Citizen Participation in Architecture and Urban Planning Confronted with Arnstein’s Ladder: Four Experiments into Popular Neighbourhoods of Hainaut Demonstrate Another Hierarchy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Relevance:

The manuscript is relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The hypothesis is clear and the case study selected are appropriate to test it.

Regarding the scientific content, the hypothesis departs from the need to propose an alternative to Arnstein’s ladder, and this is a necessary attempt due to the quickly changing context (social, political and economical) of the western culture of participatory design where we are embedded.

The cited references are approriate, some are current and some other refer to necessary past periods according to its topic and point of departure (1969).

Areas of weakness to be reviewed or complemented:

The need of an alternative is justified with the contribution of Kasymova (2014) who in turn reviews the work of Waheduzzamen and Mphande (2012). However, I strongly encourage to review this departing point that might be contrasted with some other ladder’s alternatives. The first chapter of the book Local action and participation: approaches and lessons learnt from participatory projects and action research in future megacities (2014) introduces a theoretical frame that might be relevant to enrich the state of the art of this paper, since it introduces some other ladders, e.g. Marisa Guaraldo Chogill, 1996. In this sense, Part I of the book Architecture, Participation and Society (2010) is basic as well. 

The result confirms the proposal by Pouleur (2008) (one of the main contributors of the paper) and it emanates from the experience with associative circles of the Wallonia-Brussels. The result help to understand the complexity and paradoxes of the processes of decision-making, either institutional or self-managed.

But regarding the discussion (section 4) or even the conclusions, there are a couple of concepts that hardly appear in the text and that are crucial in terms of citizen participation: the issue of diversity and the transformative dimension of participatory practices. Both concepts should be taken into account when analyzing and discussing the proposed ladder (Pouleur). In short, to what extent the new five levels may guarantee a proper diversity of participation, the recognition of the differences and the transformation of the given power roles? Diversity may help to question how sometimes the power and its hierarchy is reproduced within a community in itself, and thus, exclusion is emphasised, even between the supposed  ‘equals’.

These two references may help in this complementary but necessary approach of the manuscript:

• Ledwith, Margaret and Jane Springett. Participatory practice: Community-based action for transformative change. Bristol: The Policy Press, 2010.
• Crysler, C. Greig. “The Paradoxes of Design Activism: Expertise, Scale and Exchange.” Field – A Journal of Socially Engaged Art Criticism, (2015): 77-124.

Specific comments:

The introduction of a table (or diagram) where to compare the four cases might provide in a quicker understanding of the specificity of each case. Their interpretation of the results and materials would be easier if they were briefly summarized and systematically contrasted. I suggest to include this table or diagram at the end of section 3.

Higher image resolution for figure 10 is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congratulate for your work, it focusses on an extraordinarily complex issue that is the system of participation (and the ladder) in our complex contemporary society

It would be useful to inquire in the systems used to approach inhabitants for participation, and also in the way the meetings are managed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf