Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Participating in Health: The Healthy Outcomes of Citizen Participation in Urban and Transport Planning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning

Abstract

Ringland is crow-brained and crow-funded road tunnelling project for a six billion euro investment that has been completely initiated and developed bottom-up by local citizens. It has been proposed in response to the government’s plan to complete the ring road around the city of Antwerp, with the aim to mitigate its damaging health impacts. What can we, as academics, practitioners and decision-makers, learn from this example? How can we use participation to implement innovative decision-making practices that contribute to the construction of healthy cities? In this chapter I explore possible answers to these questions. Considering in more details the various aspect of the Ringland project and building on the literature on participation in urban and transport planning, I explore the connections between citizens’ participation and health, showing their potentials and limits in an increasingly complex world. After giving some definitions, I consider the wide benefits and limitations of participation recognised by the literature. Subsequently, I provide a summary of the main planning traditions and consider how they approach participation in different ways. I then consider the specific benefits that participation can offer to health and reflect on which would be the most appropriate planning settings and practices to allow these to take place. I propose that we build a culture of participation across society in order to do so. I conclude with a reflection on the role of academics and of participatory research to support the construction of a culture of participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Empowerment is a complex term whose definition is linked to the specific vision on power adopted. Dooris and Heritage (2013) report various points on the debate. For the sake of this chapter, without entering in too many details on the nature of power, we adopt the blurred definition of empowerment being both an individual and collective process of obtaining control over own destiny, lives, resources and capabilities (Freire 1970, 2013; Campbell and Jovchelovitch 2000).

  2. 2.

    See, for example, debates on vaccinations or alternative medicine (Clark 2000; Loe Fisher 2017).

  3. 3.

    In the feminist literature, a standpoint is considered to be an “achieved collective identity or consciousness” (Bowell n.d.). For extension the term can be used to include groups that, more or less in forms organised before the impact assessment exercises, are mobilising as “impacted” or “potentially impacted”.

  4. 4.

    According with feminist standpoint theories, the point of view of the marginalised/oppressed/impacted gives both a deeper account of their problems and also is a privileged position to look at everybody’s necessities and broad societal and political processes that might be otherwise neglected utilising a traditional conceptual framework (Bowell n.d.; Harding 1993).

References

  • Abel, T., & Frohlich, K. L. (2012). Capitals and capabilities: Linking structure and agency to reduce health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine, 74(2), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.10.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, G. (2005). “Solastalgia”: A new concept in health and identity. PAN: Philosophy, Activism, Nature, 3, 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts, L. (2003). Planning and power: Towards an emancipatory planning approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(6), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1068/c29m.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attree, P., French, B., Milton, B., Povall, S., Whitehead, M., & Popay, J. (2011). The experience of community engagement for individuals: a rapid review of evidence. Health & Social Care in the Community, 19(3), 250–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, M., Howell, T. and Gomes, T. (2016) ‘Moving toward holistic wellness, empowerment and self-determination for indigenous peoples in Canada: Can traditional indigenous health care practices increase ownership over health and health care decisions?’, Canadian Journal of Public Health 107(4–5) e393–e398. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/28026704/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, M., et al. (2017). Participatory epidemiology: The contribution of participatory research to epidemiology. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 14(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-017-0056-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K., & Grossardt, T. (2010). Toward structured public involvement: Justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903364259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K., Grossardt, T., & Ripy, J. (2012). Toward environmental justice in transportation decision making with structured public involvement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2320, 102–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, F. E., et al. (2000). Epidemiology of participation: An Australian community study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 54(6), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.54.6.414.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, F. E. (2016). Power and glory: Applying participatory action research in public health. Gaceta Sanitaria, 30(6), 405–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.05.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Glossary: Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979), 60(10), 854–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, D. R., et al. (2004). A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., & Walker, G. (2002). Transport planning and participation: The rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(1), 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, J., Settle, C., & Dugdale, A. (2015). Who speaks, and in what voice? The challenge of engaging ‘The Public’ in health policy decision-making. Public Management Review., 17(9), 1358–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowell, T. (n.d.) Feminist standpoint theory, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved May 9, 2017, form http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-stan/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusselen, D. V., et al. (2016). Health impact assessment of a predicted air quality change by moving traffic from an urban ring road into a tunnel. The case of Antwerp, Belgium. PLoS One, 11(5), e0154052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154052.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buchy, M., & Race, D. (2001). The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management in Australia: What is missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560120046070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacari-Stone, L., et al. (2014). The promise of community-based participatory research for health equity: A conceptual model for bridging evidence with policy. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1615–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C., & Jovchelovitch, S. (2000). Health, community and development: Towards a social psychology of participation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 255–270.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Castellani, S. (2014). Participation as a possible strategy of post-disaster resilience: Young people and mobility in L’Aquila (Italy). In L. M. Calandra, G. Forino, & A. Porru (Eds.), Multiple geographical perspectives on hazards and disasters (pp. 105–117). Rome: Valmar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P. A. (2000). The Ethics of alternative medicine therapies. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(4), 447.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: Social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, A., Morris, Z., & Nolte, E. (2015). What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: Results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expectations, 18(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M. J., et al. (2002). Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ, 325(7375), 1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dally, J., & Barr, A. (2008). Understanding a community-led approach to health improvement. Glasgow: Scottish Community Development Centre. Retrieved from http://www.scdc.org.uk/media/resources/what-we-do/mtsc/Understanding%20a%20community-led%20approach%20to%20health%20improvement.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Oosterweelverbinding. (2015). The Oosterweel link, oosterweelverbinding.be. Retrieved Sept 3, 2017, from https://www.oosterweelverbinding.be/oosterweel-link.

  • De Vries, R., & Lemmens, T. (2006). The social and cultural shaping of medical evidence: Case studies from pharmaceutical research and obstetric science. Social Science & Medicine. (Part Special Issue: Gift Horse or Trojan Horse? Social Science Perspectives on Evidence-based Health Care), 62(11), 2694–2706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Broeder, L., Uiters, E., ten Have, W., Wagemakers, A., & Schuit, A. J. (2017). Community participation in Health Impact Assessment. A scoping review of the literature. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, D., et al. (2015). The eudaimonic component of satisfaction with life and psychological well-being in Spanish cultures. Psicothema, 27(3), 247–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooris, M., & Heritage, Z. (2013). Healthy cities: Facilitating the active participation and empowerment of local people. Journal of Urban Health, 90(S1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9623-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from http://www.palgrave.com/home/.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A., & van Schie, N. (2011). Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekirapa-Kiracho, E., et al. (2016). Unlocking community capabilities for improving maternal and newborn health: Participatory action research to improve birth preparedness, health facility access, and newborn care in rural Uganda. BMC Health Services Research, 16(S7), 638. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1864-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvy, J. (2014). Public participation in transport planning amongst the socially excluded: An analysis of 3rd generation local transport plans. Case Studies on Transport Policy. (Social Exclusion in the Countries with Advanced Transport Systems), 2(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2014.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. New York: Apex Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, J., Taylor, J., Stewart, E., & Kenny, A. (2017). Citizen participation in health services co-production: A roadmap for navigating participation types and outcomes. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 23(6), 509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, A., Sykes, O., & Batey, P. (2009). Planning theory or planning theories? The hydra model and its implications for planning education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4(2), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2009.04020029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flandersnews.be. (2016). Concerns about air quality in Antwerp, flandersnews.be. Retrieved Sept 3, 2017, from http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/Antwerp/1.2696243.

  • Flanderstoday. (2017). Largest-ever European air quality tests carried out in Antwerp. Retrieved Sept 3, 2017, www.flanderstoday/innovation/largest-ever-european-air-quality-tests-carried-out-antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998, 210). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? The British Journal of Sociology, 49(2). https://doi.org/10.2307/591310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frahsa, A., et al. (2014). Enabling the powerful? Participatory action research with local policymakers and professionals for physical activity promotion with women in difficult life situations. Health Promotion International, 29(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (2013). Education for critical consciousness. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, M. (2008). Foucault, power and participation. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 16(3), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181808X311222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallacher, L. A., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research? Thinking Through ‘Participatory Methods Childhood, 15(4), 499–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallent, N., & Ciaffi, D. (Eds.). (2014). Community action and planning: Contexts, drivers and outcomes. Bristol: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447315162.001.0001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • George, A. S., Mehra, V., Scott, K., Sriram, V., & Li, X. (2015). Community participation in Health Systems Research: A systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0141091.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guareschi, P. A., & Jovchelovitch, S. (2004). Participation, health and the development of community resources in southern Brazil. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(2), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105304040896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (2014). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design since 1880. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. The Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heiman, M. K. (1997). Science by the people: Grassroots environmental monitoring and the debate over scientific expertise. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(4), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701600405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, R., & Banister, D. (2014). Transport, climate change and the City. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbrandt, H. (2017). Insurgent participation: Consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of berlin-Tempelhof airport. Urban Geography, 38(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1168569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, M. (1997). Differential participation: Men, women and popular power. In M. Kaufmann & H. D. Alfonso (Eds.), Community power and grassroots democracy: The transformation of social life (pp. 151–171). London: Zed Books. Retrieved Sept 4, 2017, from http://www.michaelkaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/differentialparticipation.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research : Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 559–603). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kerkhof, M. (2006). Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sciences, 39(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9024-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesby, M. (2005). Retheorizing empowerment-through-participation as a performance in space: Beyond tyranny to transformation. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2037–2065. https://doi.org/10.1086/428422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khreis, H., et al. (2016). The health impacts of traffic-related exposures in urban areas: Understanding real effects, underlying driving forces and co-producing future directions. Journal of Transport & Health, 3(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickbusch, I., et al. (2014) Smart governance for health and well-being: The evidence. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131952/1/Smart%20governance%20for%20health%20and%20well-being%20the%20evidence.pdf.

  • Kickbusch, I., & Gleicher, D. (2013). Governance for health in the 21st century. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, C. (1999). Participation in research by people with learning disability : Origins and issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities., 27(2), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (Eds.). (2007). Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laverack, G., & Labonte, R. (2000). A planning framework for community empowerment goals within health promotion. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 255–262.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A. (2006). ‘No personal motive?’ Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethics Place and Environment, 9(3), 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, E. de, et al. (2014). Healthy cities, promoting health and equity – Evidence for local policy and practice: Summary evaluation of Phase V of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137512/1/Healthy%20Cities%20-%20promoting%20health%20and%20equity.pdf.

  • Levine, J. (2013). Urban transportation and social equity: Transportation-panning paradigms that impede policy reform. In N. Carmon & S. S. Fainstein (Eds.), Policy, planning, and people: Promoting justice in urban development (pp. 141–160). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, G. J., et al. (2014). Neural correlates of the “good life”: Eudaimonic well-being is associated with insular cortex volume. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(5), 615–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, D. W., Lexchin, J., & Darrow, J. (2013). Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 41(3), 590–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindelöw, D., Koglin, T., & Svensson, Å. (2016). Pedestrian planning and the challenges of instrumental rationality in transport planning: Emerging strategies in three Swedish municipalities. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(3), 405–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loe Fisher, B. (2017). Mass protests in italy highlight global vaccination agenda and the resistance movement. Vaccine Impact. [Online]. Accessed 3 Sep 2017. Available from: https://vaccineimpact.com/2017/mass-protests-in-italy-highlight-global-vaccination-agenda-and-the-resistance-movement/

  • Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., & Stoker, G. (2001). Trends in public participation: Part 1 – Local government perspectives. Public Administration, 79(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. T. (2012). Justifying a methodological approach : Action research. [Online]. Accessed 10 Dec 2015. Available from: http://www.stmorgan.co.uk/justifying-a-methodology-action-research.html

  • Mowat, H.. (2011). Alan Irwin, citizen science, Opticon1826, (10). Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, from http://ojs.lib.ucl.ac.uk/index.php/up/article/view/1368.

