The double connection: towards a bi-directional notion of participation

References

• Abbott, K. W. (2017): Orchestration: strategic ordering in polycentric climate governance. SSRN Electron. J.,30; http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2983512.
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P. (2016): Neoliberal spatial governance. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35 (4), pp. 216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balicka, J.; Storie, J. T.; Kuhlmann, F.; Wilczyńska, A.; Bell, S. (2021): Tactical urbanism, urban acupuncture and small-scale projects. In Urban Blue Spaces. Routledge, pp. 406–430.
   Google Scholar
• Bednarek, A. T.; Wyborn, C.; Cvitanovic, C.; Meyer, R.; Colvin, R. M.; Addison, P. F.; Leith, P. (2018): Boundary spanning at the science-policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13(4), pp. 1175–1183. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boelens, L. (2010): Theorizing practice and practising theory: Outlines for an actor-relational-approach in planning. Planning theory, 9 (1), pp. 28–62. doi: 10.1177/1473095209346499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boelens, L. (2018a): Bij de (curieuze) neus genomen. Archined; available online at: https://www.archined.nl/2018/08/bij-de-curieuze-neus-genomen.
   Google Scholar
• Boelens, L. (2018b): Moving toward a flat ontology of institutional innovation. In Salet, W. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of institutions and planning in action. Routledge, pp. 92–107.
   Google Scholar
• Boelens, L. (2020): Opening up new planning landscapes: an introduction in the actor-relational approach of planning. In Boonstra, B.; Davids, P.; Staessen, A. (eds.), Opening up the planning landscape: 15 years of actor-relational approaches to spatial planning in Flanders, the Netherlands and beyond. Groningen: In Planning, pp. 11–36.
   Google Scholar
• Bonney, R.; Shirk, J. L.; Phillips, T. B.; Wiggins, A.; Ballard, H. L.; Miller-Rushing, A. J.; Parrish, J. K. (2014): Next steps for citizen science. Sci-ence, 343 (6178), pp. 1436–1437. doi: 10.1126/science.1251554
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boonstra, B.; Boelens, L. (2011): Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research & Practice, 4 (2), pp. 99–122. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2011.579767
   Google Scholar
• Boonstra, B.; Rauws, W. (2021): Ontological diversity in urban self-organization: Complexity, critical realism and post-structuralism. Planning Theory, 20 (4), pp. 303–324. doi: 10.1177/1473095221992392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bragaglia, F.; Caruso, N. (2022): Temporary uses: a new form of inclusive urban regeneration or a tool for neoliberal policy? Urban Research & Practice, 15 (2), pp. 194–214. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2020.1775284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bragaglia, F.; Rossignolo, C. (2021): Temporary urbanism as a new policy strategy: a contemporary panacea or a trojan horse? International planning studies, 26 (4), pp. 370–386. doi: 10.1080/13563475.2021.1882963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braudel, F. (1984) The perspectives of the World. London: Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Cariello, A.; Ferorelli, R.; Rotondo, F. (2021): Tactical urbanism in Italy: From grassroots to institutional tool – assessing value of public space experiments. Sustainability, 13 (20), 11482. doi: 10.3390/su132011482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalho, A.; Van Wessel, M.; Maeseele, P. (2017): Communication practices and political engagement with climate change: A research agenda. Environmental Communication, 11 (1), pp. 122–135. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2016.1241815
   Google Scholar
• Chang, R. A.; Gerrits, L. (2022): What spatially stabilises temporary use? A qualitative comparative analysis of 40 temporary use cases along synchronised trajectories of stabilisation. Cities, 130, Article 103868.
   Google Scholar
• Chelleri, L.; Kua, H. W.; Rodriguez Sanchez, J. P.; Nahiduzzaman, K. M.; Thondhlana, G. (2016): Are people responsive to a more sustainable, decentralized, and user-driven management of urban metabolism? Sustainability, 8 (3), 275. doi: 10.3390/su8030275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiodelli, F.; Grazioli, M. (2021): Global self-ur-banism: housing self-organisation amidst the regulatory crisis and uneven urban citizenship. In Lancione, M.; McFarlane, C. (eds.), Global Urbanism. Knowledge, Power and the City. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 183–190.
   Google Scholar
• Comte, A. (1856): Social physics: from the Positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. C. Blanchard.
