The Use of Public Participation in Landscape Redevelopment—A Brief Review

When it comes to public participation it is mandatory to know what participation is. According to Shelton (1997) “all forms of public involvement, whether in the environment or other areas, take place within a wider «social field» comprised of traditions, juridical-legal structures and political cultures. […] These ‘social fields’ are often difficult for outside observers to understand because they are rooted in history, tradition, politics, and culture. Yet, for any genuine assessment of the role of public involvement as an instrument of environmental-policy reform this wider ‘social field’ must be a subject of observation and analysis” (p. 42).

Therefore, before starting to address the topics related to public participation in landscape redevelopment, it is important to define what does public participation means. When it comes to public participation, as it is common among “concept definitions,” the answer is not unanimous, once there are always different perspectives of understanding a specific concept. In this regard, the fact that “Democracy is a work in progress” (Creighton, 2005) contributes significantly to its evolving meaning over time.

Regarding normative definitions, dealing with governance means, searching for the answer of what good governance was or supposed to be: what is the best regime, the best constitution; what are the best tools, the best procedures that could enable us to cope with requirements of the today’s situation? How should or could public action adapt itself in order to cope with new challenges we have to face? as an illustration of the definition of good governance.

Although, a shift in political power relations may encourage or impede participatory approaches (Weber, 2018), generally, governments look to provide community input in the identification of specific needs and problems, and in the design and implementation of remedial and preventive solutions (Loures & Crawford, 2008a; Creighton, 2005; Hartig, Zarull, Heidtke, & Shah, 1998).

Ladders, or spectrums, of participation, are a time-honoured metaphor used to understand differing degrees of participatory practices (Loures & Crawford, 2008a). Sherry Arstein’s 1969 seminal article “A ladder of citizen participation” launched the ladder metaphor (Arnstein, 1969). Her work focuses on degrees of citizen power and local control in government decision-making scaling from non-participation to degrees of tokenism, to degrees of citizen power.

Desmond Connor followed almost two decades later with his ladder focusing on creating a progression for resolving the conflict about major issues (Connor, 1988). His approach begins with an educational approach and escalates through mediation and litigation to resolve conflicts.

Still, as analyzed by Loures and Crawford (2008b). Conors ladder does not extend to the point of engaging citizens in decision-making. William Potapchuk followed shortly after with a ladder emphasizing levels of authority or government decision-making from unilateral, to joint, to delegated (Potapchuk, 1991). His model acknowledges the power of citizens to block or support decisions and ramps upward from small-scale individual input to working with representative and special interest groups to build a decision support. The IAP2 spectrum (a twenty-first-century variation of the ladder) reflects and emphasis on the relationship of participation impact and agency decision-making (Bird, 2006). The spectrum includes example techniques employed to achieve the participatory impact goals. The first four levels (inform, consult, involve, and collaborate) represent situations where the government or organization retains final decision authority and responsibility. The fifth level culminates with empowerment, placing decision-making in public control (Loures & Crawford, 2008a). Bruns (2003) expands upon the 5th IAP2 level, empowerment. He extends empowerment into six levels: partner, delegate authority, establish autonomy, advise and enable.

Ross, Buchy, and Proctor (2002) re-visualize a participation ladder with a focus on natural resource management. Their work acknowledges that decision-making affecting natural resources and cultural resources includes more than just authority or government-controlled processes. The ladder includes resources controlled by private ownership, community collectives, organized interest groups, government stewardship and non-participatory government management.

According to Faga (2006) it is still common in Europe, “elite professionals enter competitions and propose designs (often very exciting designs), that are selected by a panel of experts (…) a similar process is inconceivable in the United States, where community participation has become a central element in deciding what will be built” (p. 13).

In this regard, public participation is not a neutral concept. Both, definition and degree of public participation are not neutral in the concept. Both, definition and degree of public participation are directly connected to the conception of democracy and citizenship, and to the role of political authorities (Henningsson et al., 2015). Public participation definitions can be wide or restrictive: for example, the definition of the World Bank about public participation has little in common with other conceptions. According to their definition, public participation is a process that “enables the public to influence the quality or volume of a service through some form of articulation of preferences or demand” (p. 22), a definition that is closely linked to the concept of governance (World Bank, 2000).

In a more direct definition, Beierle and Cayford (2002) defined public participation as “any of several ‘mechanisms’ intentionally instituted to involve the lay public or their representatives in administrative decision-making” (Beierle & Cayford, 2002).

Fiorino (1996) characterizes public participation as the involvement of people outside formal governmental decision-making processes (Fiorino, 1996). Nevertheless, there are still some authors (Britton, 1998; Pateman, 1970) that defend that public participation is one of the components (together with public consultation) of what they consider to be “public involvement.”

For Britton (1998), public consultation includes education and information shared between decision-makers and the public in order to make better-informed decisions and public participation is the act that brings the public directly into the decision-making process (Britton, 1998).

The presented approaches are not contradictory in their main principles. All of them comprise public activities directed at cooperation and teamwork, providing the authority with opinions and information about the public will, needs and objectives.

The last decades have seen a rapid change in attitudes towards the environment, which reflects a greater environmental awareness of the environment among professionals as well as the general public (Loures, 2015; Loures, Loures, Nunes, & Panagopoulos, 2015a; Loures, Santos, & Panagopoulos, 2007; Özgüner & Kendle, 2006). Furthermore, there is a growing trend in government to conclude that the commitment and will of the population is a crucial element to the development of a sustainable city (Giddings, Hopwood, Mellor, & O’Brien, 2005), and that the reclamation of derelict, abandoned or underutilized land can play a significant role in the development of the city (Loures & Panagopoulos, 2007).

Public participation has become increasingly more important, playing a relevant role in determining the way society will manage, protect and reclaim the environment (Loures & panagopoulos, 2010; Loures & Crawford, 2008a; Loures et al., 2007). Furthermore, the recognition that the economic and social dimensions cannot be dissociated from the environmental and cultural ones, contributed to increase the relevance of public participation (Loures, 2008, 2015).

As it was mentioned, public participation is one of the essential values of democracy. In this context, it is related to such categories as: civil society, principle of subsidiarity, decentralization, common will, articulation and representation of interests (Weber, 2018).

Once the role of public participation is to increase the efficiency of the local authority activities as well as to build a stronger social base for the authority, the reason why it should be introduced in the planning process is clear (Table 1) (Loures & Crawford, 2008a, RESCUE, 2007).

Table 1 Reasons to use public participation
Full size table

Forms and Processes of Public Participation in Landscape Planning

In opposition to an experiment, public participation instruments are conducted in a real-life context, and can be descriptive (using standardized questionnaires for describing a specific phenomenon) or analytical (using qualitative and quantitative methods to find relations among variables and explanations) (Meireles Rodrigues, & Loures, 2017; Loures, 2015; Loures et al., 2015a; Loures & Panagopoulos, 2007). Thus, public participation may be generally defined as a descriptive and exploratory method, which enables the observation and analysis of specific issues and phenomena, allowing the establishment of relations among variables (Gil, 1994; Triviños, 1995). Indeed, a wide range of methods has been established all over the world, including new ways of people interacting, new types of event, new services and new support frameworks (Henningsson et al., 2015).

In this regard, governments look now to provide greater community input in the identification of needs and problems, and in the design and implementation of remedial and preventive solutions (Loures & panagopulos, 2010; Creighton, 2005; Hartig et al., 1998). For this reason, nowadays, public participation is recognized by a wide range of methods which have been established all over the world, including new ways of people interacting, new types of events, new services and new support frameworks (Loures & Crawford, 2008a).

As for forms, public participation in landscape reclamation and management can take several different forms (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Creighton, 2005; Faga, 2006): Public meetings, workshops, charrettes, citizen juries, focus groups, Internet, mail interviews, face to face interviews, etc. each of them legitimate a priori, and justified by the context in which the project takes place (de Abreu, 2002).

Also, the selection of interviewees has to be made very carefully to obtain a representative selection, a fact that came up as being questionable for this method among our own interviewees. A suggestion to overcome this problem is to substitute individual interviewees with focus groups. In this way, more people can be involved in participation, making it easier to ensure representativeness (Loures, 2015; Eiter & Vik, 2015) (Table 2).

Table 2 Public participation techniques
Full size table

Public participation in planning, management and reclamation projects is, in fact, mostly accomplished through public workshops, where the different perspectives and possibilities are presented and discussed (Vasconcelos, 2001).

Also, public participation begins laying the ground work for sustainable practices in physical planning and management as well as social community building (Loures & Crawford, 2008a; Loures, Panagopoulos, & Burley, 2016). Creating sustainable communities (1) involves local citizens (Abbott, 1996), (2) allows citizens to analyse their own problems and fashion their own solutions (Carley & Smith, 2013) and (3) supports community initiatives which allow them to be the instruments of their own change (Baum, 2001). Attention to sustainable community development practices fosters social goals which can strengthen the connections between participatory practices and government or authority decision-making.

Moreover, there is a typology of participation levels. Indeed, according to the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC, 1996) there are different grades of participation which answer the questions “what role do you play as a citizen?” and “what role would you like to or think you should play as a citizen?”. These grades go from passive participation to active participation and the intermediate stages are citizen as voter, citizen as constituent, citizen as respondent, citizen as consultant and citizen as decision maker (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe—REC (1996)

Role of the citizen in the decision-making process.

Full size image

According to REC (1996) the stage so-called passive participation since the expert provides more or less detailed information to people without the capacity for participants’ reaction. In this case, the information flow is going in one direction and the relevant and available information is in hands of external experts.

In this regard, information to experts, the people answer questions asked by experts, but cannot influence the treatment of the given information. The correctness of the compiled information cannot be verified by the people. Only experts (and elites) are involved in decision-making.

As for consultation, the problems and solutions defined by the experts can be commented on by the people. Decisions on activities and process can be taken by the experts without exploring suggestions of the people.

Regarding active participation, local interest groups are involved in the design phase of the project but are excluded from the subsequent phases (decision-making, implementing, controlling and monitoring). They have the right to object to or protest against the projects of parts of it.

As for interactive participation, local people are involved in situation analysis and planning of activities. Local independent group structures are emerging or existing groups learn to perform better. These groups control the development process which can be maintained beyond project duration. Interdisciplinary approaches are used for analysing and planning, and well-structured training/education modules are offered to the people.

Regarding self-mobilization and participatory learning, people start their own initiatives on the basis of their own resources. They contact the necessary institutions to request well-specified (usually immaterial) support, e.g. information. The whole development process is controlled by the people. Objectives are evolving in the process; they are not pre-set by external stakeholders. A win-win situation for all the stakeholders could be achieved if the concepts of “irreversibility” of heritage, reasonable and fair compensation to the owners, and planning to improve the living quality are taken into account (Yung & Chan, 2011).

In general, the different ways of how individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs are thought to be a continuing process through which conflicting or different interests may be accommodated to take cooperative action. Moreover, it includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest.

Furthermore, participation is a growing need in society. Several important stakes can be drawn concerning sustainability policies:

  • the multiplicity and diversity of actors intervening in the regulation process: they need to be identified and given a precise role with real responsibilities,

  • the role of “policy networks” between actors who do not have the same legitimacy nor the same abilities,

  • the importance of “public space”: whenever important public decisions are conceived, different social spheres need to communicate, express their opinions, debate together, criticize…

The Role of Public Participation in Planning and Redevelopment

It is believed that public participation may encourage awareness of “belonging to” a community, sharing common culture and creating identity. It improves community consciousness and responsibility while fostering a “collective sense.” These are “feelings” of considerable importance in the development of new, satisfying and concerted projects. Indeed, public participation is thought to be one of the essential values of democracy. In this context, it is related to such categories as: civil society, principle of subsidiarity, decentralization, common will, articulation and representation of interests (Loures & Crawford, 2008a).

According to Beierle (1999), the use of public participation helps to achieve five different social goals (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Source Beierle (1999)

Social goals got by the use of public participation.

Full size image

Generally, the social component is often recognized to play a relevant role in planning and management activities (Faga, 2006). Specifically, the social component plays a relevant role in urban planning and management activities, and that participation processes are linked both to landscape and strategic environmental valuation (Serra, Vera, Tulla, & Salvati, 2014).

Consequently, the selection of the public participation method is a relevant part of the process, Bass, Dalal-Clayton, and Pretty (1995) stresses that what decision-makers really need to understand is that science-based and interdisciplinary approaches are not enough to define social, environmental and economic needs; and that, therefore, public participation is a people-centred approach (Bass et al., 1995).

In this regard, the landscape design work also deals with an existing real-life situation, which becomes a reference to the following design development (Meireles Rodrigues, & Loures, 2017). For this reason, public participation is a systematic attempt to involve the citizen in the design, planning decision, implementation and evaluation of planning, management and reclamation projects (Loures & Crawford, 2008a).

Post-industrial redevelopment is a complex topic with many actors and stakeholders who often pursue contrasting aims in the development process. A socially well-balanced planning process, assuring participation opportunities for all the affected parties, provides the necessary conditions for sustainability standards and is as such a prerequisite for each post-industrial reclamation project (Loures & Crawford, 2008a; Loures et al., 2016).

Consequently, the use of public participation in the redevelopment of a post-industrial landscape should be an integral part of post-industrial landscape reclamation (Loures & Crawford, 2008a). Also, take into account that there is a growing trend in government to conclude that the commitment and will of the population is a crucial element to the development of a sustainable city (Giddings et al., 2005).

Benefits and Limitations of Public Involvement

Even with the changes that have been introduced in policy and attitude during the last decades, there are still a number of obstacles to a successful transition to a more participatory decision-making process. These obstacles range from low indices of trust in government (Krannich & Smith, 1998), to administrative, and policy-driven constraints (Moote & McClaran, 1997; Moote, McClaran, & Chickering, 1997), to the choice of the appropriate and most effective methods of public engagement (Glicken, 2000; Gregory, McDaniels, & Fields, 2001; Webler, Tuler, & Krueger, 2001).

Moreover, design professionals themselves can be an obstacle with concerns about relinquishing power in the design process, perceptions of participatory practices being unprofessional and scepticism about anaesthetic outcomes (Hester & Blazej, 1997) what is more current public participation methods are laborious, and if they reach few participants, they may be ineffective at gathering usable information for planning (Kahila-Tani, Broberg, Kyttä, & Tyger, 2016).

Even, may there have been wide disparities concerning participation systems. In other words, depending on the region and on the environmental issue, the level of participation allowed is considerably different (Okubo, 2016).

Besides, if the public is to be involved in the decision-making process, their role may not be one of legitimization, their contributions need to be introduced on the design process from the beginning. If this is not the objective of public involvement, participants ought to be informed, given that transparency constitutes an aspect that is considered to be indispensable in any project with an objective to serve the public is transparency (Table 3). As quoted by Faga (2006) “Transparency in an essential part of any fair process,” and includes among other features openness and honestly.

Table 3 Transparency
Full size table

The increasing need for public participation since the early seventies of the twentieth century (Fig. 3) is probably related to the growing dissatisfaction with the results of the technocratic administrative process (Alinsky, 1971; Desario & Langton, 1987), once as it is known, after World War II the role of the governments has expanded dramatically. Since then a long time has passed and the idea of an increasing necessity of introducing public participation into planning and management activities has been reinforced not only by governments and private associations but also by several international conventions as it is the case of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992); of the Aarhus convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters (1998); and of the recent Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (2007), among others.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Adapted from Selle (1996)

Development of the participation—understanding.

Full size image

The relevance of the social acceptability of a specific project should never be underestimated: often in the past, scientific and technological options having a negative environmental impact appeared to be inappropriate, not in terms of technical performance but for reasons of social acceptability (Oliveira, Tobias, & Hersperger, 2018). In recent years, due in part to a need to reduce social conflict and litigation, the planning paradigm has shifted to give the general public greater input in environmental decisions (Fischer, 2018; Steelman, 2001).

Still, designers have to be aware that different people have different ideas, perspectives, needs, and concerns, the reason why the participation process as to be as inclusive as possible, considering the opinion of each and every single group related directly or indirectly with the project (Meireles Rodrigues, & Loures, 2017).

This, not only to ensure and improve their social acceptability, but also to certify that public space is really being constructed according to the public will. Public participation will also contribute to expanding the number of possible choices, making them more precise and enabling that the different actors involved in the process take “ownership” of the decision.

Through ownership, commitment and the infusion of “local knowledge” in project development, unique places, genuinely native to the culture and environment, can be sustained (Beatley, 2005).

The social acceptability of results in a decision-making process is linked to the way the different parts involved in the process perceive it: if they feel it is adequate and equal, they find it legitimate. For this reason, improving the social acceptability of specific design options during the process often results in the higher legitimacy of the whole process, which in this way depends largely on how much people affected by the plan have been involved in it (Loures & Crawford, 2008a).

In the specific case of reclamation–rehabilitation projects, as they are often located in highly visible and accessible areas, public perception and support is essential to the long-term success of the project (Nassauer & Faust, 2013) and to enhance the social, economic and environmental benefits that they provide.

Frederick Steiner reinforces the importance of public engagement and ecological planning in that “the success of a plan depends largely on how much people affected by the plan have been involved in its determination,” (Steiner, 2000).

One of the problems that happen in post-industrial reclamation projects is that sometimes the results do not match the original aspirations. Not only because some projects are just speculative, using “sustainable” and “communitarian” labels as a marketing device, but also because the public will is often not a relevant part of the project (Loures & Panagopoulos, 2007b; Loures & Crawford, 2008a; Loures et al., 2016).

In recent years, several architects, landscape architects, urban planners and other planning specialists have built a number of outstanding iconic landscape reclamation designs that do not represent the community of which they are an integral part. These fail in what should be considered essential in a landscape reclamation project: connectivity to the place and to the society (Loures & Crawford, 2008a).

Once public landscapes in general and reclaimed post-industrial landscapes, in particular, are viewed as “systems” that possess multiple intellectual, cultural and social meanings able to influence public behaviour both physically and spiritually, it is evident that the integration of public will and needs in the whole urban planning and regeneration processes is crucial (Loures & Crawford, 2008a; Loures et al., 2016).

In fact, the integration of public participation in the decision-making process benefits both project quality and society. For this reason, it is essential to develop a framework that specifies how public participation can be introduced in the different planning phases (Loures & Crawford, 2008a).

Public Participation Applied to Landscape Redevelopment

It is believed that it is necessary to develop a new power of reclamation alignment between the social and the political sphere, enabling the creation of conditions for an active and participative citizenship, in order to ensure better organization and efficiency for landscape redevelopment. For this reason, it is thought that it is needed a greater public participation and involvement, insights into emerging social meanings (Llewellyn, Rohse, Day, & Fyfe, 2017).

In this regard, government development of large post-industrial landscape reclamation projects has increased on international, national, regional and local levels, in the past years. Professionals involved are becoming more and more aware of the fact that specific local human and social factors need to be considered and introduced in the planning process of rehabilitation of industrial derelict sites. Public participation holds nowadays an essential position in the post-industrial regeneration process (Loures & Crawford, 2008a; Loures et al., 2016).

