickTimeVirtualReality, VRML, Shockwave, etc. Also, experiments with intelligent agents and net robots, and push technologies, will by 1997 be realistic. It would also be realitic that the UDC would by then apply a standardised SGML DTD (document style definition) for interoperability of its database and document library with other networks.
First of all, the open systems structure would, so to speak, make the "firewall" principle nearly obsolete. Rather than focusing on issues of data security and protection, confidentiality, and hierarchies, the emphasis of the information specialists work should be on "transparency making".
Some examples might clarify this:
How to motivate citizens' participation in a project like the Ørestad? It is a special kind of urban development project in the sense that there is and cannot be any directly involved citizens from the Ørestad, since it is a New Town with no inhabitants at the beginning. Solving traffic problems in inner-city Amager is a different matter, since the problems already exist in a social setting. There are also quite different time perspectives for the two issues. In that sense, the two parts of the Ørestad project, the city building and the minimetro, should be separated in terms of citizens involvement. The minimetro issue is by definition "closer" to the citizens, and there are strong, and legitimate, citizen interests in it. Here I have focused more on the Ørestad itself than on the minimetro issue. This may seem "odd" when it is citizens politics and actions that I am interested in. The reason for my choice is simple: that "game" has been played, the minimetro is already under construction, and even though it theoretically could be stopped or radically changed, I do not consider that an option at all. Sure, some details can, and perhaps should, be changed, but the "system" has made its choice, and at least as far as the first and second phases of the minimetro are concerned, they should be considered as should the Link to Sweden: as part of the urban context, in a few years time.
And, as so often before, such major changes in the urban infrastructure - eventually changing life in the city - have been decided in a non-participatory/pseudoparticipatory fashion, blessed by the government, who is among the major promotors of corporate planning in Denmark. The alliance between top politicians, top bureaucrats and other decision makers leaves no room for the opinions of the citizens.
As I illustrate in my scenarios, things could have been different.
Electronically assisted cross-fertilisation among citizens' groups could put them collectively way ahead of the government, which is hopelessly segregated into "ministries", "departments" and bureaucracies, and - at least in the case of Copenhagen, and Amager in particular - not only lacking competences in terms of decision making power (partly due to the region being split between several authorities), but also in terms of the use of ICT. They (the government) might have the technical competence, and they do put efforts in the use of ICT and they are indeed "wiring" the city (for administrative purposes), but when it comes to using ICT in the name of democracy, they show very little, if any, signs of competence or willingness.
Competence and willingness to use the internet innovatively is shown by more and more people and institutions. In my humble opinion, one of these is Wired Amager. But Wird Amager has been too small, and not in a position to be at the very front of internet development. Fortunately, I have had the opportunity to be involved in various virtual networks with lots of competence and willingness. By connecting people from various networks, I try to expand the Wired Amager project. The EU application with the English county was one such attempt. Another is related to www.europeonline.com. Europe Online A.s.b.l. is a Luxembourg-based non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting Europe on the Internet and the Internet in Europe. To this aim, Europe Online has created a website called the European Gateway to the Internet, to be found at http://www.europeonline.com. The European Gateway to the Internet has 30-40.000 hits daily. This advertisment-free website includes (links to) the best European Web sites in the fields of "News and Weather", "Business and Finance", "Sports", "Computer", "Magazines", "Television and Radio", "Travel", "Arts and Culture", "Shopping", "References" and more from all 15 European Union countries. It also includes the European Business Directory, EuroPages, as well as the European Web Directory Yelloweb. This latter has recently concluded an agreement at the instigation of Europe Online with EuroSeek, the only truly multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-national European search engine. In order to keep Europe Online local and up-to-date, Europe Online has instigated the Europe Online Virtual Correspondent Network. With this remote publishing tool Europe Online's virtual correspondent keep each national section up-to-date and local. Virtual correspondents are already in place for Denmark (1), the U.K, Greece, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. In addition to providing multi-lingual, user-friendly interface, content aggregation and navigation, Europe Online also provides users a multi-lingual publishing tool and platform, the Member City. Individual content - users' homepages - is then integrated into the entire Europe Online site via country, language and topic. This multi-lingual publishing tool and platform is being complemented by a multi-lingual communication/community platform to be integrated within Europe Online, giving its users easy access to communication and interactivity tools (webboards, chats, etc.).
