Accessibility and participation in open space, urban and landscape planning

In the graduate programme, this tension is to be reflected using the example of the planning and design of public green, urban and landscape spaces (Hennecke 2019). Justice-related questions of accessibility and participation arise both with regard to the results of planning and with regard to the corresponding processes.

Living and working in post-pandemic urban planning.

Just the question of whether it is desirable to think of working and living spatially together in post-pandemic urban planning, for example through the perpetuation of home office models (or mobile working) or the ideal of a city of short distances, can not be answered for alle population groups in general. Against the background of a still fragmentary deinstitutionalization (BMAS 2021) or the dissolution of complex facilities in which living, working and leisure time is possible even with a high need for support, such ideas about the city may have to be re-evaluated for disabled people. At the same time, little research has been carried out into which groups of people use co-working spaces and other novel forms of spatial organization of work and how they can be improved from the perspective of accessibility and participation (Howell 2022).

Intersectional justice: overlapping of environmental pollution and social disadvantages

It is known from many studies that socio-economically disadvantaged people often also live in areas with poor environmental quality and a low proportion of green and open spaces (Kim et al. 2022; Klimeczek 2014; Ohlmeyer et al. 2022). Existing open spaces are often difficult to access and do not meet the needs of marginalized population groups, which can include disabled people as well as migrants, children and young people, people on low incomes, the homeless and older people, although there are also isolated findings to the contrary (Koprowska et al. 2020). Overall, there is still a need for research in this area in order to gain a better and differentiated picture of the connections between open space and landscape qualities, accessibility and opportunities for participation for different social groups, as well as to what extent and in what form corresponding concerns are addressed in planning strategies and documents (Vitrano/ Lindkvist 2022).

(Un)fair transformations of urban and landscape spaces

Far-reaching transformations of settlement and open space structures are necessary in order to do justice to the goals of biodiversity protection, climate protection and climate adaptation: inner-city streets must be greener, open spaces for rest, play and non-motorised movement must be expanded at the expense of motor vehicle traffic and be upgraded, the net use of additional land for settlement and transport purposes in the external area must be stopped (BMUB 2016, 67 f.) and for the conversion to a climate-neutral energy supply, more wind and solar systems must be installed, to name just a few examples. These societal goals and projects bring many socio-economic benefits, but also lead to higher costs and other disadvantages in certain areas. There is good evidence that better greening of city districts can lead to rising housing costs and displacement of the traditional population – a phenomenon known as green gentrification (Anguelovski et al. 2019; Wolch et al. 2014). Disability Studies identify risks for people with disabilities when greater weight is attached to issues of biodiversity protection; disabled people fear that hard-won demands – such as the inclusive design of work, living and recreational spaces – could be weakened in a society that continues to be ableistic (Maskos 2020). And some residents of rural areas feel unfairly treated when wind turbines are built nearby (Bailey/Darkal 2018; Leibenath/Otto 2014; Lintz/Leibenath 2020).

Spatial dualism of workplaces as well as residential and recreational sites

If care work (which is also unequally distributed according to gender) is also taken into account, a spatial dualism of workplaces on the one hand and residential and recreational facilities on the other cannot be maintained in this way (see also Eis/Westphal). After all, open spaces (i.e. gardens, parks, playgrounds or sports fields) are paid or voluntary care work spaces for many of their everyday work and should also be addressed from this point of view from a trade union perspective in the graduate programme. Despite their often emancipatory claim, community-oriented projects also harbor the danger that social rights that have been won, such as (paid) assistance services for participation, are deprofessionalized or even called into question (Dyk/Haubner 2021).

Reduction of barriers in work and leisure activities

Barriers in open space are not important in themselves, but only as something to be broken down for all – and specifically for certain groups of disabled people (Mor 2018, Degener 2019). The aim is to identify barriers and reduce or eliminate them in such a way that disabled people can participate in publicly financed and planned open spaces, use them and appropriate them. Representative survey data show that disabled people encounter barriers in their work and leisure activities, especially when it comes to activities outside of their own living space (Harand/Steiwede/Kleudgen 2022). With regard to the removal of barriers, questions such as material use (sealing or unsealing) and safety (lighting or light pollution) also need to be discussed. Since all people can acquire a (chronic) illness or impairment during their lifetime, they are only temporarily able-bodied, for which the term "temporarily or momentarily able-bodied" has been coined in the Disability Studies. From this perspective, impairments are not the exception to human existence, but the rule (Hirschberg/Valentin 2020).

