Heterogeneity of public participation in urban redevelopment in Chinese cities: Beijing versus Guangzhou

Abstract

Chinese cities, especially large cities, are in urgent need of urban redevelopment but social conflicts in redevelopment processes have threatened social stability. Public participation has been stipulated in national policies to alleviate these conflicts and the responsibility to implement these policies has been delegated to local governments. Therefore, the features of public participation may differ between Chinese cities. Yet, a systematic investigation of this possible heterogeneity is lacking. This article adapts 11 features of governance to build a framework to compare public participation in urban redevelopment in Beijing and Guangzhou. Findings show that the two cities are similar in five features (policy instruments, policy integration, initiators, position of stakeholders, policy level at which citizens operate) but differ in six (policy goals, policy–science interface, power base of citizens, model of representation, rules of interaction and mechanisms of social interaction), making citizens in urban redevelopment in Guangzhou more powerful than their counterparts in Beijing. The observed shift towards urban micro-redevelopment might further strengthen the power of citizens in urban redevelopment in Beijing, but might weaken their power base in Guangzhou. The findings highlight the importance of local context and policy dynamics in the study of public participation in urban redevelopment in China.

Evidence-informed urban health and sustainability governance in two Chinese cities

“…However, Beijing was described as a ‘special city’ in which public knowledge was not as influential in policymaking as national political objectives. This finding accords with a recent study by Zhang et al . (2020) that compares public participation in urban policy in Beijing and Guangzhou.…”

Using Social Media for Citizen Participation: Contexts, Empowerment, and Inclusion

“…As indicated in previous studies, some online participants could become centers/subcenters of a network created through a social media platform [6,14,40]. Some citizens played a more influential role than others through posting more comments.…”

“…Recent studies have emphasized the influence of different institutional and political contexts on citizen participation [6,25]. Legal and administrative support is important for the effective implementation of public participation in urban planning.…”

“…The potential benefits of public participation include the promotion of transparent, inclusive and fair decision making processes [2]. There is a growing body of literature on different levels of citizen power, participation forms and methods, and the evaluation of effectiveness in American, European, Chinese and other contexts [3][4][5][6]. Nevertheless, traditional participation often selected a small number of representatives as stakeholders and required participants to be present in a physical place at a particular time, resulting in many problems such as the issues of inclusion, and the inflexibility of participation.…”

Roles and Motivations of Planning Professionals Who Promote Public Participation in Urban Planning Practice: Two Case Studies from Beijing, China

“…Meanwhile, an increasing number of Chinese citizens has begun to protest against unwanted planning projects (Sun 2015; Zhang, Hooimeijer, et al 2019). This bottom-up, citizen-led participatory practice can be divided into three major types: first, local residents protesting against unfair housing compensation and violent relocation (He and Wu 2009); second, local residents protesting against not in my backyard projects (Lang and Xu 2013); and third, preservationists protesting against built-heritage demolition (Zhang, Lin, et al 2019). Several authors suggest that a communicative turn is inevitable in China’s planning and politics (Hu, de Roo, and Lu 2013), not just to avoid social unrest but also due to the increased complexity of governance issues (Zhang, de Roo, and Lu 2012; Zhang, Zhang, and Xu 2013).…”