   Google Scholar
• Creamer, E.; Eadson, W.: van Veelen, B.; Pinker, A.; Tingey, M.; Braunholtz-Speight, T. … & Lacey-Barnacle, M. (2018): Community energy: Entanglements of community, state, and private sector. Geography compass, 12 (7), 12378. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bruijn, E.; Gerrits, L. (2018): Epistemic communities in urban self-organization: A systematic review and assessment. Journal of Planning Literature, 33 (3), pp. 310–328. doi: 10.1177/0885412218794083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Certeau, M. (1984): The practice of everyday life. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Graaf, L. (2007): Gedragen beleid. Eburon Uitgeverij.
   Google Scholar
• de Oliveira, O. P. (2017): Participatory budgeting transfers in Southern Africa: global players, regional organizations and local actors. In Hadjiisky, M.; Pal, L.A.; Walker C. (eds.), Public Policy Transfer. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 195–221.
   Google Scholar
• De Roo, G. (2016): Self-organization and Spatial Planning: Foundations, Challenges, Constraints and consequences. In de Roo, G; Boelens, L. (eds.), Spatial Planning in a Complex Unpredictable World of Change. Groningen: In Planning
   Google Scholar
• De Roo, G.; Boelens, L. (2016): Planning of undefined becoming; From poststructuralism towards actor-relational opportunities. Planningtheory (12), p. 46–63.
   Google Scholar
• Demaria, F.; Schindler, S. (2016): Contesting urban metabolism: Struggles over waste-to-energy in Delhi, India. Antipode, 48 (2), pp. 293–313. doi: 10.1111/anti.12191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devos, T. (2021): Government Planners and Critical Planning Practices as Allies: Tactics for Socio-Spatial Planning Innovations. disP – The Planning Review, 57 (2), pp. 30–45. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2021.1981009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelenbos, J.; van Meerkerk, I; Schenk, T. (2016): The evolution of community self-organization with government institutions: Cross case insights from three countries; The American Review of Public Administration, 48 (1), Open access; https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016651142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etzioni, A. (1968): The active society; a theory of societal and political processes. Collier-Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1972): The Specialist Versus Generalist Conflict. Oxford Working Papers in Planning Education and Research, 12.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1973): Planningtheory. Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreri, M. (2015): The seductions of temporary urbanism. ephemera, 15 (1), 181.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, W. F. (1997): Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, pp. 439–464. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1996): The dark side of planning: rationality and ‘realrationalitat’. In Mandelbaum, S. J.; Mazza, L.; Burchell, R. W. (eds.), Explorations in planning theory. Rutgers University Press, pp. 383–397.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2017): On the evolution of a critical pragmatism. In Haselsberger, B. (ed.), Encounters in planning thought. New York: Routledge, pp. 298–314.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1968): L’archeologie du savoir. Editions de Minuit.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1975) Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la Prison. Gallimard.
   Google Scholar
• Frissen, P. H. A. (2010): De staat van verschil: een kritiek van de gelijkheid. Van Gennep.
   Google Scholar
• Geddes, P. (1915): Cities in Evolution. Williams & Norgate.
   Google Scholar
• Gunder, M.; Winkler, T. (2021): Onto-Cartography as a Flat Ontological Method for Meta-Ethical Evaluation of Situated Spatial Planning Values. disP – The Planning Review, 57 (2), pp. 78–89. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2021.1981015
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984): Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zwei Bände. Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Haklay, M. (2013): Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and category of participation. In Sui, D. Z.; Elwood, S.; Goodchild, M. F. (eds.), Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Springer, pp. 105–122.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, T. (2022): Land policy for the new land question; inaugural lecture; TU-Dortmund, 21 July 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Hasanov, M.; Zuidema, C. (2018): The transformative power of self-organization: Towards a conceptual framework for understanding local energy initiatives in The Netherlands. Energy Research & Social Science, 37, pp. 85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havik, K.; Pllumbi, D. (2020): Urban Commoning and Architectural Situated Knowledge: The Architects’ Role in the Transformation of the NDSM Ship Wharf, Amsterdam. Architecture and Culture, 8 (2), pp. 289–308. doi: 10.1080/20507828.2020.1766305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hecker, S.; Wicke, N.; Haklay, M.; Bonn, A. (2019): How does policy conceptualise citizen science? A qualitative content analysis of international policy documents. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4 (1), pp. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, F.; Tops, P. W. (2001): Interactieve beleidsvorming en betekenisverlening. Interpretaties van een pluriforme praktijk. Beleid en maatschappij, 28 (2), pp. 106–119.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2021): The “Flatness” of Deleuze and Guattari: Planning the City as a Tree or as a Rhizome? disP – The Planning Review, 57 (2), pp. 16–29. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2021.1981008
   Google Scholar
• Horelli, L.; Saad-Sulonen, J.; Wallin, S.; Botero, A. (2015): When self-organization intersects with urban planning: Two cases from Helsinki. Planning Practice & Research, 30 (3), pp. 286–302. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1052941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huyse, H.; Bachus, K.; Merlevede, T.; Delanoeije, J.; Knipprath, H. (2019): Societal impact of the citizen science project “CurieuzeNeuzen Vlaanderen”. HIVA – Research Institute for Work and Society: Leuven, Belgium.
   Google Scholar
• Kamvasinou, K. (2017): Temporary intervention and long-term legacy: lessons from London case studies. Journal of Urban Design, 22 (2), pp. 187–207. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2015.1071654
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kythreotis, A. P.; Mantyka-Pringle, C.; Mercer, T. G.; Whitmarsh, L. E.; Corner, A.; Paavola, J. … & Castree, N. (2019): Citizen social science for more integrative and effective climate action: a science-policy perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7, 10. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Play, P. G. F. (1862): Instruction sur la méthode d’observation dite des monographies de familles propre a l’ouvrage intitulé Les Ouvriers Européens, par MF Le Play. Au siege de la Société d’économie sociale.
   Google Scholar
• Lehtovuori, P.; Havik, K. (2009): Alternative politics in urban innovation. In Kong, L.; O’Connor, J. (eds.), Creative economies, creative cities: Asian–European perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 207–227.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (1984) Soziale Systeme, Grundriss einer Algemeneinen Theorie; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
   Google Scholar
• Lydon, M.; Garcia, A. (2015): Tactical urbanism: Short-term action for long-term change. Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacGregor, S. (2021): Making matter great again? Ecofeminism, materialism and the everyday turn in environmental politics. Environmental Politics, 30 (1–2), pp. 41–60. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2020.1846954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madanipour, A. (2018): Temporary use of space: Urban processes between flexibility, opportunity and precarity. Urban Studies, 55 (5), pp. 1093–1110. doi: 10.1177/0042098017705546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, M.; Deas, I.; Hincks, S. (2019): The role of temporary use in urban regeneration: Ordinary and extraordinary approaches in Bristol and Liverpool. Planning Practice & Research, 34 (5), pp. 537–557. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2019.1679429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, M.; Hincks, S.; Deas, I. (2020): Temporary use in England’s core cities: Looking beyond the exceptional. Urban Studies, 57 (16), pp. 3381–3401. doi: 10.1177/0042098019898076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heynen, N.; Kaika, M.; Swyngedouw, E. (2006): Urban political ecology: politicizing the production of urban natures. In Heynen, N.; Kaika, M.; Swyngedouw, E. (eds.), In the nature of cities: urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Routledge, pp. 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S.; Rauws, W.; Cozzolino, S. (2020): Forms of self-organization: Urban complexity and planning implications. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47 (2), pp. 220–234.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholls, W. J.; Uitermark, J. (2017): Introduction: planning/resistance. Urban Geography, 38 (4), pp. 512–520. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1168570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novy, A.; Leubolt, B. (2005): Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban studies, 42 (11), pp. 2023–2036. doi: 10.1080/00420980500279828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson, J.; Hysing, E. (2012): Theorizing inside activism: Understanding policymaking and policy change from below. Planning Theory & Practice, 13 (2), pp. 257–273. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.677123
   Google Scholar
• Patti, D.; Polyak, L. (2015): From practice to policy: frameworks for temporary use. Urban Research & Practice, 8 (1), pp. 122–134. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2015.1011422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, M. (2019): Can democracy solve the sustainability crisis? Green politics, grassroots participation and the failure of the sustainability paradigm. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(2), pp. 133–141. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1388657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettinicchio, D. (2012): Institutional activism: reconsidering the insider/outsider dichotomy. Sociology Compass, 6 (6), pp. 499–510. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00465.x
   Google Scholar
• Ploger, J. (2001): Public participation and the art of governance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28 (2), pp. 219–241. doi: 10.1068/b2669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portugali, J. (2011): Complexity, Cognition and the City. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Purdam, K. (2014): Citizen social science and citizen data? Methodological and ethical challenges for social research. Typlogies sociology, 62 (3), pp. 374–392.
