methods of exposing local knowledge

10 downloads 0 Views 234KB Size Report
methods and to compare their abilities to expose various kinds of local knowledge. ... for exposing local knowledge, while planners use techniques of public ...
METHODS OF EXPOSING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE Tal Berman1*, Izhak Schnell2 1 Department of Geography and Human Environment, Tel Aviv University 69978 2 Department of Geography and Human Environment, Tel Aviv University 69978 Tal Berman: [email protected] ABSTRACT There is unanimity in the academic discourse regarding the importance of local knowledge in improving the planning product. Local knowledge is individual and communal knowledge of inhabitants that represents the perspective of local people, i.e., individuals and communities who could be affected by plans. Local knowledge’s epistemological intricacy reflects the city’s / jurisdiction’s social complexity and cultural variance. Governances’ and planners’ ability to efficiently plan the city is dependent on local knowledge’s availability. Two basic methods for exposing local knowledge are presented in the literature: One is based on public participation procedures and techniques; while the other employs the instruments of anthropologic fieldwork. The article’s objective is to elucidate the differences between the two methods and to compare their abilities to expose various kinds of local knowledge. Case studies wherein both methods were applied in parallel on three Israeli communities, indicate that anthropologic fieldwork instruments’ advantage lies in their capability to penetrate to a deeper stratum of local knowledge, thus exposing types thereof that cannot be reached using public participation procedures. The fieldwork instrument of in-depth interviews enables the exposure of perceptions, preferences, ideas, desires, and hidden needs of local individuals regarding issues and projects in their environments. In addition, the anthropological tools of observation and spontaneous conversation can lead to the exposure of local knowledge categories that reveal locals’ life routines and spatial conduct, as well as the community’s cultural and symbolic features and idiosyncrasies. INTRODUCTION The definition of local knowledge is a conceptual elaboration on the anthropologic term indigenous knowledge (UN, 2007), which itself has been broadened and adjusted as per global changes in social structures, industrialization, urbanization, and globalization – all of which lie in the sphere of spatial planning and acknowledging the importance of local knowledge emerging alongside the transition toward postmodernism and multicultural society (Sandercock, 1998). Both approaches present means and facilities aimed at extricating and collecting local knowledge among communities and individuals. The anthropological approach proposes fieldwork tools for exposing local knowledge, while planners use techniques of public participation. The idea behind this paper is to examine the differences between the two approaches, by assessing their respective powers and capabilities of exposing various forms of local knowledge. While a long-run anthropological method is more powerful at attaining an inside understanding of social values, norms, and preferences; public participation techniques are quicker and cheaper methods that are expected to expose local knowledge effectively enough to incorporate it into planning. However, the latter have come under

T. Berman, I. Schnell

increasing criticism concerning their limited ability to expose and integrate local knowledge into the planning process (Innes & Booher, 2000, 2004; Rantanen, 2007). The question posed herein is to what extent public participation methods are sufficiently effective in exposing local knowledge and effectively incorporating it into the planning process, compared to the power of anthropological methods. LOCAL KNOWLEDGE Space is no longer strictly a physical entity, but a social one (Harvey, 1973) that is not static and measurable, but rather an outcome of a social product formed by the participation and cooperation of people while engaged in everyday life (Lefebvre, 1974). Space contains not only of road networks for the transfer of materials, but also communication networks for the transfer of information. The communication networks, as conveyors of everyday interactions among individuals, are the linking element between the individuals comprising the public and collective structures (Giddens, 1984). Situating everyday practices at the heart of the discourse on social structure rests on the assumption that everyday activities create tacit knowledge that is concealed from the experts’ eyes – i.e., local knowledge – which has a dialectical relationship to the institutional social structures. Thus local knowledge constitutes a significant knowledge body for use in successful spatial planning (Krimsky, 1984). Local knowledge is generated by members of given community over time while engaging in their daily lives; it is thus based on dynamic experience that has become an integral part of the group’s culture and everyday life. Local knowledge is rooted in a specific place, reflects the particular circumstances of the time and place, and is related to a broad conceptual system (beliefs, thoughts, conceptions), as well as to everyday practices with roots in the locals’ everyday reality (Corburn, 2003; Geertz, 1983(. Toward the end of the 20th century, recognition of local knowledge’s value, which goes beyond experts’ professional knowledge, is considered a historical turning point in planning thought and theory (Sandercock, 1998). Understanding the local knowledge system enables planning the locals’ living environments in a way that suits their everyday life reality and improves their quality of life (Wates, 2000). Improved accord between the environment and its users’ needs minimizes both the environmental damage caused by users’ everyday practices and everyday practices damage caused by the environment (Warburton & Martin, 1999; Wynne, 1996). It could even be argued that local knowledge is essential to a better planning and decision-making process (Corburn, 2003; Habermas, 1970), and that the integration of authentic local knowledge into the planning processes produces planning products that better suit community needs and preferences (Bradford, 2005; Lowndes et al, 2001b; Scott, 1998; Wilson, 1999). Inventory of anthropological fieldwork instruments is mentioned in the literature regarding the exposure of local knowledge, and includes: field observations; visits to local individuals in their spaces; spontaneous conversations; in-depth interviews with key persons and experts from the community; examination of cultural and artistic creations; reading stories and listening to tales; conducting games for the exploration of local knowledge; and using diagrams and maps to expose the locals’ environmental, societal, and cultural conceptions (Geertz, 1983; Ley, 1989; Van der Ploeg, 1993; Warburton & Martin, 1999).