Focussing on the following key topics: city administration, urban life, local education, medical support, decision making and electronic democracy, the Europe Online network is now entering a new project (2). The objective of the project, to give both european citizens and local authorities access to information, expertise, service and discussion fora on these issues, will be achieved using the results of the current EC funded projects Web4Groups (3), CityCard, MUNICIPIA, TeleRegions, and Million in the context of Europe Online. The prime technology used is still the World Wide Web, but now supported by the Web4Groups groupware functionality (fora, workspaces, voting, rating, joint editing, multi language support), and CityCard dialogue tools. Multi-modal access to information and services is supported by a online framework platform integrating pubic access points and kiosks with the World Wide Web. Gateways for e-mail, fax-on-demand, PDAs and telephony based services are part of a "design-for-all service implementation approach" (4). Starting with a sample of european cities, regions and communities as core "Digital Sites", a wider dissemination will be achieved by cooperating with Europe wide user organisations and networks. The basic mechanism for this dissemination activity and up-to-date information provision is based on existing Internet Service Providers networks. The complete multi-lingual, multi-cultural European pre-packaged front-end being built by Europe Online is today in the process of being marketed as a value-added service to all European Internet Infrastructure Access Provides, be they terrestrial, mobile or satellite/broadband cable. The international browser-service provider, MyWay, has as its "top content providers" MTV, USA Today, Lycos, ... and Europe Online. And Wired Amager.
There are, in my opinion, not any obvious existing "recipes" for success in citizens' (cyber-) democracy, even for better, citizen-based communication and information about government activity. But there are initiatives built by enthusiasts (e.g. UK Citizens Online Democracy, Minnesota e-dem) that have exemplary value "for the better", and they may be copied, may grow, may "become a place to make things happen - an exciting new interface between the public and politicians" (http://www.democracy.org.uk/). Even in Denmark, and Japan, for that matter, but there is still a long way to go before we will see any significant consequences of all this.
ICT plays no role in today's urban/community development in Copenhagen. In Tokyo, the Teleport concept of course involves ICT, but when it comes to public invlovement (e.g., websites) the ICT is not even used to what could be expected (show-off, at least up-to-date corporate info).
The "real" problems in the urban contexts could perhaps be "solved" if ICT were introduced (Hijikata's argument), but political and social factors are at the end of the day the most important. However polypotent the ICT is, there is a world outside the screen. Life on the screen seems to me, however, to be a valuable addition, with a rich potential for changing, to the better, life outside the screen. Virtual communities within and among "real" communities have great potentials for wider, deeper, participation in social and political life, and thus potential for the development of a stronger democracy.
Notes
1. In case you haven't noticed/guessed: I am responsible for the mailbox at danmark@europeonline.com, and all the Danish contents on Europé Online. (October 1997: Since I moved to Sweden, I am now also Swedish virtual correspondent.) See http://www.europeonline.com/
2. March 1997: Project proposal passed first round in the selection procedure, but didn't get funding. EU-programme: TELEMATICS Applications Programme. Date: 03/03/97: "CIVITAS - Civic Interactive Village Integrating Telematics Applications Sectors". Consortia Coordinator: Omega Generation S.R.L., Bologna; Danish partner John Gøtze/Amager Kulturbutik.
3. Web4Groups (a public demonstrator is available at http://www.web4groups.at) is based on a multi-platform distributed architecture, and provides gateways to Internet-mail using MIME, Usenet News newsgroups and Voice-fax messaging. Functionality supported include: multimedia computer conferencing; document archiving, folders, agenda, address book, mailboxes, shared workspaces; users role modelling and accesses rights; shared document production; access multi-language documents; decision support using rating and voting. Contact: Roland Alton-Scheidl, Web4Groups Assessment Manager, Roland.Alton-Scheidl@oeaw.ac.at - http://www.soe.oeaw.ac.at/~ras/
4. Quality control mechanisms will be established according to ISO 9126 standards with a permanent quality improvement task, supported by a task database accessible to all project partners and a parallel assessment of socio-economic aspects of the envisaged service.