共享经济下城市规划中的公众参与行动框架

文章在分析共享经济运行机制、总结我国城市规划公众参与现状和成因的基础上,从公众参与意识与共享城市理念、城市共享空间的规划审视、数据利用与创新三方面阐述了共享经济发展对城市规划公众参与的内涵要求,并聚焦共享经济对促进城市规划领域公众参与的程度和多元途径实践的影响,构建了共享经济模式下城市规划公众参与的实践路径和行动框架,即利用共享经济发展的变革与契机,逐步形成可操作性强的城市规划公众参与保障体系,建立共享经济模式下多面向的参与协作型城市规划。     

我国邻避设施规划公众参与困境研究——以北京六里屯垃圾焚烧发电厂规划为例

对北京六里屯垃圾焚烧发电厂规划的公众参与进行剖析,指出困境主要表现在公众参与目的、公众参与主体、公众参与程度和公众参与形式四个方面,技术理性的城市规划传统、政府集权制的规划决策模式、城市规划实施机制过度行政化、邻避设施规划涉及利益的复杂性和公众参与主体能力建设不足是公众参与困境产生的主要原因。     

增强现实技术在城市规划公众参与中的应用初探

增强现实(AR)技术作为新兴技术,具有虚拟与现实结合、沉浸可视化、趣味性强等特点,结合其他手段能够改善目前我国城市规划中公众参与水平低、参与程度不足以及被动式参与等问题。本文通过介绍当前AR技术及其在国外应用于城市规划公众参与的典型案例,探讨AR技术主要用于提升公众参与水平、公众参与城市设计、提升公众对规划方案的认可度三个方面。最后,结合我国规划实践,借鉴国外经验提出将AR技术运用于城市规划公众参与不同阶段的建议,具体包括初期提供信息获取反馈、中期居民参与设计游戏化、最终方案展示获取公众认可三个阶段。     

武汉:若干规划公众参与的实践

新世纪武汉的城市规划编制工作,始终坚持面向公众的开放态势,注重运用多种方式,广泛征求、听取公众意见和要求,不断提升公民参与的程度和形式.一方面积极探索了公众参与规划的多种形式,先后组织了南岸嘴地区规划公众展评、法定图则社区参与和公示、城市色彩规划公众作品竞赛、城市战略规划公众调查、总体规划市民"金点子"和公众论坛等,初步形成公众参与规划的编制机制;另一方面,积极促进了公众参与城市规划的规范化,赋予更多的市场经济条件下公众参与城市规划编制的范围和内容,包括规划前期的公众意愿调查、规划中期的公众论坛、规划成果的公众评议和审查、以及规划实施过程的公众听证等内容,努力为从宏观到微观各类规划的公众参与提供多种机会和保障.     

哈尔滨水泥厂更新规划中提高公众参与度研究

在哈尔滨现行的城市规划格局下,针对公众参与城市规划程度较低的情况,以哈尔滨水泥厂更新为契机,对当前公众参与城市规划中存在的问题进行了分析,并对能够提升水泥厂更新规划公众参与度的策略进行了论述,以供参考。     

基于随机平衡性思考的城市公众参与研究

公众参与对于城市规划决策是十分必要的,但规划决策者往往只重视公众参与的过程和形式,忽视了公众分享公共决策力的权利。为此,研究剖析了传统公众参与的困境,基于随机平衡性观点,提出城市规划公众参与研究的新视角,认为公众参与的有效达成,是建立在规划决策者为公众提供相应公共决策力分享的基础之上的。因此,公众参与的关键是界定公众参与的适宜度,进而在公共影响力作用和公共决策力分享的相互平衡上促进公众参与的有效达成。     

城市规划中的公众参与问题研究

本文研究的是城市规划中的公众参与问题。公众参与是随着政治文明和法制建设的不断成熟、发展而产生的一种民主理念,城市规划中的公众参与是指让公众参与到规划的编制、实施、监督的各个环节中去,实现民主规划。首先阐述了城市规划和公众参与的概念,接着指出我国城市规划中公众参与存在的问题。最后提出完善建议。     

城市规划实施过程中公众参与的体系构建初探

初步分析了我国城市规划实施过程中公众参与现状存在的主要问题及其成因,并据此初步构想了全面覆盖规划许可、规划执法和规划评估三大环节的城市规划实施过程公众参与体系,对各环节内公众参与的内容、程序、方法等也做了分阶段的探讨和设计。期望通过这样的基础性工作,推动城市规划实施过程中公众参与的法制建设,使公众参与的程序具有严格、明确、刚性的制度规定。     

试论城市设计公众参与的三阶段

我国城市规划公众参与发展多年,却仍进展缓慢。城市设计作为城市规划领域中的特殊类别,其非法定、形象生动、多层次的特性,使其有条件成为我国城市规划公众参与的突破口。文章基于对我国城市设计公众参与的三个期待,并通过借鉴美国经验与国内学界的讨论,对未来城市设计公众参与的发展历程进行了分析,同时明确了各阶段中规划编制单位的角色定位。     

“三城同创”建设中的公众参与探讨

开展＂三城＂同创工作是构建和谐城市的必然要求,是坚持正确政绩观的现实要求,也是切实履行规划工作职能的需要。＂规划民主＂是城市规划内在的需要,城市规划的社会实践特点决定了城市规划公众参与的必要性。在＂三城同创＂中发挥公众参与的积极性和有效性显得尤为重要。     

刍议城市规划工作中的公众参与

所谓参与，就是让人们有能力去影响和参加到那些影响他们生活的决策和行为中去。本文通过分析城市规划工作中三股力量在城市规划决策体系中的作用，阐明当前公众参与存在的问题并提出建议措施。     

市民参与城市规划的主要障碍及对策——基于苏州、扬州的调查数据分析

受公共参与理论大环境的影响，学术界已将触角伸入到城市规划中的市民参与之中；政府在一定程度上也开始倡导公众参与并付诸实施。但由于存在着信息不对称、对市民利益的忽视、自治组织的缺失等诸多影响市民参与的因素．我国城市规划中的市民参与虽有量的变迁．却缺少质的变化。要使城市规划中市民实际参与率提高并向更深层次发展，需着力培养充分知情的市民、注意市民利益的关联度和发展市民的自治组织。     

我国城市规划公众参与缺失的历史原因

从中西方现代城市规划产生与发展的历史来看,我国城市规划公众参与缺失的历史原因主要是政府干预思想突出、法制建设落后和市民社会直没有形成,而产生这些现象的根源是近代以来我国自上而下的现代化过程。公众参与是市民主动参与城市发展决策的表现,是民主化法制化社会的个反映,而不是自上而下赋予的一种权利。目前,对促进公众参与的研究,在宣传教育、机构设置、制度保障等方面的认识,还是种自上而下的表现,这显然不利于城市规划公众参与目标的真正实现。     

规划决策的主体冲突与调和

从分析规划决策的四个主体（规划师、领导者、业主、社会公众）在决策行为过程中的职责和作用入手,剖析了四个主体之间矛盾和冲突的具体表现,指出解决途径在于实现城市规划的公众参与和公众决策,并提出了公众参与和决策规划的阶段、形式、机制、保障手段。     

关于公众参与规划和设计实践的比较和反思

该文试图通过对美国、加拿大、英国、德国、中国等典型国家公众参与规划和设计实践的简要回顾和比较,对公众参与的推进程度、推进途径及本质理解进行一些粗略的反恩.     

Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening Community Engagement in the English Planning System

Participation has become integral to the delivery of public services, as governments attempt to involve citizens in decision making through processes of consultation and engagement. This paper addresses the issue of community participation in the context of the English planning system, which has recently been restructured to focus more sharply on integrating communities in the planning process. It presents findings of research into the workings of the reformed planning system, in particular in relation to the objective of public participation, using the case of the Planning Aid service. The paper sets the discussion in the context of two different forms of democracy (representative and deliberative democracy) and associated strategies for participation. It then outlines the recent reforms in the planning system, highlighting the different approaches to participation that are being applied. The paper then examines the case of Planning Aid, a service that aims to involve disadvantaged groups in the planning system. The paper concludes that the outcomes from recent experiences of participation in planning are in part due to the “hybrid” approaches that are emerging within the system. While this provides the potential for more inclusive planning, it is argued that this “hybridity” needs to be acknowledged by policy makers and practitioners if strategies and mechanisms are to be put in place that respond to the demands of different forms of democracy.     

Planning for Climate Change: Is Greater Public Participation the Key to Success?

Within most democracies there is an assumption that greater public participation and engagement in policy processes results in more effective policy measures. These assumed benefits include better framed and more robust policies and a more informed, articulate and engaged citizenry. Similar assumptions exist also in planning for climate adaptation where more public participation and engagement are seen as vital components of any adaptation strategy and policy development process. This article explores these assumptions and considers whether there is any evidence that the success of planning for unavoidable climate change is related to the extent of public participation. Using an evaluation framework based on three aspects of participation we critically review a set of climate adaptation policy instruments developed within each of the three levels of government in Australia but with a specific focus on the region of South East Queensland.     

Where Should We Have the Meeting?

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Scholars and practitioners in the fields of planning, public participation, and consensus building have devised a variety of techniques for participatory decision making. Despite the ever-growing literatures on public participation, consensus building, and deliberative democracy, few scholars have studied perhaps the most elemental consideration in designing participatory processes: how to create physical environments for productive interactions and conversations. In this study, we address that gap in the scholarship on participatory decision making by answering two questions: What are planners are seeking to achieve when creating venues for engagement, participation, or collaboration? What are the tools at their disposal to do so? We interviewed practitioners with significant experience in the facilitation of planning processes, selected at random from the National Roster of Environmental Conflict Resolution Professionals, and developed a set of objectives and considerations for creating effective venues for participation and collaboration in planning. Based on our analysis, we find that venue creation involves three key dimensions: determining the appropriate venue-related process objectives, selecting a location, and arranging the chosen space.

Takeaway for practice: Combining insights from existing guidance in handbooks and reports with the findings from our interviews, we developed the Venue Creation Tool to support more informed discussions and choices related to venues for participation and collaboration in planning.     

走向民主与科学--对景观规划的再认识

针对目前我国景观规划不能适应多元信息社会快速发展的问题,从民主和科学的角度,对景观规划的内涵进行了新的探讨,提出了引入公众参与机制和规划为决策服务的具体对策。     

Creating smarter cities: Considerations for selecting online participatory tools

The abundance of online public participation tools has made it difficult for planning organizations to decide which tool will best meet their needs. Understanding the benefits or challenges of specific tools, facilitation requirements, or how individual tools may best advance the public participation aims is not always easy. This article builds on theories of planning, organizations, and information science to discuss various factors that cities and planning organizations should consider in deciding whether and how they should choose online participatory tools. While the technical capability of online technologies in facilitating participation and decision making should be examined, the capability of planning organizations and communities in adopting these technologies should be considered as well. This article argues that planning organizations should choose a participation platform based on the capacities of their organization, the characteristics of the communities that are going to use the tool, user-community norms and rules, and the tool's capabilities.