Building Trust: A Social Work Approach for Citizen Participation in Urban Development

Ronald Crouzé, Marjan Moris, Pieter Cools, Hans Grymonprez, Nathalie Van Ceulebroeck

1. Introduction

Although urban development and spatial transformations have a direct impact on the social dimensions of the city and its residents and users (De Boyser et al. 2009; Spatscheck & Wolf-Ostermann 2009), the latter often have little control over it. Literature on gentrification (Uitermark et al. 2007, 2012; Cools 2021), urban sociology (Sassen 1994; Wacquant 2018) and urban social work (Williams 2016) shows that the voice of people coping with poverty, people with a migration background and other excluded groups is often little heard in urban planning processes. Since redevelopment often targets impoverished neighbourhoods where these groups are overrepresented, urban development often comes at their expense (Stein 2019). In fact, urban development contributes to the displacement of these groups from public space and the housing market. Not only because of an increase in rents, but also because they change and erode the neighborhood dynamics and culture they are familiar with (Shaw & Hagemans 2015; Hutak 2020).

Critical analyses of urban renewal as technocratic, undemocratic and exclusionary toward disadvantaged populations are anything but new (Jacobs 1969; Özdemir & Tasan-Kok 2019). However, over the past decades efforts have been made to change this perception. In Belgium, as elsewhere, cities have become a site for experimentation with participatory approaches, aiming to democratize decision-making and ensure that urban development benefits all residents (Swyngedouw 2005; Fung 2006, De Bie et al. 2012). Project developers and authorities increasingly invest in proactive communication, citizen surveys and a variety of methods for consultation and participation.

However, according to De Bie and colleagues (2012: 31), “one cannot expect that participation will automatically lead to democracy and urban quality”. A recurring critique of public participation is that it mainly fulfils a symbolic function to legitimize a project, while the real decisions have already been made. Others note that especially wealthy and highly educated residents participate in formal participation processes which leads to outcomes that deepen rather than reduce urban inequalities (Fung 2006, 2015; Silver et al. 2010; Van Wymeersch 2020). This raises questions about how participation can be made more inclusive, particularly for those who stand to lose the most from urban transformation.

Against this backdrop, social work emerges as a relevant actor for more equitable and democratic urban renewal. As a profession it is rooted in principles of social justice and equipped with insights into the lived experiences of excluded residents (IFSW 2014; LeRoux 2014). Social work organizations are thus well positioned to bridge gaps between (excluded) residents and policymakers, to amplify underrepresented voices, and to foster trust in participatory processes (Deceur 2017; Devos 2014, 2016; Loopmans & Dirckx 2012). By involving and representing different lifeworld perspectives, social work can strengthen the democratic character and broaden the knowledge base in urban renewal processes (Grunwald & Thiersch 2009).

Existing research highlights the potential of social work to contribute to the democratization of urban renewal processes. However, existing studies have predominantly focused on how social work can foster social cohesion during and after the implementation phase (De Brauwere et al. 2020), with limited attention to the involvement of organizations in the planning phase where strategic decisions are formulated. Therefore, little is known about how social workers position themselves in participation processes. A key question that remains underexplored is if and how social work organizations can engage in these early stages of urban renewal.

Our study draws on theory about participation, social work and urban development to explore how lifeworld-oriented approaches can democratize participatory processes. Specifically, it examines the explicit and more implicit thresholds and power imbalances of participation in urban renewal. Throughout this paper, theoretical constructions alternate with empirical observations. The analysis is based on a three-year study of three case studies in Antwerp, Belgium: Ringparken, Arenawijk, and Turnhoutsebaan. The empirical fieldwork includes interviews, participant observation, and learning network meetings.

The paper is structured as follows. First, we outline the Belgian and Antwerp context in which the research took place (2). Next, we explore the intersection of participation and social work theories and practices, including civic intermediaries and democratic professionalism, and examine how social workers can act as 'brokers of trust' in participatory urban renewal processes (3). Based on this, we identify thresholds and strategies social work employs throughout the case studies (4). Finally, we describe the various roles that social work organizations assume, depending on the context in which they operate (5).

2. Research Context and Case Studies

The study focuses on citizen participation in urban renewal in the city of Antwerp, the largest city in Flanders, Belgium, spanning 204.5 km² with 530,000 inhabitants. Antwerp plays an important economic role with a major seaport. Within Belgium’s multilayered political system, urban renewal projects in Antwerp are initiated by actors operating at different levels. Large-scale projects, such as mobility infrastructure, often require collaboration with the Flemish government, while smaller, area-based initiatives, such as housing renovations or public space improvements, are primarily managed at the city level.

The administrative structure of Antwerp consists of two levels. On a macro level, Antwerp’s city government oversees strategic planning and resource allocation, while on a micro level, governance is decentralized across ten districts. While the competencies of these districts are relatively restricted in terms of public space and urban projects, they are also the policy level that is closest to and most accessible for citizens.

We selected three urban renewal projects that vary in scale and timing, and involve different actors. This variation-oriented approach allowed us to explore how participation processes differ depending on the size of the project. The data was collected by researchers and social work students in the context of three case studies: Ringparken, Arenawijk and the Turnhoutsebaan. The duration of all three urban development projects exceeded the length of our study, which means that our analysis does not include the final outcomes of the participation processes. Instead, the focus lies on participation in the early stages of urban development projects.

Ringparken

The first case consists of the participation projects surrounding the preliminary design of two new parks in the north of the city that will cover parts of the ringroad around the city (Ringpark Lobroekdok and Ringpark het Schijn). It is a highly visible, complex and long-term urban renewal project with a long and controversial history. This project is of major economic importance, with strong involvement from key political levels, including the Flemish regional government and the city administration (Van Wymeersch, Vanoutrive, & Oosterlynck 2020).

By the time our research started in 2021, there was a strong focus on visibility and participation through window posters, flyers, public participation moments called ‘workbenches’, informational billboards in public space, feedback moments and social media video reports. The high visibility, explicit commitment to participation, and political sensitivity of the Ringparks, make them suitable for our study as 'extreme case' (Flyvbjerg 2006, 2012). This means we expected dynamics and fields of tension that affect almost all participation processes surrounding urban renewal to occur more clearly here.

For this case study, a total of 12 interviews were conducted with various stakeholders involved in the participation process. This included citizens who took part in the participatory sessions (n = 3), organizers and designers of these sessions (n = 2), social work organizations (n = 4), and neighborhood organizations (n = 3). Additionally, a focus group (n = 6) was held with members of the city's urban renewal administrative unit.

Arenawijk

The second case focuses on a large-scale urban renewal project that seeks to redevelop the Arena neighbourhood including its characteristic modernist social housing. This redevelopment project was launched by the city and local social housing provider in collaboration with the Flemish Housing Agency (VMSW) in 2018. Apart from social and private housing it also includes development of educational, community and sports infrastructure, as well as public space tailored to pedestrians and cyclists. The project involves multiple stakeholders, including the City of Antwerp, Social Housing Agencies at the local and regional (Flemish) level, and architectural firms. Public participation efforts have included information sessions, online surveys, and meetings with residents.

A key challenge in Arena is the large-scale relocation of social housing residents, who were offered different relocation options. This process has impacted residents' engagement in shaping the neighbourhood's future. While participation was promised, local organizations have raised concerns about the gap between consultation and real influence. Recent experiences with lacking participation processes in urban redevelopment, have contributed to their scepticism.

While the case has not received large-scale public attention, the area has a history of civil participation dating back to its initial development, which is still alive today through its local community work. From the first public communication about the redevelopment in 2018 onwards, the local community work organization has sought a place at the table to involve and represent local residents. Data collection for this case study includes interviews (n=9) with local social workers and activists, municipal representatives between 2020 and 2024, as well as fieldwork conducted by students through resident surveys in 2020 and 2021.

Turnhoutsebaan

The Turnhoutsebaan is an arterial road connecting the city centre to the Antwerp Ring Road, for multiple modes of transportation, including cars, public transit, cyclists, and pedestrians. In addition to its transport function, the Turnhoutsebaan is an important commercial street that is well-known in its crowded neighbourhood called Borgerhout. This busy commercial road crosses and subsequently divides the neighbourhood. Safety for pedestrians and cyclists is an issue well-known to the local policy makers, but the street as infrastructure falls under the responsibility of the Flemish government. Over the years, several pragmatic and short-term modifications have already been implemented, such as allocating more space for cyclists. In 2023 a study started for a comprehensive street renovation to enhance the safety of cyclist and pedestrians and improve the social function of the street.

Given its multiple functions, several governmental actors are involved in its management and redevelopment, including the Flemish agency for roads and traffic, public transportation authorities, the city and a district. Each of these stakeholders operates with distinct, and at times conflicting, interests. Due to its multifunctional nature, the transformation of the Turnhoutsebaan is also a source of tension between residents. Conflicts arise particularly between advocates of active mobility and those who prioritize car use. This tension aligns with broader social divisions among different residents which is amplified by a process of gentrification.

The study encompasses the extensive participatory process organized by an independent participation agency. Particular attention was paid to reaching underrepresented groups. This was achieved in part by collaborating with different social work organizations to involve their target audiences in the process. The data was collected through interviews (n=4) with three social work organizations, a focus group (n=4) with a neighbourhood committee and participatory observations (3) during the participatory process.

Learning network

The findings from the case studies formed the foundation for a learning network involving social workers. Over the course of four meetings from March till May 2024, we discussed and refined these findings, exploring one theme per meeting with wider relevance than our local cases. The themes were: urban development and social justice, action strategies for social work, the spatial perspective in urban renewal, and the democratization of urban renewal processes and practices. Depending on the session, there were between 6 and 10 participants.

3. Participation Theory and Social Work Practices

Our theoretical reflections are organized around the concept of trust, which we identify as a critical threshold in participatory processes. Drawing on Aitken’s (2012) typology of trust, we engage with the role of social work organizations as civic intermediaries (LeRoux 2014) and democratic professionalism as a necessary attitude for supporting citizens to shape the institutions they live in (Dzur 2008; Spierts et al. 2021). By integrating these frameworks, we aim to define the contribution that social work can make as ‘broker of trust’ in participatory processes. Next, we address the challenges and barriers that social work organizations encounter in fulfilling this role based on the case-studies and the learning network. Finally, we address how social work organizations position themselves in various contexts, whether they are formally or informally, employing strategies that range from legitimization to resistance.

Social Workers as Civic Intermediaries

Previous research indicates that social work organizations actively strive to amplify the voices of their clients and visitors by acting as civic intermediaries. They do so by expressing the experiences and interests of their clients in policy arenas, and by motivating and supporting them to actively participate participation processes. According to Kelly Leroux (2014) social work organizations are well positioned to amplify the influence of their target groups in political processes because, due to their services and activities for low-income and so-called vulnerable groups, they "enjoy a high level of respect and trust from their clients" (LeRoux 2014: 326). However, not all organisations take up the role of civic intermediaries. Leroux (2014) points to several factors, including the organization’s mission, political climate, size of the organization, level of expertise, and previous experiences in political work. Organizations who do take up this role, are referred to in the literature as doing "structural social work". These organizations aim to bring about societal change by organizing and mobilizing marginalized groups to influence policy in favour of underrepresented segments of society. The approach varies, ranging from a focus on consultation and co-creation to more activist and disruptive strategies (Hermans 2013).

LeRoux (2014) argues that the trust relationship that clients have with social workers can make a crucial difference in their attitude towards political participation, to be represented by social workers in these processes, or to engage in them directly. In other words, this interpersonal trust (particularized trust) can, in some cases, act as a bridge for people who have little generalized trust in societal institutions, and may strengthen this trust (Newton & Zmerli 2011). Within social work practice and research, the careful cultivation of trust between clients and social workers is frequently cited as a crucial driver of participation and social change (Smith 2001; Vandekinderen et al. 2018). In professional journals, this trust relationship is often described as "the lifeline" of social work (Goris & Bogearts 2021). Additionally, social work plays a role in ensuring that people in difficult situations do not entirely lose their trust in society (Dekker 2021). In this sense, social workers can be seen as "brokers of trust," though it is important to recognize the fragile, interpersonal nature of this trust and the time it takes to build (Cools et al. 2023).

British researcher Dominic Aitken (2012) identifies a "participation paradox". On one hand, a lack of trust in institutions can motivate people to participate (Fraser 1970; Hardin 2006): "I want to have my say because I don't trust that my perspective will be represented." On the other hand, a lack of trust can also discourage participation (Warburton 1997): "There’s no point in participating because they won’t listen to me anyway."

To resolve this paradox, Aitken (2012) suggests distinguishing three types of trust:

  1. Receptivity trust – Citizens must trust that institutions will take their input seriously. Higher trust increases participation.
  2. Ability trust – Citizens must trust their own ability to participate meaningfully. If processes are overly technical or time-intensive, participation declines.
  3. Representative trust – Citizens must trust that their interests are adequately represented. Lower trust in representation increases participation, as people feel the need to advocate for themselves.

Although trust is not the sole factor influencing participation, it is a critical lever in social work's efforts to engage citizens who might otherwise be excluded. By fostering trust-based relationships, social workers can lower participation barriers and enhance accessibility in meaningful ways.

Our data show that social workers are very careful in deciding whether, when and how to use their relationships to convince residents to join citizen participation trajectories they would otherwise not attend. An unpleasant experience, like attending a meeting that is too difficult to understand, or feeling like you are not taken seriously, could negatively impact both the resident and their trust relationship with the social worker. To avoid such incidents, social workers often go prospecting to assess the trajectory. If the approach is not deemed suitable, they can and often do request alternative settings and methods for participation.

In the case of Ringparken for instance, at the end of a session a social worker of a community service centre, expressed the following: “I came here today to see if our visitors should join future meetings to get information, I am glad I did not take them. This was way too technical, they would not feel good here”. Youth workers came to the same conclusion after attending online information sessions. When the session organizer asked them if they could bring youngsters, they proposed to organize a separate meeting at the youth centre. If the planners were willing to bring their maps and maquettes, youth workers would mobilise youngsters and their parents for a discussion and a neighbourhood walk.

In the case of Turnhoutsebaan, an influential citizens’ movement wanted to join forces with a local neighbourhood centre to make their movement more inclusive. However, when social workers expressed that they should be willing to drastically change their plans based on the needs and preferences of their visitors, the movement replied that this was not possible because so much work was done already. The social workers declined the invitation to collaborate under these conditions.

In some cases, like Arena, social workers supported citizens to organize themselves to influence public opinion and policymakers outside the formal participation procedures. After bad experiences in talking with the planners and public officials, social workers helped residents to publish a newspaper article that was very critical of how the city handled the situation.

Democratic Professionalism as Key to Lifeworld Expertise and Participation

A common thread throughout the three cases is that social workers regularly requested and proposed alternatives to the often-used PowerPoint presentations, post-it sessions, roundtables and public hearings to collect resident input and facilitate discussion. Drawing inspiration from the American participation expert Albert Dzur (2008; 2018) on democratic professionalism, social work researchers Spierts and colleagues (2021) argue that democratization should be understood more broadly than merely participating in debates and discussion groups. These highly verbal and intellectual forms of participation often remain inaccessible and elitist for excluded groups. Furthermore, power dynamics, both subtle and explicit, regarding communication styles and available resources (such as technical jargon, prior knowledge, and time commitment) often work against these individuals. According to these authors, social work organizations should therefore embrace ‘democratic professionalism’ to expand the possibilities for input, contribution, and co-creation. They outline four key principles of democratic professionalism: interaction, agency, collectivization, and power-sharing.

Based on these principles, democratic professionals can build trust and capacity among citizens and bridge the gap to societal institutions and participation opportunities that would otherwise remain inaccessible to their clients.

4. Thresholds and Barriers for Effective and Inclusive Participation

A substantial body of academic literature explores the concept of ‘effective participation’ and the barriers that hinder engagement (Bobbio 2019). Based on this literature and our research within the framework of our practice-oriented study, we identified several factors that influence who is (or is not) willing and able to participate. Within this framework, we distinguish between the communication dimension and the time dimension of participatory processes in urban renewal projects. For each principle, we reflect on the role of social work in addressing these issues and how these dimensions relate to different forms of trust.

Communicative Dimension

Technicality refers to how the use of specialized language and the focus of discussions impact the accessibility of participation processes. Excessive technical jargon can make discussions elitist, prioritizing technical expertise over lived experience. At the same time, technical discussions are crucial, and some stakeholders may feel demotivated if they cannot engage with certain details. Social workers often advocate for less technical and more accessible discussions, ensuring that individuals without technical expertise can contribute meaningfully. For example in the Turnhoutsebaan case, social workers facilitated this process by organizing preliminary sessions with their participants to familiarize them with the language and format. Addressing technicality in participatory processes relates to ‘ability trust’, the confidence that participants have in their own skills and competencies.

Transparency and feedback are two interrelated concepts emphasizing the importance of informing participants about how their input is used, when they can expect a response, where they can access all relevant information, and who ultimately makes decisions. A lack of transparency can create the impression that decisions have already been made and that participation has little impact. Similarly, insufficient (or absent) proactive feedback can lead participants to feel that their contributions are disregarded. Social work often advocates for more proactive feedback and transparency through clearly defined points of contact. Additionally, social workers highlight the importance of proximity and tailored information to better engage citizens. Transparency and feedback contribute to ‘receptivity trust,’ the belief that one’s voice is heard and taken into account.

Dissent refers to the importance of creating space for differing opinions and questioning the predefined scope of participatory discussions. Social work plays a critical role in identifying absent voices and underrepresented interests in decision-making processes. They can do that by representing ‘their people’ during meetings or by mobilizing to participate or to support actions outside the formal participation procedures, like writing a critical newspaper article. In line with the principles of democratic professionalism, social workers can help collectivize needs and empower individuals as active agents in these discussions. Ensuring space for dissent and divergent perspectives is closely linked to ‘representative trust’, the confidence that different viewpoints are genuinely considered in participatory processes. The example of Turnhoutsebaan is relevant: a group of elderly residents and female residents gathered independently of an existing participation project to learn how to articulate and reflect on their needs in public space. As a result of their proactive organizing, these individuals were easily identified and consulted when a formal participation agent sought diverse experts within the neighborhood.

Disappointment is a commonly expressed feeling among residents who have participated. This stems from a multitude of factors, including a lack of feedback, transparency, and uncertainty about the outcomes of their involvement. Such experiences erode trust in participatory initiatives. To address this, it is crucial to communicate from the outset how residents’ input will be used, and to provide clear timelines for when they can expect results. Social work can play a role as an intermediary in this process. Ensuring that disappointment is addressed is important for sustaining 'receptivity trust’. In cases where disappointment was previously addressed insufficiently, such as the Arenawijk, social workers express difficulty to engage residents as they feel their participation does not matter anyway. Moreover, the memory of lacking participation created scepticism among social workers as well about whether the city would involve them in time.

Time Dimension

Pace refers to the intensity of participatory processes, both in terms of how meetings are structured (what is prioritized) and how frequently they occur. A fast-paced process can be exclusionary, as not everyone can keep up or easily make time to participate. Conversely, a slow pace can demotivate participants and undermine the momentum of engagement. Social workers often address this tension by considering the skills and preferences of their target groups. The pace of participation relates to the ability to engage effectively, which connects to ‘ability trust.’

Timing and timelines concern when citizen participation is incorporated in the broader urban renewal process. Is participation limited to the final stages, where only minor adjustments can be made, or are citizens involved from the outset, shaping strategic decisions? Timing also refers to how much time remains for meaningful influence before a decision is finalized. Social work seeks to prevent participation from becoming a symbolic exercise used to legitimize predetermined decisions. Therefore, social workers often advocate for early involvement and sufficient time for citizens to become informed and organize themselves. To be effective, social workers must be aware of how decision-making processes unfold and when it is most strategic to facilitate citizen input. Consideration of timing and inclusion at various stages of decision-making influences ‘receptivity trust’ –the confidence that planners and policymakers are genuinely open to listening. The working groups of aged residents and women who built up expertise prior to any project, are a strong example of how social workers decided to proactively way on urban development. Likewise, in the Arenawijk case, the extensive experience of social workers and volunteers in the community centre, made them react quickly when they feared they would not be heard (again) by local policy makers about their neighbourhood.   

