Zijn bewonersorganisaties nog wel van deze tijd?

In many Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods, a considerable difference could ensue if corporate actors such as housing association personnel, welfare organizations, and local government authorities were more aware of the consequences of the way in which they shape governance processes. We contend that they should be more precise about the goals they want to achieve, for example when speaking about enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood or involving residents in restructuring policies. Besides more attention for these intended effects, corporate actors should also be more aware of the unintended effects of their actions, resulting from the way they deal with residents. Examples are residents’ disappointment and irritation brought about by poor communication and uncertainty about the future. We have investigated the factors that affect social cohesion and citizen participation in three Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods. We were particularly interested in the question to what extent policy processes were important for this relationship. Our research questions were addressed from two perspectives: that of the professionals (based on in-depth face-to-face interviews) and that of the residents (based on a survey among the residents of three early post-WWII neighbourhoods in the Netherlands). In our research, we have distinguished three types of social cohesion (horizontal, vertical, and institutional cohesion), reflecting the variety of actors that are involved in urban governance processes. We have also demonstrated that intervening on one dimension of social cohesion can affect other dimensions of cohesion, both in a positive and a negative way. Political decisiveness, for example, has a positive influence on solidarity, but at the same time it may also lead to feelings of isolation amongst some residents. Both findings ask for precision of the corporate actors. For example: instead of ‘enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood’, they could also strive to ‘increase residents’ feelings of solidarity’. The same holds for citizen participation: ‘increasing the involvement of citizens’ can be translated into more definite goals, like ‘increasing the number of residents attending an information meeting’ or ‘stimulating people to visit the office of the housing corporation’s maintenance staff’. We contend that not only policy interventions, but also -and primarily- the processes that precede these interventions determine the development of social cohesion. Nevertheless, corporate actors seem to deny the importance of for example residents’ knowledge and their confidence in local politics on the one hand and exaggerate the importance of such characteristics as level of education, income, and ethnic background on the other

Buurten bij beleidsmakers : Stedelijke beleidsprocessen, bewonersparticipatie en sociale cohesie in vroeg-naoorlogse stadswijken in Nederland : de onderzoeksgebieden (DATASET)

In hoofdstuk 3 zijn de drie onderzoeksgebieden geïntroduceerd: Nieuw-Hoograven in Utrecht, Bouwlust in Den Haag en Liendert in Amersfoort. In dit hoofdstuk wordt een korte historische schets van deze drie gebieden gemaakt, gevolgd door de belangrijkste fysieke en sociaal-demografische kenmerken van deze wijken. Voor een uitgebreid overzicht van kenmerken van vroeg-naoorlogse wijken, zie bijvoorbeeld Murie et al. (2003), Ouwehand (2002); Turkington et al. (2004), Van Beckhoven en Van Kempen (2005). De problemen die in deze en andere studies worden genoemd, zoals criminaliteit, vandalisme, verwaarlozing van de openbare ruimte en een dalend voorzieningenniveau doen zich in alle drie wijken voor. Het hoofdstuk wordt afgesloten met een vergelijkend overzicht van de belangrijkste kenmerken van de drie wijken

Buurten bij beleidsmakers : Stedelijke beleidsprocessen, bewonersparticipatie en sociale cohesie in vroeg-naoorlogse stadswijken in Nederland : presentaties (AGGREGATION PRESENTATION)

In many Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods, a considerable difference could ensue if corporate actors such as housing association personnel, welfare organizations, and local government authorities were more aware of the consequences of the way in which they shape governance processes. We contend that they should be more precise about the goals they want to achieve, for example when speaking about enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood or involving residents in restructuring policies. Besides more attention for these intended effects, corporate actors should also be more aware of the unintended effects of their actions, resulting from the way they deal with residents. Examples are residents’ disappointment and irritation brought about by poor communication and uncertainty about the future. We have investigated the factors that affect social cohesion and citizen participation in three Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods. We were particularly interested in the question to what extent policy processes were important for this relationship. Our research questions were addressed from two perspectives: that of the professionals (based on in-depth face-to-face interviews) and that of the residents (based on a survey among the residents of three early post-WWII neighbourhoods in the Netherlands). In our research, we have distinguished three types of social cohesion (horizontal, vertical, and institutional cohesion), reflecting the variety of actors that are involved in urban governance processes. We have also demonstrated that intervening on one dimension of social cohesion can affect other dimensions of cohesion, both in a positive and a negative way. Political decisiveness, for example, has a positive influence on solidarity, but at the same time it may also lead to feelings of isolation amongst some residents. Both findings ask for precision of the corporate actors. For example: instead of ‘enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood’, they could also strive to ‘increase residents’ feelings of solidarity’. The same holds for citizen participation: ‘increasing the involvement of citizens’ can be translated into more definite goals, like ‘increasing the number of residents attending an information meeting’ or ‘stimulating people to visit the office of the housing corporation’s maintenance staff’. We contend that not only policy interventions, but also -and primarily- the processes that precede these interventions determine the development of social cohesion. Nevertheless, corporate actors seem to deny the importance of for example residents’ knowledge and their confidence in local politics on the one hand and exaggerate the importance of such characteristics as level of education, income, and ethnic background on the other

Buurten bij beleidsmakers : Stedelijke beleidsprocessen, bewonersparticipatie en sociale cohesie in vroeg-naoorlogse stadswijken in Nederland : de onderzoeksgebieden (THESIS VERSION)

In hoofdstuk 3 zijn de drie onderzoeksgebieden geïntroduceerd: Nieuw-Hoograven in Utrecht, Bouwlust in Den Haag en Liendert in Amersfoort. In dit hoofdstuk wordt een korte historische schets van deze drie gebieden gemaakt, gevolgd door de belangrijkste fysieke en sociaal-demografische kenmerken van deze wijken. Voor een uitgebreid overzicht van kenmerken van vroeg-naoorlogse wijken, zie bijvoorbeeld Murie et al. (2003), Ouwehand (2002); Turkington et al. (2004), Van Beckhoven en Van Kempen (2005). De problemen die in deze en andere studies worden genoemd, zoals criminaliteit, vandalisme, verwaarlozing van de openbare ruimte en een dalend voorzieningenniveau doen zich in alle drie wijken voor. Het hoofdstuk wordt afgesloten met een vergelijkend overzicht van de belangrijkste kenmerken van de drie wijken

Buurten bij beleidsmakers : Stedelijke beleidsprocessen, bewonersparticipatie en sociale cohesie in vroeg-naoorlogse stadswijken in Nederland : de onderzoeksgebieden (AGGREGATION CH 4)

In hoofdstuk 3 zijn de drie onderzoeksgebieden geïntroduceerd: Nieuw-Hoograven in Utrecht, Bouwlust in Den Haag en Liendert in Amersfoort. In dit hoofdstuk wordt een korte historische schets van deze drie gebieden gemaakt, gevolgd door de belangrijkste fysieke en sociaal-demografische kenmerken van deze wijken. Voor een uitgebreid overzicht van kenmerken van vroeg-naoorlogse wijken, zie bijvoorbeeld Murie et al. (2003), Ouwehand (2002); Turkington et al. (2004), Van Beckhoven en Van Kempen (2005). De problemen die in deze en andere studies worden genoemd, zoals criminaliteit, vandalisme, verwaarlozing van de openbare ruimte en een dalend voorzieningenniveau doen zich in alle drie wijken voor. Het hoofdstuk wordt afgesloten met een vergelijkend overzicht van de belangrijkste kenmerken van de drie wijken

Buurtparticipatie als uiting van onvrede

In de kabinetsplannen voor de transformatie van ‘probleemwijken’ naar ‘prachtwijken’ staat de eigen bijdrage van de burger centraal. Onderzoekers stellen zich al jaren de vraag wat bewoners beweegt om actief te zijn in hun buurt. Veel bewoners van probleemwijken zijn wel degelijk geïnteresseerd in wat er in hun buurt gebeurt. Het ‘probleem’ waar de professionals en beleidsmakers mee worstelen is dat de bewoners die interesse niet als vanzelfsprekend omzetten in participatie. Onderzoek wijst uit dat vooral ontevredenheid en lokale berichtgeving voor bewoners belangrijke motieven zijn om juist wel te gaan participeren. In dit artikel wordt verslag gedaan van een onderzoek naar bewonersparticipatie in drie vroegnaoorlogse wijken: Nieuw- Hoograven in Utrecht, Bouwlust in Den Haag en Liendert in Amersfoort. Deze wijken worden gekenmerkt door onder andere fysieke en sociale problemen. Het onderzoek maakt deel uit van het onderzoeksprogramma ‘Corpovenista’

Buurten bij beleidsmakers. Stedelijke beleidsprocessen, bewonersparticipatie en sociale cohesie in vroeg-na-oorlogse stadswijken in Nederland

In many Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods, a considerable difference could ensue if corporate actors such as housing association personnel, welfare organizations, and local government authorities were more aware of the consequences of the way in which they shape governance processes. We contend that they should be more precise about the goals they want to achieve, for example when speaking about enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood or involving residents in restructuring policies. Besides more attention for these intended effects, corporate actors should also be more aware of the unintended effects of their actions, resulting from the way they deal with residents. Examples are residents’ disappointment and irritation brought about by poor communication and uncertainty about the future. We have investigated the factors that affect social cohesion and citizen participation in three Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods. We were particularly interested in the question to what extent policy processes were important for this relationship. Our research questions were addressed from two perspectives: that of the professionals (based on in-depth face-to-face interviews) and that of the residents (based on a survey among the residents of three early post-WWII neighbourhoods in the Netherlands). In our research, we have distinguished three types of social cohesion (horizontal, vertical, and institutional cohesion), reflecting the variety of actors that are involved in urban governance processes. We have also demonstrated that intervening on one dimension of social cohesion can affect other dimensions of cohesion, both in a positive and a negative way. Political decisiveness, for example, has a positive influence on solidarity, but at the same time it may also lead to feelings of isolation amongst some residents. Both findings ask for precision of the corporate actors. For example: instead of ‘enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood’, they could also strive to ‘increase residents’ feelings of solidarity’. The same holds for citizen participation: ‘increasing the involvement of citizens’ can be translated into more definite goals, like ‘increasing the number of residents attending an information meeting’ or ‘stimulating people to visit the office of the housing corporation’s maintenance staff’. We contend that not only policy interventions, but also -and primarily- the processes that precede these interventions determine the development of social cohesion. Nevertheless, corporate actors seem to deny the importance of for example residents’ knowledge and their confidence in local politics on the one hand and exaggerate the importance of such characteristics as level of education, income, and ethnic background on the other

