Gaslighting Urban Planning? On Risk, Public Participation, and the Evolving Structures of Social Licence to Operate

被引:0
|
作者
Legacy, Crystal [1 ]
Gibson, Chris [2 ]
Rogers, Dallas [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Design, Urban Planning, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Sch Architecture Design & Planning, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
gaslighting; urban planning; deal-making; participation; epistemic injustice; social licence; EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE; INFRASTRUCTURE; PROPERTY; POLITICS; CITY;
D O I
10.1111/anti.70007
中图分类号
P9 [自然地理学]; K9 [地理];
学科分类号
0705 ; 070501 ;
摘要
This paper explores how coalitions of state, finance, and capital actors safeguard accumulation and monopolistic structural conditions while gesturing towards more inclusive cities, through what is described as gaslighting. Gaslighting is the manipulation of circumstances to sow doubt, normalising systemic oppression whilst invalidating testimonial capacities of the oppressed. Proponents of urban development deals require certainty. However, with growing demands for just planning practice, proponents must also ensure "social licence to operate" by engaging diverse, and sometimes oppositional, communities. De-risking proposals must resolve this tension through a regulatory-structural "fix". We argue that gaslighting is one such fix. Drawing on ten years of case study-based research in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, we outline three modalities of structural gaslighting observed within the planning process-epistemic, moral, and cultural-and for each, we illustrate who is gaslighting and the techniques and tactics used to generate and secure a social licence to operate.
引用
收藏
页码:1017 / 1040
页数:24
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [31] A web-based spatial decision support system to enhance public participation in urban planning processes
    Mansourian, A.
    Taleai, M.
    Fasihi, A.
    JOURNAL OF SPATIAL SCIENCE, 2011, 56 (02) : 269 - 282
  • [32] Urban Renewal and Public Participation in Sydney: Unpacking Social Media Strategies and Use for Contesting Consensus
    Williamson, Wayne
    Ruming, Kristian
    URBAN POLICY AND RESEARCH, 2019, 37 (03) : 350 - 366
  • [33] Access to public services and urban planning: thinking the effectiveness of the social State in Fortaleza city
    Mariano, Cynara Monteiro
    Carvalho, Harley Sousa
    A&C-REVISTA DE DIREITO ADMINISTRATIVO & CONSTITUCIONAL, 2021, 21 (84): : 67 - 85
  • [34] Evaluation of mobile-based public participation in China's urban planning: Case study of the PinStreet platform
    Wang, Xuan
    Chen, Yulin
    Han, Zhiyuan
    Yao, Xiaoyi
    Gu, Peiqin
    Jiang, Yang
    CITIES, 2021, 109
  • [35] A three-dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land-use planning: Empowerment or social control?
    Aitken, Mhairi
    PLANNING THEORY, 2010, 9 (03) : 248 - 264
  • [36] Public participation GIS can help assess multiple dimensions of environmental justice in urban green and blue space planning
    Korpilo, Silviya
    Kaaronen, Roope Oskari
    Olafsson, Anton Stahl
    Raymond, Christopher Mark
    APPLIED GEOGRAPHY, 2022, 148
  • [37] Child's Play - A Literature-Based Survey on Gamified Tools and Methods for Fostering Public Participation in Urban Planning
    Klamert, Kevin
    Munster, Sander
    ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION (EPART 2017), 2017, 10429 : 24 - 33
  • [38] Evaluating the scalability of public participation in urban land use planning: A comparison of Geoweb methods with face-to-face meetings
    Jankowski, Piotr
    Czepkiewicz, Michal
    Mlodkowski, Marek
    Zwolinski, Zbigniew
    Wojcicki, Michal
    ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-URBAN ANALYTICS AND CITY SCIENCE, 2019, 46 (03) : 511 - 533
  • [39] A virtual globe-based 3D visualization and interactive framework for public participation in urban planning processes
    Wu, Huayi
    He, Zhengwei
    Gong, Jianya
    COMPUTERS ENVIRONMENT AND URBAN SYSTEMS, 2010, 34 (04) : 291 - 298
  • [40] Involving urban planning, social work, and public health faculty members in the civic renewal of the research university
    Checkoway, Barry
    JOURNAL OF PLANNING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, 2008, 27 (04) : 507 - 511