Download and Read online, DOWNLOAD EBOOK, [PDF EBOOK EPUB ], Ebooks

download, Read Ebook EPUB/KINDE, Download Book Format PDF

Participatory Research and Planning in Practice

Janez Nared

OR CLICK LINK
https://textbookfull.com/product/participatory-
research-and-planning-in-practice-janez-nared/

Read with Our Free App Audiobook Free Format PFD EBook, Ebooks dowload PDF
with Andible trial, Real book, online, KINDLE , Download[PDF] and Read and Read
Read book Format PDF Ebook, Dowload online, Read book Format PDF Ebook,
[PDF] and Real ONLINE Dowload [PDF] and Real ONLINE
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Participatory Archives Theory And Practice Edward

Benoit Iii

https://textbookfull.com/product/participatory-archives-theory-
and-practice-edward-benoit-iii/

Placemaking with Children and Youth Participatory

Practices for Planning Sustainable Communities Victoria
Derr

https://textbookfull.com/product/placemaking-with-children-and-
youth-participatory-practices-for-planning-sustainable-
communities-victoria-derr/

Participatory Research in More than Human Worlds 1st

Edition Michelle Bastian

https://textbookfull.com/product/participatory-research-in-more-
than-human-worlds-1st-edition-michelle-bastian/

Participatory Research for Health and Social Well Being

Tineke Abma

https://textbookfull.com/product/participatory-research-for-
health-and-social-well-being-tineke-abma/
Learning with Women in Jail Creating Community Based
Participatory Research Jill Mccracken

https://textbookfull.com/product/learning-with-women-in-jail-
creating-community-based-participatory-research-jill-mccracken/

Handbook of community-based participatory research 1st

Edition Coughlin

https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-community-based-
participatory-research-1st-edition-coughlin/

Agroecological Transitions From Theory to Practice in

Local Participatory Design Jacques-Eric Bergez

https://textbookfull.com/product/agroecological-transitions-from-
theory-to-practice-in-local-participatory-design-jacques-eric-
bergez/

Nanomaterials for Security 1st Edition Janez Bon■a

https://textbookfull.com/product/nanomaterials-for-security-1st-
edition-janez-bonca/

Participatory Action Research and Educational

Development: South Asian Perspectives 1st Edition Huma
Kidwai

https://textbookfull.com/product/participatory-action-research-
and-educational-development-south-asian-perspectives-1st-edition-
huma-kidwai/
The Urban Book Series

Janez Nared
David Bole Editors

Participatory
Research and
Planning in
Practice
The Urban Book Series

Editorial Board
Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian, University of Newcastle, Singapore, Singapore;
Silk Cities & Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL, London, UK
Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK
Simin Davoudi, Planning & Landscape Department GURU, Newcastle University,
Newcastle, UK
Geoffrey DeVerteuil, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University,
Cardiff, UK
Andrew Kirby, New College, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Karl Kropf, Department of Planning, Headington Campus, Oxford Brookes
University, Oxford, UK
Karen Lucas, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Marco Maretto, DICATeA, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Parma, Parma, Italy
Fabian Neuhaus, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary,
AB, Canada
Vitor Manuel Aráujo de Oliveira, Porto University, Porto, Portugal
Christopher Silver, College of Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Giuseppe Strappa, Facoltà di Architettura, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome,
Roma, Italy
Igor Vojnovic, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI, USA
Jeremy W. R. Whitehand, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of
Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research
worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments
in the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for
urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development.
The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainabil-
ity, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urban
and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, transport
systems, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It
also invites research which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics
on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as
comparative and applied research.
The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects,
policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of
contemporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs,
edited volumes and textbooks.
Now Indexed by Scopus!

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14773

Janez Nared David Bole
•

Editors

Participatory Research
and Planning in Practice
Editors
Janez Nared David Bole
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy
of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik
Geographical Institute Geographical Institute
Ljubljana, Slovenia Ljubljana, Slovenia

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic)

The Urban Book Series
ISBN 978-3-030-28013-0 ISBN 978-3-030-28014-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7
This Open Access book was prepared with the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency
research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101).

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020

Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to
the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if
changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publi-
cation does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

The vision of this book is to provide evidence on how participatory planning and
participatory research can bring about positive social, environmental, or economic
change in the local communities. There are some other books covering the same
topic, but our aspiration is to go beyond only collecting individual experiences. Our
aim is to present the experiences, knowledge, and concrete practices of participatory
planning and research to further the development of these fields by respecting the
following four guiding principles:
• Every chapter has a clear connection with the contemporary literature on par-
ticipatory research and planning debates (participatory action research,
community-based research, citizen science, co-creation, etc.) with results that
are usable for planning or application purposes.
• Every chapter has a strong trans-territorial dimension, meaning that a clear
emphasis is placed on the methods or practical implications of participatory
research and planning that are overarching across specific case study sites
(mostly at transnational level).
• Every chapter debates the concrete impacts and benefits of conducting this type
of research and planning for the academic and non-academic audiences and thus
offers knowledge exchange between them.
• The authors debate the possible traps of conducting a participatory research and
planning and additionally indicate how these fields can be improved in future to
avoid the traditional (positivist) and modern (post-structural) critique of par-
ticipatory planning and research.
The authors followed all of these suggestions, thus providing a scientific
robustness of their contributions, yet they address practical problems and challenges
well known to everyone dealing with planning and governing processes in the field.
We believe that this is important, because the book incorporates real-life experi-
ences from practitioners and researchers from various disciplines and viewing
points. It contributes to the field by increasing methodological pluralism and by

v
vi Preface

adding scientific vigour, which were often criticisms of participatory-based plan-

ning and research. However, at the heart of all contributions lies the respect for the
needs of local communities where participatory planning and research activities are
practiced.

Ljubljana, Slovenia Janez Nared

David Bole
Contents

1 Co-production and Resilient Cities to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . 1

Isabel Ruiz-Mallén
2 Participatory Transport Planning: The Experience of Eight
European Metropolitan Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Janez Nared
3 Participatory Planning in a Post-socialist Urban Context:
Experience from Five Cities in Central and Eastern Europe . . . . . 31
Saša Poljak Istenič and Jani Kozina
4 Governance and Management Systems in Mediterranean Marine
and Coastal Biosphere Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Loredana T. Alfarè, Engelbert Ruoss and Amina Boumaour
5 Promises and Limits of Participatory Urban Greens
Development: Experience from Maribor, Budapest,
and Krakow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Martin Pogačar, Jasna Fakin Bajec, Katarina Polajnar Horvat,
Aleš Smrekar and Jernej Tiran
6 Review of the Participatory and Community-Based Approach
in the Housing Cooperative Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Danaja Visković Rojs, Maša Hawlina, Brigita Gračner
and Rok Ramšak
7 Participatory Research on Heritage- and Culture-Based
Development: A Perspective from South-East Europe . . . . . . . . . . 107
Janez Nared and David Bole
8 Collaborative Inventory—A Participatory Approach
to Cultural Heritage Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Špela Ledinek Lozej

vii
viii Contents

9 Introduced Conservation Agriculture Programs in Samoa:

The Role of Participatory Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Stephanie Ramona O’Connor Sulifoa and Linda J. Cox
10 Public Participation in Earthquake Recovery in the Border
Region Between Italy and Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Primož Pipan and Matija Zorn
11 Stakeholder Analysis for (Mediterranean) Wetland Governance:
The Case of Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park, Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . 169
Aleš Smrekar, Katarina Polajnar Horvat and Daniela Ribeiro
12 Planning Major Transport Infrastructure: Benefits
and Limitations of the Participatory Decision-Making
Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Maruša Goluža
13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting Participatory Research:
A Case Study of Small-Scale Forest Management in Slovenia . . . . 207
Peter Kumer and Mimi Urbanc

Index of Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Subject Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Workshop participants with the European commissioner

Mrs. Violeta Bulc. Photograph Marko Zaplatil,
Archive ZRC SAZU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fig. 4.1 Zonation of the marine and terrestrial zones of the Tuscan
Islands Biosphere Reserve (Source PNAT 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Fig. 4.2 Localization and zonation of the Terres de l’Ebre Biosphere
Reserve (Source COPATE 2017b, adapted by COPATE
in 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Fig. 4.3 Localization and zonation of the Gouraya Biosphere Reserve
and the planned extension of marine zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Fig. 7.1 Workshop is Cetinje, Montenegro.
Photograph Janez Nared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Fig. 8.1 Map of the ZBORZBIRK project area (Authors: Jernej
Kropej and Špela Ledinek Lozej. ©ZBORZBIRK). Red dots
indicate cultural heritage collections, black dots project
partners: LP–Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of
Sciences and Arts, 1—University of Udine, 2—The Goriška
Museum, 3—Municipality of Kobarid, 4—Municipality of
Goriška Brda, 5—Municipality of Kanal ob Soči,
6—Jesenice Upper Sava Museum, 7—Municipality of
Lusevera/Bardo, 8—Municipality of Taipana/Tipana,
9—Municipality of Pulfero/Podbonesec, 10—Institute for
Slovenian Culture Špeter/San Pietro al Natisone . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Fig. 9.1 Annual value of Samoa’s total gross domestic product
(GDP) and the agricultural sector in constant dollars from
1994 to 2012. Source Central Bank of Samoa 2011–2012 . . . . 136
Fig. 9.2 General categories and specific components for farmers’
decision not to adopt mucuna in AHP-rating exercise . . . . . . . 140
Fig. 10.1 Study area with selected settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

