在参与式规划过程中创造风险情况和解决紧张局势的经验评估

IF 1.7 Q3 URBAN STUDIES Urban Planning Pub Date : 2023-05-04 DOI:10.17645/up.v8i2.6370
Lieve Custers, Liesbeth Huybrechts, O. Devisch
{"title":"在参与式规划过程中创造风险情况和解决紧张局势的经验评估","authors":"Lieve Custers, Liesbeth Huybrechts, O. Devisch","doi":"10.17645/up.v8i2.6370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Planning processes often cause tensions between institutions and citizens because the local knowledge and values of the citizens are not included in the decision-making process, which can cause mistrust. This article builds on an ongoing PhD research that explores the potential of experiential evaluation as an alternative and experimental approach to “hybrid forums”: an approach to open the participatory planning process for diverse actors and values. In order to render tensions visible and constructive in the participatory planning process, experiential evaluation creates “risky situations” in these hybrid forums. To discuss this approach of experiential evaluation, we use a methodological and analytical framework based on the four steps of strategic navigation techniques: tracing, mapping, diagramming, and agencying. We use these techniques to analyse two risky situations that were created through experiential evaluation within the participatory planning process of the neighbourhood spatial plan (NSP) of Zwijnaarde (Ghent, Belgium). Based on the analysis of the case, we observed that experiential evaluation was able to render tensions visible, but did not yet make them constructive. However, as a framework for a dialogue between institutions and citizens, the NSP leaves room to continue the experiential evaluation process that was initiated and to take further care of tensions on a smaller scale.","PeriodicalId":51735,"journal":{"name":"Urban Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experiential Evaluation to Create Risky Situations and Address Tensions in a Participatory Planning Process\",\"authors\":\"Lieve Custers, Liesbeth Huybrechts, O. Devisch\",\"doi\":\"10.17645/up.v8i2.6370\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Planning processes often cause tensions between institutions and citizens because the local knowledge and values of the citizens are not included in the decision-making process, which can cause mistrust. This article builds on an ongoing PhD research that explores the potential of experiential evaluation as an alternative and experimental approach to “hybrid forums”: an approach to open the participatory planning process for diverse actors and values. In order to render tensions visible and constructive in the participatory planning process, experiential evaluation creates “risky situations” in these hybrid forums. To discuss this approach of experiential evaluation, we use a methodological and analytical framework based on the four steps of strategic navigation techniques: tracing, mapping, diagramming, and agencying. We use these techniques to analyse two risky situations that were created through experiential evaluation within the participatory planning process of the neighbourhood spatial plan (NSP) of Zwijnaarde (Ghent, Belgium). Based on the analysis of the case, we observed that experiential evaluation was able to render tensions visible, but did not yet make them constructive. However, as a framework for a dialogue between institutions and citizens, the NSP leaves room to continue the experiential evaluation process that was initiated and to take further care of tensions on a smaller scale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Planning\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i2.6370\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"URBAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i2.6370","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

规划过程往往会导致机构和公民之间的紧张关系,因为决策过程中没有包括公民的当地知识和价值观,这可能会造成不信任。本文建立在一项正在进行的博士研究的基础上,该研究探索了体验式评估作为“混合论坛”的替代和实验方法的潜力:一种为不同参与者和价值观开放参与式规划过程的方法。为了在参与式规划过程中使紧张局势变得明显和具有建设性,经验评估在这些混合论坛中制造了“危险情况”。为了讨论这种经验评估方法,我们使用了一个基于战略导航技术四个步骤的方法论和分析框架:追踪、绘制、绘图和代理。我们使用这些技术来分析Zwijnaarde(比利时根特)社区空间规划(NSP)参与式规划过程中通过经验评估产生的两种风险情况。根据对该案件的分析,我们观察到经验评估能够使紧张局势变得明显,但尚未使其具有建设性。然而,作为机构和公民之间对话的框架,NSP为继续启动的经验评估过程留下了空间,并在较小规模上进一步处理紧张局势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Experiential Evaluation to Create Risky Situations and Address Tensions in a Participatory Planning Process
Planning processes often cause tensions between institutions and citizens because the local knowledge and values of the citizens are not included in the decision-making process, which can cause mistrust. This article builds on an ongoing PhD research that explores the potential of experiential evaluation as an alternative and experimental approach to “hybrid forums”: an approach to open the participatory planning process for diverse actors and values. In order to render tensions visible and constructive in the participatory planning process, experiential evaluation creates “risky situations” in these hybrid forums. To discuss this approach of experiential evaluation, we use a methodological and analytical framework based on the four steps of strategic navigation techniques: tracing, mapping, diagramming, and agencying. We use these techniques to analyse two risky situations that were created through experiential evaluation within the participatory planning process of the neighbourhood spatial plan (NSP) of Zwijnaarde (Ghent, Belgium). Based on the analysis of the case, we observed that experiential evaluation was able to render tensions visible, but did not yet make them constructive. However, as a framework for a dialogue between institutions and citizens, the NSP leaves room to continue the experiential evaluation process that was initiated and to take further care of tensions on a smaller scale.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Planning
Urban Planning URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
124
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Urban Planning is a new international peer-reviewed open access journal of urban studies aimed at advancing understandings and ideas of humankind’s habitats – villages, towns, cities, megacities – in order to promote progress and quality of life. The journal brings urban science and urban planning together with other cross-disciplinary fields such as sociology, ecology, psychology, technology, politics, philosophy, geography, environmental science, economics, maths and computer science, to understand processes influencing urban forms and structures, their relations with environment and life quality, with the final aim to identify patterns towards progress and quality of life.
期刊最新文献
Subaltern Politics at Urban Borderlands Between the “Structural” and the “Everyday”: Bridging Macro and Micro Perspectives in Comparative Urban Research Bordering Practices in a Sustainability-Profiled Neighbourhood: Studying Inclusion and Exclusion Through Fluid and Fire Space Migrants in the Old Train Wagons Borderland in Thessaloniki: From Abandonment to Infrastructures of Commοning Social Media Groups in Interaction With Contested Urban Narratives: The Case of Koper/Capodistria, Slovenia
×
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