NESLİHAN KULÖZÜ, İlhan TEKELi

2818

Socio-psychological factors affecting participatory planning processes at interactional level

Günümüz dünyasında bireylerin toplum ve çevrelerine ilişkin karar alma süreçlerine katılımlarının gerekliliği yaygın olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu nedenle katılımlı pratiklerle uğraşan plancıların nasıl daha iyi katılımlı planlama süreçleri tasarlayıp sürdürebilecekleri sorusuna cevap bulmaları gerekmektedir. Bu soruya cevap bulmak için ise katılımlı süreçleri etkileyen tüm faktörler belirlenmelidir, çünkü ancak katılımlı süreçlerin tüm boyutları anlaşıldığında her bir özgün bağlamda tüm paydaşlar için en iyi katılımlı sürecin tasarlanıp sürdürülmesine yönelik gerekli adımlar atılabilir. Katılımlı süreçleri etkileyen faktörlerden bireylerarası etkileşim düzeyindeki faktörlere odaklanan bu çalışmanın amacı katılımlı planlama süreçlerinin sosyo-psikolojik boyutlarını belirlemektir. Bu yolla katılımlı süreçlerin keşfedilmemiş bir boyutu, katılımlı süreçleri geliştirmek niyetiyle eleştirel bir yaklaşımla ortaya koyulacaktır. Çalışmanın sonucunda gelecek araştırmalar ve katılımlı planlama pratikleri için katılımlı süreçlerin bireylerarası etkileşim düzeyindeki sosyo-psikolojik boyutları, iletişim, güç, atfetme, ilişkiler ve ikna etme olarak planlama literatürüne dayalı olarak ortaya koyulmaktadır.

Katılımlı planlama süreçlerini etkileyen etkileşim düzeyindeki sosyo-psikolojik faktörler

Today, it is widely accepted that communities need to collaborate when making decisions on behalf of the individual, society and the environment. Hence, planners engaged in participatory initiatives need to understand how best to design and carry out a participatory planning process. In order to answer this question, all factors affecting participatory processes need to be determined, since only then can steps be taken to design and execute the best participatory process for each stakeholder in every unique context. By focusing particularly on the factors affecting participatory processes at interactional level, this study aims to determine the socio-psychological dimensions of participatory planning processes, the aim being to bring to light some hitherto unexplained factors involved and thus help to improve these processes. Based on previous discussions in participation literature, the ultimate aim of this study is to provide subsequent researchers and those involved in participatory planning practices with a framework on the socio-psychological dimensions, namely communication, power, attribution, relationships and persuasion, of participatory processes at interactional level.
PDF