ix
x List of Figures

Fig. 10.2 Four levels of periphery of the settlement of Breginj

(NW Slovenia) with regard to post-earthquake recovery after
1976 earthquakes (Pipan 2011a; Zorn 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Fig. 10.3 Markings based on which buildings were reconstructed after
the 1976 earthquakes are still visible on many buildings in the
old town of Venzone. Photograph Primož Pipan . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Fig. 10.4 Portis after the September 1976 earthquake. Rockfalls, which
were the main reason for relocating the settlement, can be
seen in the background (archive of Ezio Gollino) . . . . . . . . . . 156
Fig. 10.5 Relocation of Portis following the 1976 earthquakes . . . . . . . . 157
Fig. 10.6 Old and new Breginj. Only a tiny part of the former
architectural heritage has been preserved in the old Breginj. It
is surrounded by individual houses that were built after the
earthquake. Cookie-cutter prefabricated houses are typical
of the new Breginj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Fig. 10.7 Damage to buildings in Drežniške Ravne after the 1998
earthquake. Photograph Matija Zorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Fig. 10.8 Damage to buildings in Čezsoča after the 2004 earthquake.
Photograph Matija Zorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Fig. 10.9 New house built in Čezsoča after the 2004 earthquake.
Photograph Primož Pipan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Fig. 10.10 Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein 1969,
2004) and the ranking of the settlement recovery studied . . . . 162
Fig. 11.1 Interest-influence matrix used to identify stakeholders with
differing levels of interest and influence over the project . . . . . 178
Fig. 11.2 Stakeholders with both higher interest and influence/power
in the pilot area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Fig. 11.3 Stakeholders showing both medium and high interest
and influence/power in the pilot area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Fig. 11.4 Type of stakeholder, according to the four helices, included
in further process of wetland governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Fig. 12.1 The Slovenian road network with the two case studies . . . . . . 191
Fig. 13.1 Map showing the ownership fragmentation of forest land . . . . 210
Fig. 13.2 Snapshot from a focus group in Velesovo.
Photograph Peter Kumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
List of Tables

Table 3.1 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the

selected municipalities in Central and Eastern Europe . . . . . . . 35
Table 3.2 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the
selected municipalities and their wider regional settings
(−below EU average, ○ EU average, + above
EU average) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 3.3 Tools for citizen participation in strategic and neighborhood
planning in the selected municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 3.4 Tools for marginalized groups’ participation in strategic
and neighborhood planning in the selected municipalities . . . . 42
Table 4.1 Comparison of the selected Biosphere Reserves in the
Mediterranean Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 9.1 Top three reasons for non-adoption of mucuna for farmers
and extension officers in the villages of Siufaga
and Savaia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Table 10.1 Description of selected cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Table 10.2 Comparison of selected cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Table 12.1 The section from Pluska to Ponikve; the chronology
of the decision-making process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Table 12.2 The section from Otiški Vrh to Holmec; the chronology
of the decision-making process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Table 13.1 Date, location, and participants at focus groups. . . . . . . . . . . . 213

xi
Chapter 1
Co-production and Resilient Cities
to Climate Change

Isabel Ruiz-Mallén

Abstract Through a review of the scholarly literature and policy documents that
have simultaneously treated participatory governance, resilience and/or adaptive
management in urban contexts, with an emphasis on current framings and appli-
cation of the concept and practice of co-creation or co-production, this chapter crit-
ically explores how citizens’ participation is being discursively used and applied
in urban resilience and climate change adaptation planning. It also examines how
power dynamics within co-production processes for climate change adaptation plan-
ning already implemented in four European cities shape resulting resilience and
adaptation measures.

Keywords Climate change · Urban resilience · Co-production · Adaptation

planning · European cities

1.1 Introduction

In the current context of rapid and profound social and environmental changes,
including the crisis and the emergent uncertainty and risks of climate change for urban
settings, sustainability debates are increasingly focusing on the relationship between
democracy, development and innovation. Within these debates, the approach of “co-
creation” is becoming a key concept at the European policy level since it involves
participatory governance and bottom-up innovation for development. Co-creation
mainly refers to the active engagement of citizens with other societal actors (i.e.,
public and private sectors) in sharing information, knowledge, ideas and experiences
to collaboratively construct and transform sustainable settings. It is an approach to
participatory action research, having its origin in co-inquiry, in which researchers
are facilitators of the participatory process rather than intellectual leaders of the
research (Heron and Reason 1997). By relying on such active engagement approach
when designing and planning urban spaces and communities to face climate change

I. Ruiz-Mallén (B)
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC),
Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 1

J. Nared and D. Bole (eds.), Participatory Research and Planning in Practice,
The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_1
2 I. Ruiz-Mallén

challenges, it is expected to build more democratic, inclusive and resilient cities

(Lemos and Morehouse 2005; Revi et al. 2014).
Interestingly, in the adaptation literature, the concept of “co-production” has
become more popular than the term “co-creation” (Wamsler 2016). Both concepts
refer to participatory or collaborative governance, but differ in its origins and in
the nature of the actors involved. Different from co-creation that comes from busi-
ness science and involves public–private partnership, co-production has its origins in
the literature on urban planning, sustainability and science and technology studies.
Moreover, co-production basically refers to government, researchers and commu-
nity actors, although market and third sector actors might also be engaged since this
approach recognizes the relevance of having a diversity of societal actors involved in
the planning and decision-making process (Van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015; Wamsler
2016, 2017; Muñoz-Erickson et al. 2017). Since the focus of this chapter is climate
change adaptation planning and urban resilience, I use the term co-production from
now on although some evidence and arguments presented can also be applied to
co-creation processes broadly understood.
This chapter critically explores how citizens’ participation is being discursively
used and applied in urban resilience and planning for climate change adaptation. It
also reflects on how power dynamics can shape resilience and adaptation measures in
urban settings, which is critical to provide a nuanced understanding of the potential
and limitations of citizens’ engagement in climate change adaptation planning and
management.

1.2 From Consultation to Co-production

The need for entailing participatory approaches when planning for coping and adapt-
ing to climatic changes is not anymore a new trend in research and practice in the field
of climate change. Since the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) first
report in the 1990s, community participation in adaptation decision-making has been
highlighted as a way to ensure legitimacy and local compliance with the measures
planned by policy-makers to deal with climatic stresses (Bernthal 1990). Consultation
was by that time the main mechanism promoted to achieve the goal of participation in
order to guarantee the representation of different interests when defining risks and/or
adaptation strategies, including the interests of those more vulnerable and powerless
(Watson et al. 1995). However, climate change researchers and policy-makers real-
ized a few years later that a consultation mechanism cannot guarantee by itself that
all voices are considered or even heard. As anticipated by the author of the seminal
paper “A ladder of citizen participation” (Arnstein 1969, p. 216): “there is a critical
difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the
real power needed to affect the outcome of the process.”
Also, people’s interests and preferences are not stable, and these can shift depend-
ing on the changing social-ecological conditions (Nelson 2013), a dynamism that can
be difficult to capture by using a single consultation strategy.
1 Co-production and Resilient Cities to Climate Change 3

Conceived to address these challenges, the co-production approach has gained

ground in the last years as a participatory process supporting stakeholders’ engage-
ment in climate change adaptation planning and management decision-making. This
implies the recognition by climate change experts and decision-makers of the crucial
role that local knowledge, expertise and preferences have for developing innovative
and successful adaptation strategies and preventing from maladaptation practices
(Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013; IPCC 2014; Wamsler 2017). Also, it requires mov-
ing from knowledge transfer to knowledge sharing, which in turn demands partici-
pants’ early engagement in a process of “negotiation of meaning” among them, that
is, between the scientific experts and the local people (Roux et al. 2006).
The approach of co-production encompasses transdisciplinarity since diverse
capabilities and knowledge are combined through the participation of different actors
and networks in generating relevant knowledge and putting it into action (Muñoz-
Erickson et al. 2017). Co-production is thus expected to entail a certain degree of
citizens’ power through establishing a “partnership” between laypeople and tradi-
tional decision-makers (i.e., government), enabling non-expert citizens to engage
in decision-making through contributing their knowledge and capacities (Arnstein
1969). It also relates to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) in the sense that
it can support those more disempowered in being able to identify and analyze the
risks they face and the opportunities they can have, to become agents of change
for improving their reality. In this regard, evidence from including stakeholders’
responses in climate change scenario planning through a co-production approach
shows how these stakeholders become more aware of the need for long-term plan-
ning, which in turn can also potentially increase the legitimacy and acceptance of
the resultant management and policy options (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015).
In practice, co-production is understood in the climate change literature in two
different but connected ways (Van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015). On the one hand, this
notion contains a normative and instrumental connotation when it is approached as
an agenda of actions supporting community participation for enriching the scien-
tific basis of decision-making in projects or programs. Therefore, it is assumed that
co-production is relevant to rethink and improve the interconnectedness between sci-
ence, policy and society and build effective pathways to deal with climate changes
(ibid.). On the other hand, co-production is viewed as a descriptive concept when it
is approached from an analytical focus that highlights and reflects on the lack of neu-
trality in science and policy due to the influence that social and cultural norms—at
different scales and contexts—have on the production of both scientific knowledge
and planning decisions (Jasanoff 2004). It also grasps the nature of power relation-
ships and dynamics around climate change research and policy at multiple scales.
Both ways of approaching this notion are complementary because the first one can
lead to concrete actions to improve climate change adaptation planning and decision-
making, whereas the second one provides critical analysis and reflection on how such
generation of knowledge is leading to more inclusive and democratic outcomes than
those achieved through conventional approaches (Van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015). In
this last regard, it is relevant to consider that pushing forward inclusive co-production
processes for climate change adaptation planning entails challenges related to the
4 I. Ruiz-Mallén

behavioral and structural conditions driving heterogeneity and social differentiation

in people’s access to assets. For instance, those citizens or members of a community
who have more opportunities and resources to invest time in attending municipal or
community meetings, or a greater ability to engage in organizations or rely on social
networks than their peers, can also have more opportunities to become involved
in planning and management processes and bring their ideas and claims for adap-
tation. This may exacerbate inequalities and reduce the capacity for adaptation of
those more vulnerable and powerless actors whose voices have not been incorporated
(Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2017).
In this call for more participatory and inclusive governance in adaptation planning
for dealing with climatic changes, local governments and authorities are requested to
be able to engage the community in public policy and decision processes (Wamsler
2017). Vulnerability and risks assessments, for example, can benefit from establishing
governance structures and tools at the local level that include communities’ voices,
together with those of private and third sectors. Such mechanisms can facilitate a
set of iterations between these actors to learn collectively about risks, think about
options, evaluate them, make decisions, and critically reflect about outcomes. Result-
ing collective learning, as discussed in the following section, is key to support urban
resilience, or “the ability of urban centers (and their populations, enterprises, and
governments) and the systems on which they depend to anticipate, reduce, accom-
modate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient
manner” (Revi et al. 2014, p. 547).