  • Mumpower, J. L. (2001). Selecting and evaluating tools and methods for public participation. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 1(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2001.001745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munn-Giddings, C., & Winter, R. (2013). A handbook for action research in health and social care. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., et al. (2017). Participatory quantitative health impact assessment of urban and transport planning in cities: A review and research needs. Environment International, 103, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.03.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M. (2014). What is inclusive research? Edinburgh: A&C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. T. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocloo, J., & Matthews, R. (2016). From tokenism to empowerment: Progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(8), 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, M. A. S., et al. (2007). Approaches to participation: Some neglected issues. In 5 a Conferência critical management studies. Retrieved May 25, 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Sahagun/publication/264839037_Approaches_to_participation_some_neglected_issues/links/54e773830cf277664ffa9b5e.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagatpatan, C. P., & Ward, P. R. (2017). Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: A realist synthesis. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 23(6), 516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, M. (2007). Automobile politics: Ecology and cultural political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petts, J., & Brooks, C. (2006). Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decisionmaking: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawcliffe, P. (1995). Making inroads: Transport policy and the british environmental movement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 37(3), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1995.9929227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research : Participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. S., et al. (2017). A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. M. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, S. B. (2009). Lessons from community participation in health programmes: A review of the post Alma-Ata experience. International Health, 1(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, S. B. (2014). Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: A review of the literature. Health Policy and Planning, 29(suppl 2), ii98–ii106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringland. (n.d.). Grassroots design of a large infrastructure project. Ringland. Retrieved Aug 10, 2017, https://ringland.be/grassroots-design-a-large-infrastructure-project/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2016). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research Agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(4), 512–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sager, T. (1992). Why plan? A multi-rationality foundation for planning. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 9(3), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739208730300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefelbusch, M. (2010). Rational planning for emotional mobility? The case of public transport development. Planning Theory, 9(3), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209358375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanen, T., & Ziegler, F. (2011). Wellbeing, independence and mobility: An introduction. Ageing and Society, 31(05), 719–733. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10001467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. E., Willms, D. G., & Johnson, N. A. (1997). Nurtured by knowledge : Learning to do participatory action-research. New York: Apex Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza, M. J. L. (2001). Mudar a cidade: uma introdução crítica ao planejamento e à gestão urbanos. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stangl, P. (2008). Evaluating the pedestrian realm: Instrumental rationality, communicative rationality and phenomenology. Transportation, 35(6), 759–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, L. et al. (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: A critical review’, Ecology and Society, 11(2). Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/main.html

  • Tickner, J. A. (2001). Democratic participation: A critical element of precautionary public health decision-making. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 11(2), 93–111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tippett, J., Handley, J. F., & Ravetz, J. (2007). Meeting the challenges of sustainable development—A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning., 67(1), 9–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Brussel, S., Boelens, L., & Lauwers, D. (2016). Unravelling the Flemish mobility Orgware: The transition towards a sustainable mobility from an actor-network perspective. European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1336–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1169248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, X. C. (2013) Participatory action research (PAR) for sustainable community development. Post Growth Institute Ashland. Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, from http://postgrowth.org/participatory-action-research-par-for-sustainable-community-development/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, T. (2014). Reconnecting urban planning and public health: An exploration of a more adaptive approach. In Annual congress: From control to co-evolution (AESOP-2014). Retrieved Aug 10, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Verbeek/publication/288668035_Reconnecting_urban_planning_and_public_health_an_exploration_of_a_more_adaptive_approach/links/5721ff5208ae586b21d3b816.pdf.

  • Verlinghieri, E.. (2016). Planning for resourcefulness: Exploring new frontiers for participatory transport planning theory and practice in Rio de Janeiro and L’Aquila. Ph.D. University of Leeds. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16709/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, R. (2001). Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation, 28(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005247430522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. Policy Sciences, 50, 449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9275-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodall, J. et al. (2010) Empowerment & health and well-being: Evidence review. Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/2172/.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (1986). Ottawa charter for health promotion. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70578/5/9788499841335_cat.pdf.

  • World Health Organization. (2003). Community participation in local health and sustainable development: Approaches and techniques/text editing: David Breuer. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. T., Cook, T., et al. (2013a) ‘The International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research’, in Action research, innovation and change, International perspectives across disciplines: Routledge, pp. 56–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. T., Brito, I., et al. (2013b). What is participatory health research. Position paper no. 1. Retrieved Jun 10, 2017, http://www.icphr.org/uploads/2/0/3/9/20399575/ichpr_position_paper_1_defintion_-_version_may_2013.pdf.

  • Yiftachel, O. (1998). Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. CPL Bibliography, 12(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229801200401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiftachel, O., & Huxley, M. (2000). Debating dominence and relevance: Notes on the “communicative turn” in planning theory ‘debating dominence and relevance: Notes on the “communicative turn” in planning theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 907–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Ersilia Verlinghieri

Authors
  1. Ersilia Verlinghieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ersilia Verlinghieri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Barcelona Institute for Global Health, ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain

    Mark Nieuwenhuijsen

  2. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Center for Advancing Research in Transportation Emissions, Energy, and Health, College Station, Texas, USA

    Haneen Khreis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Verlinghieri, E. (2019). Participating in Health: The Healthy Outcomes of Citizen Participation in Urban and Transport Planning. In: Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Khreis, H. (eds) Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74983-9_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation