Views on the Neighbourhoods of Tomorrow — Experimenting with citizen participation in priority neighbourhoods

1️⃣ ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

An architecture of participation in priority neighbourhoods

The consultation Neighbourhoods of Tomorrow mobilised ten priority pilot neighbourhoods (50,520 inhabitants) and 30 international design teams around a common bet: to involve residents in the choice of urban projects, rather than consulting them afterwards (p. 5-7). The target audience includes residents and users, often distanced from institutional frameworks, in areas marked by distrust towards past urban renewal operations (p. 18). The notebook documents the establishment of citizen juries (216 members in total) integrated into a competitive dialogue, a system that requires heavy engineering: dedicated project management assistance, site experts, training for all parties (p. 9, 20-21).

Operational mechanisms and their conditions for success

The document provides four practical sheets that can be directly mobilised: forming a citizen jury, organising a dialogue commission with co-decision, conducting a site residency, facilitating a neighbourhood workshop (p. 16-63). Each sheet details steps, roles, levers, costs, and points of vigilance derived from the field. The major contribution lies less in the tools than in the conditions that make them effective: long timeframes, informal presence, clarification of margins for manoeuvre, visible feedback to residents (p. 22-23, 34-35, 66-67). The central message, conveyed by several speakers, is that participation only produces real effects if the rules of the game and constraints are clearly stated (p. 67).

2️⃣ KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1️⃣ The citizen jury integrated into the decision, not on the sidelines. Two representatives of the jury sat on each dialogue committee, having one vote like the other members, in a body consisting of 2 jurors, 7 to 9 representatives of the project owner, 5 representatives of the State and 6 qualified individuals (p. 33). The episode where the jury's choice was revealed to be a minority, openly debated rather than glossed over, illustrates a real and not cosmetic co-decision (p. 30).

2️⃣ Crossing recruitment methods to reach distant audiences. To prevent only regulars from participating, the mobilization combines outreach, calls for applications, random selection and facilitating measures (childcare, reimbursement, compensation) (p. 16-17). In Colmar, 56 applications for 12 places, with attention to parity and age, allowed the integration of several young people under 20 years old (p. 19).

3️⃣ The informal as a fundamental lever. Shared meals, cafés, walks and immersions (sleeping on site in Sedan) build the trust without which no procedure 'takes' (p. 14-15, 22, 45). This 'low-key participation' is presented as the decisive condition for the skill enhancement of residents and the evolution of professional attitudes (p. 22).

4️⃣ The site residency: a shared and embodied diagnosis. Immersion time of at least one to two days at the start of the project, it combines guided walks, interviews, cartographic workshops, immersive formats like 'live my life as an ATSEM' in Coulommiers or a show apartment in Sedan (p. 44-49). It produces a written record ensuring all teams have the same level of information (p. 47).

5️⃣ The neighbourhood factory: making the project a discussion support. One-day workshop where plans, models, games and “boards” (tokens of uses and design actions in Manosque) allow for collective visualisation and arbitration of choices (p. 58-63). Sine qua non condition: that the project management teams have skills in participation, integrated from the outset (p. 61).

For the Promotion of Health 

1️⃣ Move participation from downstream to upstream

The central lesson of the document is that involving residents in the choices of the project, rather than consulting them once decisions are made, changes everything (p. 7, 58). In prevention, this invites a shift from a logic where one informs/raises awareness about a programme that is already set to a logic where residents co-define the health priorities of the area. Specifically: integrate a jury or committee of residents upstream of a Local Health Contract, a territorial diagnosis or a health centre project, with a written mandate that legitimises their opinion (the “letter of order”, p. 16, 35).

2️⃣ Shared diagnosis rather than top-down diagnosis

The site residency (p. 44-49) is directly transposable into a community health diagnosis. Immersion — guided walks, interviews, shared time in living spaces — produces a “situated and embodied” diagnosis that neither epidemiological indicators alone nor institutional meetings provide. For prevention, this means: going to identify real uses (mobility, food, isolation, relationships to care) where they are experienced, before programming an action. It is the outreach of social work applied to diagnosis (glossary, p. 10).

3️⃣ Trust as a condition for access to remote audiences

The document stresses that nothing "takes" without informal times — coffee, meals, repeated presence (p. 14-15, 22). In prevention, this is exactly the issue of access for those furthest from the healthcare system: the relationship precedes the message. This implies including in the budget and schedule of actions what is usually considered ancillary (time of presence, conviviality, mediation), and giving up the illusion that a device, alone, produces change.

4️⃣ Health literacy as translation, not as simplification

The notebook emphasizes the need to make technical content accessible (models, annotated plans, clear vocabulary) and warns against "wild translation" that erases the voice of residents in favour of expert language (p. 27, 34). Transposed to health, this is the heart of the literacy : not just to popularize a top-down knowledge, but to build a common language where lived experience remains audible. The "multilingualism" mentioned (p. 27) is a valuable stance for health education.

5️⃣ Clarifying the margins of manoeuvre — an ethical issue

The strongest point of the document for prevention may be this: the opacity of constraints, more than the constraints themselves, produces frustration, a sense of instrumentalisation, and reinforces distrust (p. 67). In health, participation that does not clearly state what residents can act upon (and what they cannot — regulatory, budgetary, health constraints) generates a "symbolic violence" (p. 67). It is a direct ethical safeguard against alibi participation in health city workshops, CLSM or community approaches.

6️⃣ Independent intermediation and the role of peers

The role of the AMO participation — transcribing speech into collective opinions without distorting it, ensuring the autonomy of the group, not being "judge and party" (p. 34, 38-39) — finds its equivalent in health in the health mediators, peer supporters and relay associations. Agnès Deboulet's involvement highlights the fragility of this third sector (p. 39). For prevention, this advocates for securing independent intermediaries between health institutions and residents.

7️⃣ Rethinking the evaluation of prevention actions

Khedidja Mamou's chapter (p. 66-67) is almost a text on evaluation methodology in health promotion. It points out that the most significant effects — shifts in roles, recognition, empowerment — escape quantifiable indicators and the positivity bias ("participants express a satisfaction in fact"). This supports, for prevention, an open qualitative evaluation that does not presuppose the nature of transformations in advance and takes seriously the symbolic and relational effects, not just attendance indicators.

3️⃣ ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

1️⃣ Formalise the mandate of the resident group through a written act. Reintroduce the idea of the official "letter of commissioning" to legitimise members on the same level as professionals and secure the consideration of their opinions (p. 16, 35). Without formal recognition, speech loses its strength.

2️⃣ Diversify recruitment with the grid of cross-criteria. Use the composition criteria p. 19 (gender, age, seniority, residential status, level of involvement, diversity of land use) and plan from the budget the facilitating measures p. 17 (childcare, reimbursement) that directly condition the diversity mobilised.

3️⃣ Clarify the margins of manoeuvre from the outset. Specify what the group can act upon and what is non-negotiable — technical, regulatory, budgetary constraints (p. 22). Opacity, more than the constraint itself, generates frustration and a sense of instrumentalisation (p. 67).

4️⃣ Organise the visible restitution to the whole community. Set up detailed reports explaining what has evolved, what has not, and why (p. 22, 34). This feedback loop is the condition for the jurors to play a relay role with other residents.

5️⃣ Adapt immersive measures to the health/social field. Transpose the site residency into field immersion for a shared community diagnosis, and the manufacture into a co-construction workshop for a prevention action (p. 44-63). Unmet need : the notebook remains focused on the urban project; adapting a health measure to the public (literacy, access to care, vulnerable people) requires specific translation work.

6️⃣ Secure independent intermediation. Plan for a third-party facilitator (type AMO participation) responsible for transcribing speech into collective opinions without distorting it and ensuring the autonomy of the group, while ensuring that they are not "judge and party" (p. 34, 38-39). Cited reference cost: approximately €40,000 excluding VAT for 8 to 10 months of support (p. 23).

4️⃣ ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the theme of participation ➡️🔗 https://www.pratiquesensante.com/participation

1. ANCT — Reference framework: the participation of residents in priority neighbourhoods (2026). Updated legislative and methodological framework for citizen councils and participatory approaches in QPV, complementary to the sustainable bodies towards which the document proposes to transform the jury. Verified active presentation page: https://www.irev.fr/participation-des-habitants-a-la-politique-de-la-ville-un-cadre-actualise-est-disponible
2. GIP Epau / MIQCP / Bank of Territories — Capitalisation notebook on competitive dialogues — Neighbourhoods of tomorrow (1st July 2026). Procedural component of the same programme, illuminating the project management and competitive dialogue aspects that complement the participation angle of this booklet. Verified active URL: https://quartiers-de-demain.archi.fr/actualites/publication-du-carnet-de-capitalisation-sur-les-dialogues-competitifs
3. The Citizen's Share — national resource platform on resident participation (Cities in Square, 2026). Toolkits, methods, and feedback that can be mobilised by local actors in social and participatory democracy. Verified active URL: https://www.lapartcitoyenne.fr/services/ressources

5️⃣ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1️⃣ What distinguishes a citizen jury from a traditional citizen council?

The citizen jury meets several times to understand, deliberate and formulate an opinion on the directions of a specific project, drawing inspiration from deliberative mini-publics (Romandy, Citizens' Convention for Climate). It is not permanent and aims for a diversity of viewpoints rather than a perfect representation of the population (p. 16-17).

2️⃣ How to engage residents who never participate?

By combining several approaches: outreach in the field, calls for applications, random selection and facilitating measures (childcare, reimbursement, compensation). Prior immersion in the neighbourhood is crucial (p. 16-17, 19).

3️⃣ How much does the support for such an initiative cost?