1.3 Participatory Planning and Urban Resilience

In recent years, the literature on urban planning has paid increasing attention to the
resilience thinking, previously developed in the fields of psychology and ecology, as
an alternative approach for planning (Eraydin 2013). Different from other metaphors
used in urban planning, such as the “beautiful city” that emphasizes aesthetics aspects
and the dominance over nature, or the “garden city” that proposes green spaces iso-
lated from other zones and relies on the separation between nature and society, the
metaphor of “cities of resilience” promotes the integration between ecological and
social systems through a flexible design approach shaped by the dialogue between
different stakeholders (Pickett et al. 2004). Establishing links between socioeco-
nomic processes with ecological processes within and beyond the urban system
provides evidence to understand how disturbances shape people’s adaptive capacity
and vulnerability as well as to identify those forms of change driving adaptive cycles
and transformations. The analysis framed on the resilience approach is expected to
define priorities in planning that guide adaptation to both slow changes and rapid
and unexpected disturbances through a collective decision-making process (Eraydin
2013).
Despite the implicit role of co-production in the construction of the metaphor of
“the city of resilience,” such function is often neglected when looking at how the
1 Co-production and Resilient Cities to Climate Change 5

resilience approach is currently shaping the planning of the city. Evans (2011) argues
that the implementation of the resilience metaphor in cities has mainly adopted a con-
servative discourse that promotes adaptation actions at both individual and collective
levels, which design relies on expert knowledge and focuses in restoring the equilib-
rium in the urban system through technological interventions. This discourse is based
on the notion of nature stability and, consequently, the implicit desire of returning
the system to its original state. Such dominant approach, however, has been highly
criticized from a human development point of view (Evans 2011; Jabareen 2015;
Sánchez et al. 2018). Part of these critiques highlight that the prior state to the distur-
bance can often perpetuate inequalities between social groups. Other critiques point
out that such approach only provides emergency responses to crisis and questions if
this is sustainable in the long term (Sánchez et al. 2018). Further, it is argued that
this mainstream discourse provides adaptation responses resulting from top-down
decision-making processes and, consequently, does not include the voices of those
more vulnerable and marginalized (Jabareen 2015). For instance, measures to deal
with sea level rise caused by climate change can easily affect low-income residents in
coastal areas who can be forced to be displaced whereas those with higher income can
be able to negotiate other measures (Vale 2014). The mainstream discourse leaves
aside the human causes of social-ecological disturbances from urban planning to
focus on the solutions, which can contribute its depoliticization: “by constraining
governance within a technocratic mode that remains inured to the tropes of scientific
legitimacy” (Evans 2011, p. 232).
An alternative resilience discourse that builds upon a social-ecological perspective
advocates for managing urban systems from the understanding that cities are com-
plex and nonlinear systems, which planning for dealing with uncertainty requires
both expert and local knowledge (Evans 2011; Vale 2014). It is argued that local
people’s experience on similar previous disturbances can be a useful cognitive asset
in urban planning and when discussed and merged with expert knowledge can lead
to social and environmental innovations to deal with climate change impacts (Evans
2011; Goldstein et al. 2014). Such urban planning and management scheme are
expected to support a diversity of cultures and profiles and their connection to their
immediate environment and to embed key knowledge and experience that can foster
social learning (Bendt et al. 2013). This alternative discourse also highlights the need
to question whose resilience, that is, who takes part in the decision-making process
because has the power to do it, including power issues among the members of a com-
munity, and who will be the winners and losers of the resulting adaptation measures
and actions (Colding 2007). The implementation of such alternative approach to the
conservative discourse, however, implies challenges related to overcoming existing
top-down governance structures, building enough capacity for adaptation through
learning or defining what is acceptable and for whom (Sánchez et al. 2018).
Indeed, scholars are engaged in ongoing discussions about the impacts,
opportunities and challenges of these different discourses of resilience
when applied in urban planning and design (Goldstein et al. 2014). In the current
context of unprecedented changes, however, it is not possible to deny that climate
change is questioning the effectiveness and suitability of conventional approaches
6 I. Ruiz-Mallén

to planning, including the mainstream discourse of resilience, and that alternative

paradigms that can guide urban policies to a more holistic management of urban
resilience are needed (Jabareen 2015).
Addressing resilience to climate change impacts for cities under the alternative
discourse is thus intimately linked to the capacity of local governance to open up
communicative and deliberative spaces for co-production, in which those who are
more resilient and those who lack resilience can be heard, hold discussions and build
new knowledge to overcome vulnerabilities (Revi et al. 2014; Vale 2014). The next
section reviews a set of experiences of co-production in designing climate change
adaptation strategies recently driven by European municipalities and focuses on
power dynamics to reflect on the potential and limitations of citizens’ engagement
in knowledge co-production for adaptive management planning.

1.4 Co-production Experiences in Adaptation Planning

Some cities around Europe have already worked in the production of participa-
tory action plans for climate change adaptation through establishing partnerships
with public and private sectors, civil society organizations and/or individual citizens.
Actors’ involvement in climate change adaptation planning is not standardized: It
can be fostered by using a variety of tools and structures and can take place at dif-
ferent levels and in different stages of the adaptation planning process (e.g., initial
phase, risk assessment, identification of options, selection or prioritization, evalua-
tion of the final design). Because of adopting different approaches, co-production
may easily lead to differentiated types and intensities of voices’ representation and
outcomes. The following four case studies are interesting examples of this variety
of co-production processes shaped by power dynamics in which municipalities used
different strategies for engagement, deliberation and decision-making (van der Ven
et al. 2016; Wamsler 2017; Grau-Satorras et al. in prep). In each case, co-production
is analyzed by examining two key aspects for the governance of urban resilience:
inclusivity and equity (Jabareen 2015; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016): Who did
participate in decision-making and planning and how was involved? What were the
structures or tools for exchanging knowledge and sharing planning and decision-
making responsibilities?
Wamsler (2017) compared two pioneering experiences of participatory planning
for adaptation to climatic changes in Munich (Germany) and Lomma (Sweden).
In both cases, motivated civil servants in the corresponding municipalities initiated
the co-production process. They involved stakeholders at local government by rely-
ing on existing institutional structures supporting cooperation between the different
departments and sectors within the corresponding municipal governments. Due to
the academic background of these civil servants and their previous collaboration in
research projects, they also invited researchers to participate at an early stage of the
process in both cities, a collaboration that continued during the whole design of the
adaptation strategies. Similarly, their previous collaborations in projects or programs
1 Co-production and Resilient Cities to Climate Change 7

with other municipalities and regional administrations, private actors and civil soci-
ety organizations conditioned the selection of external stakeholders to be involved in
co-production. Differences between both cities in previous relationships resulted in
different external actors engaged. While in Lomma neighboring municipalities were
contacted and asked for providing mapping data for risk assessment from a com-
mon cooperation program, in Munich neighboring municipalities were not involved
because previous collaboration with the civil servant did not exist.
Further, in both municipalities, Wamsler (2017) reported low enthusiasm to
involve citizens in the process because of civil servants’ negative experiences with
participatory planning in the past. Despite this common challenge, important dif-
ferences existed between the two cities in the way citizens’ involvement in the co-
production process was planned and developed. In Sweden, Lomma municipality
created a joint council to discuss with vulnerable groups of citizens their needs and
interests in the use of the space, whereas the German municipality, Munich, delib-
erately excluded citizens from the process. Unfortunately, time constraints in the
Lomma adaptation plan design reduced the capacity of the council for engaging cit-
izens and their voices influenced the plan to a lesser degree than the one initially
expected. In sum, and despite the highlighted differences between the two cases,
Lomma and Munich municipalities’ efforts to engage those who did not use to be
involved in policy-making processes were characterized as “generally low” (Wamsler
2017, p. 153). Stakeholders’ involvement was shaped by existing power dynamics
between the civil servants leading the process and the rest of actors. The structures
for participatory management only existed at local government level, and the engage-
ment strategies followed, although more inclusive in Lomma, missed the opportunity
of targeting unknown but relevant actors for adaptation policy co-production.
Two other recent co-production experiences in adaptation planning in Utrecht (the
Netherlands) and Barcelona (Spain) combined the use of face-to-face workshops and
virtual tools for supporting the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making.
In Utrecht, van der Ven et al. (2016) examined the implementation of a toolbox
consisting of:
• a climate adaptation app that lists over 120 structural adaptation measures and
ranks them according to their potential applicability in the local context;
• an adaptation support tool based on a platform that simulates the effectiveness and
costs of selected measures in the local area.
These tools were used in two workshops in which representatives of different
departments of Utrecht municipality and private stakeholders identified local cli-
mate change impacts and vulnerabilities, defined potential solutions and determined
priorities. Because of combining different options through participants’ discussions,
three alternative scenarios were envisioned and evaluated to check if they met adap-
tation targets and to rethink urban development plans in the area (van der Ven et al.
2016). This case clearly shows how participants’ needs and views were directly
translated into outcomes.
In Barcelona, in turn, the municipality conducted a co-production process for
producing the climate change adaptation and mitigation plan of the city through
8 I. Ruiz-Mallén

