Participatory mechanisms for managing communication risks in urban infrastructure projects
https://doi.org/10.28995/2782-2222-2024-1-23-37
Abstract
The paper considers the features of informing citizens in the process of creating infrastructure facilities to minimize communication risks. The latter can cause the realization of financial, legal and reputational risks, what ultimately affects the investment attractiveness of the territory.
The results of analyzing the dissatisfaction cases among residents in St. Petersburg and in the Leningrad Region in 2015–2022, made it possible identify the most problematic infrastructure facilities and elements of public rhetoric regarding the project being implemented. Content analysis of publications in the press and statements in social media was used as research method.
The most popular methods of civil pressure, ways of informing the public and their distribution by stages of project implementation are found out. When comparing the identified communication practices, the role of participatory mechanisms involving effective interaction of stakeholders in the decisionmaking process for the development of urban areas is defined. A promising approach to initiating projects for the development of urban infrastructure is the method of public planning. It ensures the harmonization of the goals for the government, business and population in the mode of cooperation and mutually beneficial partnership
About the Author
K. S. Afanasiev
Pushkin Leningrad State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kirill S. Afanasiev, Cand. of Sci. (Philosophy)
bld. 10, Peterburgskoye highway, St. Petersburg, Russia, 196605
References
1. Afanasiev, K.S. (2014), “Gentrification and reindustrialization in the development of urban territory”, Pushkin Leningrad State University Journal. “Economics” Series, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 48–60.
2. Afanasiev, K.S. and Stepanova, E.S. (2021), “The day after. The life and fate of of participatory design projects in the Russian cities” Urban Studies and Practices, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 26–47.
3. Akimov, P.I. (2015), “Eradicating injustice in the city. History of advocacy planning”, Urban Studies and Practices, pilot, pp. 93–102.
4. Angotti, T. (2008), New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Real Estate, The MIT Press, Cambridge, London, UK.
5. Argenbright, R. (2021), Moskva stroyashchayasya: gradostroitel’stvo, protesty gradozashchitnikov i grazhdanskoe obshchestvo [Moscow under construction. City building, place-based protest, and civil society], Académie studies press, St. Petersburg, Russia.
6. Arnstein, Sh. (2012), Ladder of civic participation, available at: https://lithgowschmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ru/ladder-of-citizen-participation_ru.html (Accessed 4 Novemder 2023).
7. Brownill, S., Bradley, Q. (eds.) (2017), Localism and Neighborhood planning. Power to the people? Policy press, Bristol.
8. Davies, T. and Chandler, R. (2013), “Online deliberation design: Choices, criteria, and evidence”, Nabatchi, T., Weiksner, M., Gastil, J. and Leighninger, M. (eds.) Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
9. Gallent, N. and Robinson, S. (2013), Neighbourhood planning. Communities, networks and governance, Policy press, Bristol.
10. Gratz, R. (2008), Gorod v Amerike: zhiteli i vlasti [The Living City], Obshchestvo razvitiya rodnoi kul’tury, Mocsow, Russia.
11. Harvey, D. (2018), “Right to the City”, Sotsial’naya spravedlivost’ i gorod [Social Justice and the City], Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Mocsow, Russia, pp. 398–421.
12. Helms, A.C. (2003), “Understanding gentrification: an empirical analysis of the determinants of urban housing renovation”, Journal of Urban Economics, no. 54, pp. 474–498.
13. Ledyaev, V. (2012), Sotsiologiya vlasti. Teoriya i opyt empiricheskogo issledovaniya vlasti v gorodskikh soobshchestvakh [Sociology of Power. Theory and experience of empirical research of power in urban communities], ID VShE, Mocsow, Russia.
14. Medvedev, I.R. (2017), Razreshenie gorodskikh konfliktov [Resolution of urban conflicts], Infotropik Media, Moscow, Russia.
15. Mortensen, P.B. (2010), “Political Attention and Public Policy: A Study of How Agenda Setting Matters”, Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 356–380.
16. Niedt, C. (2006), “Gentrification and the grassroots: Popular support in the revanchist suburb”, Journal of urban affairs, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 99–120.
17. Ramenskaya, L.A. and Galimzyanov, M.D. (2022), “Stakeholder management in complex projects”, BENEFICIUM, no. 1 (42), pp. 16–25.
18. Sanoff, H. (2015), Souchastvuyushchee proektirovanie. Praktiki obshchestvennogo uchastiya v formirovanii sredy bol’shikh i malykh gorodov [Democratic design. Participation case studies in urban and small town environments], Proektnaya gruppa 8, Vologda, Russia.
19. Sokolov, M.Yu. and Maslova, S.V. (2013), “Risk management in public-private partnership projects”, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Management Series, no. 4, pp. 100–124.
20. Vuchik, R.V. (2011), Transport v gorodakh, udobnykh dlya zhizni [Transportation for livable cities], Territoriya budushchego, Mocsow, Russia.
21. Wates, N. (2014), The Community planning handbook, 2nd edn., Earthscan, Routledge, London, UK.
22. Weber, R. (2002), “Extracting value from the city: Neoliberalism and urban redevelopment”, Brenner, N., Theodore, N. (eds.) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe, Blackwell publishing, Malden, Oxford, pp. 172–193.
23. Zukin, Sh. (2023), Innovatsionnyi kompleks: Goroda, tekhnologii i novaya ehkonomika [The innovation complex: Cities, tech, and the new economy], Izd-vo In-ta Gaidara, Mocsow, Russia.
Review
For citations:
Afanasiev K.S. Participatory mechanisms for managing communication risks in urban infrastructure projects. Science and art of management. 2024;(1):23-37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2782-2222-2024-1-23-37
Views:
59
Email this article 