2

T. Berman, I. Schnell

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND THE PLANNING PROCESS The process of spatial planning can be understood in a historical context that began in the modern era, wherein extensive use has been made of scientific and professional knowledge; and continues with the transition to the postmodern era, alongside growing recognition of the importance of using local knowledge. Modern planning did not consider the human being a producer of knowledge and significances that have the power to change spatial and social structures; thus it focused on a physical-mechanistic instead of a societal examination of space (Gonston et al, 1990); whereas postmodern planning critiques modernist planning as impotent and incapable of facing the postmodern spatial reality, which is characterized by spatial and societal complexities. Following World War II, alongside the evolution of planning as a scientific discipline, rational-comprehensive planning theory emerged, which drove the legitimation of professionals to prepare planning alternatives based on scientific knowledge; and of elected officials to choose the optimal alternative from their perspectives as public representatives (Camhis, 1979; Lindblom, 1959). Planning as per the rational-comprehensive approach was carried out without public participation, and frequently locals’ needs were assumed (Fried & Gleicher, 1961; Gans, 1965). The first challenge to the rational-comprehensive theory lay in the concept of advocacy planning (Davidoff, 1965), which is sensitive to locals’ views and emphasizes public representation and participation in the planning decision process. Public participation refers to the public’s involvement in urban and regional planning processes, and encompasses various practices and participation processes (Lowndes et al, 2001a) that relate to a wide range of physical and social planning issues. Public participation in planning encourages democratic municipal governance (Dryzek, 1990; Healy, 1997; Niemeyer & Spash, 2001), and its goals are to expose residents’ local knowledge and enable its integration into the planning and decisionmaking processes (Innes & Booher, 2000, 2004; Lowndes et al, 2001a). In addition to municipal elections, formal practices of public participation began evolving in the 1960s, and included mainly procedures for public hearings. The average time allotted to a US citizen to speak during a formal public hearing is three minutes, during which s/he needs to express herself in language used by planners and present arguments that are acceptable in the planning discourse, all without adequate qualification or training, and without the right to any feedback from the authority. Innes & Booher (2000) indicate that in their efforts to involve the public, planners and officials use non-formal procedures adopted from social science research methods i.e., focus groups, public opinion surveys, or structured questionnaires. The common dominator of the aforementioned formal and non-formal procedures is their being unidirectional, involving two interest parties, the authority and the citizen, in such a way that the local knowledge exposure process is scheduled, restricted, maneuvered, measured, and defined by the governance in a top-down manner. It is reasonable to assume that participation procedures based on unidirectional communication without feedback cause the cutting-off of the public from the planning and political systems, such that they not only place the sides at odds, but also extend the disputes therebetween. The consequent sense of alienation among stakeholders likely stimulates their participation in a bottom-up manner, e.g., forming NGOs and strengthening social coalitions, which amass political power and professional knowledge, both of which are necessary to changing planning plans and policies. These social networks constitute the 3

T. Berman, I. Schnell

human and political infrastructure for the development of collaborations, including communication between several interest parties, who consolidate from among the sides’ agreements to put forth ideas, plans, and policies, around a general or a specific issue. These networks of deliberative procedure of public participation have evolved among societies around the world since the end of the 20th century, alongside unidirectional public participation procedures. The shift in planning perception in the 1990s, or the communicative turn, and the emergence of the communicative planning approach, champion placing planning in the public sphere, where it can be fashioned by public discourse (Fainstein, 2000; Forester, 1992; Healy, 1992); and emphasize deliberative democracy, which gives all stakeholders the opportunity to actively participate in discussions, wherein professional knowledge is combined with local knowledge (Healy, 1993; 1996). CASE STUDIES Three case studies of planning processes, carried out in differing jurisdictions in Israel, are presented in this paper. In each case, the two methods for exposing local knowledge were used in parallel, i.e., anthropological fieldwork was conducted alongside public participation processes.  In the planning process of Tel-Aviv’s Dizengoff Circle, the city conducted a public participation process via structured questionnaire survey, containing questions eliciting prioritization of and comparison between various alternatives that had been prepared by the city in advance, with no public involvement.  In Rishon-le-Zion, the city initiated public participation via structured questionnaire in its efforts to prepare an elder-focused master plan.  In Mateh Yehuda jurisdiction, the public participation process was conducted by planners on behalf of the local authority via focus groups among senior citizens in order to assess their demand for alternative housing solutions. In each locale, anthropological fieldwork was carried out by researcher Tal Berman using the tools of observations, spontaneous conversations, and in-depth interviews. In the Tel-Aviv case, in addition to unidirectional public participation and anthropological fieldwork, a deliberative process of public participation was initiated and developed by the NGO the Front for Lowering Dizengoff Circle. Dizengoff Circle, Tel Aviv During the past few years, a few unidirectional public participation techniques have struck roots in Israel as professional norms. According to one technique, planners on behalf of authorities initiate participation procedures under the SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats) model of strategic management, which gives the participants the opportunity to express strengths and weaknesses of a specific project, plan, neighborhood, or city. Another common technique, called Alternatives Selection, allows participants to rank or prioritize planning alternatives that have been prepared by professionals or officials. Recently, the city of Tel Aviv used both these techniques in the planning process of the Dizengoff Circle restoration. Dizengoff Circle, built in 1934, was part of Tel Aviv’s original urban plan, designed by Scottish town planner Patrick Geddes. A roundabout, at the juncture of six streets was fashioned around a circular plaza, at its center a park with a fountain and shady seating areas. Dizengoff Circle is named after Zina Dizengoff, wife of Tel Aviv’s first

4

T. Berman, I. Schnell

mayor, Meir Dizengoff. The circle has since become a focal landmark and an integral part of the Dizengoff main thoroughfare, which bisects the circle and is known for its shops and cafés. In 1978, the circle’s current raised configuration was introduced during Shlomo Lahat’s term as mayor, with Dizengoff street traffic flowing beneath an elevated concrete plaza. It was elevated in an effort to ease congestion caused by the growing population and the consequent increase in motorization level. The plaza was built a few meters above street level, at its center an Agam fountain surrounded by seating areas. Public discourse on Dizengoff Circle has recently accelerated, criticizing its current design and raising nostalgia for its previous incarnation. In response, the city of Tel Aviv prepared three alternatives for the circle’s restoration. The first was to renovate the circle, including the fountain, but to retain the raised construction as is. The second proposed the restoration of the original construction, including the park in the center. The third proposed changes similar to the second alternative, with the addition of an underground car park under the circle. Following the preparation of the planning alternatives, the city hired the services of the public opinion firm Dahaf [Institute] in order to assess which alternative the public preferred. The survey was carried out during May and June 2011, via a two-part structured questionnaire. In the first part, interviewees were asked to name advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, as per the SWOT technique of public participation. In the second part, the interviewees were asked to rank each alternative and to prioritize the three alternatives, as per the Alternatives Selection technique of public participation. Around 2,350 Tel Avivians were statistically sampled and interviewed by telephone. In addition, a few hundred answered the questionnaire online, and a few dozen were interviewed randomly on the surrounding streets during the daytime. The findings of the survey, as published by Dahaf, indicated that 61% of the participants preferred the circle’s original configuration, while no distinct preference between the second and the third alternatives emerged. Physical advantages of the second and the third alternatives were raised by the interviewees, such as lawn instead of concrete, better accessibility to the street-level plaza than to the elevated one, more shade, quiet, and beauty. In order to choose between the second and the third alternatives, another telephone survey was conducted in November 2011 among a sample of 1,001 residents. According to the survey expert, the third alternative was the favored one. Still no sufficient reason was given to explain the city’s ignoring the first alternative, which had apparently been favored by 37% of the participants and been ranked as the best choice for traffic congestion relief. The city’ agenda of building underground parking was again realized via absurd statistical manipulation: The method of public participation was employed not to expose actual local knowledge, but simply to manipulate the community: The survey results were used by the city as justification for building an underground parking lot, the objective of which is to gain more revenues from parking fees, which feed municipal coffers. From November 2011 to May 2012, an anthropological field study was carried out among the populations that could be affected by the restoration of Dizengoff Circle. The fieldwork was conducted using three anthropological tools: observations, spontaneous conversations, and in-depth interviews. Observations as well as spontaneous conversations with individuals and groups took place around the circle in

