Participatory approaches in support of the decision-making processes. The ambivalence of participation

The dissertation concerns the analysis of participatory practices in support of the decision-making processes. In particular, the research work is based on an important consideration, according to which, traditional participatory processes do not work in practical terms. Indeed, the evolution of the concept of participation reveals that although the implementation of the participatory processes arose from the necessity of strongly criticizing the contemporary society of the 1960’s, nowadays they have been used to reinforce and legitimate the existing power relations. In this conceptual framework, participation is currently analysed and interpreted either as a democratic right or as an instrument to achieve specific goals. As a result, the dichotomy, between theory and practice, acquires an increasing importance within the international debate. Moreover, the dissertation intends to interpret the intrinsic ambivalence within the concept of participation through the analysis of a case study represented by the Sardinian Regional Landscape Plan (RLP). Sardinian regional government elaborated its RLP in 2006. However, different problems, such as the lack of implementation of the RLP at the local level, entailed the necessity for a revision. In particular, the Sardinian case study represents an emblematic case due to the implementation of two very different participatory processes. From this perspective, these approaches are studied in order to understand the difficulties to translate theoretical concepts about participation into practice. In addition, the research work is based on a qualitative strategy and on a case study design, where a triangulation of methods, which are traditionally related to either qualitative or quantitative research strategy, is used. In particular, the data were collected through semi-structured interviews and self-completion questionnaires that involved different categories of participants such as academicians, officials of the regional, provincial and local governments, technicians of building enterprises, member of environmentalist bodies and practitioners. Moreover, the data analysis highlights some important considerations. First of all, the political decisions influenced negatively the outcomes of the participatory processes. Indeed, during the elaboration phase, the specific purpose of the regional government was to legitimate its ruling role on the planning decisions at the local level, implying a lack of real involvement of participants. In the revision phase, despite the apparently good intentions, the regional government, which belongs to an opposite political alignment of the previous one, intended to represent itself as a forward-looking administration in order to increase consensus on behalf of citizens, local and provincial administrations, practitioners and the economic and productive sectors. Secondly, the lack of a solid awareness of the importance of participation makes the implementation of effective inclusive moments impossible without a methodological reference framework. From this conceptual perspective, the research work proposes a procedural protocol, whose aim is to define a methodological framework concerning the implementation of participatory practices in support of the planning processes at the regional scale. The procedural protocol focuses on four main issues: the interdependency of participatory and planning processes, the definition of specific responsibilities, the circularity of the processes, and their flexibility. First of all, the participatory processes should be parallel to the planning processes, becoming a necessary element of the procedures of elaboration and approval of plans. On the other hand, despite the complementary nature of the relation between participatory and planning processes, they should not lose their decisional autonomy and independence. Secondly, with respect to the impacts of the political decisions on participatory and planning processes, the authorities that implement participatory processes should be external bodies, composed by a multidisciplinary group of experts in political and social science, and in participatory practices. Thirdly, the circularity of the processes is based on considerations, according to which the relations between participatory and planning processes are not linear. In this way, it could be possible to take corrective measures in the most important phases. Finally, the fourth issue is related to specific economic, social and political contexts in which the participatory processes are implemented. Indeed, the research work tries to maintain a certain degree of flexibility in order to make it possible that suitable adjustments of the processes in relation to the reference context do occur.In conclusion, “learning from failing” represents an important lesson of the research work. Indeed, despite the undeniable failures that characterise the current participatory practices, participation remains a significant aspect that could give adecisive contribution to the effectiveness of planning decisions.