   Google Scholar
• Rauws, W. (2016): Civic initiatives in urban development: self-governance versus self-organization in planning practice. Town Planning Review, 87 (3), pp. 339–362. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2016.23
   Google Scholar
• Rauws, W.; De Roo, G. (2016): Adaptive planning: Generating conditions for urban adaptability. Lessons from Dutch organic development strat egies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43 (6), pp. 1052–1074. doi: 10.1177/0265813516658886
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N.; Miller, P. (2017): Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. In Foucault and Law. Routledge, pp. 191–224. doi: 10.4324/9781315094021-9
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2016): Activist planning: A response to the woes of neo-liberalism? European Planning Studies, 24 (7), pp. 1262–1280. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1168784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2019): Activism by lay and professional planners: Types, research issues, and ongoing analysis. plaNext – Next Generation Planning, 8, pp. 32–39. doi: 10.24306/plnxt/44
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W. (ed.) (2018): The Routledge handbook of institutions and planning in action. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, W.; Boelens, L. (2004): De Schaduwstad; Vrijplaatsen in Brussel en Rotterdam. Urban Unlimited.
   Google Scholar
• Schaap, L.; Van Twist, M. (1997): The dynamics of closedness in policy networks. In W. Kickert, E. Klijn; Koppenjan, J. (eds.), Managing complex networks. London: Sage, pp. 62–77.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosberg, D.; Craven, L. (2019): Sustainable materialism: Environmental movements and the politics of everyday life. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shepard, C. (2017): Citymakers: The culture and craft of practical urbanism. The Monacelli Press, LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Strähle, M.; Urban, C. (2022): Inclusion and exclusion in citizen science: A matter of context. In Conference Proceedings of the STS Conference Graz, Graz, pp. 315–329.
   Google Scholar
• Swyngedouw, E.; Heynen, N. C. (2003): Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode, 35 (5), pp. 898–918. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00364.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrens, J.; Johnstone, P.; Schot, J. (2018): Unpacking the formation of favourable environments for urban experimentation: The case of the Bristol Energy Scene. Sustainability, 10 (3), 879. doi: 10.3390/su10030879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L. (1977): Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22 (4), pp. 587–605. doi: 10.2307/2392402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallance, S.; Edwards, S. (2021): Charting New Ground: Between Tactical Urbanism and Strategic Spatial Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, pp. 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Boxstael, A.; Meijer, L. L. J.; Huijben, J. C. C. M.; Romme, A. G. L. (2020): Intermediating the energy transition across spatial boundaries: Cases of Sweden and Spain. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 36, pp. 466-484. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Brussel, S. (2018): The art of governing in the complex mobility transition: the value of adding an Orgware agenda (Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University).
   Google Scholar
• Van Brussel, S.; Huyse, H. (2019): Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engagement in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in Antwerp. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62 (3), pp. 534–551. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1428183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Cammen, H.; De Klerk, L. A. (1993): Ruimtelijke ordening: van plannen komen plannen, de ontwikkelingsgang van de ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland. Aula.
   Google Scholar
• Van Der Arend, S. (2008): Pleitbezorgers, procesmanagers en participanten – Interactief beleid en de rolverdeling tussen overhead en burgers in de Nederlandse democratie. Eburon.
   Google Scholar
• Van Meerkerk, I.; Edelenbos, J. (2014): The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: findings from survey research on urban development projects in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 47 (1), pp. 3–24. doi: 10.1007/s11077-013-9181-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven, I.; Bröer, C. (2015): Contentious governance. Local governmental players as social movement actors. In Duyvendak, J. W.; Jasper, J. (eds.), Breaking down the state. Protestors engaged. Amsterdam University Press, pp. 95–110.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoeven, I.; Duyvendak, J. W. (2017): Understanding governmental activism. Social Movement Studies, 16 (5), pp. 564–577. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2017.1338942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, D. (2018): Tactical urbanism: Delineating a critical praxis. Planning theory & practice, 19 (1), pp.58–73. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1406130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woltjer, G. B. (2007): De economische manier van denken. Coutinho.
   Google Scholar