5

T. Berman, I. Schnell

both daytime and after dark. Deep interviews were conducted with environmental activists, who founded the Front for Lowering Dizengoff Circle (FLDC). The observations enabled the identification of two populations — street vendors and punks — neither of whom had been reached by the interviewers in the public participation survey. Both populations have used the circle for years and developed ties thereto: More than a hundred street vendors gather around the elevated plaza every Tuesday and Friday and sell antiques. This event, known as the Antique Market, has become a part of the cultural fabric of the place, attracting thousands of buyers and visitors weekly. In addition, the circle has served for years as a meeting place for young people identified with the international Punk subculture. The plaza had become a significant urban space for them to meet veterans and new friends, exchange ideas, share ideologies and worldviews, and practice their unique lifestyle. In spontaneous conversations, the vendors listed disadvantages of the existing raised construction that had not been mentioned by the survey interviewees. The vendors demonstrated, using both verbal and body language, an aversion to the noticeable filth on the circle’s lower level, and informed the researcher of the increasing frequency of stuck truck incidents caused by insufficient height of the traffic passage. The vendors’ experience and familiarity with the circle environment generated detailed descriptions of hidden information that had not been extracted by the public participation tools. Yet despite the indisputable drawbacks of the current circle, vendors were hesitant to support any construction changes that could leave them without a marketplace, i.e., a source of income. Their demands of the city were to designate an area for the Antique Market within the new circle’s plan, and to designate a temporary site therefor during the circle’s reconstruction. They were dissatisfied with the three planning alternatives prepared by the city, so they suggested modifications to cater to their particular needs. In other words, where the method of public participation used by the city failed to expose the genuine needs of one of the circle’s important “user populations”, this population’s distress and desires were exposed by instruments of anthropological fieldwork used successfully in this population’s natural, everyday environment. Likewise, the punks mentioned in spontaneous conversation the physical characteristics of the existing circle that make it a suitable place for them to socialize. They spoke of the essentially urban textures of the elevated plaza’s elements and furnishings, pointing out the concrete benches; iron fences; non-functioning, outlandish metal fountain; and 50 empty stone planters. They also emphasized “free access to graphitize walls and benches” as well as the circle’s central geographical locale, which is still cozy and not too crowded. On the other hand, prolonged observations showed us that fragile communities, especially elderly women and infants in prams, avoid the elevated plaza due to its steep accesses and uninviting concrete benches. So social exclusion, which can be induced by physical design, has therefore transformed the elevated plaza into a relatively secluded area where nonconformists and non-mainstream people have the opportunity to interact. Regarding the circle’s future, the punks supported the current structural format and expressed aversion to gardened surfaces. They declared aloud, “Nobody will take [the circle] away from us; nobody will touch our circle”. Like the vendors who feared losing their income source, the punks feared the cutting off of their cultural roots and giving up a piece of the urban soul. Its unique atmosphere and characteristics combine to make the elevated plaza a haven for a variety of unique individuals and groups, including migrants and locals,

6

T. Berman, I. Schnell

who visit there around the clock. Dizengoff Circle is one of these rare urban spaces that epitomize the city’s soul, where a unique combination of features intersects to generate an extraordinary ambience and authentic lineament. The observations, as well as the spontaneous conversations, exposed the life routines and spatial conduct of people in, on, and around Dizengoff Circle, i.e., local knowledge not unearthed by the city’s survey. Both communities — vendors and punks — are actually priority interest groups that were not represented by the public participation process; their opinions and genuine special needs would not have been exposed without the real-time, on-site fieldwork. The Front for Lowering Dizengoff Circle (FLDC) was founded by environmental activists Omer Gilboa, executive director of Green Course at Tel Aviv University; and urban planner Omer Cohen. FLDC advocates the lowering of Dizengoff Plaza without the underground car park, i.e., the city’s second alternative. FLDC has about 800 Facebook members who participate in both online and face-to-face deliberative discussions. Its members, who come from various walks of life and occupations, collectively generate new knowledge and ideas through interaction and deliberation. During in-depth interviews based on a semi-structured questionnaire conducted in November 2011 with a few key FLDC members, two types of local knowledge were exposed: One contained insights on the pubic participation process engaged in by the city; and the other related to the environmental impacts and hazards that could be caused by the construction of the underground car park. FLDC members argue that the formulation of the survey’s questions was problematic, since the description of the third planning alternative did not include the impact of the parking lot on the circle’s air and scenery; An underground car park would limit the kinds and quantity of flora in the open plaza; would necessitate the uprooting of old ficus trees; and would insert new elements such as air pollutant emission vents and entrances and exits for cars as well as pedestrians. Furthermore, FLDC members emphasized the shortcomings of the public participation process: The survey did not include any simulation, imaging, sketch or any sort of direct deliberative interaction between the residents and the city. At any given time, there are hundreds of free parking spaces around the circle; and constructing the parking lot would cause inevitable closure of the circle’s surrounding area for years, causing irreversible damage to the businesses therein. These in-depth interviews enabled exposure of environmentalists’ local knowledge that had not been enabled by the public participation process. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if those who took part in the public participation survey had been aware of all the impacts and disadvantages of the third planning alternative (underground parking), they might not have selected it, but rather chosen a different alternative. While the city likely knew of the impacts, they were not included in the questionnaire. Local Knowledge of the Elderly Like the increase in life expectancy and leisure in old age, demographic modifications stress the importance of exposure of local knowledge among the elderly. Accordingly, public participation processes and anthropological fieldwork in elderly populations have been recently conducted in planning cases in Israel. Most recently a study was carried out during April and May 2012 in Mateh Yehuda (Jerusalem environs), in order to assess the demand level for senior citizen homes and assisted living for the aged. 7

T. Berman, I. Schnell

During the summer of 2010, a process of exposure of local knowledge was conducted in Rishon-le-Zion, Israel’s fourth largest city, as part of its elder-focused master plan preparation. Mateh Yehuda

The number of those aged 65 or above in Mateh Yehuda is 3,000, or 7% of the total population of 44,000, scattered throughout 57 moshavìm (cooperatives), kibbutzìm (income-sharing communities), and villages. Most of the elderly residents in the field scope were Jews who came as youngsters from Yemen or India in the 1950s and have multi-generational families in Israel. Public participation sessions took place at the regional senior citizens center in Noham, near the jurisdiction’s administrative offices, which serves elderly residents throughout the jurisdiction. The decision to hold the public participation process at the senior citizens center was made because it is the only place where elderly residents from all over the region gather on a regular basis. Four sessions of focus groups were carried out, each lasting 30 to 50 minutes and including directed discussion on the topic “Senior Citizen Homes and Assisted Living for the Aged: Why, When, and Where?” The participants felt uncomfortable talking about the issue, expressed mixed feelings, and a few said of senior housing, “It’s better to die than to go there. Once you go there, there’s no way back”. At the same time, almost none of the participants were familiar with assisted living, an existing solution in Israel. In contrast to the senior citizens home, assisted living is a housing solution for independent elderly, who can function and manage their everyday routines without nursing support care. The planner who conducted the discussions explained to the participants what assisted living is, and their reaction was that it is unaffordable. “Who has the money?” they asked. The participation process ended with the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the participants would rather remain in their homes and on their land till their passing. Some of the participants mentioned that they had built houses on their property for a child in order to have someone nearby to care for them. During the anthropological fieldwork, the researcher used spontaneous conversations with senior pedestrians he met randomly on the moshavim’s and villages’ roads. The face-to-face interaction between the anthropologist and the locals built trust, confidence, generosity, and cooperation, which shifted the conversations into what could be defined as in-depth non-structured interviews. The most significant information that the anthropologist exposed was that of the impact of the moshàv inheritance bylaw on the senior parents and their families. According to the bylaw, moshàv parents may bequeath their land to only one of their children, forcing the parents to choose one child over the others, giving him or her full rights to the land and at the same time dispossessing the others entirely. This difficult decision causes enormous stress among elderly moshav residents, not to mention tension between siblings. Some parents expressed their desire to run away and be extricated from the distasteful decision, but could not imagine where to escape to or how to do so. A 74year-old resident whispered in the anthropologist’s ear: “I made a deal with one of our sons that he’ll get the land if he takes care of us”. At this point the anthropologist felt that he had to discuss his discovery with a key individual in the community, thus he conducted an in-depth interview with the director of the senior citizens center, who was familiar with the local cultural heritage codes. Together they came up with an idea that might solve or head off the fraught, lose-lose situation that the seniors face. Mateh Yehudah being a high-demand real estate market, 8

T. Berman, I. Schnell

the idea was for the seniors to sell their land individually and use the proceeds to move to accommodation such as assisted living. This proposed solution was based on idiosyncratic tacit knowledge of the community, exposed by intensive fieldwork. The Anthropologist felt a responsibility to present and discuss the idea with local senior citizens. Spontaneous conversations were used in order to uncover the opinions of the elderly regarding the proposed housing solution. Elderly at the senior citizen center in Noham said, “It’s a good solution but some time is required to promote the idea among senior residents, as efforts should be applied to percolate the new idea into the elderly’s collective consciousness”. Planners on behalf of the local authority supported the idea, saying “construction of assisted living in the jurisdiction could generate an appropriate housing solution for senior residents by enabling seniors in distress to use the new amenity”. Nevertheless, planners indicated that action must be taken in order to change the bylaw. Rishon-le-Ziyon

The process of exposure of local knowledge among the elderly population of Rishon-le-Zion included a public participation process alongside five months’ intensive anthropological fieldwork. The technique used for public participation was a survey via structured questionnaire that had been validated and proved to be of a high level of reliability (Berman, 2010). 400 seniors, a representative sample of Rishon’s elderly population, were interviewed in their homes. The duration of each interview was approximately 50 minutes. The questionnaire contained four parts: socio-demographics, mobility and transportation, use of urban spaces, and satisfaction with use of urban spaces. Simultaneously, the anthropological fieldwork was carried out mainly by observations, spontaneous conversations, and in-depth interviews in various urban spaces such as parks, senior citizen centers, the city center, malls, on buses, and at bus stops. Significant yet unsurprising survey findings indicated that Rishon’s seniors not only use their homes more than they do any other urban space, but they are more satisfied with the use of their private residence than they are with any other urban space. For example, 59% use the parks, yet out of park users, only 38% are satisfied therewith. Following successive and intensive observations in parks, it emerged that there is at least one major reason that could explain the absence of 41% of the city’s elderly from its parks: Most of the benches were located relatively far from the park entrances and exits, while older people used benches located in immediate proximity to the entrances. The observed insight was supported by spontaneous conversations between the anthropologist and the seniors at the parks. Yet this tacit local knowledge was not exposed by the public participation questionnaire, as it was fully concealed from the consciousness of both the questionnaire’s author and the interviewees, who use parks. The author was not aware of possible barriers or facilitators that could prevent or facilitate use of the park. The closest question on the questionnaire to the bench issue was one that asked the seniors to indicate their level of satisfaction with the benches’ conditions, which obviously does not assess their locations relative to the parks’ entrances. The limited awareness on the part of the questionnaire’s author was a weakness of the structured questionnaire. In contrast to the structured questionnaire, which does not allow the interviewer to ask for further information by modifying or opening the questions on the spot, the nature of the (anthropological) spontaneous and semi-constructed conversations encouraged the bottom-up exposure of hidden knowledge. Moreover, in this case, even 9

T. Berman, I. Schnell

an open question would not have helped expose the local information, since the seniors themselves are not fully conscious of their spatial decisions and behaviors. The above example demonstrates how hidden knowledge would have remained hidden if not for fieldwork. COMPARISON KNOWLEDGE

BETWEEN

METHODS

OF

EXPOSING

LOCAL

Public participation is based on the assumption that the public is fully aware of its local knowledge and is able to deliver it. In contrast, the supposition of the anthropological approach is that the locals are not fully conscious of local knowledge, so there is a need for critical research to draw it out. Fieldwork instruments have the capability to expose individual tacit knowledge, of which the individual possessing or generating it is unaware, as exemplified by the Rishon-le-Zion senior citizens, who were themselves unaware of their motives for choosing a park bench. Furthermore, the anthropological approach is based on the assumption that the researcher is unfamiliar with both the local knowledge and the field. Accordingly, anthropological tools are designed to allow a steady, unhampered bottom-up flow of local knowledge in an open, flexible manner. In contrast, unidirectional public participation assumes that the operator knows which types of local knowledge are needed for the planning process and how to expose them. Thus, public participation procedures are inflexible and characterized by rigid frameworks and premade instruments. The public participation tool of the structured questionnaire is pre-formulated by an expert on behalf of the authority or the operator; it is defined by a specific, validated set of questions, which determines and anticipates the expected types of local knowledge that will emerge therefrom. Furthermore, the communicative process of exposure of local knowledge within unidirectional public participation is controlled by the operator in a top-down manner, while in anthropologic fieldwork, it is driven by the locals. The exposure times of local knowledge within public participation are limited by given timeframes for any interview, public hearing, or focus group. In contrast, anthropological fieldwork tools allow flow of local knowledge with no time constraints and no preset questionnaires or work frames. The approach of anthropological fieldwork as well as its tools’ characteristics encourage the extrication of locked as well as hidden and tacit local knowledge: “Tacit knowledge is important because without it, professionals can rarely truthfully discover information that does not easily lend itself to the reductionist modelmaking characteristic of professional science” (Corburn, 2003: 429). It emerged in this article that significant parts of the local knowledge system are unspoken, undocumented in writing, or not documented at all, even by allusion. These characteristics of local knowledge limit its availability and render its exposure difficult and cumbersome. It is therefore demonstrated that the anthropological method is superior to the method of public participation and its scientific tools, which have weak capability to uncover information from the deeper layer of local knowledge. Unidirectional public participation procedures allow short exposure times by participants’ responses or reactions to specific, singular, structured, and directed questions or actions. In the Mateh Yehuda focus groups, for example, the senior citizens were asked a single question, and each one of them had approximately four minutes on average to answer. Moreover, the seniors’ answers were instantaneous, emotional, instinctive, and none of them realized that the proposed housing solution 01

T. Berman, I. Schnell

could actually act to relieve his or her distress. In this case, the public participation mechanism stimulated the exposure of only momentary positions or episodic notions, yet not sound, solid knowledge. In contrast, the prolonged, intimate, one-on-one interaction between the local and the anthropologist built trust and closeness, and generated — besides confessions — expressions of deep perceptions as well as feelings, opinions, and hidden needs. Through direct, personal interactions with local seniors, the anthropologist working in Mateh Yehuda extracted local knowledge of the anguish and internal conflicts suffered by senior citizens caused by the inheritance bylaws, as well as the bylaws’ effects on family life and cultural structure. Additionally, the intensive “prowl around the field” enables the sighting and spotting of stakeholders as well as individuals who are not ordinarily sampled or who do not approach the hubs of public participation. Here, local knowledge contains an element of particular details of information that reflect the desires and needs of various populations and interest groups. For example, in the Dizengoff Circle case, local knowledge possessed by street vendors, punks, and environmentalists was not attained except by assiduous fieldwork. The anthropological fieldwork mechanism is based on durable, continuous exposure of local knowledge by open, successive communication between various communities and the researcher, enabling the wide exposure of a comprehensive scope and spectrum of types of local knowledge. The recognition within local knowledge of various cultural groups and the legitimacy of multiculturalism, as part of a pluralistic and democratic world-view, promotes fair planning that emphasizes cultural variance and reflects the variety of the affected communities and individuals, as well as their actual desires. The control and power of the authority and its delegate over unidirectional public participation and the exposure of local knowledge, acts to limit the participants’ ability to actively influence the process, making the process vulnerable to manipulation by the authority. In contrast, the anthropological method stimulates the locals to actively participate and initiate delivery of local knowledge; moreover, it bestows upon locals autonomy, power, and control over the process of latescent knowledge extraction. Unidirectional procedures of public participation expose local knowledge from a shallow stratum only, extract random opinions, and do not attain the variety of types of local knowledge mined by fieldwork. Moreover, the failure of public participation to penetrate to a deeper stratum of local knowledge is correlated with the manipulation of governances. The process of public participation is used by authorities and jurisdictions to serve their own narrow interests and goals, so that the public’s interests are actually neglected by its elected representatives. In the Dizengoff Circle case, details from shallow layers of local knowledge, including momentary preferences of residents, are documented as evidence of public participation and then modified statistically as per the city’s narrow interests. The case study shows that unidirectional public participation methods failed not only at the epistemological level of local knowledge mining, but also at the political level of knowledge manipulation. Anthropological fieldwork is sensitive to local understanding of reality and aimed at mining local knowledge from below the top layer, thereby raising it above randomness. The anthropologist’s perspective favors the community interest, thus her intent is to leverage the deep-stratum community knowledge into professional planning knowledge that will return to the community in the form of empowering and constructive planning. The anthropological approach treats local knowledge as a multi-layered system containing a deep stratum of latent information crucial to the planning decision process;

