Towards collaborative planning: deliberative knowledge utilisation and conflict resolution in urban regeneration in South China

References

• Antweiler, C. (1998): Local knowledge and local knowing: an Anthropological analysis of contested “cultural products” in the context of development. Anthropos, 36, pp. 469–494.
   Google Scholar
• Aukes, E.; Lulofs, K.; Bressers, H. (2017): Framing mechanisms: the interpretive policy entrepreneur’s toolbox. Critical Policy Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2017.1314219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2012): Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory, 12 (1), pp. 46–63. doi: 10.1177/1473095212452722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (2008): The role of knowledge in planning. Planning Theory, 7 (2), pp. 207–210. doi: 10.1177/1473095208090435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bercht, A. L. (2013): Glurbanization of the Chinese megacity Guangzhou – image-building and city development through entrepreneurial governance. Geographica Helvetica, 68 (2), pp. 129–138. doi: 10.5194/gh-68-129-2013
   Google Scholar
• Burrage, H. (2009): Knowledge, the new currency in regeneration. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 3, pp. 120–127.
   Google Scholar
• Brand, R.; Gaffinkin, F. (2007): Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory, 6 (3), pp. 282–313. doi: 10.1177/1473095207082036
   Google Scholar
• Benford, R. D. (1997): An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67, pp. 409–430. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00445.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, C.; Wang, S. F. (2019): Rethinking the role of planners under media influence. Planner, 3, pp. 69–74 (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Cao, K.; Zhu, J.; Zheng, L. (2021): The “collaborative planning turn” in China: exploring three decades of diffusion, interpretation and reception in Chinese planning. Cities, 117, 103210. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2003): Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6 (1), pp. 307–326. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christmann, G. B. (2019): Introduction: struggling with innovations. Social innovations and conflicts in urban development and planning. European Planning Studies, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1639396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. (2015): Planning as practice of knowing. Planning Theory, 14 (3), pp. 316–331. doi: 10.1177/1473095215575919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewulf, A.; Bouwen, R. (2012): Issue Framing in Conversations for Change: Discursive Interaction Strategies for “Doing Differences”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48 (2), pp. 168–193; DOI: 10.1177/0021886312438858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidoff, P. (1965): Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, pp. 331–338. doi: 10.1080/01944366508978187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duckett, J. (1998): The entrepreneurial state in China: real estate and commerce departments in reforms Era Tianjin. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Duckett, J. (2001): Bureaucrats in business, Chinese-style: The lessons of market reform and state entrepreneurialism in the People’s Republic of China. World Development, 29 (1), pp. 23–37. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00083-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1998): Rationality & Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2013): On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory. 12 (1), pp. 5–22; https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212448750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getimis, P. (2012): Comparing Spatial Planning Systems and Planning Cultures in Europe. The Need for a Multi-scalar Approach. Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp.25–40. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.659520
   Google Scholar
• Gibney, J. (2011): Knowledge in a “Shared and Interdependent World”: Implications for a Progressive Leadership of Cities and Regions. European Planning Studies, 19, pp. 613–627. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.548474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, J. (1974): Frame analysis. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gualini, E. (2015): Conflict in the city: democratic, emancipatory – and transformative? In search of the political in planning conflicts. In: Gualini, E. (ed.), Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 3–36
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1998): Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A, 30 (9), pp. 1531–1546. doi: 10.1068/a301531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1999): Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19 (2), pp. 111–121. doi: 10.1177/0739456X9901900201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2003): Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2 (2), pp.101–123 doi: 10.1177/14730952030022002
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2013): Circuits of Knowledge and Techniques: The Transnational Flow of Planning Ideas and Practices. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37 (5), pp.1510–1526. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Headlam, N.; Stephen, H. (2010): Reflecting on the role of social innovation in urban policy. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 4 (2), pp.168–179.
   Google Scholar
• He, B. G.; Warren, M. E. (2011): Authoritarian deliberation: the deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics, 9 (2), pp. 269–289. doi: 10.1017/S1537592711000892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, B. G.; Wagenaar, H. (2018): Authoritarian deliberation revisited. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 19, pp. 622–629. doi: 10.1017/S1468109918000257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hordijk, M.; Isa, B. (2006): The role of research and knowledge generation in collective action and urban governance: How can researchers act as catalysts? Habitat International, 30 (3), pp. 668–689. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe, R. (2010): The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering, participation. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heinelt, H.; Kopp-Malek, T.; Matthiesen, U.; Reisinger, E.; Zimmermann, K. (2010): Governance and knowledge: How do they interact? Conceptual proposition. In Rob, A.; Terizakis, G.; Zimmermann, K. (eds.), Sustainability in European environmental policy: Challenges of Governance and Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge Chapman & Hall, pp. 52–74.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J.; Booher, D. (2010): Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, E. J.; Booher, D. E. (2015): A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14 (2), pp.195–213. doi: 10.1177/1473095213519356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khakee, A.; Angela B.; Borrj, D. (2000): Expert and experiential knowledge in planning. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51 (7), pp. 776–788. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuehn, M. (2021): Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. Planning Theory, 20 (2), pp. 143–156. doi: 10.1177/1473095220953201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, X.; Zhang, F.; Hui, E. C.; Lang, W. (2020): Collaborative workshop and community participation: A new approach to urban regeneration in China. Cities, 102, 102743; doi.org/10.1016j.cities.2020.102743.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. (2023): Rethinking collaborative planning in China: Does the communicative or agonistic planning theory matter? Planning Theory, 22 (3), pp. 249–269. doi: 10.1177/14730952221122283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthiesen, U. (2005): KnowledgeScapes Pleading for a knowledge turn in socio-spatial research. (Working Paper Erkner: Leibniz-Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS)) Retrieved from www.irs-net.de/download/KnowledgeScapes pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. (2013): Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R.; Mattila, H.; Hirvola, A. (2023): Institutional Gaps in Agonistic and Communicative Planning Theories. Critical Implications of the ‘Systemic Turn’ in Deliberative Democracy Theory. Raumforschung und Raumordnung.0/0, pp. 1–12; https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1676.
   Google Scholar
• Mendonça, R. F.; Simões, P. G. (2022): Frame Analysis. In Ercan, S. A.; Asenbaum, H.; Curato, N.; Mendonça, R. F. (eds.), Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, pp. 345–355; https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192848925.003.0024.
   Google Scholar
• Negev, M.; Teschner, N. (2013): Rethinking the relationship between technical and local knowledge: Toward a multi-type approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, pp. 50–59. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng, M. K. (2015): Knowledge and power in regenerating lived space in Treasure Hill, Taipei 1960s–2010: from squatter settlement to a co-living artist village, Planning Perspectives, 30 (2), pp. 253–270; DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2014.934711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North, D. C. (1991): Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, pp. 97–112. doi: 10.1257/jep.5.1.97
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, S.; Cowell, R. (2011): Land and limits: Interpreting sustainability in the planning process (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Pløger, J. (2023): Agonism, decision, power – The art of working unfinished. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 81 (5): pp. 1–12; https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, D. (2009): The use of partnering as a conflict prevention method in large-scale urban projects in Canada. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2 (3), pp. 401–418. doi: 10.1108/17538370910971054
   Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y. (2007): Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory, 6 (1), pp. 52–68. doi: 10.1177/1473095207075161
   Google Scholar
• Rein, M.; Schön, D. (1993): Reframing Policy Discourse. In Fischer, F.; Forester, J. (eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham and London, UK: Duke University Press, pp. 145–166. doi: 10.1215/9780822381815-007
   Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. (1998): Towards cosmopolis. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Stepanova, O.; Saldert, H. (2022): Knowledge use analysis as a way to understand planning conflicts. Two cases from Gothenburg, Sweden. Cities, 124, 103606. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stepanova, O.; Polk, M.; Saldert, H. (2020): Understanding mechanisms of conflict resolution beyond collaboration: An interdisciplinary typology of knowledge types and their integration in practice. Sustainability Science, 15 (1), pp. 263–279. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00690-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schruijer, S.; Vansina, L. (2006): The Meaning of ‘Social’ in Interpersonal Conflict and its Resolution. In Herrman, M. (ed.) Handbook of Mediation. Bridging Theory, Research and Practice. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, pp. 326–343.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, D.; Maxwell, S.; Keating, M. (2001): Bridging research and policy (Paper prepared for an international workshop funded by DFID, United Kingdom, Radcliffe House, Warwick University, 16–17 July). Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/csgr/research/keytopic/other/bridging.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tan, X.; Altrock, U. (2016): Struggling for an adaptive strategy? Discourse analysis of urban regeneration processes – A case study of Enning Road in Guangzhou City. Habitat International, 56, pp. 245–257. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, B. (2015): Deliberating Governance in Chinese Urban Communities, The China Journal, 73, pp. 84–107. doi: 10.1086/679270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trujillo, M. A.; Bowland, S. Y.; Myers, L. J.; Richards, P. M.; Roy, B. (eds.) (2008): Re-Centering Culture and Knowledge in Conflict Resolution Practice. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Herzele, A. (2004): Local Knowledge in Action: Valuing Nonprofessional Reasoning in the Planning Process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24 (2), pp. 197–212. doi: 10.1177/0739456X04267723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Der Dunk, A.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Dalang, T.; Hersperger, A. M. (2011): Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts – a case study from Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101 (2), pp. 149–156. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenbussche, L.; Edelenbos, J.; Eshuis, J. (2017): Pathways of stakeholders’ relations and frames in collaborative planning practices: A framework to analyze relating and framing dynamics. Planning Theory, 16 (3), pp. 233–254. doi: 10.1177/1473095215620150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verdini, G. (2015): Is the incipient Chinese civil society playing a role in regenerating historic urban areas? Evidence from Nanjing, Suzhou and Shanghai. Habitat International, 50, pp. 366–372. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiler, H. N. (2009): Whose Knowledge Matters? Development and the Politics of Knowledge. In Hanf, T.; Weiler, H. N.; Dickow, H. (eds.). Entwicklung als Beruf: Festschrift für Peter Molt. Baden Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlag, pp. 485–496.
   Google Scholar
• Westberg, L.; Merritt, P. (2016): The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach. Sustainability Science, 11 (3), pp. 385–397. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0358-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, L. (2015): Urban Renewal and Spatial Justice in China’s Changing Urban Governance, Canadian Social Science, 11 (8), pp. 11–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, F.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Y. (2022): Beyond Growth Machine Politics: Understanding State Politics and National Political Mandates in China’s Urban Redevelopment. Antipode, 54, pp. 608–628; https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang M.; Zhang, F.; Wu, F. (2022): Governing urban redevelopment: A case study of Yongqingfang in Guangzhou, China. Cities. 120, 103420; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Cities.2021.103420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao, Z. X.; Li, B.; Li, G. C. et al. (2021): Resilient governance under an asymmetric power structure: the case of Enning road regeneration project in Guangzhou, China. Cities, 111, 102971. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, J. (2004): From land use right to land development right: institutional change in China’s urban development. Urban Studies, 41 (7), pp. 1249–1267. doi: 10.1080/0042098042000214770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, T. (2002): Urban development and a socialist pro-growth coalition in Shanghai. Urban Affairs Review, 37, pp. 475–499. doi: 10.1177/10780870222185432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L.; Chen, J.; Tochen, R. M. (2016): Shifts in Governance Modes in Urban Redevelopment: A Case Study of Beijing’s Jiuxianqiao Area. Cities, 53, pp. 61–69. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann, A.; Albers, N.; Kenter, J. O. (2022): Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 178 (3), pp. 757–782; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04789-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar