| dc.description.abstract | Being especially vulnerable for the consequences of climate change, cities worldwide are fully
engaged in developing strategies and policies regarding climate adaptation. Citizen participation
in urban climate adaptation projects is essential in the transition to sustainable cities. The
complexity of this transition requires the involvement of different perspectives and types of
knowledge. However, the challenge in participatory processes often lies in the knowledge
integration between citizens and experts. Literature emphasizes the importance of focussing on
process rather than outcome when it comes to participation. Several authors indicate the need of
developing participatory processes that ensure the actual integration of different types of
knowledge. This thesis therefore focuses on the relationship between citizen participation in the
process of plan-forming in planning projects regarding urban climate adaptation, and the capacity
for knowledge integration between citizens and experts in those projects. The research is
conducted by a case study research design with qualitative methods. By conducting both
document analysis and in-depth interviews, a comprehensive overview is provided of the
relationship between participation methods and knowledge integration capacity.
The results of this study demonstrate that the way in which capacity for knowledge integration
between citizens and experts is formed is closely related to the design of participation. A
recurring theme in the results is the importance of carefully organizing the participation process,
with the focus on that process itself rather than on its outcome. By structuring this process on the
basis of a number of important guidelines, capacity for knowledge integration between citizens
and experts is created. The most important guidelines concern the early involvement of citizens
so that their knowledge and interests are included from the start, building and maintaining
citizens' trust and creating an intensive collaboration between citizens and experts, bridging
differences in knowledge levels. In this way constructive conversations can take place in which
capacity for knowledge integration between citizens and experts is created.
A caveat to the research is that the focus on disadvantaged communities also poses a limitation
in the research. The reason for this limitation lies in the fact that poverty of citizens in
disadvantaged communities can form a barrier in their incentive to participate, due to prejudice
and stigmatization. When citizens did not participate in the investigated cases for this reason,
their voice was not heard in the interviews. In possible follow-up research, a more personal
approach to people could therefore be considered, in order to gain people's trust so that they dare
to speak out. | |
