Collaborative planning to transform urban collective goods : a research on the Ed Pelsterpark and Joris Ivensplein on IJburg

(1)

Collaborative planning to transform urban

collective goods

A research on the Ed Pelsterpark and Joris Ivensplein on IJburg

Milja Vriesema – 10791507 Master Thesis

Urban and Regional Planning Supervisor: Jochem de Vries Second reader: Sara Özogul Words: 23,881

Date: 10-06-2019

(2)

Abstract

On IJburg, two urban collective goods have recently been renewed. The ‘Ed Pelsterpark’ and ‘Joris Ivensplein’ were popular places among teenagers, but this led to complaints about noise nuisance. In addition, residents complained about feelings of unsafety and therefore the squares were believed to be inaccessible to all residents. The municipality decided to use collaborative planning to transform the collective goods. The goal was to design squares that satisfied all stakeholders. This research sheds light on the experiences of the stakeholders of IJburg. It provides insight on how stakeholders have experienced the participation processes. The leading question during the research is: “Has collaborative planning led to truly

collective urban goods, in the case of two squares on IJburg?”. The process and outcome of the collaborative planning

strategies are analyzed through semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders, participatory observations and policy analysis.

(3)

5.2|COLLABORATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY ... 29

5.2.1 | Part two of the process ... 30

5.6|CURRENT EXPERIENCES OF ED PELSTERPARK ... 37

6 |RESULTS: JORIS IVENSPLEIN ... 39

6.1|STAKEHOLDERS’ INTERESTS ... 39

6.1.1 | Residents ... 39

6.1.2 | Shopkeepers ... 40

6.1.3 | Primary school ... 41

6.1.4 | Municipality ... 41

6.2|COLLABORATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY ... 42

6.2.1 | Analysis of stakeholders and their interests ... 42

6.2.3 | Consultation ... 42

(4)

6.2.5 | Placegame ... 43

6.2.6 | The current situation ... 43

6.3|DEMOCRACY ... 44

6.3.1 | Placegame ... 44

6.3.2 | Part two of the process ... 44

6.6|CURRENT EXPERIENCE OF JORIS IVENSPLEIN ... 50

7 |COMPARISON ... 51

8 |CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 54

10.1|TOPIC LIST INTERVIEWS ... 63

10.2|OPERATIONALIZATION ... 65

10.3|CODING SCHEME ... 65

10.4|CODED TRANSCRIPT ... 66

(5)

1 | Introduction

At the beginning of 2012, unrest broke out over the Ed Pelsterpark on IJburg. Centered in the middle of the park was a Johan Cruyff court. This public football field was intensively used by teenagers, who often stayed there till late in the evening (Parool, 2012). A group of residents complained about noise nuisance and argued that the football field had to be removed. According to the complaints, the Johan Cruyff Court not only led to noise nuisance but also feelings of unsafety. Therefore, residents stressed that the square was not attractive for young children (De Brug, 2012). Four years later, the same complaints were made by residents on a square close to the Ed Pelsterpark. A group of residents indicated that the Joris Ivensplein felt unsafe in the evening due to youngsters loitering on the square. According to the residents, the square was not used in a balanced way (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017).

As a response, the municipality decided to transform both squares, using collaborative planning. Collaborative planning is a consensus-oriented planning strategy that brings multiple stakeholders together to engage in policy making (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Through participatory processes the municipality involved residents and other stakeholders to decide about the future of the squares. The goal was to design two products that satisfied all stakeholders. This would then lead to truly urban collective goods, meaning that the squares are equally inclusive to all.

This research sheds light on the experiences of various stakeholders. Their perception on the collaborative planning process and outcome is analyzed. The leading question of the research is: “Has

collaborative planning led to truly collective urban goods, in the case of two squares on IJburg?”. Thus, trough stakeholders’

viewpoint, the goal is to research the influence of collaborative planning on the two public squares. This research aims to find out whether this approach has succeeded in creating products that benefit all stakeholders equally.

This research contributes to society by providing insight on how stakeholders have experienced the consultation processes. Over the last thirty years, collaborative planning has quickly gained popularity. This has changed the executive role of the municipality as well as the role of citizens, in which more responsibility is given to residents. This thesis zooms in on this organizational shift and provides insight on how collaborative planning influences the provision of urban collective goods. Moreover, this thesis can contribute to several scientific debates about collaborative planning. Many scientists question the ideology of the collaborative planning strategy. According to them, certain goals are unrealistic due to asymmetrical power relations (North, 2000). These power differences could influence the outcome of policy. Scientific research on these power relations in collaborative planning focus primarily on stakeholders such as large companies versus individuals, whereas this research focusses on different residential groups inside a community. Finally, the research can contribute to the scientific debate about the role of urban planners in the face of conflict. Scholars have begun to question the general assumption that planners should act as neutral mediators between stakeholders (Murphy & Rogers, 2015). In order to create a collective good,

(6)

should the planner stay neutral in collaborative planning practices or should the planner defend the interest of marginal and disempowered stakeholders?

This research is structured as follows: first, a theoretical framework has been developed to substantiate the main and sub-questions. The framework covers the key concepts of the research and discusses related existing scientific debates. Thereafter, the problem statement is defined, in which the relevance and main and sub-questions are explained in more detail. In the next chapter the methodology of the research is described. This provides insight on choices made for the research strategy. Thereafter, the research process and the gathered results are discussed. This is followed by the conclusion, in which the main question of the research is answered. The results will be linked to the existing debates from the theoretical framework. Finally, the research ends with the discussion and reflection. This provides a critical reflection on the research and recommendations for possible further research.

(7)

2 | Theoretical framework

In this chapter the main concepts of the research are discussed. For my thesis I research two public squares on IJburg. Both squares have been transformed after complaints from a group of residents. This led to a collaborative strategy in which the municipality designed the new public squares together with residents and other stakeholders. Therefore, the main concepts of my research are: urban collective goods and collaborative planning. Examining the existing debates in scientific literature will provide a deeper understanding of these concepts. This analysis serves to substantiate the main and sub-questions.

2.1 | Urban collective goods

The research case of this thesis are two public squares on IJburg, namely the Ed Pelsterpark and the Joris Ivensplein. To research these squares, it is important to gather knowledge about the meaning of an urban collective good.

There are several ways to define an urban collective good. The two most frequently used characteristics are non-excludability and non-rivalry in consumption (Kallhoff, 2014). An urban collective good differs from a private good because it does not possess a clear entrance barrier, meaning that the product is equally accessible to everyone (Kaul et al., 1999). Others can not be excluded from using the resource. Moreover, consuming the resource does not diminish the amount of benefits left for another consumer (Samuelson, 1969). Thus, an urban collective good is indivisible and in joint supply. The products are meant to benefit a collective. It is in the best interest of the population as a whole (Hampton, 1987).

Kallhoff (2014) argues that urban collective goods are extremely important due to their benefits for society. According to Kallhoff (2014, p. 635): “Public goods support social inclusion, they generate the public, and they serve as representations of a shared sense of citizenship”. Kalhoff describes public goods as solidarity goods, identification goods and connectivity goods.Public spaces such as parks and squares invite different people and enables them to interact. These interactions between strangers provide a platform for networking, which becomes increasingly important in modern society (Kallhoff, 2014). Taylor (2002) confirms this. According to him, collective goods become more important because people increasingly meet in virtual places. They can create encounters between individuals, which contributes to a kind of awareness. Each individual at that moment participates in a public realm. They have the same right to do so and both acknowledge each other to participate in that good (Kallhoff, 2014).

Thus, Kallhoff shows that urban collective goods provide benefits for society. In general, the planning and maintenance of these places are important tasks for the municipality. Because urban collective goods are meant to benefit a collective, planners need to consider different interests. Murphy and Fox-Rogers (2015) state that the most prominent characteristic to describe the provision of collective goods refer to ‘balancing different competing interests’ in the planning process. When all interests are equally represented, the urban good is inclusive and therefore collective. Firstly, the interests must be reflected in

(8)

the physical design of the product. The material dimension is an important indicator to measure the inclusiveness of an urban good. For example, are there possibilities for multiple activities? This is an important prerequisite for a product to attract different residential groups. Moreover, an urban good must provide equal access for everyone. For example, planners have to design a product that is also accessible for less mobile groups such as elderly and people with disabilities (Kallhoff, 2014). Secondly, interests can be reflected in immaterial dimensions as well. Certain rules can ensure that all residents make use of the collective good. For example, rules of conduct can diminish feelings of unsafety. Thus, there are material and immaterial dimensions that planners have to consider and balance to ensure that all interests are incorporated in the design of an urban good.

To conclude, an urban collective good must benefit different social groups. Therefore, planners strive to balance different interests in the planning process. Designing a collective good that satisfies the needs of all possible stakeholders is a complex task. For this reason, many urban planners choose a collaborative planning strategy. This was also the case with the two squares on IJburg. The municipality decided to collaborate with stakeholders, who had opposing interests, to transform the squares. In the next chapter, the collaborative planning strategy will be discussed.

2.2 | Collaborative planning

In this chapter, I will discuss the collaborative planning strategy in more detail. First, as an introduction, a short definition will be given of the strategy. Thereafter, the origin, founding theories and key characteristics are described to gather a deeper understanding. Thereafter, existing debates on the strategy are discussed. The chapter ends with an operationalization of the collaborative planning strategy.

2.2.1 | Definition

Collaborative planning is a strategy that brings multiple stakeholders together to engage in decision making (Ansell & Gash, 2008). By widening stakeholder involvement beyond power elites, different forms of local knowledge are recognized and this could lead to a closer relationship between policymakers and citizens (Healey, 1997). Supporters of the collaborative planning strategy emphasize that this inclusive form of planning creates a more democratic and therefore accountable form of governance (Brand & Gaffikin, 2007). Via collaborative planning, policymakers attempt to create inclusive, reflexive and consensus-oriented decision-making. The principal idea is that this leads to outcomes that satisfy all parties involved (Gray, 2000). Therefore, the goal of collaborative planning seems to fit perfectly with the provision of urban collective goods.

(9)

2.2.2 | Origin

The field of urban planning has evolved over the years. Changes in planning practice have been influenced by theoretical shifts and by shifts in the worlds political, economic and social dynamics (Watson, 2016). Various paradigms have guided planners in their practice to efficiently solve urban problems. According to Kobler (2009, p. 2.) “each planning paradigm has a corresponding role for the planner that defines the respective roles of government and citizen and the relationship between them”.

In the period after the Second World War, urban planning was strongly influenced by the forms of the welfare state. This characterized a hierarchical, top-down form of planning (Healey, 1997). Planning was understood as a scientific rationality and planners were seen as the expert. This rational and technical planning model of the 1950s and 1960s was influenced by a positivist epistemology. The model assumed that through “the application of scientific knowledge and reason to human affairs, it would be possible to build a better world, in which the sum of human happiness and welfare would be increased” (Healey, 1992, p. 145). The urban planner managed the planning process without stakeholder engagement (Watson, 2016).

However, this top-down approach of planning led to criticisms among citizens and scientists, claiming that the approach to planning was infeasible and out of touch with reality (Brooks, 2002). Various theorists disagreed with the rationale behind the strategy, which tried to find ‘objective laws’ to govern social behavior (Watson, 2016). As a reaction to the top-down approach of planning, citizens stressed the need for more democratic forms of planning. In addition, there arose a growing awareness of the diversity and complexity of cities. The top-down approach was considered to be inadequate to deal with the complex urban issues. There was an increasing belief in the importance of citizen participation and local knowledge (Kobler, 2009). Thus, collaborative planning ideas emerged as a counter reaction to the top-down planning system.

2.2.3 | Habermas’ communicative theory

Collaborative planning theorists argue the need for a democratic planning model in which dialogues between different stakeholders are central. They substantiate their opinion with Habermas’ theory of communication, which focuses on how power operates in processes of dialogue (Watson, 2016).

Habermas recognizes a consensual nature of discourse in the public sphere. Rational and democratic humans are able to reach consensus through the process of communication (Watson, 2016). Important are certain criteria or discourse ethics to guide communication processes. This prevents communication to become distorted. According to Habermas (1990), existing power differences between stakeholders can be neutralized, if planning processes are inclusive, empathetic and open. Habermas does not deny power differences between stakeholders, but believes that correctly managed communication processes enable voluntary consensus agreements. Differences between actors can be overcome through argumentation. Healey (1999) emphasizes this: “the power of dominant discourses can be challenged at the level of dialogue; through the power of knowledgeable, reflective discourse; through good arguments; and

(10)

through the transformations that come as people learn to understand and respect each other across their differences and conflicts” (Healey, 1999, p. 119).

