COMMUNICATION FOR URBAN
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN PERSPECTIVE OF THE RELATION
BETWEEN CITIZENS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
CASE STUDY OF WROCLAW (PL)
Communication for Urban Transformation
Kasia Piskorek
PhD Candidate – visiting scholar at Urbanism, TU Delft
K.I.Piskorek@tudelft.nl
1
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
① Introduction
②
Background & Inspiration
③ Methodology
④ The Case of Wrocław
⑤
Summary/Conclusions
2
INTRODUCTION
AFILIATION
Wroclaw University of Technology / TU Delft
BACKGROUND
Spatial Planning, Language Studies
FIELDS OF INTEREST
local communities, local cultures, local initiatives, top-down governance,
sociological aspects of spatial planning, communication, negotiation,
deliberative democracy, post-communist countries transformations,
conflict management
EXPERIENCE
public consultation, workshops on community building, facilitation
MOBILITY PLUS
PROGRAMME
Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, duration: 24 months
RESEARCH TOPIC
(Extention of the PhD)
Comparative studies on public involvement tools and the relation
between citizens and local authorities in perspective of
communication.
3
INTRODUCTION - BACKGROUND & INSPIRATION
PhD TOPIC:
Evaluation of Effectiveness of Recognition of Current Needs of Urban
Community in Perspective of the Relation Between Citizens and Local
Authorities
(working title, language: Polish)
KEY WORDS
communication, public participation, citizens’ needs recognition, participation
model, local communities, post-communist countries, Wroclaw
MAIN INFLUENCES
CITIES AND NEEDS (historical, sociological, functional, and political
references):
EU, UN, human rights, Zipser, Malinowski, Max Neef;
COMMUNITIES (local / of place, interests and practice):
Chavis, Wandersman, Wagner, Ghel, Healey;
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THEORY and planners role:
Arstein, Damurski, Hanzl, Hausner, Lorens;
DELIBERATIVE PLANNING and local governance:
Balducci, Filar, Forester, Salet;
URBAN INTERACTION DESIGN and new technologies:
Brynskov, de Waal, Noennig, Rekow;
COMMUNICATION THEORY:
Anderson, Buhler, Dobek- Ostrowska, Jacobson, Habermas, Peters;
4
HYPOTHESIS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PARTICIPATION) IS
BETWEEN CITIZENS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

A
COMMUNIACTION
IT CAN BE ANALYSED LIKE A COMMUNICATION ACT
5
MAIN QUESTIONS

What are the public involvement means used in Wroclaw?

What is their frequency of use and effectiveness?

How do the most frequently used participatory tools look like form the
communication point of view?

What are the main difficulties and obstacles and where are they located in a
communication act?

How does a communication tool relate to the dominating communication
function?
6
METHODOLOGY
INTERVIEWS: 24 local communities council representatives
STATISTICS: frequency of use, popularity and funds of communication tools
(from the Main Statistics Office, Wroclaw Development Office and Official
Municipaly Website)
COMMUNICOLOGY: communication act analysis
7
COMMUNICOLOGY TOOLS
SENDER/RECEIVER
LOCAL AUTHORITIES / CITIZENS
CODE
COMMON LANGUAGE (PROFESSIONAL /
INFOGRAPHICS, PICTOGRAMS, SYMBOLS
CHANNEL
TOOLS
MESSAGE
NEEDS/ LOCAL PLAN/ PROJECT/ REALISATION
DOCUMENT/REMARK/DEMAND/WARNING
(URBAN) CONTEXT
CITY/SPACE/ SOFT/DEFINED
CONTACT
DIRECT/INDIRECT
8
COMMUNICATION ACT
9
FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNICATION
DOMINATING FUNCTIONS:
-EMOTIVE/CONATIVE (
-EXPRESSIVE (sender’s statements)
-IMPRESSIVE (influence on the receiver)
-COGNITIVE (informative, depending on message – aesthetic/poetic )
-META („communication about communication”)
-PHATIC (maintaining the contact)
10
POLISH CONTEXT
Spatial planning system was centralized: in
most of the Soviet bloc countries until the end
of 1980s the state, with public funds, was the
only initiator and investor undertaking all
projects.
The decisions, funding, management and even
design were dependent on the central
government.
The government was “responding” to citizens
needs without public consultation (no
spontaneous or top-down initiatives were
accepted)
SPATIAL PLANNING BEFORE THE TRANSFORMATION
Planning act 1984:
The Minister of Administration and Spatial
Planning was providing rules for planning at
regional and local level, where proper organs of
national administration were implementing them.
General documents were available for public to
popularise the plan.
Remarks and comments could be made by local
governments, workers cooperatives, or
administrative organisations.
THE TRANSFORMATION
Abrupt collapse of communist regimes in 1989 and immediate turn from
absolutely centralized system to strong decentralization
After 180 degrees turn and decentralization spatial planning starts „happening”
at the local level
Citizens involvement not only allowed in planning processed but also
introduced into new legal basis of spatial planning
In Poland First Planning Act after transformation was introduced only in 1994. It
allowed single citizens to submit objections to the local plan.
LEGAL BASIS OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The two main documents which shape public
participation and spatial planning are:
The Constitution (1997) – which sets the
decentralization of public tasks, involvement for
interested actors;
The Spatial Planning Act (2003) – which makes
certain forms of public participation at the local
level of spatial planning obligatory
Due to strong decentralization of spatial
planning in Poland public participation
processes focus mainly on the local level which
is represented by two documents: Land Use
Planning and Local Plan.
CASE OF WROCLAW
15
COMMUNICATION WEAK POINTS
16
CASE OF WROCLAW – communication tools
MEDIA (TV, RADIO, PRESS, POSTERS, FLYERS)
70%
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
50%
REMARKS FOR LOCAL PLANS
9%
INTERNET PLATFORM
7%
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS (DEBATES SERIES)
2%
NGOS’ INITIATIVES
0,2%
CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES
0,01%
17
COMPARISON
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
REMARKS FOR LOCAL PLANS
CONTEXT
CITY, SOFT
STRICT BORDERS
LANGUAGE
COMMON, SPONTANIOUS,
DEVELPOING DURING THE
PROCESS
PROFESSIONAL, FORMAL
(MAIN) MESSAGE
NEEDS, EXPECTATION –
PROJECTS
LOCAL PLAN – REMARKS,
PROTESTS
CHANNELS
ALL CHANNELS
LOCAL BROSHURES,
INTERNET PLATFORM,
SENDER ->
RECEIVER
L.A. – C. – L.A. – C.
L.A. – C. – L.A. – C.
TYPE
INDIRECT & DIRECT
INDIRECT (FORMAL LETTERS)
FUNCTION
IMPRESSIVE, COGNITIVE –
AESTHETIC
EXPRESSIVE, COGNITIVE POETIC (IMPRESSIVE)
18
CONCLUSIONS
What is important in communication between citizens and local authorities?
Is it possible to manage public involvement by using certain paths of
communication in certain moments?
What about missing functions?
19
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
CONTACT:
Kasia Piskorek
k.i.piskorek@tudelft.nl
katarzyna.piskorek@pwr.edu.pl
Ph./Whatsapp: +48 605116445
20