Urban spaces require increasing their attractiveness by exploring the social and spatial implications of new lifestyles. Broad civic knowledge is the basis for placemaking to shape user-centred and inclusive spaces of everyday life. Gathering information on the sense of the place is crucial to finding out and understanding the place-related identity of its users to make the place more appealing and usable. The most popular survey tool is a questionnaire constructed as a series of questions and used for collecting information (...) about a population’s attributes, attitudes or actions. Administered in person or online, questionnaire surveys may provide broad coverage of urban communities – however, they require significantly large human resources to carry out. The survey based on personal contact with the respondent may limit time allocated to its implementation, thus affecting the sample selection. Also, the researcher’s involvement in the questionnaire-filling process can be problematic if he or she reveals the topic of interest and if the sequencing of questionnaire themes influences responses. Similarly, an online questionnaire may not reach some potential respondents due to their reduced access to the internet etc. These limitations may affect the results’ reliability. Taking into account the above-mentioned aspects, the idea of this chapter is to present selected types of questionnaires (textual, visual, in-VR and survey gamification). The main aim is to discuss these questionnaires in the context of their main advantages and disadvantages resulting from the specifics of a type and a form of survey (in-depth and online) to facilitate their use in the process of data collection in placemaking research. The results show that the variety of types of questionnaires, as well as the form of the conducted survey, allow their better selection to the specificity of the community, increasing the place-related identity, thus may provide a more reliable and complete set of information possible to be used in placemaking. (shrink)

Citizen participation today needs to be understood as both an empowerment practice to create urban futures as well as the perpetuation of entrepreneurial and neoliberal modes of planning. The exponential progress of technologies and the digitalisation of everyday life have led to a surge of innovation. Since hybridity has become a key factor, citizen participation now involves citizens and governments meeting online and offline in a multi-stakeholder setting to plan the city in parallel layers, often according to controversial or even (...) contradictory logic (Horelli et al., 2015). As digital citizen participation opens up new tools and means to mobilise people and shape urban futures, this chapter analyses these new aspects through the categories of top-down/bottom-up participation as well as formal/informal practices. Using four case studies comparatively, our aim with this chapter is to find a new theoretical basis and contextualisation for digital citizen participation. The case studies are situated across Europe and North America: we study participatory budgeting in Helsinki, digitalising citizen participation in Lubbock, Texas, the National Map of Security Threats in Poland, and digital placemaking by a grassroots movement in an urban planning participation process in Zürich, Switzerland. The findings of the article show that (1) digital citizen participation fosters novel multi-actor networks negotiating governance of the urban space, (2) studies of citizen participation need to acknowledge the multi-layered hybridity and (3) new modes of governance enable novel senses of informality in participation. (shrink)

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a paradigm that empowers residents to directly decide how a portion of the public budget is spent. Specifically, residents deliberate over spending priorities and vote over how the budget should be allocated to different public projects. As such it is a mechanism of top-down transfer of decisions on the part of budgetary expenditure to citizens. In recent years, PB has become a central topic of discussion and an important field of innovation for those involved in local (...) development, considered one of the most successful democratic innovations of the last 25 years. Participatory budgeting contributes significantly to participatory democracy, inclusiveness processes and placemaking, but some factors limit the scale of these aspects. However, a relatively simple idea – that “ordinary citizens” should have a direct say in public budgets that impact them – has travelled the world by the most unexpected routes and landed in unlikely sites. There is no precise model for PB programmes. While there are similar tenets and institutional mechanisms, PB programmes are structured in response to each city or state’s particular political, social and economic environment. Therefore, it is necessary to consider to what extent PB strengthens the discussed processes, whether it allows reaching new, inactive groups of citizens and includes them in the decision-making process regarding shaping public spaces. The popularity of this tool carries the risk that it will be used to build the image of local government instead of significantly increasing the participation of citizens in deciding on local public spaces. The chapter aims to present and analyse participatory budgeting practices in four European and North American countries (Switzerland, Poland, North Macedonia and the United States of America) to show the role of PB in placemaking processes by the levels and forms of participation, the analysis of representativeness of PB participants (inclusiveness), placemaking impact and its level of digitisation. The proposed comparative analysis allows for assessing the importance of the tool for increasing social participation, which is participatory budgeting, for understanding its limitations and suggesting directions for its improvement to shape more inclusive, friendly and open public spaces. (shrink)