|M.Sc Student||Dina Raviv Schestatzky|
|Subject||Differences in Participation in Planning Processes by|
Residents of Disadvantaged and Advantaged
|Department||Department of Architecture and Town Planning||Supervisor||Professor Emeritus Churchman Arza|
|Full Thesis text - in Hebrew|
This research compares disadvantaged with advantaged neighborhoods whose residents were involved in planning processes. The research compares four community organizations in neighborhoods of different socio-economic levels from two cities: Tel Aviv, Neve Ofer and Kochav HaTzafon; Haifa, Halisa and Lincoln-HaRofeh. In each neighborhood ten residents who were active participants were interviewed.
In the comparisons between the two cities there were no significant differences in the measured variables. The comparisons between the advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods showed both differences and similarities: In the disadvantaged neighborhoods, participants' characteristics were more varied than in the advantaged neighborhoods. The majority of participants chose to participate in order to have the planning meet their needs. However, in the advantaged neighborhoods, the interviewees suggested that participants were also motivated by personal interests. In the disadvantaged neighborhoods, the residents organized around various issues that concerned the life of the neighborhood, but in the advantaged neighborhoods, residents organized solely around issues concerning physical planning.
In the disadvantaged neighborhoods the community organization was assisted by professionals. In the advantaged neighborhoods the community organizing evolved from the impetus of the residents, and they hired the services of professionals. Participants from the disadvantaged neighborhoods defined the community organization within a social framework, whereas participants from the advantaged neighborhoods defined the community organization as solely a solution to community problems. In the advantaged neighborhoods discussions included disagreement as to the level of activism at which they wanted to operate. In the advantaged neighborhoods the participants themselves raised funds and resources both internally and externally. In the disadvantaged neighborhoods the resources were raised from social change organizations by external organizers.
In all of the neighborhoods there was agreement that there is a need to institutionalize the participation of residents in the planning processes from an early stage. The majority of the participants expressed a general feeling of success as a result of the activities, In the disadvantaged neighborhoods there was a sense of satisfaction with the changes achieved. In the advantaged neighborhoods the feeling of success was accompanied by a sense of doubt. Most of the participants felt that in neighborhoods with higher socio-economic levels, the chances of success are higher. A minority felt that in the disadvantaged communities the residents have a higher chance of success.
This research can raise awareness among residents and planners to the importance of the participation of residents in the planning process. The findings suggest some practical implications for participants, planners and municipalities.