00

T. Berman, I. Schnell

anthropological instruments expose and collect genuine pieces, items, and particulars of local knowledge, which together form a clearer and relatively complete, comprehensive mosaic of the local knowledge system. Thus, originally veiled pieces of local knowledge are reachable, visible, tangible, and exposable. For example, in Rishon-leZion, the latent knowledge regarding the usage of park benches by senior residents indicates the important contribution of this piece of knowledge to the planning of better parks, thus improving the elderly population’s quality of life. The derived correlation shown is between the degree of exposure of hidden knowledge and the degree of suitability of the planning product to the community’s needs as well as the level of quality of life. The field researcher’s proximity to the source of local knowledge for an extended period enables her to study and examine the field in higher resolution, enabling invisible details and veiled information to unfold. This thesis indicates that observations and spontaneous conversations are crucial to the exposure of concealed societal and personal information and identification of communities and cultures, as well as for assessing individuals’ and communities’ cultural codes, interactions, routines, routes, spatial preferences, and lifestyles. In-depth interviews have the power to unlock desires and ideas, demonstrate conceptions and needs, and deliver professional knowledge of communities and stakeholders such as vendors and environmentalists. The public participation technique of a telephone survey via structured questionnaire proved unable to unearth and represent FLDC interests. Local knowledge was instead exposed and collected via in-depth interviews of environmentalists, and contained professional assessments, comments, recommendations and analysis of the Dizengoff Circle environs as well as critique of the city’s public participation process. The environmentalists’ professional and operative knowledge was gained through mutual experience and deliberative discussions among urban planners, architects, geographers, environmental activists, and other stakeholders such as residents and business owners. The Dizengoff environmentalists’ communicative and social dynamics represent the deliberative procedure of public participation, which uses to its advantage gaining mutual knowledge through discussions among members of an open social network. Deliberative public participation gives every citizen the opportunity to participate anonymously, anytime and from anywhere through online social networks, which transfer information between their participants and evolve deliberative processes (Barber, 1998-9; Sandercock & Attili, 2010). As a participant observer, it emerged that members of the network, both individuals and representatives of various communities, expose their personal and local knowledge and construct collectively and mutually through deliberation a significant body of ideas and knowledge, which aims at being assimilated in the planning product. It appears that bottom-up, open, deliberative public participation processes introduce a method able to expose, collect, and process a mass of local knowledge and produce a deliverable that embodies the totality of the participants’ ideas, needs, and interests, ready and relatively ripe for its assimilation in plans. According to Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder of citizen participation”, the process of exposing local knowledge, which is based on mutual deliberative communication, constitutes both “degrees of citizen power” and “citizen control” (Arnstein, 1969: 223) among the participants, thus deliberative public participation could be assessed as a higher-level method of participation than

02

T. Berman, I. Schnell

manipulative “non-participation” (Arnstein, 1969: 217) unidirectional procedures of public participation. CONCLUSIONS The notion derived from the research findings distinguishes the deliberative procedure from the non-deliberative public participation techniques, where the planner controls the process by unidirectional communication. While deliberative procedure is based on prolonged interactive dialog between various local publics, the unidirectional procedures include two interest parties, the authority and the citizen, in such a way that the local knowledge exposure process is manipulated by the governance in a top-down manner. In contrast, deliberative interaction encourages the participants to expose local knowledge collectively; learn together the disputes; and compromise and determine operative decisions, which rest on relatively broad agreement. Not only does the deliberative approach prove superior to unidirectional public participation techniques, but the anthropological method’s fieldwork tools are more efficient in mining local knowledge, since they expose a wider range and penetrate to a deeper stratum thereof, from a more empathetic and open position. Although deliberative public participation is conducted and directed by environmentalists, who act as per a “green agenda” of sustainable planning, it fails to expose local knowledge of marginal groups, where anthropological tools succeed therein. Still both the deliberative public participation and the anthropologic methods are participant-focused processes, which are capable of exposing local knowledge from various communities and stakeholders, in a bottom-up manner. In contrast, the unidirectional procedures of public participation are operator-focused and do not stimulate the involvement of various populations, and therefore do not reflect social and cultural diversity and heterogeneity. While the unidirectional techniques of public participation are aimed at exposing certain data and exploiting it for manipulating the community, the deliberative procedure emphasizes constructing operative knowledge upon the foundation of local knowledge, and anthropologic method concentrates on mining, collecting and interpreting local knowledge. The presentation’s intent is to encourage stakeholders to generate and participate in deliberative public participation processes. In addition the paper argues that the anthropological instruments have to be embedded into the planning toolkit and be activated within public participation and planning processes. REFERENCES 1. Arnstein, S.R. (1969) “A ladder of citizen participation”, Journal of the American Institution of Planners, vol. 35(4), pp. 216-224. 2. Barber, B.R. (1998-9) “Three scenarios for the future of technology and strong democracy”, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 113, pp. 537-587. 3. Berman, T. (2002) “Local knowledge, universal knowledge, and professional knowledge in post-modern urban planning”, MA thesis, Tel Aviv University [in Hebrew]. 4. Berman, T. (2010) “Planning for the elderly: The case of Rishon-le-Zion", Pinhas Sapir Foundation of Mifal haPayis. Israel [in Hebrew].

03

T. Berman, I. Schnell

5. Bradford, N. (2005) “Place-based public policy: Toward a new urban and community agenda for Canada”, Policy Research Network Inc. Ontario: Family Network, Report F/51. 6. Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods, third edition, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 7. Camhis, M. (1979) Planning theory and philosophy. London: Tavistok Publications. 8. Corburn, J. (2003) “Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 22, pp. 420-433. 9. Davidoff, P. (1965) “Advocacy and pluralism in planning”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 31, No 4. USA. 10. Dryzek, J. (1990) Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science, NY: Cambridge University Press. 11. Fainstein, S. (2000) “New directions in planning theory”, Urban Affairs Review, vol. 25 (4), pp. 451-478. 12. Forester, J. (1992) “Critical ethnography: On fieldwork in a Habermasian way”, in Alvesson, M. and Vilmott, H. (eds.), Critical management studies, pp. 46-65: Sage Publications. 13. Fried, M. and Gleicher, P. (1961) “Some sources of residential satisfaction”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 27, pp. 305-315. 14. Gans, H. (1965) “The failure of urban renewal: A critique and some proposals”, Commentary, vol. 39, pp. 29-37. 15. Geertz, C. (1983) Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books. 16. Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 17. Habermas, J. (1970) “Technology and science as ‘ideology’”, in Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics, pp. 81-127. Boston: Beacon. 18. Harvey, D. (1973) Social justice and the city, London: Edward Arnold. 19. Healey, P. (1992) “Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory”, Town Planning Review, vol. 62 (3), pp. 143-162. 20. Healey, P. (1993) “The communicative work of development plans”, Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 20 (1), pp. 83-104. 21. Healey, P. (1996) “The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 23, pp. 217-234. 22. Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan Press. 23. Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2000-07) “Public participation in planning: New Strategies for the 21st century”, working paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Nov. 2-5, 2000. 24. Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2004) “Reframing pubic participation: Strategies for the 21st century”, Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 419-436. 25. Johnston, R., Hauer, J., Hoekveld, G.A. (1990) Regional geography: Current developments and future prospects, P. 216. London: Routledge. 26. Krimsky, S. (1984) “Epistemic considerations on the values of folk-wisdom in science and technology”, Policy Studies Review, vol. 3 (2), pp. 64-246. 27. Lefebvre, H. (1974) The production of space. Oxford, UK & Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell.

04

T. Berman, I. Schnell

28. Ley, D. (1988) “Interpretive social research in the inner city”, in Eyles, J. (ed.), Research in human geography, pp. 121-138. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 29. Lindblom, C.E. (1959) “The science of muddling through”, Public Administration Review, vol. 19. 30. Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., and Stoker, G. (2001a) “Trends in public participation: Part 1 – Local government perspectives”, Public Administration, vol. 79 (1), pp. 205-222. 31. Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., and Stoker, G. (2001b) “Trends in public participation: Part 2 – Citizens' perspectives”, Public Administration, vol. 79 (2), pp. 445-455. 32. Niemeyer, S. and Spash, C.L. (2001) “Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic synthesis: A critical appraisal”, Environmental and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 19, pp. 576-585. 33. Rantanen, H. (2007). Mapping and managing local knowledge in urban planning, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Urban Planning and Design, Helsinki. 34. Sandercock, L. (1998) Toward Cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 35. Sandercock, L. and Attili, G. (2010) Multimedia explorations in urban policy and planning. Springer. 36. Scott, James C. (1998) Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 37. United Nations (2007) Local Knowledge, FAO Corporate Document Repository, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 38. Van der Ploeg, Jan D. (1993) “Potatoes and knowledge”, in An anthropological critique of development: The growth of ignorance, Mark Hobart (ed.), pp. 209-229. London: Routledge. 39. Warburton, H. and Martin, A. (1999) Local people’s knowledge in natural resources research: Socio-economic methodologies for natural resources research. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. 40. Wates, N. (ed.) (2000) Community planning handbook. London: Earthscan Publications. 41. Wilson, D. (1999) “Exploring the limits of public participation in local government”, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 52 (2) pp. 246-259. 42. Wynne, B. (1996) “May the sheep graze safely: A reflective view of the expert-lay knowledge divide”, in Risk, environment, and modernity: Toward a new ecology. Lash, Scott (ed.), pp. 44-83. London: Sage Publications.

05