Thus, Habermas and other collaborative planning theorists believe in a planning strategy in which communication between different stakeholders is central. They believe that stakeholders are able to participate in a dialogue on relatively equal terms (Watson, 2016). Existing power imbalances or conflicting perspectives should not influence the planning process. When discourse ethics and dialogue guidelines are well managed, these differences can be accommodated and consensus can be reached.

Habermas’ communicative theory has inspired many collaborative planning theorists. Some of the ideas are central in the collaborative planning strategy. In the next chapter, the key characteristics of the strategy are described in more detailed.

2.2.4 | Key characteristics of collaborative planning

I have already shown some key characteristics, on which I will now elaborate. First of all, collaborative planning arose as a counter reaction to the top-down form of planning. Urban planners did not involve other stakeholders into the planning process. Critics argued that this approach was out of touch with reality and inadequate in dealing with complex urban issues (Brooks, 2002). By including different stakeholders into the planning process, different forms of knowledge are acknowledged. Therefore, a key characteristic of collaborative planning is democracy. The strategy brings multiple stakeholders together in common forums with public agencies to engage in decision making (Ansell & Gash, 2008). By giving all stakeholders a voice, power to influence policy outcomes shifts beyond power elites. The democratic nature of collaborative planning is important to reach the end goal: creating a product that satisfies the involved stakeholders.

Another key characteristic of collaborative planning is the goal to seek consensus-oriented solutions between stakeholders, as Habermas argued (1990). Different stakeholders with divergent interests participate in the planning process. The goal is to seek consensus rather than use the majority rule. Planners attempt to assure that all interests are heard and respected and to find solutions offering mutual gain (Innes & Booher, 1999). The collaborative planning strategy is based on the assumption that conflicting opinions between stakeholders can be accommodated into a consensus seeking process (Flyvbjerg, 1998). Differences between stakeholders can be overcome through argumentation and asymmetrical power balances between actors can be neutralized through an inclusive and open process (Healey, 1999).

Finally, another important feature of collaborative planning is the role of the planner. As mentioned before, an open process is needed in which stakeholders are equally respected, informed and listened to (Innes & Booher, 1999). The urban planner manages the process and guides the discussions. Therefore, urban planners are important actors to help achieve democracy and consensus. The planner needs to make sure participants abide the discussion guidelines.

Thus, democracy, consensus and the planner are central characteristics of the collaborative planning strategy. The idea is that these characteristics will provide a product or policy that benefits all parties

(11)

involved and is therefore truly collective. Thus, if the process is well managed by the planner and democracy and consensus is reached, it could be argued that all interests are represented during the process. Democracy, consensus and the role of the urban planner will be further operationalized, but first discussions about the collaborative planning process are discussed.

2.2.5 | Critiques on the collaborative planning process

Collaborative planning has been increasingly used in planning practices. However, the strategy has also received criticism. Various scientists stress that “the consensus approach has been disparaged as a tool for taming people, accused of strengthening established agendas and giving them a pseudo-democratic look, whereby disagreements are neither heard nor accommodated but rather circumvented or ignored” (Tasan-Kok and Özdemir, 2019, p. 742).

Moreover, there are several discussions on the goals of the strategy. According to Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998) the problem of collaborative planning is its idealism and utopianism. A central focus in collaborative planning is its strive for consensus. However, when dealing with conflicting interests, a question that arises is: to what extent is consensus achievable? Consensus focuses on common goal-setting, whereby actors have an eye for the way in which their own interests can be brought into line with the interests of other actors. Negotiations aimed at establishing consensus require mutual openness about information between stakeholders (De Vries, 2002). However, is this possible when dealing with conflicting interests? Scharpf (1997) questions this by describing what he calls the ‘negotiation dilemma’. During consensus seeking negotiations, all stakeholders are expected to be honest and obtain an open attitude. This requires a great deal of mutual trust. However, with conflicting interests, certain topics might remain on the hidden agenda. Stakeholders are often afraid of being at risk of exploitation if they are too open and cooperative. Therefore, van den Hove (2006, p. 12) stresses that: "consensus is far from always achievable and compromises will have to be found". It is difficult, and often impossible for actors to completely set aside their personal interests and to concentrate on common interests. In addition, in some cases it is impossible to even find a common interest. As a result, when faced with a complex issue, “conflicts and particular interests might be kept hidden to allow for strategic use of the process” (van den Hove, 2016, p. 13). A danger exists in which actors pretend to strive for consensus and act transparent, while secretly pursuing individual interests. This can cause drawbacks or even failure of participatory processes.

Thus, hidden manipulation is a threat in collaborative planning practices. When dealing with conflicting interests, consensus is difficult to achieve. Are compromises not a more realistic and feasible outcome? This form of negotiation is less sensitive to manipulation because individual interests are central and no attempt is made to merge conflicting interests (van den Hove, 2016).

Various scientists also question the process of collaborative planning. These questions focus on traditional problems of participation and complex configuration of power relations. The collaborative planning approach rests firmly on the foundation of broadly inclusive participation. However, this ideal of inclusiveness in planning has led to a debate. Every stakeholder should have the opportunity to participate,

(12)

but often the practical outcomes of collaborative exercises are ruled by active locals (Nienhuis et al., 2011). Some stakeholders are less familiar with the planning process than others, and are therefore directly placed in a disadvantage. For example, certain members lack knowledge about bureaucratic processes. Those who are involved in participation processes are often the more powerful stakeholders in society, which reinforces existing power structures (Tewdwr-Jones & Thomas, 1998). Collaborative planning practices could result in the overrepresentation of the problems of active locals, and at the same time the underrepresentation of the problems of non-participants (Nienhuis et al., 2001).

Various planning theorists suggest that non-participation in collaborative planning practices is due to disempowerment. Nienhuis et al., (2011) argue that there are more reasons behind non-participation. For example, the indicator “belongingness to the community” could explain differences with respect to participation. An individual with a high sense of community is more likely to participate in neighborhood projects. Moreover, students and teenagers are often under-represented in the active locals’ category (Nienhuis et al., 2011). Therefore, non-participation could result in an unbalanced representation of values and interests. Often, collaborative planning has a structural bias towards the inclusion of some members of the community over others (Anderson, 2008). Thus, the democratic nature of collaborative planning could be questioned.

Another debate focusses on power relations between stakeholders during the process. A key characteristic of the collaborative planning theory is its empowerment for involved stakeholders. The strategy gives individuals the opportunity to be listened to through open discussions. By widening stakeholder involvement, the power to influence decisions moves beyond power elites (Healey, 1997). However, some scientists claim that this is unrealistic. According to them, equal and open dialogues are impossible due to asymmetrical power relationships between stakeholders (North, 2000). These power differences are seen as a barrier towards consensus-oriented solutions. Fox-Rogers and Murphy (2015) demonstrate how often powerful stakeholders use collaborative planning to reshape urban spaces in their favor. Therefore, the strategy is criticized for reinforcing the status quo (Bengs, 2005; Purcell, 2009).

Scientific literature on asymmetrical power relations focusses mainly on large companies. In this research, the stakeholders are different social groups in the neighborhood. So, who are the power elites in this case? Nienhuis et al. (2011) argue that active locals in a community often rule the collaborative exercises. Therefore, the outcome often favors a small group of active residents who are most visible. In this case, the power elites could be the residents who complain about the teenagers. In addition, teenagers are often under-represented in participatory exercises (Nienhuis et al., 2011). In the case of the two squares on IJburg, the teenagers are a large social group who consume the squares. Therefore, they are believed to be important stakeholders to include in the process. Thus, this could result in asymmetrical power relations. It is assumable that the teenagers are less familiar with planning and bureaucratic processes in comparison to the active locals in the neighborhood. Therefore, they are directly placed in a disadvantage. Moreover, their difference in age could be a barrier towards open and equal dialogues. Collaborative planning is a strategy in which good argumentation is central. For teenagers it might be more difficult to defend their interests.

(13)

The capability to formulate clear argumentation is influenced by age, experience and schooling. Thus, to what extent are open and equal dialogues possible between teenagers and active locals?

Finally, these two debates raise questions about the role of the urban planner. Urban planners are important actors who manage the collaborative process. There has been a general assumption that planners should act as neutral mediators between stakeholders (Murphy & Rogers, 2015). However, as the two debates have shown, non-participation and power differences could be seen as barriers towards an equal and democratic planning process. Socio-economic groups with the largest financial resources and political power are often the most capable of defending their interests. Therefore, Davidoff (1965) argued that planners must represent the interests of marginalized groups in society. For this thesis, an essential question is whether the planner should stay neutral in collaborative planning practices or whether the planner should defend the interest of marginal and disempowered stakeholders in order to create a truly urban collective good?

To conclude, there are various debates about the ideology and feasibility of the collaborative planning strategy. Is the strategy truly democratic, and if so, is consensus possible due to asymmetrical power relations? Is an urban planner able to neutralize these power relations and create an equal process? If this is not possible, this could result in a non-collective good in which some interests are valued over others. Thus, in order to measure whether a collaborative planning process is truly representing all divergent interests, it is important to gather a deeper understanding of the key characteristics. When is a process truly democratic and consensus oriented? What are the specific guidelines for planners to oversee the process?

2.2.6 | Democracy

As mentioned before, democracy is a key characteristic of the collaborative planning approach. By involving different stakeholders into the planning process, the method attempts to create a product that satisfies all involved parties. But what does it mean to create a democratic process and how can we analyze the democratic effects of collaborative planning processes? This paragraph will provide an operationalization. For my research I use four norms to analyze the democratic nature of the collaborative planning process. The criteria are based on traditional democratic norms described by Dahl (1998) and strengthened by the literature on collaborative planning.

The first criterion of strong democracy is participation. The process must be inclusive and therefore active citizenry is a requirement. The meetings must be easily accessible so that no one is excluded from the process (Agger & Löfgren, 2008). Moreover, as critics have argued, some stakeholders all less able to participate due to barriers. For example, some residents lack time to go to the collaborative meetings. Another barrier could be the language. Some residents might lack Dutch language skills and therefore choose not to participate in discussions. The planners who oversee the collaborative process, must provide the opportunity for them to be heard as well. Thus, organizing meetings is not always enough. The planners need to include them, and this could mean approaching them outside the organized meetings.

(14)

The second criterion is representation. Representatives from all relevant social groups must be included into the process (Dahl, 1998). Studies have shown that structural inequalities make it more difficult for certain groups to participate (Fung, 2004). The planning process must seek to involve all social groups. When, due to certain barriers this is impossible, the planners must seek to find a representative for this group. A person who is in contact with the social group, knows their interests and comes to the meetings to secure that their interests are included.

The third criterion is transparency, which means that planners communicate their intentions and actions clearly throughout a process (Gregg, 2009). The process must be transparent to a wide public. Thus, the process and outcome of collaborative planning should be transparent to those who participate but also to those who do not actively participate, but still want to be informed (Agger & Löfgren, 2008). This should provide insight to stakeholders on how certain decisions are made (Dahl, 1998). Transparency is important to create mutual trust between planners and other stakeholders (Horne, 2012). The act of transparency must be broad so that different social groups are informed. Thus, different methods for transparency are needed. For example, online information on the process excludes stakeholders without a phone or computer. Thus, a process must be transparent, offering information to stakeholders in multiple ways.

Finally, the fourth criterion is public deliberation. Individuals must be able to express their opinion and question the status quo. This criterion is important to analyze the quality of participation. Discussions must be open and tolerant, in order for participants to feel safe and give their opinion. Moreover, attitudes should not be excluded beforehand and certain stakeholders must not be granted greater privilege than others (Agger & Löfgren, 2008). To accomplish this, the urban planner must oversee the process.

Thus, in this research four norms will be used to analyze the quality of democracy in collaborative planning processes. These criteria are: (1) inclusiveness, (2) representation (3) transparency, and (4) public deliberation.

2.2.7 | Consensus

The collaborative planning strategy does not seek to find a solution that benefits a majority. Instead, the approach seeks a consensus-oriented solution that offers mutual gain for all involved stakeholders. Innes & Booher (1999) provide a theoretical framework to evaluate consensus building processes. According to them, “consensus building processes are not only about producing agreements and plans but also about experimentation, learning, change, and building shared meaning” (Innes & Booher, 1999, p. 412).

In evaluating the outcome of consensus building processes, the authors distinguish between tangible products and intangible products. A tangible product is easy to recognize. Examples are formal agreements, in the form of plans, policies or legislation. Tangible products can also be innovations, a new strategy, action or set of ideas that change the direction of policy. This is the most common criterion for evaluating a consensus process; asking whether it produced agreements between stakeholders. However, quality matters. The agreements should be of high quality, producing mutual gain solutions. The agreements should be regarded as fair, due to the inclusiveness of the process. Moreover, it is important that the

(15)

agreements take into account the different knowledge offered by each stakeholder. Finally, the agreement should be defined in a way that all stakeholders accept and understand (Innes & Booher, 1999).