___

  • 1. Adamson, D. (2010) Identifying the barriers to purposeful citizen participation. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 30, no. 3/4, 114-126.
  • 2. Bentrup, G. (2001) Evaluation of a Collaborative Model: A Case Study Analysis of Watershed Planning in the Intermountain West. Environmental Management 27, no.5, 739-748.
  • 3. Brand, R., and Gaffikin, F. (2007) Collaborative Planning in Uncollaborative World. Planning Theory 6, no.3, 282- 313.
  • 4. Buchy, M., and Hoverman, S. (2000) Understanding Public Participation in Forest Planning: A Review. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 15-25.
  • 5. Burton, R.J.F. (2004) Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 359-371.
  • 6. Carnes, S.A., Schweitzer. M., Peelle, E.B., Wolfe, A.K., and Munro, J.F. (1998) Measuring the success of public participation on environmental restoration and waste management activities in the U.S. Department of Energy. Technology in Society 20, 385–406.
  • 7. Cooke, B. (2001) The Social Psychological Limits of Participation? In Participation: a New Tyranny? edited by B. Cooke, and U. Kothari, 102-121. Zed Books, London, Newyork.
  • 8. Cooper, J. (2002) Evaluating Public Participation in the Environmental Assessment of Trade Negotiations. Report for Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, December.
  • 9. Crosby, N., Kelly, J.M., and Schaefer, P. (1986) Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation. Public Administration Review 46, no.2, 170-178.
  • 10. Dahl, R. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2(2), 201-215.
  • 11. Dalton, T.M. (2006) Exploring Participants’ Views of Participatory Coastal and Marine Resource Management Processes. Coastal Management 34, 351-367.
  • 12. Denhardt, J., Terry, L., Delacruz, E.R., and Andonoska, L. (2009) Barriers to Citizen Engagement in Developing Countries, International Journal of Public Administration, 32 (14), 1268-1288.
  • 13. Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., and Guagnano, G.A. (1998) Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern. Environment and Behaviour 30 (4), 450-471.
  • 14. Douglas, A.B. (2006) Exploring the Barriers to Community Involvement in Public Transportation: The Case of Capital Metro. Public Administration Program Applied Research Projects. An Applied Research Project Submitted to the Department of Political Science Texas State University, Spring.
  • 15. Dowling, B., Powell, M., and Glendinning, C. (2004) Conceptualising successful partnerships. Health and Social Care in the Community 12(4), 309-317.
  • 16. Duffy, D.M. (1991) An Evaluation of Stakeholder Involvement in the B.C. Ministry of Forest Planning Process. MS thesis, The University of British Columbia, Canada.
  • 17. Dunn, D.S. (2008) Research Methods for Social Psychology. Blackwell Publication, Malden, MA.
  • 18. Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
  • 19. Forester, J. (1985) Designing: Making Sense Together in Practical Conversations. Journal of Architectural Education 38(3),14-20.
  • 20. Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. The MIT Press.
  • 21. Franklin, J.L. (1975) Relations Among Four Social-Psychological Aspects of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (3), 422-433.
  • 22. Frewer, L. (1999) Risk Perception, Social Trust, and Public Participation in Strategic Decision Making:Implications for Emerging Technologies. Ambio 28(6), 569-574.
  • 23. Friedkin, N.E. and Johnsen, E.C. (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Advances in Group Processes 16, 1-29.
  • 24. Friedkin, N.E. (1998) Structural Theory of Social Influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
  • 25. Gayer, C.C., Landman, S., Halperin, E., and Bar-Tal, D. (2009) Overcoming Psychological Barriers to Peaceful Conflict Resolution: The Role of Arguments about Losses. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 53 (6), 951-975.
  • 26. Guynn, D.E., and Landry, M.K. (1997) A Case Study of Citizen Participation as a Success Model for Innovative Solutions for Natural Resource. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(2), 392-398.
  • 27. Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action vol.1 (trans. by Thomas McCarthy), Polity Press, Boston : Beacon Press ; Cambridge.
  • 28. Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and communicative action. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • 29. Hagmann, J., Chuma, E., Murwira, K., and Connolly, M. (1999) Putting Process into Practice: Operaionalising Participatory Extension in Agren. Network Paper no. 94.
  • 30. Healey, P. (1992) Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. The Town Planning Review 63 (2),143-162.
  • 31. Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York.
  • 32. Healey, P. (1999) Institutional analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18(2), 111-121.
  • 33. Hoffman, A., and Bazerman, M.H. (2005) Changing Environmental Practice: Understanding and Overcoming the Organizational and Psychological Barriers. Ross School of Business Working Paper Series Working Paper no. 923.
  • 34. Hoffman, A. and Henn, R. (2008) Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Green Building, Ross School of Business Working Paper Series Working Paper no. 1106.
  • 35. Hughes, S.C., Wickersham, L., Ryan-Jones, D.L., and Smith, S.A. (2002) Overcoming Social and Psychological Barriers to Effective On-line Collaboration. Educational Technology and Society 5(1), 86-92.
