The contribution of inhabitants to the development of public spaces in eastern Algeria, Constantine

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of citizen participation in efforts to improve public spaces, driven by the swift growth of urban residential zones (ZHUNs) in Algeria and similar models elsewhere. Historic "grands ensembles" provided mass housing but soon drew criticism for degraded, exclusionary public spaces. In Algeria, deficiencies in planning, management, and governance have reduced public spaces to neglected corridors. In response, authorities implemented urban improvement policies (since 2000) to renovate deteriorated areas, yet many outcomes have lacked durability due to weak governance, coordination, and resident non-participation. Constantine and its town of Ain Smara have seen multiple urban enhancement initiatives focusing on outdoor spaces. Post-project, some improvements persisted while many were rejected or vandalized by residents, prompting the research questions: why do residents resist these improvements, and why do resident-initiated and funded improvements also deteriorate? The study hypothesizes that lack of early and ongoing resident engagement (information, shared diagnosis) and insufficient supervision are primary causes. Objectives are to demonstrate the critical role of residents in project outcomes and to identify mechanisms for genuine, effective involvement tailored to the Algerian context. Two occurrences in Ain Smara are examined: one top-down playground project later rejected, and a bottom-up embellishment effort initially successful. The introductory context links refusals to inadequate information, disregard for resident preferences and established spatial practices, and exclusion from diagnostic processes, underscoring the need for resident involvement across project lifecycles.

Participation is central to sustainable development and to achieving SDG 11, which emphasizes inclusive, participatory urbanization. Participation encompasses processes and mechanisms to actively involve citizens in decision-making from project design through implementation (Farinós, André). It is rooted in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, intended to improve effectiveness, sustainability, acceptability of public action, social cohesion, and democratic engagement. Urban planning has progressively adopted participatory instruments, moving from public inquiries to consultation, public debate, and co-production, bridging expert knowledge with lived experience (Burby; Rabinovich & Bouchanine). Key variables influencing participation include information access and clarity, trust, attachment to place, cultural context, and language. Information is fundamental; communication style and accessible language are crucial (Rydin; Turkucu). Place attachment—a multidimensional bond with familiar places—relates to appropriation, belonging, and spatial identity (Altman & Low; Scannell & Gifford; Sebastien). Trust deficits between citizens and authorities are documented in the Maghreb (Belkaid & Alili; Zitoun), alongside limited civic education effectiveness (Blaise). Participation dynamics can be top-down, bottom-up, or mixed, progressing through information, consultation, concertation/co-production (Thompson; Touzard), culminating in shared decision power (Arnstein’s ladder). Effective participation is multifaceted, occurring in formal and informal settings (Innes & Booher), recognizing citizens as agents of change. Instruments for participation implementation: Western contexts have applied diverse tools: community planning (UK), citizens’ juries (Germany), consensus conferences (Denmark), strategic urban planning (Spain), participatory budgeting (Porto Alegre), and eco-district participatory models (e.g., Vauban). In France, policy frameworks mandate early resident involvement, employing committees, information letters, surveys, public dialogues/meetings, and city charters (Zetlaoui-Léger). Participation is integral in international development agendas but can risk reinforcing power imbalances if not carefully designed (André; Belkaid & Alili). Maghreb contexts: Tunisia’s participatory budgeting (UNDP’s Tamkeen) and Morocco’s expanded participatory opportunities via donors, municipal planning, the National Human Development Initiative, and advanced regionalization show increasing formalization. In Algeria, World Bank-supported pilots (1997 housing rehabilitation; 1998 precarious housing resorption) experimented with participation with mixed success (Zitoun). Historically, Algeria has endogenous participatory practices (e.g., participatory housing, agricultural self-management) that were not framed under modern “participation.” Bottom-up participation experiences in Algeria: Traditional institutions and practices demonstrate durable local participatory governance: the Azzaba Council in M’zab (Ghardaïa) adjudicates communal matters; Twiza embodies organized, solidarity-based collective work for dwelling and neighborhood improvements; Tadjmait (village committees in Kabylie) coordinates multidisciplinary collaboration among residents, associations, academics, and businesses, with rules and sanctions. These practices, however, have not been systematically theorized, institutionalized, or generalized (Zitoun). Participation in Algerian legislative texts: Algeria’s constitution (Art. 15) supports participatory democracy in local communities. Law 2006-06 (city orientation law) calls for citizen involvement in managing living environments and mandates informing citizens about city state and prospects. Planning instruments (PDAU, POS) include public inquiry as a form of participation, though in many projects participation is limited to information phases (MICLAT). Despite legal references, operational guidance and enforceable mechanisms remain under-specified.

The study investigates citizen participation in public space improvements within ZHUNs, focusing on Ain Smara (Constantine). A mixed-methods design combined quantitative surveys with qualitative semi-structured interviews and longitudinal on-site observations (2015, 2017, 2022). A structured questionnaire (13 items) targeted heads of households, capturing demographics (household size/composition, age cohorts, length of residence, attachment), space use patterns by age group, project awareness (information, existence of neighborhood committee), consultation experience, and opinions on the project. Qualitative inquiry comprised 10 semi-structured interviews with residents of varied ages/socio-economic backgrounds and with local project managers/entrepreneurs, conducted over 1–2 hours on weekdays and weekends, exploring views on project content (e.g., play area, fencing, removal of long-used vehicular access), perceived roles as stakeholders, communication by public authorities, and involvement in project degradation. A second field site (500 CNEP housing units) was surveyed through two years of field observation to document resident-initiated embellishments and their sustainability, aided by extensive photography. Documentary research drew on academic literature and institutional sources (Ministry of Housing, Urban Planning and the City; Ministry of Planning and Regional Development), and local data were obtained from Constantine’s DUAC and Ain Smara authorities. Analytical emphasis was placed on residents’ practices and representations of space, information/consultation processes, and governance arrangements.