Outcomes of the process also include intangible products. These are described as social, intellectual and political capital (Gruber, 1994). In a consensus process, stakeholders can gain social capital by establishing new or stronger relationships with each other. This helps to build up trust and allows for genuine communication. Hostile feelings for each other diminish and actors are more likely to share knowledge and negotiate (Innes & Booher, 1999). Another possible outcome of consensus processes is intellectual capital. The dialogues between stakeholders can provide a mutual understanding of each other’s interests. It can also help create a shared definition of the problem. This has proven to reduce areas of conflict. Finally, during the process, stakeholders can develop political capital. This provides them the ability to work together for agreed ends outside of the consensus building process (Innes & Booher, 1999). Thus, consensus building processes can provide tangible and intangible outcomes. It can be regarded as successful when high quality agreements are established, offering mutual gain for stakeholders. Moreover, the process can develop different forms of capital among the participants. Consensus building can be experienced as joint learning, in which new relationships, believes and discourses are formed. It can provide a mutual understanding and diminish hostile feelings. These are important outcomes to evaluate, to determine whether a solution has led to consensus.

2.2.8 | Role of the planner

Democracy and consensus are key characteristics to establish a collective policy outcome. However, creating a democratic process and seeking consensus is a complex task. The process needs to be managed by an urban planner to prevent inequality. Planners should “cultivate a broad repertoire of skills and strategies for planning in the face of conflict” (Forester, 2006, p. 454).

Habermas (1990) set up certain criteria and discourse ethics for the planner to guide communication. This was needed to prevent miscommunication and to neutralize existing power differences between stakeholders. These guidelines serve as a foundation for collaborative group experiences (Gareis, 2010). Habermas (1990) describes four conditions: (1) no stakeholder is excluded from making a contribution, (2) stakeholders have an equal voice and an equal chance to make arguments, (3) the stakeholders are honest with each other, and (4) the process is without coercion.

Thus, the process must be inclusive, empathetic and open. Urban planners must engage participants into the process and keep them interested (Innes & Booher, 1999). The discussions should be fair and respectful in order to make the participants feel safe. Moreover, an urban planner must inform all participants equally and the stakeholders should be equally listened to. There should be no hierarchy between stakeholders. Instead, the marginal stakeholders must be able to question the status quo and question certain assumptions (Innes & Booher, 1999).

Tasan-Kok and Özdemir (2019) also stress the importance of the role of the planner in accommodating disagreements of citizens in consensus-building practices. Their central argument is that

(16)

planners could facilitate consensus between citizens through different roles that highlight planners’ proactive, adaptive and more human stance. The authors distinguish three different roles for planners when dealing with disagreement. These roles are: brainstormers, professional companions and co-creators.

Planners as brainstormers engage in discussions and investigate the different needs and opinions. The planners provide residents with tools to express their opinion. Examples are surveys, both online and face-to-face. Moreover, debates and discussions are arranged to draw residents into the ‘process of thinking’ (Tasan-Kok & Özdemir, 2019). The second role is the planner as professional companion. In this role the planner gets close to the residents and tries to imagine their lived experience. This helps the planner to understand the opinions and disagreements between residents. A proactive stance of the planner is needed to understand the problem from citizens’ perspectives. By spending time with residents the planner gathers a deeper understanding and this helps create a solution. Therefore, informal contact between planners and citizens is important. For example, a planner could visit residents inside their homes to listen to their interests (Tasan-Kok & Özdemir, 2019). Finally, the third role is the planner as co-creator, whereby the planner gives residents the opportunity to plan an area. In this practice, the planner acts as an advisor of the residents. In workshops, residents design a certain area and planners communicate the possible consequences. Together they come up with a plan. In order to accomplish this, the planner needs to have good listening and visualization skills (Tasan-Kok & Özdemir, 2019).

Thus, Tasan-Kok and Özdemir (2019) examined consensus from the standpoint of the planner. They distinguished three roles of urban planners: the brainstormer, professional companion and co-creator. The authors stress that difficulty to achieve consensus should not prevent planners from striving for it. “Planning is an instrument for consensus-building where planners have key roles” (Tasan-Kok & Özdemir, 2019, p. 746). Consensus is possible when urban planners highlight their human stance. Planners’ agency towards disagreements as ‘humans’ instead of only experts, aiming to understand residents’ interests, demonstrates how planners can strive for consensus.

To conclude, urban planners are important agents to achieve consensus. The urban planner must create a safe environment in which discussions are open-minded and stakeholders can question certain assumptions. Power structures must be neutralized so that all stakeholders have an equal ability to speak. If the urban planner manages to arrange these conditions, arguments can be weighed purely on their merit. This optimizes the value of discussions (Gareis, 2010). Moreover, Tasan-Kok and Özdemir (2019) demonstrate how consensus can be achieved when planners highlight their ‘human’ side instead of being the ‘expert’. Through different roles, the planners create a safe environment for residents to participate in consensus practices. A proactive stance is needed that reinforces formal an informal contact between the planner and residents.

(17)

2.3 | Summary

In this theoretical chapter, many concepts have been mentioned about the ideal process and outcome of the collaborative planning strategy. In short, the goal of collaborative planning is to create a product in which different interests are balanced. This would then create an urban collective good. In order to do this, the process must be democratic and consensus-oriented. However, the ideology behind collaborative planning has received critique. According to critics, a democratic and consensus-oriented process is unrealistic due to unequal power relations between stakeholders. As a response, many believers of collaborative planning emphasize the central role of urban planners. In order to make a collaborative planning practice reach its goals, the process must be closely managed by a planner. The planner must create an open process and neutralize existing power differences. If this succeeds, the process should lead to the desired outcome in which different interests are reflected and consensus is reached.

The table below provides an overview of the central concepts of my research.

Table 1: Conceptual framework

Stakeholders Process Outcome:

An urban collective good? Who are the stakeholders?

Who participates and who doesn’t?

Inclusiveness Equal representation

Equality between stakeholders Power differences Democratic Equality Inclusiveness Transparency Public deliberation Accountability Honesty Non-excludability & Non-rivalry in consumption Reflection of local knowledge Consensus

Reflecting different interests in material & immaterial dimensions Consensus-oriented Tangible products: High-quality agreements Intangible products: Social capital Intellectual capital Political capital Material dimensions The physical design Setting

Role planer

Discourse ethics/communication guidelines:

Creating discourse rules for meetings Open process & open dialogues Neutralizing power differences Creating transparency & informing stakeholders

Reflexive

Balancing different interests Planners as brainstormers Planners as co-creator

Planners as professional companion

Immaterial dimensions Rules

(18)

3 | Problem statement

In this chapter, the main and sub-questions are introduced, an overview is given of the conceptual model and the social and scientific relevance are explained in more detail.

3.1 | Problem

IJburg is a residential area in Amsterdam where many children live. In 2016, 34% of the population consisted of children, while the average in Amsterdam is 18%. This number is continuing to grow and the children are getting older. Residents often complain about nuisance caused by teenagers loitering in public spaces (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). This was also the case with the two urban collective goods: Ed Pelsterpark and Joris Ivensplein. The two squares were intensively used by teenagers, who enjoyed meeting there and playing sports.

However, after complains from a group of residents, the municipality decided to transform the squares. Through collaborative planning, the municipality intended to solve the problems caused by the teenagers. The goal was to create more balanced collective goods, which all residents would appreciate.

3.2 | Research question

Collaborative planning is a popular strategy among urban planners. Because of the democratic and consensus-oriented nature of the approach, the strategy is believed to fit perfectly with the provision of urban collective goods. This research focusses on the experiences of stakeholders on IJburg. The leading question of the research is: “Has collaborative planning led to truly collective urban goods, in the case of two squares on

IJburg?”. The research focusses on the process as well as the outcome and tries to find a connection. An

urban collective good is an inclusive product. The material and immaterial dimensions of the square must reflect the different interests.

3.3 | Sub-questions

In order to answer the main question, six sub-questions are formulated.

The first research question is: What are the divergent interests of the different stakeholders of the of the collective goods? This sub-question is introductory and descriptive in nature. Answers to this question provide a deeper understanding of the two cases. First, it will become clear who the different stakeholders are, and how they use the square or want to use it. This helps to gather an understanding of the problem and why the squares needed to be transformed. Moreover, the information is important to analyze the transformed collective goods. To study to what extent the squares are collective, knowledge must be gathered about the different

(19)

and possible conflicting interests. Thereafter, it can be evaluated whether the different interests are incorporated in the transformed goods.

The second sub-question is: How are the two collaborative planning strategies organized?

This question is practical. Answers to the question provide information about the collaborative planning strategies. What methods were used to incorporate different stakeholders in the policy making? Moreover, answers provide an overview of the time-lapse of the two processes. To answer the question, urban planners of the municipality are interviewed. This question focusses on part 1 of the conceptual model (see below). The third sub-question is: How did stakeholders experience the democracy of the collaborative planning strategy? Democracy is one of the key characteristics of collaborative planning, and is also important to achieve urban collective goods. Participants will be asked about the process’ inclusiveness, the representation, public deliberation and transparency. These are four concepts that are often mentioned in scientific literature to measure democracy outcomes (Agger & Löfgren, 2008).

Thus, this question focuses on the relation between the collaborative planning strategy and democracy (1a in the conceptual model). Do the different stakeholders believe that collaborative planning leads to a democratic process?

The fourth sub-question is: How did the stakeholders experience the consensus building process?

This question focusses on the other key characteristic of collaborative planning. Through collaborative planning urban planners seek to find consensus between stakeholders. To measure participants’ experience of consensus, this research uses the indicators described by Innes & Booher (1999). Innes and Booher distinguish tangible and intangible outcomes. Tangible outcomes are high quality agreements, offering mutual gain for stakeholders. Intangible outcomes are social, intellectual and political capital. This question focuses on the relation between collaborative planning and consensus. Does the strategy ensure a consensus-oriented process? Thus, the question answers part 1b of the conceptual model.

The fifth question is: What role did the planner take during the process?

According to collaborative planning theorists, an important aspect is managing the process. Collaborative planning will only succeed when dialogues between stakeholders are closely guided. Habermas (1990) set up criteria for the urban planner to maintain. These guidelines focus on inclusiveness and creating an equal and honest process without coercion. The planner must create a safe environment and neutralize power differences. Answers to this question provide insight on how stakeholders and the planners themselves have experienced their role. Did they try to follow these guidelines and if so, did this help achieve a democratic and consensus-oriented process? Thus, this question focuses on part 1c of the conceptual model.

Finally, the last question is: How do stakeholders experience the new squares?

(20)

To measure this, stakeholders will be asked questions about the material and immaterial dimensions of the squares. Are the different interests represented in the physical design as well as in certain rules? Moreover, how do they link this to the process?

3.4 | Conceptual framework

Figure 1: Conceptual model

In this research I analyze two collaborative planning processes. Based on scientific literature, three key characteristics are used as indicators to measure the stakeholders’ experience of the process. Democracy, consensus and the planner are features that should lead to a process in which all stakeholders’ interests are equally represented. If this succeeds, it could be argued that the two transformed squares are truly urban collective goods.

3.5 | Societal and scientific relevance

Over the last thirty years, collaborative planning has gained popularity and this has changed the roles of government and citizen. A new relationship has arisen in which more responsibility is given to citizens. The gathered data from this research informs urban planners about participants’ experiences of the collaborative planning process and outcome. Thus, the gathered data provides insight on this new relationship and how this influences the provision of urban collective goods. The outcome can serve as an evaluation on the collaborative planning strategy. The information can indicate possible improvements to better future

(21)

planning processes.

Moreover, this research ties in to scientific debates about the collaborative planning strategy. Several scientists question the ideology of collaborative planning. According to them, open dialogues and equal processes are unrealistic due to asymmetrical power relations. This research provides different stakeholders’ perceptions on the process and how they experienced power structures. Is it possible to neutralize these power structures during dialogues? Another debate focusses on the role of the urban planner. Urban planners have the role to guide the collaborative planning process. They oversee the dialogues between stakeholders and are in charge of creating a safe environment. According to theorists, planners need to neutralize power differences in order to create an equal process. Therefore, the planner must mediate between stakeholders. However, some scientists question the assumption that planners must be neutral, and argue that planners must defend marginal and disempowered stakeholders. What is the best method to achieve an urban collective good? Which role should the planner take when faced with conflicting interests?

(22)

4 | Methodology

4.1 | Research strategy

This research aims to provide insight into different stakeholders’ experiences concerning the collaborative planning processes. The stakeholders are residents living close to the squares. These consist of young children, teenagers, students, adults with and without children and elderly. Most respondents live in houses bordering the square. Some teenagers do not live directly next to the square but were interviewed because they frequently use the collective goods. There are several shops located at the Joris Ivensplein and therefore their staff is also considered to be a stakeholder. Finally, at the Joris Ivensplein is a primary school located and at the Ed pelsterpark a children day-care and autism center. They are also a stakeholder. There is investigated whether collaborative planning has led to the representation of all divergent interests. This is an important condition for creating an urban collective good. In order to gain insight into stakeholders’ perceptions, it is best to use a qualitative research strategy. This gives the opportunity to go in depth about the subject. Based on the experience of stakeholders, a contribution can be made to theoretical debates about the collaborative planning strategy.

This research is based on the interpretivist epistemology. Interpretivism is based on giving meanings to actions (Bryman, 2012, page 32). In this research, subjective knowledge is acquired from social interactions. The aim is to discover the interpretation of different stakeholders.

4.2 | Design

To answer the main question of the research, a case study is performed. This design enables the researcher to gather a detailed understanding of the context. The spatial dimension is very important to this research. Moreover, a case study offers the possibility to go in depth. Collaborative planning is a complex strategy that requires a detailed and intensive analysis. A disadvantage of the case study design is that results only apply to one specific case. This makes it more difficult to generalize (Bryman, 2012). Therefore, in this research the choice is made to analyze two collaborative planning processes with corresponding characteristics. Results from this comparative case study can lead to new insights and ideas on collaborative planning. The information can serve as recommendations for future planning policy.

4.3 | Method

To answer the sub-questions, different sources of data are used. These are semi-structured interviews, participatory observations, policy documents and online data such as forums and news pages.

The first question focusses on the divergent interests of stakeholders. For this question, the primary source of data collection is in-depth interviews. Through semi-structured interviews, various stakeholders

(23)

were asked about their concerns and interests. In addition, online data and policy documents were analyzed to gather information about the different interests. These documents provided insight into the notes that were made during the process. This informs about the discussions and feelings that were present during the consultation processes.

For the second question, urban planners from the municipality were interviewed about the organization of the collaborative planning processes. A general interview schedule was drawn up to structure the interviews. However, the structure was not completely fixed. This provided the opportunity to occasionally go more in depth on certain comments. Moreover, policy analysis was used as background information to prepare for the interviews. Detailed policy documents were available to analyze the Joris Ivensplein. The municipality kept accurate notes of the first two meetings and made summaries. Unfortunately, there are fewer policy documents available from the Ed Pelsterpark. Therefore, information about the collaborative process of the Ed Pelsterpark is primarily gathered from the interview with the planner of the municipality.

To answer the third, fourth and fifth question, the stakeholders and the planners from the municipality were interviewed. These interviews were semi-structured and focused on the key characteristics of collaborative planning (democracy, consensus and the role of the planner). The participants were asked about their experience of the collaborative planning process. Moreover, the planning process of the Joris Ivensplein is still ongoing. Participatory meetings with stakeholders are still being organized. Therefore, one of these meetings is observed. This provided insight on the different attendees and the interactions that took place during the meeting. In addition, it provided insight on the role of the planner during the discussions.

Finally, for the last question stakeholders were asked about their opinion of the transformed squares. Besides the interviews, data was collected through participatory observations. The participatory observations were gathered on weekdays and during the weekend, at different times of the day: in the morning, afternoon and evening. On the two squares, I observed who uses the collective goods and how. What are the activities? During the observations, I occasionally asked questions to people on the square. What are their experiences with the squares and were they aware of the participatory processes? If so, did they participate in the collaborative planning process? The observations provided a picture of the different consumers of the squares and how they relate to each other. What kind of interactions take place? The observations provided information on how the stakeholders experience the transformed squares.

By combining different methods, the research is strengthened. This led to triangulation, when the same conclusions come from different sources (Bryman, 2012). The data gathering started with collecting policy documents and online data on the two cases. This provided useful background information. Thereafter, I observed on the two sites to see who uses the square and learn about different interests. This informed me about the daily activities at the square. Finally, the respondents were interviewed. The data from the two cases were collected simultaneously. This choice was made because of practical reasons. Some of the residents use both squares and could therefore be interviewed on both cases. Moreover, this ensured that the same amount of time was spent on both squares. This provided the best method to compare the

(24)

squares equally.

4.4 | Research population

The research population consists of several stakeholders. The largest group are the residents living around the squares. These are young children, teenagers, students, adults with and without children and elderly. Shop employees, the primary school, the autism center and urban planners from the municipality who oversaw the processes were also questioned. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted. First, I interviewed the urban planners from the municipality to get a narrative story about the process. Thereafter, the other stakeholders were interviewed. Access to the target groups is obtained through convenience sampling and snowball sampling. During the participatory observations, information is gathered on who uses the square and who lives around it. They were approached and asked about the process. From then on, a snowball effect arose, in which they helped me approach others from their network.

4.5 | Data analysis

The collected data consists of fourteen semi-structured interviews, policy analysis and notes from the participatory observations. During the observations, notes were written down in a scheme. This scheme allowed me to structure my notes by describing the situation, setting, characters, script and stage. In addition, in the diary I wrote about my feelings during the observations. How do the observations fit into my research and how is the atmosphere on the squares?

Table 2: Observation scheme (Verloo, 2019)

The interviews are transcribed directly after the recordings and coded in Dutch. The conceptual framework (see table 1 in the theoretical framework) helped structure the interview findings. Labels were assigned to certain pieces of texts. Thus, these labels are based on the concepts from the theoretical chapter. During

Scheme for participant observations Situation

(what do you see?)

Fieldnotes

(be specific and descriptive) Diary (what do

you think/feel?) Logbook (what method did you use?) Setting (where?) Characters (who) Script (what is expected in the context?) Staging (What do they do action-reaction)

(25)

this process, the program Atlas Ti was used. The policy documents and notes from the participatory observations were also analyzed through this system of coding. Besides Atlas Ti, a case-study database is made to collect all gathered data in a chronical order. This increased the reliability of the case-study (Yin, 2017).

The data is analyzed in an iterative manner. During the research, data collection and analysis alternate. There was a constant back and forth between the data, concepts, categories and theories (Bryman, 2012).

4.6 | Ethical accountability

In this study, the respondents were given the choice whether to be anonymously processed. In advance I guaranteed full anonymity if they chose accordingly. Most respondents chose to remain anonymous during the research. To name these respondents I used aliases. However, some respondents indicated to have no objection against their names being used. If so, I used their actual names in this research. The interviews were conducted with respondents at home or in a cafe. The respondents chose which location they preferred, to allow for a comfortable environment for the respondents to talk about their experiences. This is an important aspect for the research, so that respondents feel freely to talk. A confidential environment can make them feel at ease and more open to the interview. It was clearly explained in advance what the research is about and what will be done with the results. If the respondents did not want to answer a questions because of certain feelings, this was not a problem. This was indicated in advance to all respondents. Moreover, during the participatory observations, I obtained an open attitude. When someone approached me, I explained them about the research.

