Playing for the Future: Using Codesign Games to Explore Alternative Sanitation Systems in London

Tse-Hui Teh

doi:10.17645/up.v4i4.2338

Abstract

Public participation is viewed as a best practice in planning, and yet most people who participate in it (planners included) often feel that it is a cynical box-ticking exercise. Citizen participation rates are usually low, implying that they may feel this way too. There are two good reasons for this feeling: On the one hand, public consultation often only occurs when it is a mandatory exercise required by government for development approval; on the other, when public consultation occurs it is after much time and effort has been invested by professionals to develop a scheme therefore change is made reluctantly or not at all. These factors create a reactionary and adversarial atmosphere during consultation. These structural limitations mean that there is no time to find alignment of interests between project developers and the public, or to develop trust and collaborations. This article explores how codesign games as a form of public participation can be done at an early stage of project development to contribute to finding alignment of interests and collaborations between project developers and different public interests. The empirical case study is focussed on the possibilities for the retrofit of sustainable sanitation systems in London. Three future sanitation systems were developed by 14 workshop participants. They demonstrate new alignments of interests, from methods of collection and treatment, to new economies of reuse and production. It also established reasons why the current water-based sanitation systems are obdurate, and the work involved in keeping the status quo.

Highlights

It is universally acknowledged that public participation is best planning practice
Empirical case studies from socio-technical coevolution reveal that new relations between actants arise from pre-existing relations that alter incrementally over long periods of time, often in response to solving problems that arise from current relations
Each future sanitation system was in response to the site visits completed on day one, a scenario from Macromoves selected by a dice roll, and the I-Count elements to include and avoid

Summary

Introduction

It is universally acknowledged that public participation is best planning practice. it is universally acknowledged that most public participation events are cynical exercises in public relations and persuasion (Beebeejaun, 2016; Lowndes, Pratchett, & Stoker, 2001). This defensive approach leaves no space for the exploration or discovery of collaboration and alignment of interests It has built environment professionals guessing what an unknown public wants— and a public who feels powerless in the face of built environment professionals, who have a specialist skill set, knowledge, and time to gather salient evidence and think through convincing arguments as to why large urban infrastructural or building proposals could benefit the public. The public have little time to spare from already full lives to spend on planning processes they have little understanding of—or influence over These processes typically force a reduction of public participation to a box-ticking exercise. The results of the final synthesis codesign game show how this format of participation opens up imaginative thinking and dialogue between people and things, demonstrating the benefits codesign games can bring to a participatory process

Problems of Arnstein’s Participatory Ladder

Codesign Games and CCAT

Codesign Game Workshop for Alternative Sanitation Systems in London

Codesigned Alternative Sanitation Possibilities in London

Improving the Process of Participation with the Codesign Game Workshop

Conclusion