  • 36. Innes, J.E. (1995) Planning theory’s emergence para- digm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14(3), 183- 190.
  • 37. Innes, J.E. (1996) Planning through Consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of American Planning Association 62 (4), 460-472.
  • 38. Innes, J.E. (2004) Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics. Planning Theory 3 (1), 5-20.
  • 39. Innes, J.E., and Booher, D.E. (1999) Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4), 412 -423.
  • 40. Kelley, H.H. (1973) The processes of Causal Attribution. American Psychologist 28(2), 107-128.
  • 41. Klein, J.G., John, A., and Smith, N.C. (2001) Exploring Mo- tivations for Participation in a Consumer Boycott, Centre for Marketing Working Paper no. 01-701.
  • 42. Latane, B. (1981) Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologicsts 36 (4), 343-356.
  • 43. Mahoney, J.L., Cairns, B.D. and Farmer, T.W. (2003) Promoting Interpersonal Competence and Educational Success Through Extracurricular Activity Participation. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(2), 409-418.
  • 44. McCool, S.F., and Guthrie, K. (2001) Mapping the Dimensions of Successful Public Participation in Messy Natural Resources Management Situations. Society and Natural Resources 14 (4), 309-323.
  • 45. Mosler, H.J. and Brucks, W. (2001) Social Influence among Agents: The Simulation of Social Psychological Theories. Applications in the Social Sciences, 125-147.
  • 46. Pascaru, M., and Buţiu, C.A. (2010) Psycho-Sociological Barriers to Citizen Participation in Local Governance: The Case of Some Rural Communities in Romania. Local Government Studies 36 (4), 493-509.
  • 47. Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) The Elaboration Likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19,123-205.
  • 48. Reis, H.T., Lin, Y., Bennett, M.E. and Nezlek, J.B. (1993) Change and consistency in social participation during early adulthood. Developmental Psychology 29(4), 633- 645.
  • 49. Rowe, G., Marsh, R., and Frewer, L. (2004) Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference. Science Technology Human Values 29, 88-121.
  • 50. Sager, T. (2001) Positive theory of planning: the social choice approach. Environment and Planning A 33, 629- 647.
  • 51. Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory, Aldeshot Avebury.
  • 52. Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A., and Lantz, P. (2003) Instrument for evaluating dimensions of social dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning 26, 249–262.
  • 53. Shindler, B., and Neburka, J. (1997) Public Participation in Forest Planning: Attributes of Success. Journal of Forestry 95 (1), 17-19.
  • 54. Sood, K.K., and Mitchell, C.P. (2004) Do Socio-psychological Factors Matter in Agroforestry Planning? Lessons from Smallholder Traditional Agroforestry Systems, Small-scale Forest Economics. Management and Policy 3(2), 239-255.
  • 55. Tippett, J., Searle, B., Pahl-Wostl, C., and Rees, Y. (2005) Social learning in public participation in river basin management-early findings from HarmoniCOP European case studies. Environmental Science and Policy 8, 287-299.
  • 56. Turner, R.H., and Killian, L. M. (1957) Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
  • 57. Wandersman, A. (2009) Four Keys to Success (Theory, Implementation, Evaluation, and Resource/System Support): High Hopes and Challenges in Participation, American Journal of Community Psychology. doi 10.1007/ s10464-008-9212-x. (accessed 30 January 2009).
  • 58. Webler, T., Tuler, S., and Krueger, R. (2001) What is Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectives from the Public. Environmental Management 27 (3), 435-450.
  • 59. Webler, T. (1995) ‘‘Right’’ discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 35-86. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  • 60. Werner, A. (2008) Using a Socio-psychological Approach for Understanding the Influence of Civil Society on Economic Activity. ZFWU 9/1, 153-168.
  • 61. Van Zomeren, M. (2009) Introduction to the Social and Psychological Dynamics of Collective Action. Journal of Social Issues 65 (4), 645-660.
  • 62. Yiftachel, O., and Huxley, M. (2000) Debating Dominance and Relevance: Notes on the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24 (4), 907-913.
  • 63. Zappalà, G. and Burrell, T. (2001) Why are some volunteers more committed than others? A socio-psychological approach to volunteer commitment in community services. Research and Social Policy Team Working Paper no.5.
Megaron-Cover
  • ISSN: 1305-5798
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2006
  • Yayıncı: Kare Yayıncılık
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Spor tesisleri ve alanlarının deprem sonrası afet hizmetlerine yönelik kullanımı

LEVENT ATALI, KÜRŞAD SERTBAŞ

Kentsel akustik konforun irdelenmesinde uygulamalı bir işitsel peyzaj yaklaşımı-istatistiksel çalışmalar

ASLI ÖZÇEVİK BİLEN, Zerhan Yüksel CAN, Hüseyin GÜRBÜZ, Ilgın ACAR POYRAZ

Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti Lefkoşa/Nicosia kenti'nin 13. yy - 15. yy arasındaki fiziksel biçimlenişi

Çilen ERÇİN

Çocuk için daha yaşanılır bir kentsel mekan: Dünyada gerçekleştirilen uygulamalar

OKŞAN TANDOĞAN

Osmanlı bedestenleri bağlamında “Kayseri Hançerli Sultan vakfı bedesteni”

FERNAZ ÖNCEL

Socio-psychological factors affecting participatory planning processes at interactional level

NESLİHAN KULÖZÜ, İlhan TEKELi