In Neighbourhoods of Tomorrow, the missions of participatory project management represented around €40,000 excluding VAT for support over 8 to 10 months (p. 23).

4️⃣ Is the group's opinion really taken into account?

Its influence depends on the framework and how opinions are handled. The case of Colmar shows a minority opinion that was acknowledged and debated; what mattered to the jurors was the feeling of having been truly listened to and taken seriously (p. 20, 30).

5️⃣ Why insist so much on informal times?

Because trust — the 'glue' of participation — is built in shared coffee, meals, walks, more than in formal meetings. Without these moments, positions do not shift (p. 14-15, 22).

6️⃣ What precautions are there regarding the confidentiality of competitive dialogue?

The privacy rules, when misunderstood, can become a "stranglehold" neutralising the jurors' ability to communicate with other residents. It is important to clearly distinguish between confidential elements and shareable elements (p. 34-35).

7️⃣ How to assess the effects of participation?

The difficulty is not only in answering this, but in knowing what to assess: beyond quantifiable indicators, the most important effects are symbolic and relational (shifts in roles, recognition), and escape the usual categories. An open qualitative approach is recommended (p. 66-67).

6️⃣ REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

What is this document about?

This document is about the participation of residents.

It comes from 10 neighbourhoods in France.

In these neighbourhoods, groups of residents have been created.

These groups are called citizen juries.

What is the purpose of a citizen jury?

Residents give their opinions on the neighbourhood projects.

They work with architects and the town hall.

Their opinions matter in the decisions.

What helps to succeed:

• Time must be given to the residents.
• They need to meet often. We drink coffee. We eat together.
• This way, we build trust.
• We need to reach out to those who do not come.
• We need to pay for childcare or travel.
• We need to tell residents what they can change. And what they cannot change.
• We need to explain what has changed thanks to the residents.

What is important :

The residents know their neighbourhood well.

This knowledge is useful for the project.

A citizen jury is not perfect. But it changes things.

7️⃣ CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

• Literacy : the document emphasises the translation of technical content (annotated plans, models, comic-style drawings, clear vocabulary) to make documents accessible to non-professionals (p. 20, 34).
• Empowerment : residents move from observers to full members of a decision-making body, with documented skill development (p. 22, 33).
• Participation : several co-construction mechanisms are detailed (jury, site residency, manufacturing, Manosque game board) with their success conditions (p. 44-63).
• Community health : the collective dimension is central — the collective "does not pre-exist" and is built through neighbourhood and shared experience (p. 26-27).
• Ethics : biases are identified (positivity bias in evaluation, "wild translation" of residents' speech, risk of instrumentalisation) and discussed openly (p. 27, 66-67).
• Human rights : access equity is addressed through facilitating mechanisms and the requirement for equal access to information at the same time (p. 17, 22, 34).
• Intersectorality : recommended partnerships with social centres, associations, schools, funders, local intermediaries (p. 17, 18).
• Partnership : collaboration models are formalised (role of the AMO participation, double command, articulation MOA/MOE/jury) (p. 22-23, 38).
• Fight against discrimination : the distrust linked to past renovations and the “symbolic violence” of token participation are named; the diversity of profiles is an explicit criterion for composition (p. 18, 19, 67).

8️⃣ EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Scientific relevance : strong qualitatively. The document relies on a rich corpus (opinions of the juries, four feedback workshops bringing together ~100 participants, interviews with recognised researchers in urban sociology) and mobilises identifiable theoretical references (de Certeau, Nicolas-Le Strat). Limit : this is not an independent external evaluation — the publishing structure is also the funder and organiser, which directs the framing towards valorisation. The numerical data is not systematically sourced.

Operational relevance : very high. The four practical sheets are directly usable, with steps, roles, costs, timelines, and points of vigilance derived from the field. The transferability to the health/social/medico-social field is real but requires adaptation work, the corpus being anchored in the urban and architectural project.

⚠️ Internal inconsistencies and data to verify (noted, not corrected) :

• The number of QPV diverges: “1,362 priority neighbourhoods in metropolitan France” (p. 5) vs “1,584 priority neighbourhoods of the city policy” (p. 7, editorial). The two figures are actually reconcilable (metropolis only vs entire France including overseas territories), but the document does not clarify this.
• The data "the associative sector and mutuals lost 15,000 employees in 2025 according to ESS France" (p. 39) is a statement made by a speaker (Agnès Deboulet); to be verified at the source with ESS France before reuse.
• The number of members per jury varies greatly depending on the sites (26 in Sedan, 12 in Colmar) while the total stated is 216 for 10 districts (p. 5, 18, 19): consistent on average but heterogeneous.

9️⃣ STRATEGIC HASHTAGS

#healthpractices #CitizenParticipation #CommunityHealth #LocalDemocracy #Empowerment #PriorityDistricts #CoConstruction #MovingForward

This article was developed in accordance with the Charter of the use of artificial intelligence of Health Practices. Click on the image