Constructing the Urban Citizen: How Public Knowledge Is Translated into Urban Planning Processes

  • Monika Kurath


Public consultation has been established as a legally mandatory step in land use planning processes in most Western societies. Recent trends point to a growing interest to exceed this mandatory format and to engage citizens at a wide variety of ways. Using Irwin’s (Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1–18, 2001) concept of the “scientific citizen”, this chapter draws parallels between science and planning with regard to public engagement. Empirical material from two case studies is used to trace the construction of the “urban citizen” in two public engagement approaches. As a conclusion, it is argued that the framing of the urban citizen in certain public engagement approaches is not necessarily related to their democratic qualities or deliberative deficits in the translation of public knowledge into urban planning processes.


  1. Bodmer, W.S., et al. 1985. The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  2. Bogner, Alexander, and Wolfgang Menz. 2009. Experteninterviews: Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  3. Brabham, Daren C. 2009. Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. Planning Theory 8 (3): 242–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chilvers, Jason, and Matthew Kearnes. 2016. Science, Democracy and Emergent Publics. In Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, ed. J. Chilvers and Matthew Kearnes, 1–28. London and New York: Earthscan-Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cullingworth, Barry J. 1993. The Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Davies, Sarah R., Cynthia Selin, Gretchen Gano, and Ângela Guimarães Pereira. 2012. Citizen Engagement and Urban Change: Three Case Studies of Material Deliberation. Cities 29: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Solla Price, Derek J. 1967. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Die Presse. 2014. Stadtentwicklung in Wien: Mehr Wohnraum. Die Presse, January 29.Google Scholar
  9. Emerson, R.M., R.I. Fretz, and L.L. Shaw. 2001. Participant Observation and Fieldnotes. In Handbook of Ethnography, ed. Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fainstein, Susan. 2000. New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review 35 (4): 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Felt, Ulrike. 2016. The Temporal Choreographies of Participation: Thinking Innovation and Society from a Time-Sensitive Perspective. In Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, ed. Jason Chilvers and Matthew Kearnes, 178–198. London and New York: Earthscan-Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Felt, Ulrike, Brian Wynne, Michel Callon, Maria Eduarda Gonçalves, Sheila Jasanoff, Maria Jepsen, Pierre-Benoît Joly, et al. 2007. Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Felt, U., J. Igelsböck, A. Schikowitz, and T. Völker. 2012. Challenging Participation in Sustainability Research. International Journal of Deliberative Mechanisms in Science 1 (1): 4–34.Google Scholar
  15. Forester, John. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grove-White, Robin, Matthew Kearnes, Paul Miller, Phil Macnaghten, James Wilsdon, and Brian Wynne. 2004. Bio-to-Nano? Learning the Lessons, Interrogating the Comparison. A Working Paper by the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University and Demos. Lancaster: Demos/Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  17. Hagendijk, Rob P. 2004. The Public Understanding of Science and Public Participation in Regulated Worlds. Minerva 42: 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe. Minerva 44: 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey, Patsy. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2003. Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Planning Theory 2 (2): 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hengartner, Thomas, and Anna Schindler, eds. 2014. Wachstumsschmerzen. Gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen der Stadtentwicklung und ihre Bedeutung für Zürich. Zürich: Seismo.Google Scholar
  22. Hommels, Anique. 2005. Studying Obduracy in the City: Toward a Productive Fusion Between Technology Studies and Urban Studies. Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (3): 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2010. Changing Obdurate Urban Objects: The Attempts to Reconstruct the Highway through Maastricht. In Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies, ed. Ignacio Farias and Thomas Bender, 139–160. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Irwin, Alan. 2001. Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ———. 2014. From Deficit to Democracy (Re-Visited). Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2015. On the Local Constitution of Global Futures: Science and Democratic Engagement in a Decentred World. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology 3 (2): 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irwin, Alan, and Maja Horst. 2016. Engaging in a Decentred World: Overflows, Ambiguities and the Governance of Climate Change. In Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, ed. Jason Chilvers and Matthew Kearnes, 64–80. London and New York: Earthscan-Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Irwin, Alan, and Mike Michael. 2003. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Irwin, Alan, and Brian Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, Richard A.L. 2014. Reflecting on Public Engagement and Science Policy. Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karvonen, Andrew, and Bas van Heur. 2014. Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (2): 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kearnes, Matthew, Phil Macnaghten, and James Wilsdon. 2006. Governing at the Nanoscale. People, Policies and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  34. Kearnes, Matthew, and Brian Wynne. 2007. On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. Nanoethics 1 (2): 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lamneck, Siegfried. 1995. Qualitative Sozialforschung: Band 2 Methoden und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  36. Lauwaert, Maaike. 2009. Playing the City: Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area. Journal of Urban Technology 16 (2): 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MA18. 2014a. STEP 2025: Stadtentwicklungsplan Wien. Vol. Beschlossen vom Wiener Gemeinderat am 25. Juni 2014. Wien: Magistratsabteilung der Stadt Wien, MA 18: Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2014b. Wien 2025: Im Dialog Stadt entwickeln. Eine Ausstellung in der Wiener Planungswerkstatt. Wien: Magistratsabteilung der Stadt Wien, MA 18: Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung.Google Scholar
  39. Macnaghten, Philipp, Matthew Kearnes, and Brian Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, Governance and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences. Science Communications 21 (2): 1–24.Google Scholar
  40. Marres, Nortje. 2012. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Metzger, Jonathan. 2011. Strange Spaces: A Rationale for Bringing Art and Artists into the Planning Process. Planning Theory 10 (3): 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Michels, Christoph. 2010. Räume der Partizipation: Wie man ein Kunstmuseum inszeniert, St. Gallen. Bamberg: Difo-Druck.Google Scholar
  43. Nowotny, Helga. 2014. Engaging with the Political Imaginaries of Science: Near Misses and Future Targets. Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. NZZ. 2014a. Kritik an Revision der Zürcher Bau- und Zonenordnung: Architekten planen für den Papierkorb. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), February 7.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2014b. Revidierte Bau- und Zonenordnung: Die wichtigsten Korrekturen. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), October 29.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2014c. Zürcher Bau- und Zonenordnung: Zürichs Stadtrat krebst zurück. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), October 29.Google Scholar
  47. Othengrafen, Frank, and Martin Sondermann. 2015. Konflikte, Proteste, Initiativen und die Kultur der Planung—Stadtentwickung unter demokratischen Vorzeichen? In Städtische Planungskulturen im Spiegel von Konflikten, Protesten und Initiativen, ed. Frank Othengrafen and Martin Sondermann. Berlin: Planungsrundschau.Google Scholar
  48. Rydin, Yvonne. 1999. Public Participation in Planning. In British Planning 50 Years of Urban and Regional Policy, ed. Barry Cullingworth, 184–197. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 2003. Conflict, Consensus and Rationality in Environmental Planning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 2007. Re-Examining the Role of Knowledge within Planning Theory. Planning Theory 6 (1): 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rydin, Yvonne, and L.C. Natarajan. 2015. The Materiality of Public Participation: The Case of Community Consultation on Spatial Planning for North Northamptonshire, England. Local Environment. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2015.1095718.
  52. Sandercock, Leonie. 1998. Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester, UK and New York: J.Wiley Reprint.Google Scholar
  53. Schmid, Oliver. 1999. Verhandlungsorientierte Verfahren in der Raumplanung. Zürich: Institut für Orts-, Regional- und Landesplanung.Google Scholar
  54. Stadt Zürich. 2013. Wachsen, aber richtig. Öffentliche Auflage und Ausstellung zur Überarbeitung des regionalen Richtplans und zur Teilrevision der Bau- und Zonenordnung der Stadt Zürich. Zürich: Hochbaudepartement der Stadt Zürich.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 2014. Teilrevision der Bau- und Zonenordnung der Stadt Zürich, BZO 2014, Änderungen der Bauordnung (Synoptische Darstellung). Stadt Zürich: Hochbaudepartement, Amt für Städtebau (AfS).Google Scholar
  56. Stilgoe, Jack, Simon J. Lock, and James Wilsdon. 2014. Why Should we Promote Public Engagement with Science? Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tanquerel, Thierry. 1992. Les modalités d’intervention du public dans les choix d’aménagement : le point de vue du droit. In La négociation: son rôle, sa place dans l’aménagement du territoire et la protection de l’environnement, ed. Jean Ruegg, Nicolas Mettan, and Luc Vodoz, 59–78. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.Google Scholar
  58. Vasari, Bernd. 2015. Die große Neuordnung auf der Straße. Wiener Zeitung, February 3.Google Scholar
  59. Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: DEMOS.Google Scholar
  60. Wynne, Brian. 1995. Public Understanding of Science. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 361–388. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 1996. May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, ed. Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Bryan Wynne. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 2006. Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, But Missing the Music? Community Genetics 9: 211–220.Google Scholar
  63. ZH Lex LS 700.1. 1975. Kanton Zürich: Planungs- und Baugesetz (PBG) vom 7. September 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Kurath
    • 1
  1. 1.Research & FacultyUniversity of St.GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations