Empowering community residents to participate in neighborhood design may help overcome the tension between the urban densification requirements of climate change planning and the political infeasibility of rapid change. This research employed accessible visualization media in public workshops to test the capacity of the media to enable empowerment. In a community facing imminent development we found processes of mitigated empowerment through which residents accessed and generated information, were inspired to act in the face of complex problems, and expressed their ideas. The media did not enable design empowerment in the areas of community inclusion or integration into the design process.
Al-KodmanyK.1999a. Combing artistry and technology in participatory community planning. Berkeley Planning Journal13:28-36.
2.
Al-KodmanyK.1999b. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation, and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning45 (1): 37-45.
3.
Al-KodmanyK.2002. Visualization tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature17 (2): 189-211.
4.
American Planning Association. 2006. Planning and urban design standards. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
5.
AndersenJ.SlimB.2004. The politics of inclusion and empowerment: Gender, class, and citizenship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
AndrewsC. J.2008. Greenhouse gas emissions along the rural-urban gradient. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management51 (6): 847-70.
7.
ArnsteinS.1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association35 (4): 216-24.
Ben-JosephE.IshiiH.UnderkofflerJ.PiperB.YeungL.2001. Urban simulation and the luminous planning table: Bridging the gap between the digital and the tangible. Journal of Planning Education and Research21 (2): 196-203.
10.
BlancoH.AlbertiM.OlshanskyR.ChangS.WheelerS. M.RandolphJ.LondonJ. B.HollanderJ. B.PallagstK. M.SchwarzT. S.PopperF. J.ParnellS.PieterseE.WatsonV.2009. Shaken, shrinking, hot, impoverished and informal: Emerging research agendas in planning. Progress in Planning72 (4): 195-250.
BushR. A.FolgerJ. P.1994. The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
CampbellH.2006. Is the issue of climate change too big for spatial planning?Planning Theory & Practice7 (2): 201-30.
15.
ChambersR.2006. Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: Whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses?Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries25 (2): 1-11.
16.
City of Vancouver. 2005. Community climate change action plan, ed. T. C. V. T.Force. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.
17.
City of Vancouver. 2008. Vancouver ecodensity charter. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.
18.
City of Vancouver. 2010a. Cambie Street/Marine Drive information session (September 10) comment sheet. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.
19.
City of Vancouver. 2010b. Rezoning application—8430 Cambie (Marine Gateway)—May 3rd resubmission—Summary of public comments. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.
20.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA.1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology13 (1): 3-21.
21.
CunninghamI.HymanJ.BaldryC.1996. Empowerment: The power to do what?Industrial Relations Journal27 (2): 143-54.
22.
DefillippisJ.FisherR.StraggeE.2006. Neither romance nor regulation: Re-evaluating community. International Journal for Urban and Regional Development30 (3): 673-89.
23.
DownsA.2005. Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association71 (4): 367-78.
24.
ElwoodS.2002. GIS use in community planning: A multidimensional analysis of empowerment. Environment and Planning A34 (5): 905-22.
25.
EngelK. H.2005. Mitigating global climate change in the United States: A regional approach. New York University Environmental Law Journal14: 54-87.
26.
EwingR.BartholomewK.WinkelmanS.WaltersJ.ChenD.McCannB.GoldbergD.2007. Growing cooler: The evidence on urban development and climate change. Washington: Urban Land Institute.
27.
FawcettS.Paine-AndrewsA.FranciscoV.SchultzJ.RichterK.LewisR.WilliamsE.HarrisK.BerkleyJ.FisherJ.LopezC.1995. Using empowerment theory in collaborative partnerships for community health and development. American Journal of Community Psychology23 (5): 677-97.
28.
FilionP.McSpurrenK.2007. Smart growth and development reality: The difficult co-ordination of land use and transport objectives. Urban Studies44 (3): 501-23.
29.
FlickU.2002. An introduction to qualitative research. 2nd ed.London: Sage.
30.
FlyvbjergB.2002. Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research21 (4): 353-66.
31.
ForesterJ.1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
ForesterJ., ed. 2008. Interface: Practice challenging theory in community planning. Planning Theory & Practice9 (1): 99-128.
33.
FreireP.1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
34.
FungA.2007. Minipublics: Deliberative designs and their consequences. In Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can people govern? ed. RosenbergS., 159-83. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
HabermasJ.1984. The theory of communicative action volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
37.
HealeyP.2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory2 (2): 101-23.
38.
HealeyP.2009. The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research28: 277-92.
39.
HochC. J.2007. Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (3): 272-83.
40.
HuxleyM.2000. The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research19 (4): 369-77.
41.
InnesJ. E.1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183-89.
42.
InnesJ.1998. Information in communicative planning. American Planning Association Journal64 (1): 52-63.
43.
InnesJ.ConnickS.BooherD.2007. Informality as a planning strategy. Journal of the American Planning Association73 (2): 195-210.
44.
KathiP. C.CooperT. L.2007. Connecting neighborhood councils and city agencies: Trust building through the learning and design forum process. Journal of Public Affairs Education13 (3-4): 617-30.
KingS.1989. Co-design: A process of design participation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
47.
KniggeL.CopeM.2006. Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A38: 2021-37.
48.
KyemP. A. K.2000. Embedding GIS applications into resource management and planning activities of local and indigenous communities: A desirable innovation or a destabilizing enterprise?Journal of Planning Education and Research20 (2): 176-86.
49.
LaurianL.2009. Trust in planning: Theoretical and practical considerations for participatory and deliberative planning. Planning Theory & Practice10 (3): 369-91.
50.
LevyR. M.1995. Visualization of urban alternatives. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design22 (3): 343-58.
51.
LorenzoniI.PidgeonN.2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change77: 73-95.
52.
LoweT.BrownK.DessaiS.de Franca doriaM.HaynesK.VincentK.2006. Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science15: 435-57.
SandercockL.AttiliG.2010. Multi-media explorations in urban planning and policy: Beyond the flatlands. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
67.
SawickiD. S.CraigW. J.1996. The democratization of data: Bridging the gap for community groups. Journal of the American Planning Association62 (4): 512-23.
68.
SenbelM.McDanielsT.DowlatabadiH.2003. The ecological footprint: A non-monetary metric of human consumption applied to North America. Global Environmental Change13: 83-100.
69.
SheppardS. R. J.ShawA.FlandersD.BurchS.2008. Can visualization save the world? Lessons for landscape architects from visualizing local climate change. Paper presented at Digital Design in Landscape Architecture, Dessau/Bernburg, Germany.
70.
SteinS. M.HarperT. L.2003. Power, trust, and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research23 (2): 125-39.
Van HerzeleA. (2004) Local knowledge in action: Valuing non-professional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research24: 197-212.
73.
Van HerzeleA.van WoerkumC. M. J.2008. Local knowledge in visually mediated practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research27 (4): 444-55.
74.
WallersteinN.BernsteinE.1988. Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education. Health Education & Behavior15 (4): 379-94.
75.
WarnerD. M.2006. Commentary: From smart growth to sustainable development. Environmental Practice8 (3): 169-79.
76.
WheelerS. M.2008. State and municipal climate change plans: The first generation. Journal of the American Planning Association74 (4): 481-96.
77.
WilkinsonA.1998. Empowerment theory and practice. Personnel Review27 (1): 40-56.
78.
WolkR. M.2008. Utilizing Google Earth and Google SketchUp to visualize wind farms. Paper presented at Technology and Society, ISTAS 2008, IEEE International Symposium, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
