The public interest- schools of thought in planning

Sheydayi, Ailin; Dadashpoor, Hashem

doi:10.1016/j.progress.2022.100647

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 124 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In my view, this is achievable. A particular point of reference could also be (subject to terminological discrepancies) the public interest in some countries ( Sheydayi and Dadashpoor 2022 ); — the demand for more in-depth care in our (human) kind can also be appropriately applied to the content and execution of spatial plans. It can be pointed out that the relationship between spatial policy and health policy needs particular emphasis.…”

Section: Change Of Planning and The Legal Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is the pandemic a hope for planning? Two doubts

Nowak

2022

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Change Of Planning and The Legal Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Change Of Planning and The Legal Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the pandemic a hope for planning? Two doubts

Nowak

2022

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The concept of the “public interest”, which is distinct from the “common good”, is a normative concept with a long and disputed history (Sheydayi & Dadashpoor, 2022). Many theorists have questioned the uncertainty and conceptual ambiguity of this concept.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalization of public interest in planning: Evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking

Zhao,

Wang,

Liu

2023

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to capture, represent, and materialize public interest in urban planning has gone through multiple rounds of experimentation, crystallizing a number of regulatory regimes of planning in different historical and political-economic contexts. However, how to define the “public” and capture the public interest in urban planning remains problematic in both planning practices and democratic theory. Therefore, drawing upon Dewey and Habermas’s view of the public sphere, this paper introduces a scale perspective to examine the subjects in planning and the power framing process in defining the public in urban regeneration policymaking. First, this paper revisits the current debates on the concept of public interest and identifies three interpretations of public interest materialization: utilitarian, unitary, and communicative. Second, this paper illustrates the institutionalization process of public interest in China’s urban planning system. We critically examine the evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking since 1949. The institutionalization of public interest in China shows distinguished trajectories from the Western countries. These differences are caused by different values that define the scale of “public” in different socio-political contexts. Given the emerging communicative turn in China, we found a hybrid norm of public interest as reflected in the recent “co-production” model of urban regeneration. The contribution of this paper is threefold: 1) highlights the validity of the public interest concept by introducing a scale sensitivity to analyze the subjects in planning; 2) complements public interest typology by identifying a hybrid norm in China that weaves between unitary and communicative interpretations; 3) revisits Dewey’s democratization theory by conceptualizing the institutionalization of public interest in semi-authoritarian China that is determined across the scales of subjects in planning, the ever-changing political-economic contexts, and the planning application in established rules.

show abstract

“…Thus, to better understand the planning evaluation, it is necessary to identify dominant thoughts as well as their past and present situations. Identifying the schools of thought in planning evaluation reveals the skeleton of the planning evaluation and contributes to the future theoretical and practical development of the field to resolve theoretical and practical ambiguities (Dadashpoor and Alvandipour, 2020;Peris, Meijers et al, 2018;Sheydayi and Dadashpoor, 2022;Ziafati Bafarasat, 2014). Despite the contribution of scholars in different approaches to planning evaluation, a lack of studies to explore and describe the schools of urban and regional planning evaluation is strongly sensed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Schools of urban and regional planning evaluation: A genealogical perspective

Dadashpoor

Heydari

2022

IRSPSD International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation is one of the most important steps in the planning process that has been widely considered in recent decades by scholars in the field of planning. Despite the extensive studies on the plan and planning evaluation, no specific studies have yet been conducted on planning evaluation schools. This gap can cause a theoretical and practical ambiguity on the subject of planning evaluation. Hence, exploring and describing theoretical and practical historical developments in the field of evaluation schools in planning can be useful in resolving this ambiguity. In this article, using the meta-theory and a genealogical perspective, four schools of planning were identified: The causal school under the rational planning theories, the communicative school under the participatory planning theories, the Dutch school under the Dutch planning, and the IOR School of planning, and finally, the evidence-oriented school under the emerging theories of sustainable development and environmental planning. This classification was conducted based on the philosophy of thought, the influential scholars, and how to use evaluation. Identifying these schools of thought contributes to a clear understanding of how this concept is described and applied in planning evaluation, states the reasons for its formation and critiques of each school, and ultimately strengthens its practice.

show abstract

The public interest- schools of thought in planning

Cited by 9 publications

References 124 publications

Is the pandemic a hope for planning? Two doubts

Is the pandemic a hope for planning? Two doubts

Institutionalization of public interest in planning: Evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking

Schools of urban and regional planning evaluation: A genealogical perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About