Speakers
Description
Many cities in the world today are facing the slowdown in economic growth, the reduction in fiscal revenue, and the resulting challenges in public space governance. With the slowdown in China's economic growth, urban construction has also entered the stock regeneration era from incremental development. Community planning and community regeneration based on the built environment require the engagement of multiple local actors and the collaborative governance of multiple departments. So, how can different collaborative governance models be used to stimulate community engagement for different types of communities? How can actors play the role of catalyst and driver in community collaboration and engagement? How to optimize the mechanism of participatory community planning and collaborative governance based on the existing institutional environment? However, current research mostly stays in macro-framework design and isolated case studies, lacking networked practice and continuous observation. Therefore, it is urgent to sort out the multiple models of collaborative governance and the optimization of participatory community planning mechanisms in combination with long-term systematic spatial practice.
The "Love-U Garden" action in Nanning, China, which began in 2021, has built a rare city-level garden network. Empowered and accompanied by social organizations, it encouraged residents to build and maintain spontaneously, innovated collaborative governance mechanisms, and ultimately became a model for the regeneration and governance of urban community green spaces. This study summarizes three co-construction models of participatory community planning and governance by analyzing the civic engagement and community actions in the whole process of this practice, each of which has its own applicability. The first is the professional-led model, which mainly relies on the leading demonstration and long-term empowerment of professional institutions. It is suitable for communities with both aging infrastructure and population, weak public participation foundation, and scarce social resources. The second is the multi-party co-construction model, which mainly relies on the collaboration and co-creation of external diverse social forces. It is suitable for communities with relatively rich social resources, diverse age structure, and strong participation potential. The third is the autonomous co-financing model, which mainly relies on the endogenous force of the community and the self-driving force of residents. It is suitable for communities with a good public engagement foundation, relatively complete infrastructure, and strong community self-organization ability.
This study proposes three optimization mechanisms for collaborative governance: First, adhere to the whole process to create a co-participation mechanism, and summarize three important KOLs: opinion leader type, brick-throwing type, and serial coordination type. Second, adopt a flexible joint cooperation and co-maintenance mechanism, and propose three maintenance forms: autonomous operation and maintenance by core actors, co-maintenance by the community of actors and property assistance, and property-led with actor-assisted. The third is to promote a differentiated fund-raising mechanism, and summarize four fund-raising models: government-led, multi-party, owner-raised, and seed fund. Finally, this study puts forward the following policy recommendations: First, the professional-led model should further promote the whole process civic engagement. Second, the multi-party co-construction model should actively link the engagement of all age groups. Third, the autonomous co-funding model should encourage multi-channel fund raising, such as introducing social forces to create inclusive projects.
In the face of the transformation of the community planning paradigm in the post-growth era, this study sorted out the multiple collaborative governance models to deal with the conflicts and dilemmas generated by different stages of public participation, and proposed flexible mechanisms and countermeasures. This study has certain reference significance for the construction of urban green space network in other cities around the world, the promotion of community collaborative governance, and the promotion of sustainable community development.
References
[1] Arendt H. The Human Condition[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.2017:32,1
[2] Habermas J. Structural Transformation of Public Sphere[M]. Beijing: Xue Lin Publishing House,1999:32
[3] Lefebvre H. The Production of Space[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991:11~12
[4] Soja. E. W. Third Space: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and Imagined Space[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press,2005.
[5] Bao Y. Modernity and urban cultural theory[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2008:110~111.
[6] Davies J. S. The Governance of Urban Regeneration: A Critique of the 'Governing Without Government' Thesis[J]. Public Administration, 2002, 80(2)301-322.
[7] Li X, Zhang F, Hui C M, et al. Collaborative workshop and community participation: A new approach to urban regeneration in China[J]. Cities, 2020, 102:102743.
[8] Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2007(4): 543–571.
| Keywords | Participatory Community Planning; Collaborative Governance; Civic Engagement, Love-U Garden |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