- Case 1 (top-down, ZHUN 1650 units): A 2011 municipal project converted a vacant inter-building space into a fenced children’s playground with furniture (cost: 2.5 million DZD). The development deteriorated within months; furniture, play equipment, and fencing were damaged. Survey and interviews indicate: only 3% of residents were informed about the project; 97% of adults reported not being informed or consulted; none knew of a neighborhood committee; initial opinions were largely opposed or indifferent, shifting to widespread opposition post-destruction. Reported reasons for rejection and degradation included: disruption from influx of children from adjacent neighborhoods; loss of multi-use functions (football pitch for adolescents, nighttime parking, shop supply access); loss of income for youth who managed parking; and non-recognition of longstanding, diverse practices (children’s play across ages, adolescent sports, elders’ meetings/games, women’s gatherings, shopkeepers’ functional use, domestic activities like wool drying, nighttime informal parking). - Case 2 (bottom-up, 500 CNEP units): Residents self-organized to install a water fountain, green spaces, lighting, pedestrian paths, fencing, and other beautifications. Process characteristics included: weekly 10–15 minute Friday meetings after prayer; transparent information via posted notices (cost estimates, fundraising progress); resident financial contributions per means; volunteer labor (especially youth on Fridays); design and supervision by a resident architect; and coordination with municipal technical services for work authorization. Outcomes: initial high participation, strong appropriation, and municipal endorsement (Wali encouraged further green space development). However, deterioration began after the architect’s relocation, highlighting fragility when reliant on individual champions without institutionalized maintenance structures and funding. - Cross-cutting findings: Information is the primary lever for participation; absence of clear, accessible, and continuous information and shared diagnosis contributes to rejection and unsustainability. Effective engagement requires acknowledging cultural codes and existing space appropriation, tailoring language and channels (posters, Friday prayer gatherings, neighborhood committees, social media, door-to-door). A successful Constantine example (ZHUN 20 Août) demonstrated sustained results when residents were involved from diagnosis to decision-making; a proposed handball court was rejected by residents and replaced with a preferred large public space, with ongoing neighborhood committee stewardship and multi-actor collaboration. This district won a national “most environmentally friendly region” award in 2014, underscoring durability when participation is embedded. Quantitative highlights: adults outnumber children under 12 in the surveyed block; the socio-professional profile is predominantly managerial/liberal; 67% of women are housewives (33% active); five residents operate local businesses; 23 residents own a vehicle; approximately half of households with children reported children using the space for play; yet the area was also widely used as nighttime parking and for multiple age groups/activities.

Findings align with participatory theory: information is essential for citizen involvement, and its clarity, precision, and transparency directly affect project acceptance and longevity. In Ain Smara’s top-down project, the absence of information, consultation, and recognition of lived practices led to rejection and vandalism, reflecting governance failures and neglect of dialectical exchange between expert knowledge and resident experience. Robust diagnosis is fundamental; understanding historical and current appropriations, socio-cultural norms, and demographic composition is critical to designing acceptable, sustainable interventions. Appropriation builds attachment and a sense of belonging; interventions that ignore these dynamics can be perceived as dispossessing residents of their place. Cultural codes in Maghreb public spaces shape differentiated uses by age, gender, and activity; participation must therefore be multi-modal, inclusive, and linguistically accessible. The bottom-up 500 CNEP case shows that solidarity, transparency, and local leadership can catalyze high engagement and rapid improvements, but sustainability falters without institutionalized structures (e.g., neighborhood committees), professional support, and public funding for maintenance. The ZHUN 20 Août case demonstrates that co-production from diagnosis onward, with iterative feedback and recognition of resident preferences, yields durable environmental and social outcomes. Overall, sustainable urban improvement requires shared diagnosis, ongoing information and dialogue, tailored communication channels and language, trust-building, multi-actor governance (including committees and associations), and formal mechanisms to ensure continuity beyond individual champions.

Resident engagement is pivotal to the success and durability of public space development within Algerian urban improvement programs. In Ain Smara, lack of essential information and shared diagnosis led to disengagement, rejection, and vandalism of a top-down playground project that ignored established, diverse practices and aspirations. Conversely, a resident-initiated, financed embellishment achieved strong initial engagement through transparent information, continuous communication, and local stewardship; yet sustainability faltered once the key local architect moved away, underscoring the need for institutional support and maintenance structures. A third example (ZHUN 20 Août) illustrates that early and continuous co-production with residents can produce durable outcomes and formal recognition. The study highlights the importance of: comprehensive shared diagnosis; tailored, clear communication and inclusive consultation; incorporation of resident preferences from inception through delivery and aftercare; trust-building; and multi-stakeholder governance (neighborhood/village committees, associations, municipal authorities, and urban professionals). While effective strategies exist in Algerian practice (e.g., Halka, Twiza, Tadjmait), they have not been systematized or codified. The paper calls for analyzing and integrating local participatory practices into flexible, context-appropriate mechanisms and for enacting legislation that specifies implementation of citizen participation in Algeria. Future research should deepen comparative analyses across cities, evaluate long-term maintenance models, and test scalable institutional frameworks that blend traditional practices with formal urban governance.

- Gendered response gap: Women were not surveyed in the semi-structured interviews due to social and cultural constraints, potentially biasing findings on use and perceptions. - Limited qualitative sample: Only ten semi-structured resident interviews were conducted, which may not capture all viewpoints. - Case specificity: Findings are based on two case studies within Ain Smara (Constantine), which may limit generalizability to other Algerian contexts without adaptation. - Sustainability observation: Deterioration in the bottom-up case was observed following the departure of the local architect; while illustrative, broader longitudinal data on maintenance across cases were not systematically collected.