the implementation of five workshops and the use of an open platform called “De-
cidim” (Grau-Satorras et al. in prep.). Involved stakeholders included civil servants,
private companies, civil society organizations and individual citizens. These actors
actively participated in the two initial workshops and collectively reflected on cli-
mate change risks and vulnerabilities in the city, proposed and discussed coping
and adaptation measures and established priorities, which were uploaded to the vir-
tual platform. Other civil society organizations and individual citizens who did not
attend these workshops also uploaded their proposals to the platform, being this tool
an alternative way for stakeholders to get involved in the co-production process. In
parallel, civil servants launched a call addressed to potentially interested stakehold-
ers (e.g., private companies and civil society organizations) for organizing their own
workshops, but only two workshops were self-organized due to the time constraints
of the overall process and the summer period. In a final workshop, civil servants
guided the discussion and reflection among participants to improve the definition of
the proposed measures collected through the platform, to identify overlaps and to
group them together if needed. Around 90% of the agreed measures were included
in the Barcelona’s climate change plan, which is, as in the case of Utrecht, an indi-
cator highlighting the inclusivity of the co-production process. The main difference
between both cases is that the tools used for supporting co-production in Utrecht
entailed the definition of available adaptation options in advance by the experts, so
other participants (e.g., individual citizens) were not able to propose other measures
that might have resulted from knowledge sharing and deliberation during workshops.
Excluding users’ knowledge from the design of adaptation measures could constrain
the potential of the co-production process for social innovation and the development
of planning strategies that can effectively deal with the complexity and dynamism
of cities (Muñoz-Erickson et al. 2017).
Another key question for co-production, as highlighted by van der Ven et al.
(2016), is who is being and should be engaged in the participatory planning process.
Unfortunately, in the Utrecht’s case the authors did not provide enough details on the
type of private and local stakeholders involved in the workshops, so it is not possible
to discern who was involved: Were they representatives of private companies, mem-
bers of civil society organizations, lay citizens, others? In the other reviewed cases,
in which the public and private sectors were represented, individual citizens’ partic-
ipation was reported as low (i.e., Lomma and Barcelona) or was not considered (i.e.,
Munich). In Barcelona, despite the plurality of means and tools offered by the munic-
ipality for supporting actors’ engagement, the involvement of individual citizens was
limited, particularly in the case of the face-to-face workshops. Municipality’s tight
agenda and the absence of an information and communication campaign addressed
to the broad society might explain low citizens’ participation in the Barcelona case
(Grau-Satorras et al. in prep.). As in the other cases, lacking an institutional tradition
of participatory governance or using non-effective methods to support knowledge
exchange and institutional learning in each particular context may also explain cit-
izens’ limited involvement (Glaas et al. 2010). Further, the different individual and
collective capabilities and assets citizens’ have to become part of the co-production
processes also influence the achievement of genuine levels of participation, such
1 Co-production and Resilient Cities to Climate Change 9

as socioeconomic background or social cohesion facilitating the organization of a

representative group in the process (Arnstein 1969).

1.5 Final Remarks

The co-production approach in climate change adaptation planning has potential

for building resilient and sustainable cities, but its effective implementation seems to
require an institutional transformation to overcome resistance to power redistribution
and to enhance the planning process in terms of inclusivity and equity.
Besides institutional willingness for promoting such change, a profound under-
standing of how cities work (i.e., governance and infrastructure) and think (i.e., expert
and local knowledge) is also needed to effectively guide the design and implementa-
tion of co-production approaches linking knowledge and action for climate change
adaptation planning in each particular context. It is thus necessary to identify those
who are usually treated more as observers than actors in policy-making processes,
to question why they are excluded from decision-making and giving them a voice
by opening up spaces for participation and reflexivity: “what local people know
about the city, how they know and experience the city, how they envision the city”
(Muñoz-Erickson et al. 2017, p. 203).
Co-production also entails the challenge of being a time-consuming process.
Short-term steps and deadlines in conventional planning practices should be bal-
anced with longer periods for collective reflection and deliberation, which in turn is
challenging in terms of resources as well as because people may not be available for
long-term commitment.
There is not a blueprint solution for achieving effective and inclusive engage-
ment. Mechanisms and structures for supporting inclusivity and equity are context-
dependent and, therefore, should be addressed and developed considering local
capacities and power dynamics in governance and knowledge production processes.
Far from being an insurmountable challenge, this entails an opportunity for strength-
ening the research field of urban resilience toward contributing to the understanding
and rethinking of the role of knowledge co-production in urban planning for climate
change adaptation and inclusive societies.

Acknowledgements Spanish Research Agency through a “Ramón y Cajal” research

fellowship (RYC-2015-17676) and Plan Nacional RESCITIES (PGC2018-100996-A-
I00(MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE).
10 I. Ruiz-Mallén

References

Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Planners 35:216–224. https://doi.org/

10.1080/01944366908977225
Bendt P, Barthel S, Colding J (2013) Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access
community gardens in Berlin. Landscape Urban Plann 109:18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2012.10.003
Bernthal FM (1990) Climate change: the IPCC response strategies. World Meteorological Organi-
sation/United Nations Environment Program, Geneva
Colding J (2007) “Ecological land-use complementation” for building resilience in urban ecosys-
tems. Landscape Urban Plann 81:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.016
Eraydin A (2013) “Resilience Thinking” for planning. In: Eraydin A, Ta-san-Kok T (eds) Resilience
thinking in urban planning. GeoJournal Library 106. Springer, New York, pp 17–37
Evans JP (2011) Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Trans Inst Br Geogr
36:223–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00420.x
Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N (2016) Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban
environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ
Sci Policy 62:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010
Freire P (1970) Pedagogía del Oprimido. Tierra Nueva, Montevideo
Glaas E, Jonsson A, Hjerpe M, Andersson-Sköld Y (2010) Managing climate change vulnerabilities:
formal institutions and knowledge use as determinants of adaptive capacity at the local level in
Sweden. Local Environ: Int J Justice Sustain 15(6):525–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.
2010.487525
Goldstein BE, Wessells AT, Lejano R, Butler WH (2014) Narrating resilience: transforming
cities through collaborative storytelling. Urban Stud 52(7):1285–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042098013505653
Heron J, Reason P (1997) A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qual Inq 3(3):274–294. https://doi.
org/10.1177/107780049700300302
IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral
aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change [Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir
TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken
S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, p
1132. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379
Jabareen Y (2015) The risk city. Cities countering climate change: emerging planning theories and
practices around the world. Lecture Notes in Energy 29. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-94-017-9768-9
Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge,
London
Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate
assessments. Glob Environ Change 15:57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004
Muñoz-Erickson TA, Miller CA, Miller TR (2017) How cities think: knowledge co-production for
urban sustainability and resilience. Forests 8:203. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8060203
Nelson JA (2013) Ethics and the economist: what climate change demands of us. Ecol Econ
85:145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.029
Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw T, Bohensky EL, Butler J, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan
A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallén I, Thyresson M, Mistry J, Palomo I, Peterson GD, Plieninger T, Waylen
KA, Beach D, Bohnet IC, Hamann M, Hanspach J, Hubacek K, Lavorel S, Vilardy S (2015) Par-
ticipatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences
from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc 20(4):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432
Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM (2004) Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor
for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape Urban Plann
69:369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035
1 Co-production and Resilient Cities to Climate Change 11

Revi A, Satterthwaite DE, Aragón-Durand F, Corfee-Morlot J, Kiunsi RBR, Pelling M, Roberts

DC, Solecki W (2014) Urban areas. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea
MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN,
MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge and New York, pp 535–612
Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC, Ashton PJ, Sergeant A (2006) Bridging the science-management
divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing.
Ecol Soc 11(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01643-110104
Ruiz-Mallén I, Corbera E (2013) Community-based conservation and traditional ecological knowl-
edge: implications for socio-ecological resilience. Ecol Soc 18(4):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-05867-180412
Ruiz-Mallén I, Fernández-Llamazares A, Reyes-García V (2017) Unravelling local adaptive capac-
ity to climate change in the Bolivian Amazon: the interlinkages between assets, conservation and
markets. Clim Change 140(2):227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1831-x
Sánchez AX, van der Heijden J, Osmond P (2018) The city politics of an urban age: urban resilience
conceptualisations and policies. Palgrave Commun 4:25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-
0074-z
Vale LJ (2014) The politics of resilient cities: whose resilience and whose city? Build Res Inf
42(2):191–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.850602
van der Ven FHM, Snep RPH, Koole S, Brolsma R, van der Brugge R, Spijker J, Vergroesen T
(2016) Adaptation planning support toolbox: measurable performance information based tools
for co-creation of resilient, eco-system-based urban plans with urban designers, decision-makers
and stakeholders. Environ Sci Policy 66:427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.010
Van Kerkhoff LE, Lebel L (2015) Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations
in a diverse world. Ecol Soc 20(1):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07188-200114
Wamsler C (2016) From risk governance to city-citizen collaboration: capitalizing on individual
adaptation to climate change. Environ Policy Gov 26:184–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1707
Wamsler C (2017) Stakeholder involvement in strategic adaptation planning: transdisciplinarity and
co-production at stake? Environ Sci Policy 75:148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.
016
Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (1995) Climate change 1995: impacts, adaptations and
mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Contribution of Working Group II
to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and New York

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 2
Participatory Transport Planning:
The Experience of Eight European
Metropolitan Regions

Janez Nared

Abstract This chapter presents experience with participatory transport planning

in eight European metropolitan regions: Ljubljana, Oslo, Gothenburg, Helsinki,
Budapest, Rome, Porto and Barcelona. These metropolitan regions answered the
questionnaire on strengths, weaknesses and needs and an in-depth questionnaire on
participatory transport planning. The results were presented at a workshop, where
representatives from these eight metropolitan regions shared their experience in two
workshop sessions, one dealing with the key stakeholders in participatory transport
planning and the other dealing with ways to get them involved. The findings show that
stakeholder involvement differs between the local and regional levels. Participants’
engagement is greater at the local level, where measures are more concrete and less
abstract. The participatory planning process takes longer than the traditional planning
processes, but it can ease the implementation of the project/measure to the extent that
it justifies the additional resources and time. It is of crucial importance to include
all the relevant stakeholders, to provide an experienced facilitator and, above all, to
include the results in the final plans and policies. Although there are differences in the
participatory planning culture between the countries and regions involved, the use
of participatory methods in transport planning is becoming increasingly important.

Keywords Participatory planning · Transportation · Mobility · Metropolitan

region · Planning system

2.1 Introduction

Since the 1960s, when the importance of citizen participation in planning decisions
was highlighted by Jacob (1961) and Arnstein (1969), participation and participatory
planning have been slowly but persistently gaining importance. These two concepts
refer to the inclusion of the affected or interested population groups in forming joint
decisions, in which the ones directly affected by a specific decision have the right

J. Nared (B)
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical
Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 13

J. Nared and D. Bole (eds.), Participatory Research and Planning in Practice,
The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_2
14 J. Nared

to participate in the decision-making process. As such, resident participation and

participatory planning are the vehicles for resident empowerment and are important
elements of local democracy (Pacione 2014). Participation is considered to be very
powerful in sustainable development, public support of decisions and behavioural
change among the populace (Sagaris 2018), and it is thus important strategic planning
instrument (Rahman 2016).
Integrating the public into planning procedures is still largely lacking (Sagaris
2014; Nared et al. 2015; Hong 2018; Bissonnette et al. 2018). As observed in the
Planning Democracy report (2012), despite the recognized advantages of partici-
pation and its inclusion in the legislation, people still feel it is not satisfactorily
implemented in practice. Sagaris (2018) argues that convincing the residents about
a project’s usefulness without first considering and including the people’s needs and
expectations in the project most likely leads to failures in both the participatory
process and the project or plan itself.
As determined by Pacione (2014), resident participation depends on the local con-
text. In terms of metropolitan regions, participation can be discussed within the con-
text of their governance, whereby not only residents, but also various territorial levels,
sectors, institutions, and associations must be involved in managing and preparing
plans. This results from the division of competences among various administrative
units and sectors that often neglect integrative planning because of their own interests
and partial plans. Thus, a common learning process and participative planning are
of crucial importance for achieving better governance of metropolitan regions and
must be supported by active involvement of institutional and non-institutional actors
from entire functional area (Nared 2016). A need for a good and well-coordinated
management of metropolitan regions is clearly shown in transport, which both reacts
to settlement, economic development and the development of technology and defines
an individual’s inclusion in the social life (e.g. Özkazanç and Sönmez 2017). There-
fore, transport must be coordinated with various sectors, such as spatial and economic
planning, various territorial units (the metropolis and its surrounding municipalities)
and the residents using the transport system.
According to Sagaris (2018, p. 8), the key challenge in this remains:
… the current lack of institutional arrangements that can consolidate these kinds of more
deliberative, collaborative participatory processes, and make them a permanent part of every-
day transport planning. This would simplify their implementation and generate more funda-
mental consensuses, based on shared visions and strong alliances of diverse, interdependent
actors, in the public, citizen and private spheres.

In this regard, the role of public transport users is important because they do
not always decide rationally, and so sometimes completely subjective decisions pre-
dominate. Therefore, it is vital to know their motives and patterns to improve their
travelling experience as well as to direct the required transport infrastructure invest-
ment (Delclòs-Alió and Miralles-Guasch 2017). Nostikasari (2015) argues that it is
important to explore how experience-based knowledge contributes to more inclusive
transport planning processes.
In line with the needs discussed above, this study examines the current state
of participatory transport planning in the following eight European metropolitan
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 [95] Ex. 24:3-8; Heb. 9:18-20.
[96] Dr. Clarke has the following note on this verse: “It is very
likely that Moses went up into the mount on the first day of the
week; and having with Joshua remained in the region of the cloud
during six days, on the seventh, which was the Sabbath, God
spake to him.”—Commentary on Ex. 24:16. The marking off of a
week from the forty days in this remarkable manner goes far
toward establishing the view of Dr. C. And if this be correct, it
would strongly indicate that the ten commandments were given
upon the Sabbath; for there seems to be good evidence that they
were given the day before Moses went up to receive the tables of
stone. For the interview in which chapters 21-23 were given
would require but a brief space, and certainly followed
immediately upon the giving of the ten commandments. Ex.
20:18-21. When the interview closed, Moses came down to the
people and wrote all the words of the Lord. In the morning he rose
up early, and, having ratified the covenant, went up to receive the
law which God had written. Ex. 24:3-13.
[97] Ex. 24:12-18.
[98] Ex. 25-31.
[99] Ex. 31:12-18.
[100] Eze. 20:11, 12, 19, 20.
[101] See third chapter of this work.
[102] “To sanctify, kadash, signifies to consecrate, separate,
and set apart a thing or person from all secular purposes to some
religious use.” Clarke’s Commentary on Ex. 13:2. The same writer
says, on Ex. 19:23, “Here the word kadash is taken in its proper,
literal sense, signifying the separating of a thing, person, or place,
from all profane or common uses, and devoting it to sacred
purposes.”
[103] Gen. 17:7, 8; 26:24; 28:13; Ex. 3:6, 13-16, 18; 5:3; Isa.
45:3.
[104] Lev. 11:45.
[105] See chapter third.
[106] As a sign it did not thereby become a shadow and a
ceremony, for the Lord of the Sabbath was himself a sign.
“Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for
signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth
in Mount Zion.” Isa. 8:18. In Heb. 2:13, this language is referred to
Christ. “And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his
mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of
many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.”
Luke 2:34. That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel
throughout their generations, that is, for the time that they were
his peculiar people, no more proves that it is now abolished than
the fact that Jesus is now a sign that is spoken against proves
that he will cease to exist when he shall no longer be such a sign.
Nor does this language argue that the Sabbath was made for
them, or that its obligation ceased when they ceased to be the
people of God. For the prohibition against eating blood was a
perpetual statute for their generations; yet it was given to Noah
when God first permitted the use of animal food, and was still
obligatory upon the Gentiles when the apostles turned to them.
Lev. 3:17; Gen. 9:1-4; Acts 15.
The penalty of death at the hand of the civil magistrate is
affixed to the violation of the Sabbath. The same penalty is affixed
to most of the precepts of the moral law. Lev. 20:9, 10; 24:15-17;
Deut. 13:6-18; 17:2-7. It should be remembered that the moral
law embracing the Sabbath formed a part of the civil code of the
Hebrew nation. As such, the great Law-giver annexed penalties to
be inflicted by the magistrate, thus doubtless shadowing forth the
final retribution of the ungodly. Such penalties were suspended by
that remarkable decision of the Saviour that those who were
without sin should cast the first stone. But such a Being will arise
to punish men, when the hailstones of his wrath shall desolate the
earth. Our Lord did not, however, set aside the real penalty of the
law, the wages of sin, nor did he weaken that precept which had
been violated. John 8:1-9; Job 38:22, 23; Isa. 28:17; Rev. 16:17-
21; Rom. 6:23.
[107] This fact will shed light upon those texts which introduce
the agency of angels in the giving of the law. Acts 7:38, 53; Gal.
3:19; Heb. 2:2.
[108] Ex. 32; 33.
[109] Ex. 34; Deut. 9.
[110] Ex. 34:21.
[111] The idea has been suggested by some from this verse
that it was Moses and not God who wrote the second tables. This
view is thought to be strengthened by the previous verse: “Write
thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made
a covenant with thee and with Israel.” But it is to be observed that
the words upon the tables of stone were the ten commandments;
while the words here referred to were those which God spoke to
Moses during this interview of forty days, beginning with verse 10
and extending to verse 27. That the pronoun he in verse 28 might
properly enough refer to Moses, if positive testimony did not
forbid such reference, is readily admitted. That it is necessary to
attend to the connection in deciding the antecedents of pronouns,
is strikingly illustrated in 2 Sam. 24:1, where the pronoun he
would naturally refer to the Lord, thus making God the one who
moved David to number Israel. Yet the connection shows that this
was not the case; for the anger of the Lord was kindled by the act;
and 1 Chron. 21:1, positively declares that he who thus moved
David was Satan. For positive testimony that it was God and not
Moses who wrote upon the second tables, see Ex. 34:1; Deut.
10:1-5. These texts carefully discriminate between the work of
Moses and the work of God, assigning the preparation of the
tables, the carrying of them up to the mount and the bringing of
them down from the mount, to Moses, but expressly assigning the
writing on the tables to God himself.
[112] Ex. 34:1, 28; Deut. 4:12, 13; 5:22.
[113] Ex. 24:12.
[114] Deut. 33:2. That angels are sometimes called saints or
holy ones, see Dan. 8:13-16. That angels were present with God
at Sinai, see Ps. 68:17.
[115] Deut. 10:4, 5; Ex. 25:10-22.
[116] 1 John 3:4, 5.
[117] Ex. 32; Josh. 24:2, 14, 23; Eze. 20:7, 8, 16, 18, 24.
[118] Amos 5:25-27; Acts 7:41-43; Josh. 5:2-8.
[119] Num. 14; Ps. 95; Eze. 20:13.
[120] Eze. 20:13-24.
[121] Ex. 32.
[122] Num. 14.
[123] Deut. 9:24.
[124] Num. 14; Heb. 3:16.
[125] Ex. 16; Josh. 5:12.
 [126] Num. 11; 21.
[127] A comparison of Ex. 19; 20:18-21; 24:3-8, with chapter
32, will show the astonishing transitions of the Hebrews from faith
and obedience to rebellion and idolatry. See a general history of
these acts in Ps. 78; 106.
[128] For a notice of this penalty see chapter 5.
[129] Ex. 35:1-3.
[130] Lev. 24:5-9; Num. 28:9, 10.
[131] The Bible abounds with facts which establish this
proposition. Thus the psalmist, in an address to Jerusalem, uses
the following language: “He giveth snow like wool; he scattereth
the hoar-frost like ashes. He casteth forth his ice like morsels;
who can stand before his cold? He sendeth out his word, and
melteth them; he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow.
He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments
unto Israel.” Ps. 147:16-19. Dr. Clarke has the following note on
this text: “At particular times the cold in the East is so very intense
as to kill man and beast. Jacobus de Vitriaco, one of the writers in
the Gesta Dei per Francos, says that in an expedition in which he
was engaged against Mount Tabor, on the 24th of December, the
cold was so intense that many of the poor people, and the beasts
of burthen died by it. And Albertus Aquensis, another of these
writers, speaking of the cold in Judea, says that thirty of the
people who attended Baldwin I., in the mountainous districts near
the Dead Sea, were killed by it; and that in that expedition they
had to contend with horrible hail and ice; with unheard of snow
and rain. From this we find that the winters are often very severe
in Judea; and that in such cases as the above we may well call
out, Who can stand against his cold!” See his commentary on Ps.
147. See also Jer. 36:22; John 18:18; Matt. 24:20; Mark 13:18. 1
Maccabees 13:22, mentions a very great snow storm in Palestine,
so that horsemen could not march.
[132] The testimony of the Bible on this point is very explicit.
Thus we read: “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the
seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest,
and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be
refreshed.” Ex. 23:12. To be without fire in the severity of winter
would cause the Sabbath to be a curse and not a refreshment. It
would ruin the health of those who should thus expose
themselves, and render the Sabbath anything but a source of
refreshment. The prophet uses the following language: “If thou
turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on
my holy day: and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord,
honorable,” etc. The Sabbath then was designed by God to be a
source of delight to his people, and not a cause of suffering. The
merciful and beneficent character of the Sabbath is seen in the
following texts: Matt. 12:10-13; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 14:3-6. From
them we learn that God regards the sufferings of the brute
creation, and would have them alleviated upon the Sabbath; how
much more the distress and the needs of his people, for whose
refreshment and delight the Sabbath was made.
[133] Ex. 29:9; 31:16; Lev. 3:17; 24:9; Num. 19:21; Deut. 5:31;
6:1; 7. The number and variety of these allusions will surprise the
inquirer.
[134] Ex. 16:23.
[135] Ex. 12; Deut. 16.
[136] The law of the passover certainly contemplated the arrival
of the Hebrews in the promised land before its regular
observance. Ex. 12:25. Indeed, it was only once observed in the
wilderness; namely, in the year following their departure from
Egypt; and after that, was omitted until they entered the land of
Canaan. Num. 9; Josh. 5. This is proved, not merely from the fact
that no other instances are recorded, but because that
circumcision was omitted during the whole period of their sojourn
in the wilderness; and without this ordinance the children would
have been excluded from the passover. Ex. 12; Josh. 5.
[137] Dr. Gill, who considered the seventh-day Sabbath as a
Jewish institution, beginning with Moses, and ending with Christ,
and one with which Gentiles have no concern, has given his
judgment concerning this question of fire on the Sabbath. He
certainly had no motive in this case to answer this popular
objection only that of stating the truth. He says:—
“This law seems to be a temporary one, and not to be
continued, nor is it said to be throughout their generations, as
elsewhere, where the law of the Sabbath is given or repeated; it is
to be restrained to the building of the tabernacle, and while that
was about to which it is prefaced; and it is designed to prevent all
public or private working on the Sabbath day in any thing
belonging to that;” etc.—Commentary on Ex. 35:3.
 Dr. Bound gives us St. Augustine’s idea of this precept: “He
doth not admonish them of it without cause; for that he speaketh
in making the tabernacle, and all things belonging to it, and
showeth that, notwithstanding that, they must rest upon the
Sabbath day, and not under the color of that (as it is said in the
text) so much as kindle a fire.”—True Doctrine of the Sabbath, p.
140.
[138] Lev. 19:1-3, 30.
[139] Lev. 23:3. It has been asserted from verse 2, that the
Sabbath was one of the feasts of the Lord. But a comparison of
verses 2, 4, shows that there is a break in the narrative, for the
purpose of introducing the Sabbath as a holy convocation; and
that verse 4 begins the theme anew in the very language of verse
2; and it is to be observed that the remainder of the chapter sets
forth the actual Jewish feasts; viz., that of unleavened bread, the
Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles. What further clears this