Develop fundamentally inclusive planning approaches

In the tension between the individual and society, questions arise about participation in planning and a socio-ecological conception of usability in relation to the actual use and appropriation of the spaces (Hauck/Hennecke/Körner 2017, Hennecke 2019). According to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, access to social facilities such as public open spaces serves to exercise individual freedoms and provide such freedoms a priori through barrier-free and socio-ecological designs of places, objects, institutional conditions and social services without prejudice, i.e. also without attitude-related barriers. Taking a research perspective that understands disability as part of human diversity and thus also as a constitutive diversity category (Degener/Butschkau 2020) will be relevant in the graduate programme both for the interest in knowledge of sustainability and for democratic and socio-ecological learning processes. A research desideratum with regard to open space, urban and landscape planning is how diversity can be represented in planning and how inclusive participation in socio-ecological planning and design can succeed. This not only affects aspects of disability, but also many other forms of stigmatisation, disadvantage and marginalization, for example with regard to the participation of people with a migration background in urban and landscape planning (Buijs et al. 2009; Lo Piccolo/Todaro in print [online first 2021]; Zaidi and Pitt 2022). In essence, it is about questions of recognition (recognition – cf. Fraser 1998): Which individuals or groups are considered relevant? Whose needs and interests are being asked about, articulated and taken into account? How does the concrete design and implementation of planning processes affect the inclusion and participation of diverse social groups (cf. the considerations on landscape planning and performance in Leibenath 2018)? Critical urban and landscape research is faced with the task of working out which powerful inclusions and exclusions are made and how, for example, ideological participation claims or requirements are related to the subjectification of planners and other actors.

Potential doctoral topics that could be worked on by fellows in the graduate school are:

Topics on the area of tension between ecological sustainability and social justice of spatial structures, i.e. with a view to the results of open space, urban and landscape planning:

• With what means, methods and instruments is the overlapping of environmental pollution and social disadvantagements made visible in local contexts and how is it addressed in planning and political processes?
• Socio-ecological urban redevelopment in existing buildings: Evaluation of the synergies and conflicting goals of accessibility and adaptation to ecological requirements (climate protection, biodiversity promotion) using concrete case studies.
• Human-Animal Studies / Posthumanism: What areas of tension arise between the consideration of animals and plants and the legitimate claims of disabled people to inclusive urban planning?
• User perspective: How important is free space for the well-being of disabled people in the workplace? What role do open spaces close to home play for the relaxation in everyday life of disabled people?
• (In)visible handicaps: Which visible and invisible barriers exist in the open space? (public space, institutional space) - empirical studies with users.
• Appropriation of free spaces with barriers: How do disabled people use free spaces even with existing barriers (e.g. with the support of service animals, human or technical assistance)? Which resistant practices can be traced?
• Inclusive social spaces and cities of short distances as new models of socio-ecological living and working

Topics on inclusive design and the implementation of planning and decision-making processes in the field of open space, urban and landscape planning:

• Inclusive open space design and self-representation: How have self-representation organizations (local, regional, national) been promoting inclusive open space design so far? What kind of resistance and attitude-related barriers (including ecological arguments) are they confronted with?
• Which disadvantaged or marginalized groups are included in open space, urban and landscape planning processes? Who is addressed, who participates in what form and who remains invisible?
• What can be said about the open space and landscape-related needs and interests of people of different backgrounds and cultural backgrounds?
• Trade union commitment to disabled employees: Evaluation of trade union strategies for the participation of employees in recreation, leisure time and health-promoting exercise.
• Which conflicts and which possibly new alliances are there between social actors and groups from the social sector (e.g. trade unions, social associations or one-world groups) and the environmental and nature conservation sector?
• How are aspects of justice articulated in open space, urban and landscape conflicts? Which temporal or spatial scales are referred to? Are different spatial scales (e.g. local and international) related to each other?
• How is participation framed discursively? What demands and minimum standards are formulated, e.g. B. in municipal participation strategies or mission statements?
• Which strategies do marginalized groups use to draw attention to their concerns and to fight for opportunities to participate in open space, urban and landscape planning?
• How are the cross references between social and ecological concerns communicated in open space, urban and landscape planning? Which problems and planning rationalities, but also which role understandings come to light?