(26)

5 | Results: Ed Pelsterpark

In the following three chapters I discuss the results of the research. In the first chapter I discuss the Ed Pelsterpark. By answering the sub-questions, the cases will be analyzed in more detail. In the second chapter I discuss the Joris Ivensplein. Finally, I compare the two squares.

Source: Google Maps

5.1 | Stakeholders’ interests

The Ed Pelsterpark is a centrally located park on IJburg. In the park, the municipality decided to install a Johan Cruyff court (a football pitch made of artificial grass). Before the houses bordering on the park were allocated, the municipality expected that many of these would be filled up by families – consisting of parents and children. Therefore, a football field seemed like a good idea to get the youth to play outside and exercise. This plan succeeded. The court became incredibly popular amongst youth. It became a meeting place for them, and even teenagers from other parts of the city came to the park to hang out and play football. However, as a result, local residents suffered from noise disturbance. According to their complaints, many teenagers stayed at the court until late in the evening, causing parents and their children difficulty falling asleep (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011). This group of local residents went to the municipality to file their complaints and the municipality decided to investigate the situation. Something had to change in order to fulfil the interests of all residents of IJburg.

The municipality soon discovered there was a clear dichotomy in the neighborhood. There were proponents and opponents of the Johan Cruyff court. These two groups lived extremely separate from each other. The opponents of the football pitch mainly lived on one side of the court, and the proponents on the other side. Thus, this dividing line was clearly visible, both physically and socially. The owner-occupied homes were against the court, while the social housing unites were in favor of the court. As Lieke Thesingh, former alderman of district East of Amsterdam indicated: “In the neighborhood a rich-poor contrast emerged and

(27)

this was accompanied by a native-immigrant contrast. […] These contrasts played an important role in the entire process. There was never a strong community feeling because the neighborhood was divided into these two groups. The dichotomy in the neighborhood increased when the groups divided into proponents and opponents of the Johan Cruyff court. The football pitch aggravated the situation”.

5.1.1 | Opponents

The opponents, a group living directly next to the square, had four distinct complaints. First of all, they experienced a lot of noise disturbance. The square was extremely popular and often teenagers stayed till late in the evening. As a result, parents and their children had trouble falling asleep. The second complaint was about waste on and around the football pitch. Teenagers often ate and drank at the court and were indifferent about cleaning up after themselves. According to the residents, many teenagers only came to the park to meet and listen to music. They did not come to play football yet stayed until late in the evening. Even more so, sometimes teenagers used drugs on the court. Some parents found nitrous oxide cartridges, also known as laughing gas patterns. This is a legal drug that teenagers inhale through a balloon to achieve a high. As a result, some local residents felt unsafe in their neighborhood. This feeling of unsafety was their third complaint. The residents were intimidated by some of the teenagers on the square. According to parents, the park was dominated by a group of older boys, which intimated both local residents and young children. The younger children did not dare to join and play football. Finally, the fourth complaint was about the design of the square. According to the opponents, the park was not used in a balanced way. The Johan Cruyff court was quite large and almost completely occupied the park. Therefore, the only activity possible was to play football. For example, there was no playground equipment for younger children (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012).

Thus, the opponents stressed the need for a transformation of the square. First, in order to reduce the nuisance, they argued that the pressure on the park had to be reduced. It was too crowded during the day, and in the evening it led to a lot of noise. Therefore, the residents demanded more control at the park by police or neighborhood guards. This was needed to create a safe living environment. Finally, the neighbors wanted design changes, with the main point being the removal of the Johan Cruyff court. They wanted a new square with more varied activities. A park in which not only football, but also other activities for younger children were possible. This was necessary in order to make the park attractive for a more diverse group of residents (Thesingh, 2012).

5.1.2 | Proponents

The proponents of the Johan Cruyff court were in the majority. The court was extremely popular among children of IJburg and they hoped it would stay. One of the interviewees, Remy, a teenager who grew up directly next to the court, told me he used to play football there every day. For the youth at IJburg, it was the place to be. Without talking to friends beforehand, he would go the court and know with certainty he

(28)

would meet his friends there. It was a large field, perfect for football games. In addition, Remy stated that there were also many parents in favor of the court. “Especially when, at a time when technology was on the rise and

children stayed much more inside than before, playing videogames on the internet, parents thought it was great that their children would simply play outside and sport”.

Contrary to the opponents who lived nearby the park, some parents thought it was pleasant to live directly next to the court. Because the court was surrounded by houses, good supervision was ensured. They argued that there was a high degree of social control which inhibited youth from creating nuisance. These parents did not stress the need for more supervision by neighborhood guards because they were not bothered by the noise. However, after the complaints from the opponents, the municipality investigated the amount of noise on the square. Their measurements showed that the side of the owner-occupied homes suffered more from echoing noises. This partly explained why the proponents – living in the social housing units – were less bothered with the noise than the opponents – living in the owner-occupied houses.

However, this does not explain why the two groups also had different opinions about the safety at the square. The proponents of the court did not feel unsafe and their children enjoyed the square. One of these proponents is Daan, a parent of two children. He started a petition to preserve the court. Daan experienced no inconvenience and found that the opponents exaggerated. He cynically called them NIMBY’s (not in my backyard). With the petition he tried to emphasize the positive aspects of the court. “The Johan Cruyff foundation has a lot of status and offers possibilities for the youth at IJburg. With a Johan Cruyff court

there would be more money to organize activities for the youth. Removing it would be a wasted opportunity”.

Thus, the proponents emphasized the positive aspects of the court. The football pitch was extremely popular and children played sports every day. According to them, the children maintained good contact and the location of the court ensured enough social control. In addition, the Johan Cruyff court status offered possibilities for many activities. The youth benefited enormously.

5.1.3 | Municipality

After the municipality examined the situation and listened to both proponents and opponents, they decided to start a collaborative planning process. Although the majority was in favor of the court, something had to change because the dichotomy in the neighborhood increased. The municipality took the complaints of the opponents seriously. According to former alderman Thesingh, their living situation became intolerable because of the activities at the court. A park needs to favor all residents and therefore, the interests off the opponents weighted heavily.

Collaborative planning to transform urban collective goods : a research on the Ed Pelsterpark and Joris Ivensplein on IJburg