point of all obscurity is the fact that verses 37, 38, carefully
discriminate between the feasts of the Lord and the Sabbaths of
the Lord. But Ex. 23:14, settles the point beyond controversy:
“Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.” And
then verses 15-17 enumerate these feasts as in Lev. 23:4-44. See
also 2 Chron. 8:13.
[140] Lev. 26:1, 2.
[141] Eze. 20:15, 16.
[142] Num. 13:14.
[143] Num. 15:32-36.
[144] Eze. 20:15, 16 comp. with Num. 14:35.
[145] Num. 15:30.
[146] Eze. 20.
[147] Hengstenberg, a distinguished German Anti-Sabbatarian,
thus candidly treats this text: “A man who had gathered wood on
the Sabbath is brought forth at the command of the Lord, and
stoned by the whole congregation before the camp. Calvin says
rightly, ‘The guilty man did not fall through error, but through gross
contempt of the law, so that he treated it as a light matter to
overthrow and destroy all that is holy.’ It is evident from the
manner of its introduction that the account is not given with any
reference to its chronological position; it reads, ‘And while the
children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that
gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.’ It stands simply as an
example of the presumptuous breach of the law, of which the
preceding verses speak. He was one who despised the word of
the Lord and broke his commandments [verse 31]; one who with
a high hand sinned and reproached the Lord. Verse 30.”—The
Lord’s Day, pp. 31, 32.
[148] Deut. 5:1-3.
[149] See the pledges of this people in Ex. 19; 24.
[150] See the second chapter of this work.
[151] See chapter third.
[152] Deut. 5:12-15.
[153] Compare Ex. 19; 20; Deut. 1.
[154] Ex. 20:8-11.
[155] Ex. 12; 13.
[156] Deut. 24:17, 18.
[157] Deut. 4:12, 13.
[158] Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:2.
[159] Ex. 34:28; Deut. 10:4.
[160] Deut. 9:10.
[161] Deut. 5:22.
[162] Deut. 5:12-15, compared with Ex. 20:8-11.
[163] Deut. 5, compared with Ex. 20.
[164] Ex. 12; 1 Cor. 5:7, 8.
[165] Lev. 23:10-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12; Acts 2:1-18.
[166] Lev. 23:34-43; Deut. 16:13-15; Neh. 8; Rev. 7:9-14.
[167] Num. 10:10; 28:11-15; 1 Sam. 20:5, 24, 27; Ps. 81:3.
[168] Ex. 12:15, 16; Lev. 23:7, 8; Num. 28:17, 18, 25.
[169] Lev. 23:21; Num. 28:26.
[170] Lev. 23:24, 25; Num. 29:1-6.
[171] Lev. 23:27-32; 16:29-31; Num. 29:7.
[172] Lev. 23:39.
[173] Ex. 23:10, 11; Lev. 25:2-7.
 [174] Lev. 25:8-54.
[175] Lev. 26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21.
[176] Ex. 12:25.
[177] On this point Mr. Miller uses the following language: “Only
one kind of Sabbath was given to Adam, and one only remains for
us. See Hosea 2:11. ‘I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her
feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn
feasts.’ All the Jewish sabbaths did cease when Christ nailed
them to his cross. Col. 2:14-17. These were properly called
Jewish sabbaths. Hosea says, ‘her sabbaths.’ But the Sabbath of
which we are speaking, God calls ‘my Sabbath.’ Here is a clear
distinction between the creation Sabbath and the ceremonial. The
one is perpetual; the others were merely shadows of good things
to come.”—Life and Views, pp. 161, 162.
[178] Ex. 12:16.
[179] Ex. 20:10; 31:13; Isa. 58:13; compared with Lev. 23:24,
32, 39; Lam. 1:7; Hosea 2:11.
[180] Lev. 23:37, 38.
[181] Isa. 1:13, 14.
[182] Isa. 56:1-7; 58:13, 14.
[183] Hosea 2:11.
[184] Lam. 1:7; 2:5-7.
[185] Deut. 16:16; 2 Chron. 7:12; Ps. 122.
[186] Jer. 17:19-27; Neh. 13:15-18.
[187] Isa. 56. See the eighth chapter of this work.
[188] See chapter x.
[189] 2 Kings 4:23.
[190] 1 Chron. 9:32. It is true that this text relates to the order of
things after the return from Babylon; yet we learn from verse 22,
that this order was originally ordained by David and Samuel. See
verses 1-32.
[191] Compare these two cases: Ex. 16:23; 1 Chron. 9:32.
[192] See chapters ii. and iii.
[193] Josh. 6.
 [194] See Dr. A. Clarke’s commentary on Josh. 6:15.
[195] Josh. 10:12-14.
[196] 1 Sam. 21:1-6; Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4.
[197] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32.
[198] 1 Sam. 21:5, 6; Matt. 12:4.
[199] See the tenth chapter of this work.
[200] 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Neh. 10:31, 33;
Eze. 45:17.
[201] See chapter vii. of this work.
[202] 1 Chron. 9:32.
[203] Cotton Mather says: “There is a psalm in the Bible
whereof the title is, ‘A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath day.’ Now
’tis a clause in that psalm, ‘O Lord, how great are thy works! thy
thoughts are very deep.’ Ps. 92:5. That clause intimates what we
should make the subject of our meditations on the Sabbath day.
Our thoughts are to be on God’s works.”—Discourse on the
Lord’s Day, p. 30, a. d. 1703. And Hengstenberg says: “This
psalm is according to the heading, ‘A Song for the Sabbath day.’
The proper positive employment of the Sabbath appears here to
be a thankful contemplation of the works of God, a devotional
absorption in them which could only exist when ordinary
occupations are laid aside.”—The Lord’s Day, pp. 36, 37.
[204] 2 Kings 4:23.
[205] Isa. 66:23; Eze. 46:1; Amos 8:5.
[206] Ex. 16:29.
[207] 2 Kings 11:5-9; 2 Chron. 23:4-8.
[208] Amos 8:4-6.
[209] 2 Kings 16:18.
[210] Isa. 56:1-8.
[211] For the coming of this salvation see Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:9.
[212] Ex. 12:48, 49; Isa. 14:1; Eph. 2:12.
[213] See chapter vii.
[214] Deut. 28:64; Luke 21:24.
[215] Isa. 58:13, 14.
 [216] Matt. 8:11; Heb. 11:8-16; Rev. 21.
[217] On this text Dr. A. Clarke comments thus: “From this and
the following verses we find the ruin of the Jews attributed to the
breach of the Sabbath: as this led to a neglect of sacrifice, the
ordinances of religion, and all public worship; so it necessarily
brought with it all immorality. The breach of the Sabbath was that
which let in upon them all the waters of God’s wrath.”
[218] For an inspired commentary on this language, see Neh.
13:15-18.
[219] This language strongly implies that the violation of the
Sabbath had ever been general with the Hebrews. See Jer. 7:23-
28.
[220] Jer. 17:20-27.
[221] Eze. 22:7, 8, 26; 23:38, 39.
[222] Eze. 20:23, 24; Deut. 32:16-35.
[223] Eze. 23:38, 39.
[224] 2 Chron. 36:16-20.
[225] Eze., chapters 40-48.
[226] Eze. 43:7-11.
[227] Eze. 44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 4, 12.
[228] Eze. 46:1.
[229] Neh. 9:13, 14.
[230] Neh. 9:38; 10:1-31.
[231] Neh. 10:31.
[232] A few words relative to the time of beginning the Sabbath
are here demanded. 1. The reckoning of the first week of time
necessarily determines that of all succeeding weeks. The first
division of the first day was night; and each day of the first week
began with evening; the evening and the morning, an expression
equivalent to the night and the day, constituted the day of twenty-
four hours. Gen. 1. Hence, the first Sabbath began and ended
with evening. 2. That the night is in the Scriptures reckoned a part
of the day of twenty-four hours, is proved by many texts. Ex.
12:41, 42; 1 Sam. 26:7, 8; Luke 2:8-11; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34,
and many other testimonies. 3. The 2300 days, symbolizing 2300
years, are each constituted like the days of the first week of time.
Dan. 8:14. The margin, which gives the literal Hebrew, calls each
of these days an “evening morning.” 4. The statute defining the
great day of atonement is absolutely decisive that the day begins
with evening, and that the night is a part of the day. Lev. 23:32. “It
shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls:
in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even shall
ye celebrate your Sabbath.” 5. That evening is at sunset is
abundantly proved by the following scriptures: Deut. 16:6; Lev.
22:6, 7; Deut. 23:2; 24:13, 15; Josh. 8:29; 10:26, 27; Judges
14:18; 2 Sam. 3:35; 2 Chron. 18:34; Matt. 8:16; Mark 1:32; Luke
4:40. But does not Neh. 13:19, conflict with this testimony, and
indicate that the Sabbath did not begin until after dark? I think not.
The text does not say, “When it began to be dark at Jerusalem
before the Sabbath,” but it says, “When the gates of Jerusalem
began to be dark.” If it be remembered that the gates of
Jerusalem were placed under wide and high walls, it will not be
found difficult to harmonize this text with the many here adduced,
which prove that the day begins with sunset.
Calmet, in his Bible Dictionary, article, Sabbath, thus states the
ancient Jewish method of beginning the Sabbath: “About half an
hour before the sunset all work is quitted and the Sabbath is
supposed to be begun.” He speaks thus of the close of the
Sabbath: “When night comes, and they can discern in the heaven
three stars of moderate magnitude, then the Sabbath is ended,
and they may return to their ordinary employments.”
[233] Neh. 13:15-22.
[234] Speaking of the Babylonish captivity, in his note on Eze.
23:48, Dr. Clarke says: “From that time to the present day the
Jews never relapsed into idolatry.”
[235] 1 Mac. 1:41-43.
[236] 1 Mac. 2:29-38; Josephus’ Antiquities, b. xii. chap. vi.
[237] 2 Mac. 5:25,26.
[238] 1 Mac. 2:41.
[239] 2 Mac. 6:11.
[240] 2 Mac. 8:23-28.
[241] 1 Mac. 9:43-49; Josephus’ Antiquities, b. xiii. chap. i.; 2
Mac. 15.
 [242] Antiquities of the Jews, b. xiv. chap. iv. Here we call
attention to one of those historical frauds by which Sunday is
shown to be the Sabbath. Dr. Justin Edwards states this case
thus: “Pompey, the Roman general, knowing this, when besieging
Jerusalem, would not attack them on the Sabbath; but spent the
day in constructing his works, and preparing to attack them on
Monday, and in a manner that they could not withstand, and so he
took the city.”—Sabbath Manual, p. 216. That is to say, the next
day after the Sabbath was Monday, and of course Sunday was
the Sabbath! Yet Dr. E. well knew that in Pompey’s time, 63 years
before Christ, Saturday was the only weekly Sabbath, and that
Sunday and not Monday was the day of attack.
[243] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, pp. 214,
215.
[244] Gal. 4:4, 5; John 1:1-10; 17:5, 24; Heb. 1.
[245] Dan. 9:25; Mark 1:14, 15.
[246] Luke 4:14-16.
[247] Luke 4:30-39; Mark 1:21-31; Matt. 8:5-15.
[248] See, on this point, the conclusion of chapter viii.
[249] Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40.
[250] Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5.
[251] Mark 2:27, 28.
[252] Comp. John 1:1-3; Gen. 1:1, 26; 2:1-3.
[253] See chap. viii.
[254] Num. 28:9, 10.
[255] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32.
[256] Hosea 6:6.
[257] Thus the Greek Testament: Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· Tὸ
σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο, ουχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τό
σάββατον.
[258] 1 Cor. 11:9.
[259] Gen. 2:1-3, 7, 21-23.
[260] Matt. 19:3-9.
[261] Ex. 16:23; 23:12; Isa. 58:13, 14.
 [262] See conclusion of chap. ix.
[263] Matt. 5:17-19; Isa. 42:21.
[264] Matt. 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11.
[265] Mark 6:1-6.
[266] John 5:1-18.
[267] Dr. Bloomfield’s Greek Testament on this text; family
Testament of the American Tract Society on the same; Nevins’
Biblical Antiquities, pp. 62, 63.
[268] Compare Jer. 17:21-27 with Nehemiah 13:15-20.
[269] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Isa. 56; 58:13, 14; Eze. 20.
[270] Gal. 4:4; Matt. 5:17-19; 7:12; 19:17; Luke 16:17.
[271] John 5:19.
[272] John 7:21-23.
[273] Grotius well says: “If he healed any on the Sabbath he
made it appear, not only from the law, but also from their received
opinions, that such works were not forbidden on the Sabbath.”—
The Truth of the Christian Religion, b. v. sect. 7.
[274] John 9:1-16.
[275] Luke 13:10-17.
[276] 1 Pet. 3:6.
[277] Luke 14:1-6.
[278] Matt. 23:23.
[279] Matt. 24:15-21.
[280] Dan. 9:26, 27.
[281] Luke 21:20.
[282] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.
[283] Id. b. ii. chap. xx.
[284] Eccl. Hist. b. iii. chap. v.
[285] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.
[286] Deut. 16:16.
[287] Thus remarks Mr. Crozier in the Advent Harbinger for
Dec. 6, 1851: “The reference to the Sabbath in Matt. 24:20, only
shows that the Jews who rejected Christ would be keeping the
Sabbath at the destruction of Jerusalem, and would, in
consequence, add to the dangers of the disciples’ flight by
punishing them perhaps with death for fleeing on that day.”
