Streamline democratic values in planning systems: A study of participatory practices in European strategic spatial planning

《Streamline democratic values in planning systems: A study of participatory practices in European strategic spatial planning》

打印

作者: Constantina-Alina Hossu;Eduardo Oliveira;Andreea Niță

来源: HABITAT INTERNATIONAL,Vol.129,P.102675

语言: 英文

关键字

作者单位: Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Nicolae Balcescu 1, 010041, Bucharest, Romania;Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Zandpoortvest 60, 2800, Mechelen, Belgium;Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Nicolae Balcescu 1, 010041, Bucharest, Romania;Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Zandpoortvest 60, 2800, Mechelen, Belgium;Department of Real Estate and Construction Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden;Department of Finance and Statistics, School of Business, Anhui University of Technology, Ma'anshan, China;State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China;School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China;Beijing Land and Space Big Data Center, Beijing Municipal Commission of Planning and Natural Resources, Beijing, 10045, China;Center of Geo-Informatics for Public Security, School of Geography and Remote Sensing, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China;Department of Geography, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA;Department of Geography and Planning, The University of Toledo, OH, USA;Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore;Urban and Regional Planning Department, University of Colorado Denver, CO, USA;Department of Geography & Earth Sciences, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA;College of Arts and Architecture, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA;Department of Land Surveying and Geo-Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong;School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China;Key Laboratory of Coastal Zone Exploitation and Protection, Ministry of Natural Resources, Nanjing, 210023, China;Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK;Institute of Geography, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801, Bochum, Germany;Jiangsu Land Development and Consolidation Technology Engineering Center, Nanjing, 210023, China

摘要: The characteristics of the planning and governance systems influence how participatory practices, such as focus groups and online consultations, are employed. This study reviews the academic literature on participatory practices in strategic spatial planning (SSP). We use network analysis to group the participatory practices in meta categories and trends based on their co-occurrences, temporal distribution and dispersion across European spatial governance and planning systems: state-led systems, conformative systems, market-led neo-performative systems, misled performative systems and proto-conformative systems. We identified two innovative meta trends in participatory practices in countries with consolidated SSP. One, categorised as citizen-led participatory practices, is common in countries embedded in market-led neo-performative systems such as The Netherlands, Germany and Austria. A second, categorised as triparty knowledge exchange participatory practices involving citizens and public and private actors, is dominant in countries embedded within conformative (Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Italy) and state-led systems (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, Ireland and the UK). This study shows that innovative participatory practices such as regional design, living labs and 3D tools have been helping bridge the divide between planners, decision-makers and the citizens in SSP. We conclude with a plea for recognising innovative and multidisciplinary participatory practices to improve the quality of SSP and streamline the legitimacy and democratic values in spatial governance and planning systems.