1.6. Types of Participation: Sherry Arnstein's Model

This is one of the classical model developed by Sherry Arnstein. And talking about the types of participations a ladder of public participation. If you look into the left-hand side you can see there is starting from manipulations then informations, consultations, partnership, and citizen control.

Sherry Arnstein created a model that describes how citizens can engage in the decision-making process. The model is visualized as a ladder, with different rungs representing the levels of participation. At the bottom, we have 'manipulation,' where there is little genuine involvement from the community. As you move up the ladder, levels include 'information,' where information is shared, and 'consultation,' where the community is asked for their input but not fully engaged in decision-making. Higher rungs involve stronger partnerships and, ultimately, 'citizen control,' where community members have significant decision-making power.

Think of a project in a school, such as developing a new playground. At the lowest level of participation (manipulation), the school district might simply inform parents about the playground plans without seeking their opinions. If they consult parents, they might ask what features they would like but do not let parents influence the final decision. If they truly partner with parents, they would work together to design the playground, ensuring their needs and ideas shape the outcome.

When we are talking about manipulation kind of thing or only informations kind of thing okay it leads to that community is a passive recipient of informations. We only provide information to the people telling them you do this you evacuate you raise your plinth level okay.

At the lower levels of Arnstein’s model, specifically manipulation and mere information sharing, the community is treated as a passive recipient. This means that decisions are made by experts or authorities who only pass information down to the community without considering their feedback or involvement. For instance, communities are told what to do in disaster situations without being asked for their insights or preferences on how to respond.

Imagine a coach who devises a training plan for a sports team without consulting the players. The coach tells them exactly what they need to do each day without understanding their strengths or weaknesses. While the players may follow the coach's orders, they might not feel motivated or engaged because they had no say in the planning.

Some people are saying in case of disaster risk management that our focus is not that people are not passive recipient, but what we do then we actually involve them in understanding the risk because we know people have different understanding of the risk.

As we move to the next level of participation, which involves consultation, there is a shift from merely informing the community to actively involving them in understanding risks associated with disasters. In this phase, stakeholders are asked for their perceptions of risks they face, allowing them to express their knowledge and experiences. This participatory risk assessment ensures that the solutions created are relevant and effective for the specific community's needs.

Consider a local government that is planning for flood management. Instead of just notifying residents about flood risks, they hold community meetings where residents share their observations and experiences with local flooding. By including residents in this discussion, planners can develop more effective and tailored flood management strategies.

Some more radical people in participations, they are saying this is not even enough what we need, we need collaborative knowledge and action plan development collaborative, collaborative knowledge.

At higher levels of Arnstein's participation ladder, collaborative models emphasize the joint development of knowledge and action plans between experts and community members. This approach promotes equal power dynamics, where both parties share critical information, experiences, and skills to generate solutions. Instead of communities simply being consulted or informed, they actively participate in crafting policies and plans that affect their lives.

Think of a community garden project. Instead of just telling the neighbors how the garden will be designed, community members, along with garden planners, come together to decide on the layout, types of plants, and maintenance schedule. By working together in this way, everyone’s ideas contribute to building a sustainable garden that reflects the community's identity and shared interests.

--