Wiki source code of 5.1.5 PJU - Procedural Justice
Last modified by Emily West on 2022/01/10 14:39
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | = 5.1.5 PJU - Procedural Justice = | ||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | |||
| 4 | (% class="table-bordered" %) | ||
| 5 | |=(% style="width: 79px;" %)Topic|=(% style="width: 139px;" %)Urban challenges|=(% style="width: 666px;" %)Sub-challenges | ||
| 6 | |(% style="width:79px" %)Social|(% style="width:139px" %)5 - Environmental Justice and Social Cohesion|(% style="width:666px" %)5.1 - Environmental Justice | ||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | (% class="table-bordered" %) | ||
| 9 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 10 | ====== **Description** ====== | ||
| 11 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 12 | Procedural justice is about being able to participate effectively and meaningfully in political choices that govern one’s life (and one’s direct living and working environment). Procedural justice relates to the clarity and transparency of the rules that govern (participatory) processes and thus affects the extent to which a process in considered fair. Procedural justice refers to the quality of the participatory process, as it entails that the goal and the extent of the participation are made clear to all participants, and that clarity is provided about how diverse inputs from participants to process are going to be used. | ||
| 13 | |||
| 14 | Attention is needed for: | ||
| 15 | |||
| 16 | * The clarity and transparency of the procedures (rules of the game) and the extent to which stakeholders (including citizens) find these acceptable | ||
| 17 | * The extent to which it is clear what the aim of the participation is (e.g. informing, consultation, co-production etc ~-~-- ladder of Arnstein (1968). | ||
| 18 | * The extent to which it is clear to people how the input they provide during the participatory process will be used and that they will be provided with feedback on that. | ||
| 19 | |||
| 20 | As an example, one may witness a rather limited participation (e.g. only consultation about a ready-made plan for an NBS) which is nevertheless considered fair because the above-mentioned criteria are met. The other way around, a very extensive participation trajectory can still be regarded as unfair due to a lack of clarity on the rules of the game – e.g. if the ideas provided by participants are not used at all while the expectation was that these ideas were going to be used). | ||
| 21 | ))) | ||
| 22 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 23 | ===== **Scale as linked to D2.2 framework** ===== | ||
| 24 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 25 | Delete as appropriate: | ||
| 26 | |||
| 27 | * National | ||
| 28 | * City | ||
| 29 | * Neighborhood | ||
| 30 | * Street | ||
| 31 | * Household | ||
| 32 | * Object | ||
| 33 | ))) | ||
| 34 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 35 | ====== **Data source [ link to data framework]** ====== | ||
| 36 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 37 | * Writings on the formal and informal institutional setting (e.g. planning and decision-making procedures), e.g. (g.g. the OGP reports (https:~/~/www.opengovpartnership.org/) in combination with local monitoring. (OGP provides an international platform striving at more open, accountable and responsive governments). | ||
| 38 | ** Socio-economic and demographic information (e.g. existing databases) | ||
| 39 | ** Reports written based on interviews, surveys, focus groups or group discussion-reports; storytelling, diaries; (participant) observation; workshops and/or other participatory methods to collect peoples’ accounts. | ||
| 40 | ))) | ||
| 41 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 42 | ====== **Needs** ====== | ||
| 43 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 44 | * Perceptions of fairness of process among participants and stakeholders | ||
| 45 | * Data on the procedures and process history | ||
| 46 | * Information on the transparency, quality and accessibility of the information about the planning and decision-making processes. | ||
| 47 | ))) | ||
| 48 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 49 | ====== **Expected Outputs** ====== | ||
| 50 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 51 | * Unit of analysis can be the individual and individual perspectives; or social groups; socially shared accounts/discourses. | ||
| 52 | * Overview of how the process/procedure around an NBS has been organised and how it is viewed by various stakeholders in terms of access to information, transparency, accountability and legitimacy of outcomes; perceived fairness of process (can be at different scale levels). | ||
| 53 | * Understanding of how the appreciation of the NBS relates to the appreciation of the process | ||
| 54 | ))) | ||
| 55 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 56 | ====== **Calculation methods** ====== | ||
| 57 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 58 | * N/A | ||
| 59 | ))) | ||
| 60 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 61 | ====== **Links and references** ====== | ||
| 62 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 63 | * Bell and Davoudi, 2016 | ||
| 64 | * Gross, 2008 | ||
| 65 | * Kabish et al 2016 | ||
| 66 | * Raymond et al 2017a;b | ||
| 67 | * Schlosbert 2004 | ||
| 68 | ))) | ||
| 69 | |||
| 70 | (% class="lead" %) | ||
| 71 |