In December 2019, the Flemish government decided to designate Doel as a residential area. This new purpose for the future is accompanied by new challenges regarding housing and the quality of life. However, Doel mustn’t only physically change, but its mentality as well. What have all those years of mismanagement done to the mindset of the community? After all, Doel is not just a flat surface. It is a space which cuts across dimensions. Space isn’t only about physical relations but also reflects social relationships (Massey, 2013). Especially in a space such as Doel, it reflects an important period of struggle regarding power and politics between the different stakeholders.
Doel has been, and is now, something of a contested space. Its residents still call it their home, but for the Flemish government, it's a reminder of bad management and the resulting severe consequences. In the past, its purpose has been tugged on and stretched between a place to live and a place to further industrialise in the name of progress. Presently, the purpose of Doel as a place is once again different for different groups due to the tourism that is attracted to the 'ghost town'. They ascribe yet another meaning to the place, that it is an oddity and something special that can be visited and observed as an outsider. Meanwhile, residents have put up signs stating Doel = inhabited, respect residents, claiming what the space means for them.
At one point, as the result of the mismanagement of the Flemish government, the citizens decided to no longer rely on the formal decision-making authorities to handle the risks they experience. The Flemish government was the risk. The government was not to be trusted. Beck (1992) argues that “Subpolitics (…) means shaping society from below (…) there are even opportunities for courageous individuals to ‘move mountains’ in the nerve centres of development”. Therefore, in the future, establishing trust between the Flemish government and residents must be restored. Trust is essential for change. According to the Transformational Approach by Roy J. Lewicki et. al. (2006), trust moves through a number of stages; predictability (consistency of partner behaviour) to dependability (reliability and honesty), and finally to a “leap of faith,” grounded in “a conviction that the partner can be relied upon to be responsive to one’s needs in a caring manner, now and in the future’’. Thus, we believe that besides investing in physical space such as housing, there also should be an investment in the social relationship between the stakeholders.
One thing is for sure, the residents of Doel should be included in the future plans of Doel.
An interesting initiative that stimulates the revitalisation of urban environments is Living Labs. A Living Lab is a form of placemaking defined by the user-central open innovation ecosystem, based on systemic user co-creation approaches. Involving research and innovation processes into real-life communities and settings (European Network of Living Labs, 2006). Basically, Living Labs use bottom- up planning styles to give citizens a central role in the planning of their urban environments. Living Labs provide the opportunity to change urban environments, whether physical or social, based on the demands of the inhabitants. In Doel’s situation, creating a Living Lab would direct the social and physical aspects of the town based on the underlying demands and concerns of the inhabitants, connecting them to local authorities that can help provide the change! Therefore if Doel were a Living Lab, consumers of the area (especially the inhabitants) would indicate where and how they want change, and together with local stakeholders change would come to Doel!
An interesting initiative that stimulates the revitalisation of urban environments is Living Labs. A Living Lab is a form of placemaking defined by the user-central open innovation ecosystem, based on systemic user co-creation approaches. Involving research and innovation processes into real-life communities and settings (European Network of Living Labs, 2006). Basically, Living Labs use bottom- up planning styles to give citizens a central role in the planning of their urban environments. Living Labs provide the opportunity to change urban environments, whether physical or social, based on the demands of the inhabitants. In Doel’s situation, creating a Living Lab would direct the social and physical aspects of the town based on the underlying demands and concerns of the inhabitants, connecting them to local authorities that can help provide the change! Therefore if Doel were a Living Lab, consumers of the area (especially the inhabitants) would indicate where and how they want change, and together with local stakeholders change would come to Doel!
To conclude, the future for Doel is uncertain. This has been caused by the contestation of the place between its residents and the Flemish government in the past. The loss of trust is a consequence that will be a barrier that must be overcome in any project aiming to revive Doel and give it a new purpose. To put a step in the right direction, a leap of faith on the part of the government is necessary. This starts with giving the residents in Doel the power and autonomy to enact change in their urban environment, possibly through Living Labs.
Janne Aarts, Hager Fakhry, Koen Linthorst, Sophie van Wijk
References:
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0921810697101008#
Massey, D. (2013). Doreen Massey on Space. Retrieved from Social Science Space:https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/02/podcastdoreen-massey-on-space/
Lewicki, R., & Gillespie, N., & Tomlinson, E.(2006). Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence and Future Directions. Retrieved from Journal of Management: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0149206306294405?patientinform-links=yesc32%2F6%2F991r32%2F6%2F991c32%2F6%2F991#
Comments
Post a Comment