And Mr. Marsh, forgetting that Christ forbade his disciples to
take anything with them in their flight, uses the following
language: “If the disciples should attempt to flee from Jerusalem
on that day and carry their things, the Jews would embarrass their
flight and perhaps put them to death. The Jews would be keeping
the Sabbath, because they rejected Christ and his gospel.”—
Advent Harbinger, Jan. 24, 1852. These quotations betray the
bitterness of their authors. In honorable distinction from these
anti-Sabbatarians, the following is quoted from Mr. William Miller,
himself an observer of the first day of the week:—
“‘Neither on the Sabbath day.’ Because it was to be kept as a
day of rest, and no servile work was to be done on that day, nor
would it be right for them to travel on that day. Christ has in this
place sanctioned the Sabbath, and clearly shows us our duty to
let no trivial circumstance cause us to break the law of the
Sabbath. Yet how many who profess to believe in Christ, at this
present day, make it a point to visit, travel, and feast, on this day?
What a false-hearted profession must that person make who can
thus treat with contempt the moral law of God, and despise the
precepts of the Lord Jesus! We may here learn our obligation to
remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”—Exposition of Matt.
24, p. 18.
[288] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.
[289] Id. b. ii. chap. xix.
[290] See chap. xvi.
[291] President Edwards says: “A further argument for the
perpetuity of the Sabbath we have in Matt. 24:20: ‘Pray ye that
your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.’ Christ
is here speaking of the flight of the apostles and other Christians
out of Jerusalem and Judea, just before their final destruction, as
is manifest by the whole context, and especially by the 16th
verse: ‘Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.’
But this final destruction of Jerusalem was after the dissolution of
the Jewish constitution, and after the Christian dispensation was
fully set up. Yet it is plainly implied in these words of our Lord, that
even then Christians were bound to a strict observation of the
Sabbath.”—Works of President Edwards, vol. iv. pp. 621, 622,
New York, 1849.
[292] Matt. 27; Isa. 53.
[293] Dan. 9:24-27.
[294] Col. 2:14-17.
[295] For an extended view of these Jewish festivals see
chapter vii.
[296] Deut. 10:4, 5, compared with 31:24-26. Thus Morer
contrasts the phrase “in the ark,” which is used with reference to
the two tables, with the expression “in the side of the ark,” as
used respecting the book of the law, and says of the latter: “In the
side of the ark, or more critically, in the outside of the ark; or in a
chest by itself on the right side of the ark, saith the Targum of
Jonathan.”—Morer’s Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 211,
London, 1701.
[297] See chap. vii.
[298] See chap. ii.
[299] Mark 2:27.
[300] Lev. 23:37, 38.
[301] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20; Matt. 5:17, 19.
[302] Isa. 66:22, 23. See also the close of chap. xxvii of this
work.
[303] Luke 23:54-56.
[304] James 2:8-12; Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:19, 31.
[305] Heb. 9; 10; Luke 23:46-53; John 19:38-42.
[306] Luke 23:54-56.
[307] Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2, 9; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 20:1,
19.
[308] Eze. 46:1.
[309] See the origin of the ancient Sabbath in Gen. 2:1-3.
[310] Mark 16:14. That this interview was certainly the same
with that in John 20:19, will be seen from a careful examination of
Luke 24.
[311] Matt. 19:26; Titus 1:2.
 [312] Isa. 65:16; Ps. 119:142, 151.
[313] Rom. 1:25.
[314] It is just as easy to change the crucifixion-day from that
day of the week on which Christ was crucified, to one of the six
days on which he was not, as to change the rest-day of the
Creator from that day of the week on which he rested, to one of
the six days on which he wrought in the work of creation.
[315] John 20:26.
[316] John 21.
[317] Acts 1:3. Forty days from the day of the resurrection
would expire on Thursday.
[318] When the resurrection day was “far spent,” the Saviour
and two of the disciples drew near to Emmaus, a village seven
and a half miles from Jerusalem. They constrained him to go in
with them to tarry for the night. While they were eating supper
they discovered that it was Jesus, when he vanished from their
sight. Then they arose and returned to Jerusalem; and after their
arrival, the first meeting of Jesus with the eleven took place. It
could not therefore have lacked but little of sunset, which closed
the day, if not actually upon the second day, when Jesus came
into their midst. Luke 24. In the latter case, the expression, “the
same day at evening being the first day of the week,” would find
an exact parallel in meaning, in the expression, “in the ninth day
of the month at even,” which actually signifies the evening with
which the tenth day of the seventh month commences. Lev.
23:32.
[319] Those who were to come before God from Sabbath to
Sabbath to minister in his temple, were said to come “after seven
days.” 1 Chron. 9:25; 2 Kings 11:5.
[320] “After six days,” instead of being the sixth day, was about
eight days after. Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28.
[321] That sunset marks the close of the day, see the close of
chapter viii.
[322] Acts 2:1, 2.
[323] Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1.
[324] Horatio B. Hacket, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature,
in Newton Theological Institution, thus remarks: “It is generally
supposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the
Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday.”—Commentary
on the Original Text of the Acts, pp. 50, 51.
[325] In 1633, William Prynne, a prisoner in the tower of
London, composed a work in defense of first-day observance,
entitled, “Dissertation on the Lord’s Day Sabbath.” He thus
acknowledges the futility of the argument under consideration:
“No scripture ... prefers or advanceth the work of redemption ...
before the work of creation; both these works being very great
and glorious in themselves; wherefore I cannot believe the work
of redemption, or Christ’s resurrection alone, to be more excellent
and glorious than the work of creation, without sufficient texts and
Scripture grounds to prove it; but may deny it as a presumptuous
fancy or unsound assertion, till satisfactorily proved, as well as
peremptorily averred without proof.”—Page 59. This is the
judgment of a candid advocate of the first day as a Christian
festival. On Acts 20:7, he will be allowed to testify again.
[326] Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30.
[327] Eph. 1:7; Gal. 3:13; Rev. 5:9.
[328] 1 Cor. 11:23-26.
[329] Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12.
[330] Ps. 118:22-24.
[331] Eph. 1:20-23; 2:20, 21; 1 Pet. 2:4-7.
[332] 1 Thess. 5:16.
[333] John 8:56.
[334] See chap. iii.
[335] Matt. 5:17-19.
[336] Eph. 2:13-16; Col. 2:14-17.
[337] Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15.
[338] Dan. 9:24-27; Acts 9; 10; 11; 26:12-17; Rom. 11:13.
[339] 1 Cor. 11:25; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12; Dan. 9:27; Eph.
2:11-22.
[340] Matt. 5:17-19; 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 4:15.
[341] Heb. 9:1-7; Ex. 25:1-21; Deut. 10:4, 5; 1 Kings 8:9.
[342] Heb., chaps. 7-10; Lev. 16.
[343] Heb. 8:1-5; 9:23, 24.
 [344] Rev. 11:19.
[345] Ex. 25:21, 22.
[346] Rom. 3:19-31; 5:8-21; 8:3, 4; 13:8-10; Gal. 3:13, 14; Eph.
6:2, 3; James 2:8-12; 1 John 3:4, 5.
[347] Ex. 19; 20; 24:12; 31:18; Deut. 10.
[348] Lev. 16.
[349] Rom. 3:19-31; 1 John 3:4, 5.
[350] Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10.
[351] Heb. 9; 10.
[352] Jer. 31:33; Rom. 8:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:3.
[353] Ps. 19:7; James 1:25; Ps. 40.
[354] Rom. 5.
[355] Rom. 3:19.
[356] Rom. 3:31.
[357] Rom. 3:20; 1 John 3:4, 5; 2:1, 2.
[358] Jer. 11:16; Rom. 11:17-24.
[359] Rom. 4:16-18; Gal. 3:7-9.
[360] Ex. 19:5, 6; 1 Pet. 2:9, 10.
[361] Gen. 11:1-9; Acts 2:1-11.
[362] Rom. 7:12, 13.
[363] James 2:8-12.
[364] See chapter x.
[365] Acts 13:14.
[366] Verse 27.
[367] Dr. Bloomfield has the following note on this text: “The
words, εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σαββ., are by many commentators supposed
to mean ‘on some intermediate week-day.’ But that is refuted by
verse 44, and the sense expressed in our common version is, no
doubt, the true one. It is adopted by the best recent
commentators, and confirmed by the ancient versions.” Greek
Testament with English notes, vol. i. p. 521. And Prof. Hacket has
a similar note.—Commentary on Acts, p. 233.
[368] Verses 42-44.
 [369] Acts 15.
[370] Acts 15:10, 28, 29; James 2:8-12.
[371] Verses 1, 5.
[372] Verse 29; 21:25.
[373] Ex. 34:15, 16; Num. 25:2; Lev. 17:13, 14; Gen. 9:4; Lev.
3:17; Gen. 34; Lev. 19:29.
[374] Acts 15:19-21.
[375] Acts 16:12-14.
[376] Paul’s manner is exemplified by the following texts, in all
of which it would appear that the meetings in question were upon
the Sabbath. Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:10, 17; 18:19; 19:8.
[377] Acts 17:1-4.
[378] 1 Thess. 2:14.
[379] 1 Thess. 1:7, 8.
[380] Acts 18:3, 4.
[381] Acts 10:2, 4, 7, 22, 30-35; 13:43; 14:1; 16:13-15; 17:4,
10-12.
[382] 1 Cor. 16:1, 2.
[383] Vindication of the True Sabbath, Battle Creek ed., pp. 51,
52.
[384] Greek Testament with English Notes, vol. ii. p. 173.
[385] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, p. 116.
[386] Family Testament of the American Tract Society, p. 286.
[387] Eze. 46:1.
[388] Prof. Hacket remarks on the length of this voyage: “The
passage on the apostle’s first journey to Europe occupied two
days only; see chapter 16:11. Adverse winds or calms would be
liable, at any season of the year, to occasion this variation.”—
Commentary on Acts, p. 329. This shows how little ground there
is to claim that Paul broke the Sabbath on this voyage. There was
ample time to reach Troas before the Sabbath when he started
from Philippi, had not providential causes hindered.
[389] Acts 20:6-13.
 [390] Thus Prof. Whiting renders the phrase: “The disciples
being assembled.” And Sawyer has it: “We being assembled.”
[391] 1 Cor. 11:23-26.
[392] Matt. 26.
[393] Acts 2:42-46.
[394] This fact has been acknowledged by many first-day
commentators. Thus Prof. Hacket comments upon this text: “The
Jews reckoned the day from evening to morning, and on that
principle the evening of the first day of the week would be our
Saturday evening. If Luke reckoned so here, as many
commentators suppose, the apostle then waited for the expiration
of the Jewish Sabbath, and held his last religious service with the
brethren at Troas, at the beginning of the Christian Sabbath, i. e.,
on Saturday evening, and consequently resumed his journey on
Sunday morning.”—Commentary on Acts, pp. 329, 330. But he
endeavors to shield the first-day Sabbath from this fatal
admission by suggesting that Luke probably reckoned time
according to the pagan method, rather than by that which is
ordained in the Scriptures!
Kitto, in noting the fact that this was an evening meeting,
speaks thus: “It has from this last circumstance been inferred that
the assembly commenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which
hour the first day of the week had commenced, according to the
Jewish reckoning [Jahn’s Bibl. Antiq., sect. 398], which would
hardly agree with the idea of a commemoration of the
resurrection.”—Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, article, Lord’s
day.
And Prynne, whose testimony relative to redemption as an
argument for the change of the Sabbath has been already
quoted, thus states this point: “Because the text saith there were
many lights in the upper room where they were gathered together,
and that Paul preached from the time of their coming together till
midnight, ... this meeting of the disciples at Troas, and Paul’s
preaching to them, began at evening. The sole doubt will be what
evening this was.... For my own part I conceive clearly that it was
upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming
Sunday night.... Because St. Luke records that it was upon the
first day of the week when this meeting was ... therefore it must
needs be on the Saturday, not on our Sunday evening, since the
Sunday evening in St. Luke’s and the Scripture account was no