Interim periods refer to the time between participation moments and the often-lengthy gap between planning and implementing urban renewal projects. Citizen participation and communication with residents are often temporary, which can lead to a loss of momentum and diminished attention to community interests. This can undermine citizens’ trust, especially as major construction projects or periods of vacancy may significantly impact neighborhoods during these interim periods. Social work highlights the need to keep communication and participation active throughout these gaps, ensuring that interim periods are used constructively. Addressing interim periods is crucial for making citizen interests visible and thus strengthening ‘representative trust’. In the Ringparken for instance, social workers urged to also take into account lifeworld-related experiences of time, for instance those of children who grow up in a neighbourhood that is ‘being regenerated’ for most or all of their childhood.

5. A Trust-based Model for Citizen Participation and Roles of Social Work in Urban Development

Drawing on the theory of democratic professionalism (Dzur 2008; 2019; Spierts et al. 2021), civic intermediaries (LeRoux 2014), and types of trust (Aitken 2012), and further informed by the empirical insights from the case studies on the thresholds, actions, and strategies of social work organizations we synthesize the findings in two figures.

Figure 1 presents a trust-based model illustrating how social workers can enhance citizen participation by reducing barriers to formal engagement. Grounded in democratic professionalism, the model connects observed thresholds and actions of social workers to different types of trust, demonstrating their role as civic intermediaries. By doing so, social workers facilitate participation for residents who are typically underrepresented in formal urban development processes.

A trust-based model for citizen participation

Figure 1: A trust-based model for citizen participation (Source: Authors)

At the right of the model is the goal of citizen participation, which can take different forms. Citizens can engage directly in public participatory events or provide input and mandate social work organizations to represent their voices.

The three arrows correspond to the three types of trust: ‘ability trust’ (the belief that “I can contribute”), ‘receptivity trust’ (the belief that “I will be heard”), and ‘representative trust’ (the belief that “my input matters”). In the middle are the potential thresholds and barriers that influence trust and, consequently, citizens’ motivation to participate. Finally, the far left part illustrates social work organizations, drawing on their mission, expertise, and relationships with their target groups, can address these challenges to build trust and encourage participation. These are linked with the overarching principle of democratic professionalism.

In complement of the trust-based model for formal participation (figure 1), our analysis of the case studies and learning network demonstrate that social work organizations also adopt other roles and positions depending on the context. This is especially the case when limitations arise and participatory processes are tokenistic, structurally inadequate, or entirely absent.

Figure 2 complements this analysis by offering a critical perspective that broadens the conceptual framework. It underscores a key reflection: while our study focuses on formal participatory trajectories involving social workers, often framed as promising, these constitute only one dimension of a far more diverse participatory landscape.

Roles of social work

Figure 2: Roles of social work (Source: Authors)

To conceptualize this dynamic, we analyze participation contexts along a continuum defined by two key axes: (1) the insider-outsider positioning of social work organizations within participation processes, and (2) their functional orientation along a legitimizing-oppositional spectrum. This framework reveals significant variation in organizational roles. For instance, in the bottom-right quadrant, organizations may act as dissenters or mobilizers, positioning themselves (or being positioned) as outsiders in urban renewal processes. In such cases, they support residents in voicing critiques and organizing resistance against specific plans. Conversely, in the top-left quadrant, organizations often assume legitimizing functions as insiders, serving as formal facilitators who channel resident voices through institutional participatory structures. Figure 2 illustrates the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of social work, highlighting how organizations navigate between legitimizing and oppositional roles to address complex participatory challenges.

6. Conclusion

This paper has explored the critical role of social work in fostering trust and inclusivity in citizen participation processes within urban development. By examining three case studies in Antwerp, Belgium, and drawing on theoretical frameworks of participation and social work we have highlighted how social work organizations act as "brokers of trust" in urban renewal projects. Their unique position, rooted in principles of social justice and lifeworld expertise, enables them to bridge gaps between excluded residents and policymakers, amplify underrepresented voices, and navigate power dynamics in participatory processes.

The study underscores the importance of trust as a foundational element for effective and inclusive participation. By addressing barriers, such as technicality, transparency, dissent, pace, timing, and interim periods, social workers can enhance citizens' ability, receptivity, and representative trust. This trust-based approach not only lowers participation thresholds but also empowers marginalized groups to engage meaningfully in shaping their urban environments. Furthermore, the adaptability of social work organizations, as demonstrated by their varying roles along the legitimizing-resisting continuum, highlights their capacity to respond creatively to diverse participatory contexts.

However, while social work can improve institutionalized citizen participation in urban renewal through various strategies, roles, and alliances, participation alone does not always suffice to protect target groups from the negative consequences of urban renewal. The role social work can play is highly contingent on specific conditions, including institutional support, policy frameworks, and the broader socio-political climate. Power imbalances, institutional constraints, and the (sometimes) symbolic nature of some participation processes remain real obstacles. Moreover, it remains a concern that urban renewal typically follows long-term trajectories with complex processes, and political strategies that are not tailored to ordinary citizens, let alone those from excluded social groups. Participating in participatory processes thus requires considerable effort, information and opportunities for input, but offers little guarantee of actual influence. Though lacking direct decision-making power, social work can in certain circumstances influence planning processes and policy agendas, ensuring the interests of vulnerable residents are safeguarded. It is also important to keep open the possibility of supporting (politicizing) actions outside formal institutions of public consultation and citizen participation, actions that enable citizen to disrupt public discourse and amplify their underrepresented voices and needs.

To conclude, social work can make a unique contribution to the democratization and inclusivity of participatory projects. However, the impact of this contribution remains contingent on the extent to which governmental authorities provide space for residents' input.

References

Aitken, D. (2012). Trust and participation in urban regeneration. People, Place and Policy Online, 6(3), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.0006.0003.0003

Bobbio, L. (2019). Designing effective public participation. Policy and Society, 38(1), 41-57. 

Cools, P. (2021). Nancy Fraser: Een gids in de strijd tegen sociale uitsluiting en paternalisme. In P. Raeymaeckers, J. Gradener, S. van Dam, S. Botman, K. Driessens, J. Boxstaens, & M. Tirions (Eds.), Denken over sociaal werk: Samenleving, rechtvaardigheid en praktijk (pp. 267-282). Acco.

Cools, P., Moris, M., Van Ceulebroeck, N., Grymonprez, H., & Van Gucht, J. (2023). Makelaars in vertrouwen? Hoe sociaal werkorganisaties burgerparticipatie kunnen versterken [Discussion paper]. AP Hogeschool Antwerpen. https://www.ap.be/project/stadsvernieuwing-als-sociale-praktijk

De Bie, M., Oosterlynck, S., & De Blust, S. (2012). Participation, design and expropriation in democratic urban renewal. In Urban renewal in Flanders (2002-2011): A particular practice in Europe (pp. 29-33). ASP.

De Bie, M., Roose, R., Coussée, F., & Bradt, L. (2012). Learning democracy in social work. In G. Biesta, M. De Bie, & D. Wildemeersch (Eds.), Civic learning, democratic citizenship and the public sphere (pp. 43-54). Springer. 

De Boyser, K., Dewilde, C., Dierckx, D., & Friedrichs, J. (Eds.). (2009). Between the social and the spatial: Exploring the multiple dimensions of poverty and social exclusion. Ashgate.

De Brauwere, G., Vanthuyne, T., Lescrauwaet, A., & De Haene, J. (2020). Van plek naar gedeelde wij-k: Stadsontwikkeling in dialoog met haar diverse bewoners. Garant.

Deceur, E. (2017). Sociaal-cultureel werk als democratische arena: De inzet van participatieve praktijken in stedelijke contexten [Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University].

Dekker, P. (2021). [Review of the book Civil society: Between concepts and empirical grounds, by L. Egholm & L. B. Kaspersen (Eds.)]. Voluntas, 32(5), 1182-1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00377-z

Devos, T. (2016). Participation & coproduction in urban planning: Reviving the political dimension of citizen involvement in spatial projects [Doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven].

Dzur, A. W. (2008). Democratic professionalism: Citizen participation and the reconstruction of professional ethics, identity, and practice. Penn State University Press.

Dzur, A. W. (2018). Democracy inside: Participatory innovation in unlikely places. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190658663.001.0001

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

Flyvbjerg, B. (2012). Making social science matter. In G. Papanagnou (Ed.), Social science and policy challenges: Democracy, values, and capacities (pp. 25-56). UNESCO Publishing.

Fraser, J. (1970). The mistrustful-efficacious hypothesis and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 32(2), 444-449. 

