Kaasamine Tartu Emajõe kallaste arengustrateegia loomise näitel

Abstract

Urban planning is in growing use of different inclusionary opportunities, but it is still in their infancy and erratic. It shows also recently many conflicts and remaining plans which are important to Estonia. Therefore, it is also an inclusive planning area that requires further development and inquiry. The purpos of this study „Involvement in the creation of development plan of Tartu central area“ is to find inclusive development strategy for the preparation of planning solutions for Tartu. In this study is used combined analysis method according to the material, which were workshops and idea contest, media analysis and internet poll. The analysis was based on an analysis of media workshops, which helped to facilitate a comparison of participatory forms of communication. Internet survey results are based on secondary analysis, which is done by me. Empirical material is based on communicative planning paradigms and theories of consensus and collaborative planning. In addition to inclusive design takes account of the current situation in both the legislative and practical level. In December 2010th the Tartu initiated city center development strategy, which resulted with the city architect of Tartu idea to create a building plan. This affected public and followed various events, all of which are important in communication planning. This study has been taken account four different forms of participation (in dark print), which is in chronological order outlined in the following scheme: Initiation of preparation of a development strategy Presentation of the building plan to the City government The debate in the media over the building plan International Seminar of Urban Planning Internet Poll Workshops Idea contest 5 different scenarios Meetings of expert groups Disclosure of a development strategy Various forms of participation allow different division of power. The media offered the opportunity to communicate with the public, to express their opinions and justify them. Here, the author of article was free to choose to whom he will direct his discussion. However, there is lack of immediate feedback and the opportunity to present arguments and there is no guarantee that opinions are being heard. Internet survey allowed the citizens to express their opinion, but there is no immediate feedback and knowing whether and to what extent opinion is heard. Also, they do not receive explanation if their opinion is not suitable. However, participants of the workshops came together to share their concerns and solutions. It allowed immediate feedback and the arguments. Therefore it is greater opportunity for the participants of the workshops to influence than the citizens of the town. The knowledge and experience how to be inclusive and how to speak along in urban planning is different. This led to a variety of ideas and conflicts between discussions that remained unresolved. Participants were expected to be more active and advocating for their views. This led to a situation where planners referred certain opinions to the others and proposed their own views and solutions to stimulate discussion. However, this does not reduce the gap between citizens and experts, which would help planners to notice changed needs. Despite of the desire to involve as many different interest groups as possible and get different opinions, however, the opinion of powerful groups and experts are being referred. Commercial sector has greater experience to be inclusive and therefore better access to represent their views and interests. However, it makes planners more careful to radical planning, were they seek bargaining to receive particular interest. Planners do not have experience and knowledge to combine various discussions in order to avoid potential conflicts. This resulted in referring some views to those who have no previous experience and knowledge of the inclusionary to speak along in urban planning. City government staff remained aside from discussion and felt a greater need to stand for city government interests, hence the contradictions. This prevents possible opportunities for co-operation. Therefore, both planners and city government staff must learn how manage the discussion and encourage participants more to express their opinions. However, if the planner is making his own choices between different proposed solutions, the involvement has been essentially formal and to get public support. At the same time, however, this kind of inclusionary excludes the possibility of social learning and collaborative planning, also crossing the gap between experts and citizens. Thus different participation forms led by ciy of Tartu did not make possible to achieve ultimate purpose of inclusionary. Therefore, it is also proposed possible solutions and a vision that would allow better results and participation.