Speaker
Description
Digital communications, driven by information and communication technologies, have brought new opportunities and challenges in the complexity of collaboration. Communication is at the heart of collaborative planning theory and practice, emphasising dialogue, network, equality, and consensus building among wider stakeholders in the planning arena (Susskind et al. 1999; Healey 1997; Forester 1999). However, achieving this ideal approach in practice is complex, as ineffective communications and conflicts can hinder the project outcome and future improvements. The issue can be more complicated in modern society, as ‘digital’ and ‘non-digital’ interactions are interlaced in planning practice.
With emerging digital technology, social media has emerged as a game-changer for enhancing communication widely and confronting organisational challenges caused by a hierarchical work culture. Recent studies recognise the role of social media in transforming traditional planning power dynamics by shaping (or reshaping) public debates through online platforms. Several scholars question the influence of digital communication on collaborative planning, for example, power relations in social media (He et al. 2024), digital planning participation (Cheng 2013), smart governance platforms (Milz 2019), and sociocultural processes (Chen et al. 2018). While significant academic discussions exist regarding the digital influence on collaborative planning, such approaches have focused on specific paths of collaborative process but have not necessarily shown holistic delivery mechanisms in planning practice. The empirical application of social media in various collaborative delivery operations in real-life planning contexts remains largely unexplored.
Leveraging the experience of planning practitioners in China, this research aims to deepen our understanding of the digitally enhanced collaboration process and generate a more robust collaboration mechanism facilitated through social media interactions. The two primary foci of this study are:
(1) to establish a conceptual framework for digitally enhanced collaboration by integrating traditional collaborative planning theory with contemporary digitalisation debates; and,
(2) to investigate how digital collaboration unfolds in practice by identifying both the barriers and opportunities generated by social media.
Planners have faced complex challenges in coordinating across government sectors while navigating digital and non-digital interactions. The importance and originality of this study are that it explores not only how WeChat is used in the planning practice but also its influence in transforming the collaborative work culture among planning practitioners. This study introduces the concept of ‘digitally enhanced collaboration’ by integrating two key frameworks:
(1) collaborative planning delivery mechanism, which emphasises consensus building, facilitation, and open participation (Kim and Batey 2021); and,
(2) role of social media in collaborative planning, particularly in information sharing, social networking, and communication (adapted from Lin 2022).
The research focuses on how planning practitioners use WeChat, China's most widely used social media, to deal with the multi-sectoral complexity involved in spatial and territorial planning processes. The study employs a qualitative approach through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to capture empirical insights learned from Chinese planning practitioners, both from the public and private sectors.
Collaborative planning has traditionally been criticised because real-world politics is not about negotiation among equals but power-centred interaction. This study indicates that WeChat communication can effectively manage trust levels among participants using functionally designated group chats. This leads to richer and freer information sharing that is less influenced by hierarchy and power dynamics. WeChat has also emerged as a primary information resource for new planning policies and innovative practices that facilitate mutual learning among practitioners. Moreover, it has become a potential planning tool for gathering views of local communities and, therefore, leveraging public participation. While political influences often make it difficult to mediate power relations neutrally, digitally enhanced collaboration may help lower information-sharing barriers, stimulate wider stakeholders’ participation, and facilitate dialogue to resolve future conflicts.
References
Chen, Yujie, Zhifei Mao, and Jack Linchuan Qiu (2018) Super-sticky design and everyday cultures. In Chen, Y., Mao, Z. and Qiu, J.L. (eds.) Super-Sticky Wechat and Chinese Society. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Cheng, Yao (2013) Collaborative planning in the network: Consensus seeking in urban planning issues on the Internet—the case of China. Planning Theory, 12 (4), pp.351-368.
Forester, John (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
He, Junyao, Yanliu Lin, Pieter Hooimeijer, and Jochen Monstadt (2024) Measuring social network influence on power relations in collaborative planning: A case study of Beijing City, China. Cities, 148: 104866.
Healey, Patsy (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan Press.
Kim, Joon Sik, and Peter Batey (2021) Integrated watershed revitalization: the experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 5, pp.531-563.
Lin, Yanliu (2022) Social media for collaborative planning: A typology of support functions and challenges. Cities, 125: 103641.
Milz, Dan (2019) Spatial planning judgments and computer supported collaborative planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 20 (1), pp.70-96.
Susskind, Lawrence E, Sarah McKearnen, and Jennifer Thomas-Lamar (eds.) (1999) The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
| Keywords | collaborative planning; social media; planning practice; digital collaboration; China |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
