IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v62y2025i4p682-699.html

Examining collaborative planning processes and outcomes in urban regeneration: A deliberative turn in China?

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaomeng Zhou

    (Utrecht University)

  • Yanliu Lin

    (Utrecht University)

  • Jochen Monstadt

    (Utrecht University)

  • Pieter Hooimeijer

    (Utrecht University)

  • Shifu Wang

    (South China University of Technology)

  • Zheng Liu

    (South China University of Technology)

Abstract

Collaborative planning practices have recently emerged in China to deal with the complexity and conflicts of interest in urban regeneration. Building on the concept of authoritarian deliberation, this study develops a conceptual framework to examine the reasons for initiating collaborative planning, and its processes and outcomes. Through the case study of Guangzhou’s Enning Road micro-regeneration project, this research deepens understanding of collaborative planning in an authoritarian context. It reveals that deliberative methods were used by the local government to mitigate conflicts and improve governance performance in urban regeneration. While deliberations in an authoritarian context met many process criteria of collaborative planning, the collaborative processes had limited influence on planning outcomes. In addition, this study marks the increased level of participation in Chinese urban regeneration and discusses the limitation of deliberative practices in an authoritarian context. Lastly, this study reflects on the adoption of collaborative planning approaches as a state strategy to balance various interests and reinforce its dominance in market-driven urban regeneration, ultimately to achieve goals beyond economic benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaomeng Zhou & Yanliu Lin & Jochen Monstadt & Pieter Hooimeijer & Shifu Wang & Zheng Liu, 2025. "Examining collaborative planning processes and outcomes in urban regeneration: A deliberative turn in China?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 62(4), pages 682-699, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:62:y:2025:i:4:p:682-699
    DOI: 10.1177/00420980241259985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00420980241259985
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00420980241259985?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P M McGuirk, 2001. "Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(2), pages 195-217, February.
    2. Yanliu Lin & Kasper Benneker, 2022. "Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 391-410, February.
    3. Lin Ye & Xiangeng Peng & Laura Quadros Aniche & Peter H. T. Scholten & Elena Marie Ensenado, 2021. "Urban renewal as policy innovation in China: From growth stimulation to sustainable development," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(1), pages 23-33, February.
    4. Fishkin, James S. & He, Baogang & Luskin, Robert C. & Siu, Alice, 2010. "Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 435-448, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    2. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter & Phillips, Richard, 2017. "‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – A case study of limited success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 189-202.
    3. Mark Purcell, 2006. "Urban Democracy and the Local Trap," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(11), pages 1921-1941, October.
    4. Anton Bogs, 2026. "Participation Disenchants: How Online Political Participation Decreases Online Political Efficacy in China," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 35-63, January.
    5. Jon Coaffee & Patsy Healey, 2003. "'My Voice: My Place': Tracking Transformations in Urban Governance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(10), pages 1979-1999, September.
    6. Kristof Van Assche & Martijn Duineveld & Raoul Beunen, 2014. "Power and Contingency in Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(10), pages 2385-2400, October.
    7. Jonathan Jae-an Crisman, 2022. "Co-Creation From the Grassroots: Listening to Arts-Based Community Organizing in Little Tokyo," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 340-350.
    8. Qinghai Zhang & Tianyu Cheng & Peng Xu & Xin Jiang, 2025. "Balancing Heritage Conservation and Urban Vitality Through a Multi-Tiered Governance Strategy: A Case Study of Nanjing’s Yihe Road Historic District, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Maarten Wolsink, 2003. "Reshaping the Dutch Planning System: A Learning Process?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(4), pages 705-723, April.
    10. Stjernström, Olof & Junker, Eivind & Thorsen, Hans Wilhelm, 2023. "The private in the public: The case of Norwegian private zoning plans," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. Vladimir V. Vagin & Sergey V. Romanov, 2017. "Budgeting Initiative in the BRICS Countries," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 4, pages 113-121, August.
    12. Zuo, Cai & Huang, Xian, 2025. "Benefit or procedure? Determinants of perceived distributive fairness in rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    13. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    14. Kai Qu & Yapeng Zhang & Yinling Liu & Tao Feng, 2024. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Examining the Impact of China’s New Environmental Protection Law on Enterprise Productivity and Sustainable Development," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 10722-10747, September.
    15. Paulo Mortara Batistic & Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Yannic Rudá Damm, 2025. "Explaining compliance with voluntary sustainability standards: A case study from Colombia's coffee belt," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 1417-1440, February.
    16. Dan Li & Yan Chen & Yue Liu, 2025. "Efficiency of Innovation Ecosystem in Resource-dependent Cities: Empirical Evidence from Northeast China," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, October.
    17. Ye, Jianhong & Zheng, Jiaqi, 2024. "How stakeholders influence MaaS implementation? An analysis based on evolutionary game theory," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 198-210.
    18. Biao Huang & Jiebing Wu & Li Ye, 2023. "Fiscal decentralization, intergovernmental mobility, and the innovativeness of local governments' policy response in COVID‐19: Evidence from China," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(2), pages 196-206, May.
    19. Tingting Liu & Xiaoqi Shen & Tiansheng Xia, 2025. "Mediating Power of Place Attachment for Urban Residents’ Well-Being in Community Cohesion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-23, July.
    20. Colin Knox & Serik Orazgaliyev, 2024. "Sustainable development goals and good governance nexus: Implementation challenges in central Asia," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(4), pages 237-251, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:62:y:2025:i:4:p:682-699. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.