Stedelijk beleid en sociale cohesie in twee Nederlandse herstructureringswijken : Nieuw-Hoograven (Utrecht) en Bouwlust (Den Haag)

In many Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods, a considerable difference could ensue if corporate actors such as housing association personnel, welfare organizations, and local government authorities were more aware of the consequences of the way in which they shape governance processes. We contend that they should be more precise about the goals they want to achieve, for example when speaking about enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood or involving residents in restructuring policies. Besides more attention for these intended effects, corporate actors should also be more aware of the unintended effects of their actions, resulting from the way they deal with residents. Examples are residents’ disappointment and irritation brought about by poor communication and uncertainty about the future. We have investigated the factors that affect social cohesion and citizen participation in three Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods. We were particularly interested in the question to what extent policy processes were important for this relationship. Our research questions were addressed from two perspectives: that of the professionals (based on in-depth face-to-face interviews) and that of the residents (based on a survey among the residents of three early post-WWII neighbourhoods in the Netherlands). In our research, we have distinguished three types of social cohesion (horizontal, vertical, and institutional cohesion), reflecting the variety of actors that are involved in urban governance processes. We have also demonstrated that intervening on one dimension of social cohesion can affect other dimensions of cohesion, both in a positive and a negative way. Political decisiveness, for example, has a positive influence on solidarity, but at the same time it may also lead to feelings of isolation amongst some residents. Both findings ask for precision of the corporate actors. For example: instead of ‘enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood’, they could also strive to ‘increase residents’ feelings of solidarity’. The same holds for citizen participation: ‘increasing the involvement of citizens’ can be translated into more definite goals, like ‘increasing the number of residents attending an information meeting’ or ‘stimulating people to visit the office of the housing corporation’s maintenance staff’. We contend that not only policy interventions, but also -and primarily- the processes that precede these interventions determine the development of social cohesion. Nevertheless, corporate actors seem to deny the importance of for example residents’ knowledge and their confidence in local politics on the one hand and exaggerate the importance of such characteristics as level of education, income, and ethnic background on the other

Citizen participation in a non-restructured Dutch post-war neighbourhood

In many Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods, a considerable difference could ensue if corporate actors such as housing association personnel, welfare organizations, and local government authorities were more aware of the consequences of the way in which they shape governance processes. We contend that they should be more precise about the goals they want to achieve, for example when speaking about enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood or involving residents in restructuring policies. Besides more attention for these intended effects, corporate actors should also be more aware of the unintended effects of their actions, resulting from the way they deal with residents. Examples are residents’ disappointment and irritation brought about by poor communication and uncertainty about the future. We have investigated the factors that affect social cohesion and citizen participation in three Dutch post-WWII neighbourhoods. We were particularly interested in the question to what extent policy processes were important for this relationship. Our research questions were addressed from two perspectives: that of the professionals (based on in-depth face-to-face interviews) and that of the residents (based on a survey among the residents of three early post-WWII neighbourhoods in the Netherlands). In our research, we have distinguished three types of social cohesion (horizontal, vertical, and institutional cohesion), reflecting the variety of actors that are involved in urban governance processes. We have also demonstrated that intervening on one dimension of social cohesion can affect other dimensions of cohesion, both in a positive and a negative way. Political decisiveness, for example, has a positive influence on solidarity, but at the same time it may also lead to feelings of isolation amongst some residents. Both findings ask for precision of the corporate actors. For example: instead of ‘enhancing social cohesion in the neighbourhood’, they could also strive to ‘increase residents’ feelings of solidarity’. The same holds for citizen participation: ‘increasing the involvement of citizens’ can be translated into more definite goals, like ‘increasing the number of residents attending an information meeting’ or ‘stimulating people to visit the office of the housing corporation’s maintenance staff’. We contend that not only policy interventions, but also -and primarily- the processes that precede these interventions determine the development of social cohesion. Nevertheless, corporate actors seem to deny the importance of for example residents’ knowledge and their confidence in local politics on the one hand and exaggerate the importance of such characteristics as level of education, income, and ethnic background on the other