Polycentricity: The last episodes or the new season?

IF 5 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Progress in Planning Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.progress.2023.100776
Hashem Dadashpoor , Abbas Doorudinia , Abolfazl Meshkini
{"title":"Polycentricity: The last episodes or the new season?","authors":"Hashem Dadashpoor ,&nbsp;Abbas Doorudinia ,&nbsp;Abolfazl Meshkini","doi":"10.1016/j.progress.2023.100776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article presents a systematic review of empirical studies on polycentric spatial structures at a regional scale in order to assess their effectiveness as prescriptive and normative models in spatial planning. The results show that very few studies have emphasised primarily the positive effects of polycentricity, while a large number have evaluated the performance of non-polycentric (monocentric) structures more positively. Our study shows that evaluating the effectiveness of polycentricity as a normative model is both theoretically and empirically challenging, and that polycentricity is still the subject of a research agenda with hypotheses that need to be tested. The findings indicate that polycentricity is not the superior model it has been frequently advertised as and that its effectiveness is significantly influenced by a range of factors relating to its political foundation, weak theoretical positioning, ambiguous conceptualisation, context dependence, and highly variable governance frameworks. The study recommends that scientific theorising of polycentricity should be aligned with close scrutiny of the relevant contexts to overcome its idealistic nature and lack of adaptability. The article cautions planners and policymakers against a sweeping promotion of polycentric development, as the implementation of this concept is not necessarily associated with fostering economic performance, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47399,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Planning","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 100776"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Planning","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900623000375","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article presents a systematic review of empirical studies on polycentric spatial structures at a regional scale in order to assess their effectiveness as prescriptive and normative models in spatial planning. The results show that very few studies have emphasised primarily the positive effects of polycentricity, while a large number have evaluated the performance of non-polycentric (monocentric) structures more positively. Our study shows that evaluating the effectiveness of polycentricity as a normative model is both theoretically and empirically challenging, and that polycentricity is still the subject of a research agenda with hypotheses that need to be tested. The findings indicate that polycentricity is not the superior model it has been frequently advertised as and that its effectiveness is significantly influenced by a range of factors relating to its political foundation, weak theoretical positioning, ambiguous conceptualisation, context dependence, and highly variable governance frameworks. The study recommends that scientific theorising of polycentricity should be aligned with close scrutiny of the relevant contexts to overcome its idealistic nature and lack of adaptability. The article cautions planners and policymakers against a sweeping promotion of polycentric development, as the implementation of this concept is not necessarily associated with fostering economic performance, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多中心:最后几集还是新一季?
本文对区域尺度上的多中心空间结构的实证研究进行了系统回顾,以评估其在空间规划中的规范性和规范性模型的有效性。结果表明,很少有研究主要强调多中心的积极影响,而大量研究更积极地评价了非多中心(单中心)结构的性能。我们的研究表明,评估多中心性作为一种规范模型的有效性在理论上和经验上都具有挑战性,多中心性仍然是一个研究议程的主题,需要对假设进行测试。研究结果表明,多中心并不像经常宣传的那样优越,其有效性受到一系列因素的显著影响,这些因素与其政治基础、薄弱的理论定位、模糊的概念、上下文依赖和高度可变的治理框架有关。该研究建议,多中心的科学理论应该与对相关背景的密切审查保持一致,以克服其理想主义性质和缺乏适应性。这篇文章提醒规划者和政策制定者不要全面推广多中心发展,因为这一概念的实施不一定与促进经济绩效、社会凝聚力和环境可持续性有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Planning is a multidisciplinary journal of research monographs offering a convenient and rapid outlet for extended papers in the field of spatial and environmental planning. Each issue comprises a single monograph of between 25,000 and 35,000 words. The journal is fully peer reviewed, has a global readership, and has been in publication since 1972.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Editorial Board Editorial Board Immigrants, slums, and housing policy: The spatial dispersal of the Ethiopian population in Israel Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1