OpenHeritage Glossary
#OHglossary Identifying and clarifying keywords in OpenHeritage
People-Public-private-partnerships (4P’s) aim towards people-oriented and inclusive citizen-driven innovations for complex and wicked urban challenges, and to turn people into a substantial partner within formal and informal partnerships for urban and spatial (re)development (UNECE, 2018). 4Ps strives for a more horizontal approach, both incorporating formal and informal relationships between and among public entities, private companies and citizens (Irazabal, 2016). People concerns communities, interest groups, NGOs, neighbourhood associations, end-users, as well as rational consumers (Irazabal, 2016; Kuronen et al., 2010). Such formal and informal arrangements might include contracts, memoranda of understanding, mutual agreements, supply agreements etc (Marana et al., 2018).
Relevance: where and how is the term relevant in the OpenHeritage?
Using a 4P’s-approach within the OpenHeritage project might be a tool to understand the interactions between public and private actors, but also the heritage community involved in adaptive re-use projects. Hence, therewith this approach could help to create open spaces such as platforms where different stakeholders (e.g. local actors, local administration officials, financial partners, researchers, policy makers) can meet on an equal footing, learn from each other and establish networks
Key discussions:
Public-private partnerships (PPP’s) are cooperation between public and private stakeholders based on an equal distribution of labor, costs and benefits (Buse & Walt, 2000). Such PPP’s are however criticized for being insufficient in bringing about desired and expected public outcomes, especially in wicked challenges that include many divers actors, interests and perspectives. Within PPP’s, public sector actors often still focus overwhelmingly on serving and supporting the private interests to the detriment of public interests, and easily overlook the interests and needs that live within society, especially those of groups who are less well-represented or equipped with (legal, financial etc.) resources. Moreover, traditional urban development is sequential and hierarchical, moving from government to developers to end-users, and as PPPs usually focusses on an a priori equal distribution of labor, costs and benefits lack, direct end-users or customers are relatively absent (Irazabal, 2016). People-Public-private-partnerships (4P’s) thus aim towards more people oriented and inclusive citizen-driven innovations for complex and wicked urban challenges, and to turn people into a substantial partner within formal and informal partnerships for urban and spatial (re)development (UNECE, 2018). People in this case concerns communities, interest groups, NGOs, neighborhood associations, end-users, as well as rational consumers (Irazabal, 2016; Kuronen et al., 2010). 4Ps thus strives for a more horizontal approach, both incorporating formal and informal relationships between and among public entities, private companies and citizens (Irazabal, 2016). Such formal and informal arrangements might include contracts, memoranda of understanding, mutual agreements, supply agreements etc. (Marana et al., 2018). The sequential aim of 4Ps is then to (re)consider the distribution of costs and benefits in urban partnerships and to include people much more substantially in collaborative planning (Irazabal, 2016). Last but not least, it is argued that 4Ps can create more desirable living environments and improve participation and communicative planning does, as it grants the involvement of people both institutional, methodologically and financial back-up (Kuronen et al., 2010). The concept of 4P’s has gained significant attention with regard to various spatial planning issues and different geographical locations. Ahmed & Ali (2006) for instance analyzed waste management in Bangladesh and consider PPPP’s “as a means to improve the accountability and service quality of both public and private sector in dealing with complex urban challenges. Such partnerships however need facilitating agencies to overcome all sorts of obstacles for their formation”. Ng (2013) notes, by analyzing infrastructure development in Hong Kong that PPPPs can moderate the risk of unforeseen oppositions, build clear responsibilities and rights, and create opportunities for public inputs. Kumaraswamy et al., (2015) adds to this that PPPPs also incorporate the more informal social relationships, and thus not only build sustainable infrastructure itself, but also build more resilient communities in the face of potential disasters.
Key references
- Akintoye, A., Beck, M., & Kumaraswamy, M. (Eds.). 2015. Public private partnerships: a global review. Routledge.
- Buse, K., & Walt, G. 2000. Global public-private partnerships: part I-a new development in health?. Bulletin of the World Health organization, 78, 549-561.
- Marana, Labaka, & Sarriegi. 2018. A framework for public-private-people partnerships in the city resilience-building process. Safety Science, 110 Part C, 39-50.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Share: