1

COMMUNICATION FOR URBAN TRANSFORMATIONS IN PERSPECTIVE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN CITIZENS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

CASE STUDY OF WROCLAW (PL)

Communication for Urban Transformation Kasia Piskorek PhD Candidate – visiting scholar at Urbanism, TU Delft K.I.Piskorek@tudelft.nl

2

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

① Introduction

② Background & Inspiration

③ Methodology④ The Case of Wrocław⑤ Summary/Conclusions

3

INTRODUCTION

AFILIATION Wroclaw University of Technology / TU Delft

BACKGROUND Spatial Planning, Language Studies

FIELDS OF INTEREST local communities, local cultures, local initiatives, top-down governance, sociological aspects of spatial planning, communication, negotiation, deliberative democracy, post-communist countries transformations, conflict management

EXPERIENCE public consultation, workshops on community building, facilitation

MOBILITY PLUS PROGRAMME

Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, duration: 24 months

RESEARCH TOPIC(Extention of the PhD)

Comparative studies on public involvement tools and the relation between citizens and local authorities in perspective of communication.

INTRODUCTION - BACKGROUND & INSPIRATION

4

PhD TOPIC: Evaluation of Effectiveness of Recognition of Current Needs of Urban Community in Perspective of the Relation Between Citizens and Local Authorities (working title, language: Polish)

KEY WORDS communication, public participation, citizens’ needs recognition, participation model, local communities, post-communist countries, Wroclaw

MAIN INFLUENCES CITIES AND NEEDS (historical, sociological, functional, and political references): EU, UN, human rights, Zipser, Malinowski, Max Neef;

COMMUNITIES (local / of place, interests and practice): Chavis, Wandersman, Wagner, Ghel, Healey;

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THEORY and planners role: Arstein, Damurski, Hanzl, Hausner, Lorens;

DELIBERATIVE PLANNING and local governance:Balducci, Filar, Forester, Salet;

URBAN INTERACTION DESIGN and new technologies: Brynskov, de Waal, Noennig, Rekow;

COMMUNICATION THEORY:Anderson, Buhler, Dobek- Ostrowska, Jacobson, Habermas, Peters;

5

HYPOTHESIS

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PARTICIPATION) IS A COMMUNIACTION BETWEEN CITIZENS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

IT CAN BE ANALYSED LIKE A COMMUNICATION ACT

6

MAIN QUESTIONS

What are the public involvement means used in Wroclaw?

What is their frequency of use and effectiveness?

How do the most frequently used participatory tools look like form the communication point of view?

What are the main difficulties and obstacles and where are they located in a communication act?

How does a communication tool relate to the dominating communication function?

7

METHODOLOGY

INTERVIEWS: 24 local communities council representatives

STATISTICS: frequency of use, popularity and funds of communication tools (from the Main Statistics Office, Wroclaw Development Office and Official Municipaly Website)

COMMUNICOLOGY: communication act analysis

8

COMMUNICOLOGY TOOLS

SENDER/RECEIVER LOCAL AUTHORITIES / CITIZENS

CODE COMMON LANGUAGE (PROFESSIONAL / INFOGRAPHICS, PICTOGRAMS, SYMBOLS

CHANNEL TOOLS

MESSAGE NEEDS/ LOCAL PLAN/ PROJECT/ REALISATION DOCUMENT/REMARK/DEMAND/WARNING

(URBAN) CONTEXT CITY/SPACE/ SOFT/DEFINED

CONTACT DIRECT/INDIRECT

9

COMMUNICATION ACT

10

FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNICATION

DOMINATING FUNCTIONS:

-EMOTIVE/CONATIVE (

-EXPRESSIVE (sender’s statements)

-IMPRESSIVE (influence on the receiver)

-COGNITIVE (informative, depending on message – aesthetic/poetic )

-META („communication about communication”)

-PHATIC (maintaining the contact)

POLISH CONTEXT

Spatial planning system was centralized: in most of the Soviet bloc countries until the end of 1980s the state, with public funds, was the only initiator and investor undertaking all projects.

The decisions, funding, management and even design were dependent on the central government.

The government was “responding” to citizens needs without public consultation (no spontaneous or top-down initiatives were accepted)

SPATIAL PLANNING BEFORE THE TRANSFORMATION

Planning act 1984:

The Minister of Administration and Spatial Planning was providing rules for planning at regional and local level, where proper organs of national administration were implementing them.

General documents were available for public to popularise the plan.

Remarks and comments could be made by local governments, workers cooperatives, or administrative organisations.

THE TRANSFORMATION

Abrupt collapse of communist regimes in 1989 and immediate turn from absolutely centralized system to strong decentralization

After 180 degrees turn and decentralization spatial planning starts „happening” at the local level

Citizens involvement not only allowed in planning processed but also introduced into new legal basis of spatial planning

In Poland First Planning Act after transformation was introduced only in 1994. It allowed single citizens to submit objections to the local plan.

LEGAL BASIS OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The two main documents which shape public participation and spatial planning are:

The Constitution (1997) – which sets the decentralization of public tasks, involvement for interested actors;

The Spatial Planning Act (2003) – which makes certain forms of public participation at the local level of spatial planning obligatory Due to strong decentralization of spatial planning in Poland public participation processes focus mainly on the local level which is represented by two documents: Land Use Planning and Local Plan.

15

CASE OF WROCLAW

16

COMMUNICATION WEAK POINTS

17

CASE OF WROCLAW – communication tools

MEDIA (TV, RADIO, PRESS, POSTERS, FLYERS)

70%

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING 50%

REMARKS FOR LOCAL PLANS 9%

INTERNET PLATFORM 7%

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS (DEBATES SERIES) 2%

NGOS’ INITIATIVES 0,2%

CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES 0,01%

18

COMPARISON

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING REMARKS FOR LOCAL PLANS

CONTEXT CITY, SOFT STRICT BORDERS

LANGUAGE COMMON, SPONTANIOUS, DEVELPOING DURING THE PROCESS

PROFESSIONAL, FORMAL

(MAIN) MESSAGE NEEDS, EXPECTATION – PROJECTS

LOCAL PLAN – REMARKS, PROTESTS

CHANNELS ALL CHANNELS LOCAL BROSHURES, INTERNET PLATFORM,

SENDER -> RECEIVER

L.A. – C. – L.A. – C. L.A. – C. – L.A. – C.

TYPE INDIRECT & DIRECT INDIRECT (FORMAL LETTERS)

FUNCTION IMPRESSIVE, COGNITIVE – AESTHETIC

EXPRESSIVE, COGNITIVE - POETIC (IMPRESSIVE)

19

CONCLUSIONS

What is important in communication between citizens and local authorities?

Is it possible to manage public involvement by using certain paths of communication in certain moments?

What about missing functions?

20

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

CONTACT:Kasia Piskorekk.i.piskorek@tudelft.nlkatarzyna.piskorek@pwr.edu.plPh./Whatsapp: +48 605116445