Three projects are showed to exemplify the execution of public participation as an inclusive way so as to get a belonging feeling to a community.

Project 1

The Lorettowiese square is located in the city of Viena, in Austria. The square is part of the Floridsdorf District of the city.

A compensation area for playing and sports with an extend of 7.700 m2 was created. The sports area includes: skate park, streetball area, volleyball courts and robinson playing area. A public participation procedure takes place, the youth from the neighbouring school and from the parish community is involved. The character of the present meadow is preserved, modern facilities for sports and playing are added (Landezine, 2009).

However, this project is a great example of the social acceptance of the projects implemented by citizenship (Fig. 4), since citizen participation wants certain modifications in the project as a construction of an ice rink, a lounge track for teenagers, three volleyball courts of street or beach, placement of area for dogs in the vicinity of residential houses, a new walkway in the area of the playground, expansion of the existing playground, a play area for young children, creation of a sandpit as stock and the installation of more drinkers (Sabine, Detzlhofer, Zingerle, & Stevanovic, 2010).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Source Bürgeniritiative (2009)

Lorettowiese square project.

Full size image

In this regard, among the activities carried out, stresses it was decided by the heads of the residents of the districts SPÖ, Greens and ÖVP in 2013 the prohibition of parking for the establishment of a place for skating. Precisely based on the procedure of participation, BI Lorettowiese citizens intend to allow parking in the area again.

Likewise, the huge acoustic pollution caused by the skaters is reported, as well as the increase in noise pollution by some teenagers through nighttime drinking events, noise and garbage disturbances, questionable public attraction at night, elimination of parking spaces.

In this regard, as a coordinated proposal, the relocation of the skating rink and the chil-out area to Überplattung located on the Danube canal, the maintenance of the area for dogs, the reuse of existing equipment in the playground are promoted, the abandonment of the basketball court (due to noise) and the use of the old place of kindergarten for new sports possibilities using noise-reducing coatings (without asphalt, without concrete). Precisely, the distance between the skating field originally planned and now proposed is about 600 m (Bürgeniritiative, 2009).

Project 2

Local participation can also be important for smaller urban units, such as a street. In this regard, the case of Potgieterstraat street located in the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands stands out.

In this regard, the street is characterized by nineteenth-century buildings dating back to the first large extension of Amsterdam. For this reason, the existing typology corresponds to housing blocks. Precisely, this can lead to a disadvantage, because the inner courtyards of these blocks are not open to public use. In addition, the streets were not designed for the traffic that currently exists.

In general, there is a shortage of public squares and green spaces, the streets being dominated by cars and the recently built bicycle lanes as a solution precisely to traffic.

The district as a whole was up to a refreshing new strategy for children and pedestrians to strengthen and vitalize the public realm. Local inhabitants were asked in a political enquiry to agree upon and formulate new guidelines and were also involved in the selection of an architect (Landezine, 2009). For this reason, it was suggested that the street be completely closed to car traffic. In this way, this space could be dedicated for the use of citizens. In fact, the old street and parking area assigned to carve landscape architecture for the design has an area of approximately 1500 m2 and the project was completed in 2010.

In this regard, the functional program changed the place changed traffic and parking, for a place intended for meetings and places of rest, a playground for children, an improvement of green quality (Fig. 5). In this way, a positive effect was obtained to balance the area destined for urban exploitation, but for the rest and enjoyment of the citizens of a greener zone. In fact, all surface materials were removed and not only existing trees were maintained, but new trees were added. The play areas were characterized by black rubber elements that can be used as a drawing surface, and their soft touch invites play. In addition, at the same time, it reduces noise levels (Blitz et al., 2010).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Source Carve Landscape Architecture

Potgieterstraat street project.

Full size image

Although, the greatest benefit is the recovery of the local urban area by the community, because parents, and also citizens without children, interact and relax in these places. In fact, the place becomes a place for the interaction of the neighbourhood, as well as for the surrounding blocks, helping people of different origins and ages to meet in one place.

