Participatory urban planning should encourage young people’s action that is grounded in their "experiential lifeworlds”While participatory methods offer an approach for the meaningful involvement of youth in environmental concerns, participatory design has sometimes been criticized for not fully allowing youth equitable decision-making power. This study provides a review of the literature to deepen understanding of the key components of participatory approaches involving young people in urban landscape planning. Specifically, the study examines: (1) the types of participatory methods used with young people in urban landscape planning; (2) the extent to which these methods provide the opportunity for young people to draw on their experiential knowledge, or “lifeworlds,” to define problems, processes, and outcomes; and (3) how these methods enable young people’s action and intervention in planning processes and urban landscape transformation.
A search of academic databases was conducted to identify studies focused on young people’s (age 8-25 years) participation in urban landscapes, green infrastructure, and nature-based solutions. The search yielded 44 studies that were included in the review. The participatory methods used in the studies were categorized using a conceptual framework to determine the degree to which young people participated in and influenced planning, design, and resulting actions. The conceptual framework functioned as a spectrum of five approach types, ranging from passive forms of participation (i.e., adults defined problems and visions for urban environments) to more interactive forms (i.e., youth defined problems and shared decision-making power in planning processes and interventions). Analysis of the studies also aimed to identify and examine instances when young people’s “experiential lifeworld” and opportunities for action were central to participatory process.
Comparison to the conceptual framework revealed that 13 studies demonstrated low levels of interaction and involvement, where participation was mainly limited to consultation with youth via surveys, interviews or observations. On the other hand, more extensive levels of interaction in participatory processes were demonstrated by 17 studies that positioned youth to have an impact on processes and/or outcomes. These studies focused on “involvement” and “partnership” types of approaches, which involved a variety of methods, including participatory planning or co-design, public participatory art, and other creative methods. The studies, in some cases, “described open processes where young people could influence problem definitions, goals, and aims, and be considered partners in the development of processes, plans, and/or outcomes.” The remaining 14 studies had limited descriptions of participatory processes and could not be classified.
A focused analysis of the more interactive studies considered how involvement and partnership types of approaches provided young people the opportunity to express their experiential perspectives and take action to change the urban landscape. Nearly all 17 studies demonstrated some possibilities for participants to expand understandings of the urban landscape “on their own terms” and the review provides examples of approaches that engaged youth as influential “partners with a strong voice and sense of authority beyond the pre-defined project.” The review also highlights several studies that facilitated young people’s action or intervention with the urban landscape; however, in the majority of studies, engaging in action or participating in environmental interventions was not a main focus.
Although the review identified cases of involvement and partnership types of participatory processes, overall, there is a prevalence of less interactive approaches in urban landscape planning, which limit young people’s opportunities to draw on lived experiences or produce action. The authors conclude: “For young people to play a substantial role in urban transformations towards increased sustainability, practitioners need a continued focus on diverse, creative methods, and to experiment with new forms of action orientation grounded in young people’s lifeworlds.”
The Bottom Line