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522. 

Goris, P., & Bogaerts, N. (2021, February 8). Doordacht sociaal werk: "Vertrouwen blijft de levenslijn van hulpverlening." Sociaal.net. 

Grunwald, K., & Thiersch, H. (2009). The concept of the "lifeworld orientation" for social work and social care. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530902923643

Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. Polity.

Hermans, K. (2013). Structureel werken in het sociaal werk: Over bruggenbouwers en hemelbestormers. Alert, 39(2), 25-34.

Hutak, M. (2020). Jij hebt ons niet ontdekt: Wij waren hier altijd al. Uitgeverij Pluim.

International Federation of Social Workers. (2014). Global definition of social work. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/

Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. Random House.

LeRoux, K. (2014). Social justice and the role of nonprofit human service organizations in amplifying client voice. In J. M. Austin (Ed.), Social justice and social work: Rediscovering a core value of the profession (pp. 325-338). SAGE.

Loopmans, M., & Dirckx, T. (2012). Neoliberal urban movements? A geography of conflict and mobilisation over urban renaissance in Antwerp, Belgium. In T. Tasan-Kok & G. Baeten (Eds.), Contradictions of neoliberal planning (pp. 99-116). Springer. 

Newton, K., & Zmerli, S. (2011). Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review, 3(2), 169-200. 

Özdemir, E., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2019). Planners' role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Studies, 56(4), 741-759. 

Sassen, S. (2018). Cities in a world economy (5th ed.). SAGE.

Shaw, K. S., & Hagemans, I. W. (2015). "Gentrification without displacement" and the consequent loss of place: The effects of class transition on low-income residents of secure housing in gentrifying areas. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(2), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12164

Silver, H., Scott, A., & Kazepov, Y. (2010). Participation in urban contention and deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 453-477. 

Smith, C. (2001). Trust and confidence: Possibilities for social work in "high modernity." British Journal of Social Work, 31(2), 287-305. 

Spatscheck, C., & Wolf-Ostermann, K. (2009). The Socio-Spatial Paradigm in Social Work – Social Space Analyses as Method for Practitioners and Researchers. sozialraum.de 1(2) Issue 2/2009. https://www.sozialraum.de/the-socio-spatial-paradigm-in-social-work.php

Spierts, M., Raeymaeckers, P., Cools, P., Mathys, E., & Gradener, J. (2021). Democratisch sociaal werk: Van theorie naar werkzame principes. In P. Raeymaeckers et al. (Eds.), Denken over sociaal werk (pp. 339-360). Acco.

Stein, S. (2019). Capital city: Gentrification and the real estate state. Verso.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991-2006. 

Uitermark, J., Duyvendak, J., & Kleinhans, R. (2007). Gentrification as a governmental strategy: Social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39142

Uitermark, J., Nicholls, W., & Loopmans, M. (2012). Cities and social movements: Theorizing beyond the right to the city. Environment and Planning A, 44(11), 2546-2554. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45282

Vandekinderen, C., Roose, R., Van Gorp, A., & De Schauwer, E. (2018). Social work in superdiverse neighbourhoods. Policy Research Centre on Welfare, Public Health and Family.

Van Wymeersch, E., Vanoutrive, T., & Oosterlynck, S. (2020). Unravelling the concept of social transformation in planning: Inclusion, power changes, and political subjectification in the Oosterweel link road conflict. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(2), 200-217. 

Wacquant, L. (2018). Bourdieu comes to town: Pertinence, principles, applications. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(1), 90-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12519

Warburton, D. (1997). Participatory action in the countryside: A literature review. Countryside Commission.

Williams, C. (Ed.). (2016). Social work and the city: Urban themes in 21st-century social work. Palgrave Macmillan.


Zitiervorschlag

Crouzé, Ronald, Marjan Moris, Pieter Cools, Hans Grymonprez und Nathalie Van Ceulebroeck (2025): Building Trust: A Social Work Approach for Citizen Participation in Urban Development. In: sozialraum.de (16) Ausgabe 1/2025. URL: https://www.sozialraum.de/building-trust-a-social-work-approach-for-citizen-participation-in-urban-development.php, Datum des Zugriffs: 19.06.2025