Regarding participatory processes, these could be characterized by conflict rather than cooperation. First, conflicts with the city council, since according to a written survey 70% of the citizens of all the residents in the blocks of housing must agree with the plan.

In this regard, some residents did not want public parking places to move elsewhere, although, this was a nearby site. Likewise, there were also problems with the retailers located in this street, who were opposed for various reasons to the execution of the project.

Nevertheless, the perseverance of the social connection of this project overcame all the difficulties on the part of the citizens. Thus, with a certain delay nowadays, this place is an area of attraction that stimulates the establishment of social relations between the components of the neighbourhood.

Project 3

The concept of inclusive design through public participation to reinvent spaces has as one of its most illustrative and prominent examples Teleki Square. This square is located in Budapest, is one of the oldest and with more history of the city of Budapest.

Although it is located in one of the most socially diverse and colourful areas of the city centre, it is also characterized by being in one of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods of the city.

Just the financing of the EU to renovate the square, began a design process in 2013 (Fig. 6) based on the transformation of a sterile space, plagued by crime, of bad reputation and without any clear functionality, through its construction in 2014 in a centre of vital that offers opportunities for recreational and social outdoor activities, taking into account public participation. By the way, spaces that the city of Budapest lacks to carry out this type of activities (Landezine, 2009).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Source Ujirany/New Directions Landscape Architects

Teleki square project.

Full size image

In general, the aim of the inclusive community-based planning process was to enable nearby residents to actively participate in developing the design of their own Community Park by means of cooperation, interaction and participation. Specifically, a strong local community identity can be developed, since play an increasingly important role in societies of today.

Apart from the general and specific aims mentioned, one of the most important outcomes of the process was the formation of the Teleki Square Association so as to take part in the activation of the area. The residents already took part in the organization of numerous public art events (Dominika, Szohr, Kovács, & Ruso, 2013).

Lessons Learned and Final Remarks

Post-industrial redevelopment must be considered as one of the several components that influence the broader context of urban planning and economic development, since post-industrial landscapes represent significant assets to the community, which redevelopment will create wealth and jobs, while enhancing the visual and aesthetic quality of the community, fostering the sense of place and belonging and tackling urban sprawl and the loss of green space. (Loures, 2015). The use of public participation and the incorporation of human preferences and needs in post-industrial landscape reclamation is a safeguard to achieve success. Furthermore, public participation is an essential part of the process of developing a sense of community (Loures & Crawford, 2008b).

Besides, the application of public participation questionnaires increases the sense of social responsibility of the population, playing a key role in sustainable development and in future landscape planning, since it allows the acquisition of relevant information not only regarding landscape features but also considering public preference for landscape characteristics (Loures et al., 2015a).

It is critical to shift the power paradigm in the urban planning process to allow residents to proactively envision and create public green spaces that would reflect the diversity of the society it represents. The use of public participation and the incorporation of human preferences and needs in post-industrial landscape reclamation is a safeguard to achieve success and to develop a sense of community (Loures & Crawford, 2008a).

In this regard, the projects analysed show that involving locals in the design process plays an important role in exploring local identity and in creating socially comprehensive spaces since provides a base to social, hence physical sustainability.

Moreover, the community which takes the role of intermediary between the residents and the municipality, also it is responsible for the realization of the community project.

Overall like stablished Dominika et al. (2013), it can be said that the locals and the site have already become an active, integral part of the quarter’s regeneration process, helping the social aspects of the rehabilitation. Hopefully, this process in time—thanks to the local involvement—will truly initiate a meaningful engagement between people and space, consequently helping the creation of an open and a culturally richer and socially embedded environment to arise.

In summary public participation encourages awareness of “belonging to” a community, sharing a common culture and creating an identity. It improves community consciousness and responsibility while fostering a “collective sense.” These are “feelings” of considerable importance in the development of new, satisfying and concerted projects.