European Transport and Mobility Forum

Vote now ! Does co-creation really solve the low level of citizen participation in transport planning?


(Imre Keseru) #1

Vote now! @WG1_Co-Creation members are invited to vote on our first poll.
Does co-creation really solve the low level of citizen participation in transport planning?

  • Yes, co-creation extends participation to groups that could not be reach previously.
  • Yes, but only certain groups benefit form better participation (e.g. more educated, those with internet access)
  • No, co-creation per se does not extend participation, because it is the same people who participate who used to take part in consultations.
  • No, co-creation actually makes participation more difficult by a lengthy process of dialogue.
  • I do not know.

0 voters

(Christine Zeller) #2

I voted “I don’t know”, because in fact, I don’t know. First, I tended to select “yes, but …”, because that is what I think / hopefully even simply “yes”. I would hope that making mobility for people can best be achieved by involving people. And yes - it wil probably be a lengthy process of dialogue, but selecting / developing solutions that are really needed and getting acceptance probably need some effort. To sum it up: in practice I don’t know, but I would try it.

(Alain L'Hostis) #3

I voted “Yes, but” and hesitated with “no […] because it is the same people” because in our project CISMOP with @clairetollis we are in-between; it is not exactly the same people that are used to be involved in the participation processes, a few are new because interested in the issue of mobility.

Maybe the question raised by @imrekeseru is mixing two dimension:

  1. the extension of participation beyond the “usual suspects” groups
  2. the development of participation (with the usual “participants”) in the domain of mobility

Should they be discussed in two different questions?

(Rebecca Hueting) #4

I voted I don’t know since I have the same concerns of Christine and Alain, plus I must say that often projects, de facto cannot reach all potential participants.

This is probably due to the big effort that is necessary to (1) identify the right “targets”, (2) involve them and (3) design appropriate processes to let them contribute. I guess time, as always, is a very relevant matter in this sense.

Moreover, I think participation would be much higher if involved subjects are able to see proposals become reality. The feeling that all things done will be left behind strongly prevents participation.

(Mary Panou) #5

I chose the 2nd option (Yes, but…) considering that also key Users Associations participate at the co-creation process. Such associations (e.g. disabilities associations) represent the users and are usually quite active in relevant decision-taking actions.

(Imre Keseru) #6

Thanks for the comments! We can probably co-create the poll questions :wink:
What I meant was that co-creation is an advanced form of participation, which does not necessarily mean that it is accessible to more people or a different audience than ‘less advanced’ forms of participation such as consultation about plans that have already been made.

(Alain L'Hostis) #7

Ok let’s try to co-create! Here is my proposal, even more complex than what I thought. Anyone may complete, amend, develop this post, as I’ve made it wiki.

  • Poll 1: Participation in transport planning, as it is implemented so far (e.g. consultation on orientations and choices)
    • V11 concerns only certain groups used to participate (e.g more educated, those with internet access)
    • V12 allows to involve a broad public
  • Poll 2 : the benefits of co-creation in transport planning which allows to increase the quality of the participation processes and its outcomes, make it worth being conducted, despite a lengthy process of dialogue
    • V21 : yes
    • V22 : no
  • Poll 3 Co-creation processes in transport planning are even more prone than other more classical forms of participation, to the critic over participation in general that it involves only and always the same groups of people
    • V22 : yes
    • V23 : no