The communicative turn in planning? Examining community planner's role as a third actor in Beijing, China

被引:0
作者
Li, Zhen [1 ]
Lin, Yanliu [1 ]
Hooimeijer, Pieter [1 ]
Monstadt, Jochen [1 ]
He, Junyao [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Human Geog & Spatial Planning, Geosci, Utrecht, Netherlands
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Collaborative planning; Role of planner; Third actor; Institution; China; Mediation; URBAN; CITY; PARTICIPATION; ENGAGEMENT; GUANGZHOU; CONFLICT; POLITICS; SEARCH; POLICY; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.cities.2025.105785
中图分类号
TU98 [区域规划、城乡规划];
学科分类号
0814 ; 082803 ; 0833 ;
摘要
The communicative turn in Chinese planning practices requires planning professionals to face diverse and conflictual interests and complex urban issues at the neighborhood level. Community planner policy emerges as an institutional innovation, where professionals from different backgrounds are recruited to mediate diverse stakeholder interests in the planning process. However, little research has been conducted on their role as thirdparty professionals in this context. This study develops a theoretical framework that integrates institutional and agential factors to analyze mechanisms underlying the complexity of third-party professional engagement. We argue that structure-agency interplay is essential for understanding the role of community planners. These planners act as agents with distinct values, knowledge, and skills, yet their actions are also shaped by formal and informal institutions. The findings show that community planners exhibit heterogeneity in performance. They primarily serve governmental interests, often being instrumentalized for the smooth implementation of upperlevel policies, while mitigating conflict. Their capacity to function as third parties is primarily motivated by rational considerations and shaped by the hierarchical planning system in which they operate. Only occasionally do community planners approximate the ideal roles posited in communicative or collaborative planning theory.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 84 条
[1]   Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies [J].
Agger, Annika ;
Sorensen, Eva .
PLANNING THEORY, 2018, 17 (01) :53-73
[2]   Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? [J].
Allmendinger, Phil ;
Haughton, Graham .
TRANSACTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH GEOGRAPHERS, 2012, 37 (01) :89-103
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2012, Remaking Chinese planning as a profession: Growing demand and challenges
[4]   Evolving Governance Model for Community Building: Collaborative Partnerships in Master Planned Communities [J].
Bajracharya, Bhishna ;
Khan, Shahed .
URBAN POLICY AND RESEARCH, 2010, 28 (04) :471-485
[5]   Understanding context and its influence on collaborative planning processes: a contribution to communicative planning theory [J].
Calderon, Camilo ;
Westin, Martin .
INTERNATIONAL PLANNING STUDIES, 2021, 26 (01) :14-27
[6]   The 'Collaborative Planning Turn' in China: Exploring three decades of diffusion, interpretation and reception in Chinese planning [J].
Cao, Kang ;
Zhu, Jin ;
Zheng, Li .
CITIES, 2021, 117
[7]   Negotiating Urban Greening Through Housing Development: Stakeholders and Sociospatial Strategies in a Municipality-Led Eco-Building Programme [J].
Chiu, Chihsin .
HOUSING THEORY & SOCIETY, 2024, 41 (02) :169-191
[8]   Participation in a Hostile State: How do Planners Act to Shape Public Engagement in Politically Difficult Environments? [J].
Connelly, Steve .
PLANNING PRACTICE AND RESEARCH, 2010, 25 (03) :333-351
[9]   ADVOCACY AND PLURALISM IN PLANNING [J].
DAVIDOFF, P .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, 1965, 31 (04) :331-338
[10]  
[丁康乐 Ding Kangle], 2013, [浙江大学学报. 理学版, Journal of Zhejiang University. Sciences Edition], V40, P716