نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر دکتری، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و هنر، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

2 دانشیار، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و هنر، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

3 دانشیار طراحی‌شهری، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

چکیده

دگرگونی‌های اقتصادی، اجتماعی و سیاسی جوامع شهری و ظهور منافع و ارزش‌های متعارض، برنامه‌ریزی شهری معاصر را به‌سوی ضرورت وفاق جمعی و همگرایی دخیلان برای درک منافع مشترک سوق داده‌است؛ با این‌حال، وفاق به‌عنوان مفهومی مستقل و چندبعدی در ادبیات برنامه‌ریزی شهری، نیازمند تبیین عمیق نظری و ساختاری است. پژوهش حاضر، در پی شناسایی «مضامین سازمان‌دهنده»‌ و «ارائه‌ الگوی مفهومی تحقق وفاق جمعی در میان دخیلان برنامه‌ریزی شهری» است. بدین‌منظور، با جست وجو و بررسی نظام‌مند منابع، بهره‌گیری از شیوه کیفی تحلیل مضمون و رهیافتی استقرایی، کدگذاری دستی متون تا مرحله اشباع نظری انجام شد و سپس، مضامین فرعی و اصلی شکل گرفتند. همچنین، مضامین از طریق مثلث‌سازی نظری و تطبیق با دیدگاه‌های پیشین، اعتبارسنجی گردیدند. در نهایت، با تحلیل روابط میان مضامین، الگوی مفهومی تحقق وفاق ارائه شد. «فرایند تسهیل‌شده مشارکتی»، «دخیلان‌وکنشگران»، «گفتمان‌وعمل ارتباطی»، «مدیریت تعارض»، «روابط‌ و مناسبات قدرت» و «مدیریت انطباقی» به‌عنوان مضامین اصلی شناسایی گردیدند. آنها در تعاملی متقابل، تحقق وفاق را ممکن می‌سازند و فقدان هر یک، فرایند را مختل می‌کند. در این‌راستا، «نظریه‌ ارتباطی» هابرماس، «حق به شهر» لوفور، «تکثرگرایی معاصر»، «قدرت» فوکو و «نظریه پیچیدگی»، اعتبار مضامین را تأیید می‌کنند. الگوی پیشنهادی، چارچوبی را برای هدایت برنامه‌ریزی مشارکتی در زمینه‌ها و مقیاس‌های مختلف فراهم می‌کند و با کاهش تعارضات، وفاقی مؤثر، عادلانه و پایدار را ممکن می‌سازد. طبق آن، تحقق وفاق در گرو «فرایند تسهیل‌شده مشارکتی» و درگیری فعال «دخیلان‌وکنشگران» است؛ «گفتمان‌وعمل ارتباطی» و توجه به «روابط‌ و مناسبات قدرت» پیش‌شرط مدیریت مؤثر تعارضات و توجه به منافع متکثر است و «مدیریت انطباقی»، ارزیابی انتقادی، پایش و یادگیری مداوم و اصلاح سیاست‌ها را تضمین می‌کند. با وجود قابلیت بومی‌سازی و تمرکز بر جنبه‌های نظری، محدودیت‌های روش‌شناختی و اجرایی آن نیز قابل توجه است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Representation of Collective Consensus Themes: Towards a Conceptual Model for Achieving Harmony in Urban Planning Practice

نویسندگان [English]

  • Erfaneh Ghanbari 1
  • Mehrnaz Molavi 2
  • Saber Mohammadpour 2
  • Sahand Lotfi 3

1 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Art, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

2 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Art, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

3 Department of Urban Planning and Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Highlights

Conceptual Innovation: Reconceptualizes consensus as an independent, multidimensional phenomenon in urban planning through rigorous inductive thematic analysis.
Core Thematic Identification: Defines six foundational pillars: facilitated participatory processes, stakeholder engagement, discourse and communicative action, conflict management, power dynamics, and adaptive management.
Operational Framework: Proposes an integrated, dynamic conceptual model designed to guide planners and stakeholders through complex, multi-scalar urban decision-making.
Process-Oriented Approach: Emphasizes continuous feedback loops, adaptive learning, and iterative interaction as essential mechanisms for sustainable planning outcomes.

 
Introduction
The contemporary urban landscape is defined by profound economic, social, and political transformations, which often exacerbate conflicting values and competing stakeholder interests. Consequently, urban planning approaches have shifted toward consensus-building as a necessary strategy for reconciling these differences and achieving collective goals. Consensus serves as a critical mechanism for establishing shared objectives and fostering the mutual understanding essential for successful policy implementation. In the absence of consensus, urban plans risk overlooking diverse perspectives, which often leads to implementation failure, deepening social inequalities, and a decline in institutional trust.
Despite the acknowledged importance of consensus since the shift from technocratic to pluralistic planning in the 1970s, it remains a conceptually underdeveloped area in planning theory. Existing literature often treats consensus as a subordinate component of conflict resolution rather than a distinct, multidimensional concept. This study addresses this scholarly gap by identifying the primary organizing themes of consensus and proposing a robust conceptual model for urban planning. The paper further examines the complex, dialectical interactions between these themes to illustrate how they collectively facilitate consensus formation in urban governance.
Theoretical Framework
Consensus, in both classical and contemporary discourse, is understood as a form of social and political interconnectivity that fosters fair convergence toward common interests across various scales—from global to hyper-local. Within urban planning, this phenomenon is particularly critical at the meso (regional) and micro (neighborhood/local community) levels.
This research draws upon an interdisciplinary theoretical foundation, integrating Habermas’s “Communicative Action Theory,” Lefebvre’s “Right to the City,” contemporary “Pluralism,” Foucault’s critical perspective on “Power,” and “Complexity Theory.” These theoretical lenses provide the necessary depth to analyze the multidimensionality of consensus. Following scholars like Neves (2016), we define consensus not as a static or forced agreement, but as a gradual, deliberative, and non-coercive process. In this view, active collaboration among all stakeholders is imperative, ensuring that outcomes not only satisfy mutual needs but also cultivate long-term trust and social cohesion. By mapping the obstacles that frequently undermine these processes, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the tensions inherent in seeking collective harmony.
Methodology
This study employs a systematic qualitative thematic analysis, utilizing an inductive, bottom-up approach to extract insights from the literature. The analytical process involved manual coding of extensive scholarly texts until theoretical saturation was reached. Through this iterative process, initial codes were categorized into sub-themes, which subsequently coalesced into six overarching “organizing themes of consensus in planning.” To ensure methodological robustness, these themes were validated through theoretical triangulation and cross-referenced with established empirical studies. The internal linkages and interdependencies among these themes were then synthesized to construct a unified, operational conceptual model for achieving consensus in real-world planning practice.
Results and Discussion
The thematic analysis identified six core dimensions: “facilitated participatory process,” “stakeholders and actors,” “discourse and communicative action,” “conflict management,” “power relations and dynamics,” and “adaptive management.” These themes are deeply interrelated, forming a symbiotic system where the failure of one component can destabilize the entire consensus-building process.
The validity of these themes is firmly grounded in the aforementioned theories (Habermas, Lefebvre, Foucault, etc.). The study demonstrates that consensus is a systemic outcome of these six pillars working in concert. For instance, without a critical understanding of power relations, discourse often fails to be truly communicative, and conflict management becomes merely performative rather than transformative.
Conclusion
The proposed conceptual model offers a versatile framework for guiding participatory planning across various cultural, political, and legal contexts. By proactively addressing conflict through the lens of power and dialogue, the model facilitates more equitable and sustainable outcomes. Our findings suggest that successful consensus requires an integrated approach where “facilitated participation” acts as the vessel for “stakeholder engagement,” while “communicative action” and “power awareness” serve as the diagnostic tools for identifying and resolving core conflicts. Finally, “adaptive management” ensures that policies remain resilient through continuous monitoring and learning. While this model provides a strong theoretical and practical contribution to contemporary planning, it also acknowledges the inherent practical limitations of consensus-building in highly fragmented urban environments. Future research should focus on applying this model to diverse case studies to further refine its empirical application.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Consensus
  • Urban Planning
  • Organizing Themes
  • Participatory Action
  • Conflict Management
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Georgetown University Press.
Albrechts, L. (2003). Planning and Power: Towards an Emancipatory Planning Approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(6), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1068/c29m
Alexander, E. R. (1995). How organizations act together: Interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Gordon and Breach.
Alexander, E. R. (2001). The Planner-Prince: Interdependence, Rationalities and Post-communicative Practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 2(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350120096848
Amy, D. J. (Ed.). (1983). The Politics of Environmental Mediation. Ecology Law Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z388C0Z
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Revised). Verso. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=ef571573265de9384ce2cfed70eb51ca
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, Symposium on Social Theory and the Environment in the New World (Dis)Order, 21(3), 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006
Atay Kaya, İ., & Kaya Erol, N. (2016). Conflicts over Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs): Reasons and solutions for case studies in Izmir (Turkey). Land Use Policy, 58, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.011
Bailey, K., Blandford, B., Grossardt, T., & Ripy, J. (2011). Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(3), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35128
Balducci, A., & Fareri, P. (1998). Consensus-Building, Urban Planning Policies, and the Problem of Scale: Examples from Italy. In F. H. J. M. Coenen, D. Huitema, & L. J. O’Toole (Eds.), Participation and the Quality of Environmental Decision Making (pp. 163–178). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5330-0_13
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692–1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., Marchiori, M., & Piber, M. (2020). Understanding orchestrated participatory cultural initiatives: Mapping the dynamics of governance and participation. Cities, 96, 102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102459
Bounds, M. (2020). Urban Social Theory: City, Self, and Society (Translated by R.Sedigh Sarvestani). University of Tehran Press. [in Persian]
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carlson, C. (1999). Convening. In Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, & Jennifer Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage Publications.
Carpenter, S. L., & Kennedy, W. J. D. (1988). Managing public disputes: A practical guide to handling conflict and reaching agreements (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.
Cheng, Y. (2013). Collaborative planning in the network: Consensus seeking in urban planning issues on the Internet—the case of China. Planning Theory, 12(4), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213499655
Chipangura, N., Chiripanhura, P., & Nyamagodo, S. (2017). Policy Formulation and Collaborative Management: The Case of Ziwa Site, Eastern Zimbabwe. Museum International, 69(3–4), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/muse.12177
Collier, M. J., & Scott, M. (2009). Conflicting rationalities, knowledge and values in scarred landscapes. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.12.002
Cortina, A. (1995). La educación del hombre y del ciudadano. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 7, 41–63. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie701199
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003
Crush, J. (1994). Scripting the Compound: Power and Space in the South African Mining Industry. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(3), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1068/d120301
Dyrberg, T. B. (1997). The circular structure of power: Politics, identity, community (1st publ). Verso.
Ejlali, P., Rafieian, M., & Asgari, A. (2019). Nazariyeh Barnamerizi: Didgah-haye Sonnati va Jadid [Planning theory: Traditional and contemporary perspectives]. Nashr-e Agah. [in Persian]
Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society. The Free Press.
Evans-Cowley, J. S. (2010). Planning in the age of Facebook: The role of social networking in planning processes. GeoJournal, 75(5), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9388-0
Fahmi, F. Z., Prawira, M. I., Hudalah, D., & Firman, T. (2016). Leadership and collaborative planning: The case of Surakarta, Indonesia. Planning Theory, 15(3), 294–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215584655
Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory Governance as Deliberative Empowerment: The Cultural Politics of Discursive Space. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282582
Fisher, R. (1991). Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Influence. In J. William Breslin & John William Breslin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 127–140). The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Group. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=E838B5F2161B3A0C1D8DFD5F6D9353E5
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society? The British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/591310
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=0d567ec3dd214bf0c2275a7d6f6cf189
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing Power to Planning Research: One Researcher’s Praxis Story (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2278388). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2278388
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic Planning Research: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections. Planning Theory and Practice, 5, 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000250195
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.
Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press.
Foroughi, M., de Andrade, B., Roders, A. P., & Wang, T. (2023). Public participation and consensus-building in urban planning from the lens of heritage planning: A systematic literature review. Cities, 135, 104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104235
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader (P. Rabinow, Ed.). Vintage Books; Random House.
Ghasemi, R. (2013). The Research of Social Cohesion in Boushehr. 14(56), 165–181. [in Persian]
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.
Gresch, P., & Smith, B. (1985). Managing spatial conflict: The planning system in Switzerland. Progress in Planning, 23, 155–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-9006(85)90007-8
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=54fb3b102b3b4b3f360f450455c73e83
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
Healey, P. (2001). Editorial. Planning Theory & Practice, 2(3), 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350120096802
Healey, P. (2006). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099414
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons. https://iiasa.dev.local/
Hopper, T., & Hoque, Z. (2006). Triangulation Approaches to Accounting Research. In Methodological Issues in Accounting Research: Theories, Methods and Issues. Spiramus. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283546794_Triangulation_Approaches_to_Accounting_Research
Huxley, M. (2000). The Limits to Communicative Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900406
Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402
(2007). IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. International Association for Public Participation. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/spectrum_8.5x11_print.pdf
Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400307
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975712
Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808975956
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976071
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
Jasper, J. M., & Flyvbjerg, B. (1999). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Social Forces, 78(2), 806. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005579
Jones, C. E. (Ed.). (2005). Strategic environmental assessment and land use planning: An international evaluation. Earthscan.
Kaiser, E. J., Godschalk, D. R., & Chapin, F. S. (1995). Urban land use planning (4. ed). Univ. of Illinois Press.
Kaner, S., & Lind, L. (1996). Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. New Society Publishers.
Knoke, D. (1990). Political Networks: The Structural Perspective (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527548
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215012
Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity. Oxford University Press.
Lam, K. C., & Woo, L. Y. (2009). Public perception of locally unwanted facilities in Hong Kong: Implications for conflict resolution. Local Environment, 14(9), 851–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830903160621
Lane, M. B. (2003). Participation, Decentralization, and Civil Society: Indigenous Rights and Democracy in Environmental Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X03022004003
Layzer, J. A. (2008). Natural experiments: Ecosystem-based management and the environment. MIT Press.
Lefebvre, H. (2008). Writings on cities (E. Kofman, Ed.; 11. [print]). Blackwell. https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Henri-Lefebvre-Writings-on-Cities.pdf
Legacy, C., Metzger, J., Steele, W., & Gualini, E. (2019). Beyond the post-political: Exploring the relational and situated dynamics of consensus and conflict in planning. Planning Theory, 18(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219845628
Lekakis, S. (2013). Distancing and Rapproching: Local Communities and Monuments in the Aegean Sea — A Case Study from the Island of Naxos. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 15(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1179/1350503313Z.00000000048
Lin, Y., & Geertman, S. (2015). Smart Governance, Collaborative Planning and Planning Support Systems: A Fruitful Triangle? In S. Geertman, Jr. Ferreira Joseph, R. Goodspeed, & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities (pp. 261–277). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_14
Locke, J., & Laslett, P. (2003). Two treatises of government (2. ed., transferred to digital print). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lord, W. B. (1979). CONFLICT IN FEDERAL WATER RESOURCE PLANNING 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 15(5), 1226–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1979.tb01123.x
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. Macmillan.
MacKenzie, S. H. (1993). Ecosystem Management in the Great Lakes: Some Observations from Three RAP Sites. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 19(1), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(93)71204-6
Madden, F., & McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation’s blind spot: The case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 178, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.015
Maginn, P. J. (2007). Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: The potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qualitative Research, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106068020
Margerum, R. D. (2002). Collaborative Planning: Building Consensus and Building a Distinct Model for Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100302
Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond consensus: Improving collaborative planning and management. MIT Press.
McCarthy, E. D. (1996). Knowledge as culture: The new sociology of knowledge. Routledge.
McKearnan, & Fairman, D. (1999). Producing consensus. In Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, & Jennifer Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage Publications.
Mead, G. H., & Morris (ed.), C. W. (1972). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=c3a60c23ee5eab07efd2e1c54f86897c
Merriam-Webster. (2024). Merriam-Webster. In Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interest%20group
Moein, M. (2000). Farhang-e Farsi [Moin Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Amir Kabir Publications Institute. [in Persian]
Moore, C. W. (1996). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (2. ed). Jossey-Bass.
Moote, M. A., Mcclaran, M. P., & Chickering, D. K. (1997). RESEARCH: Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900074
Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political (1. publ). Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge.
Myerson, M., & Banfield, Edward. C. (1955). Politics, Planning and the Public Interest. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=8ab49aec361be7e23b35db976ebe1c86
Nash, K. (2009). Michel Foucault (1982), “The Subject and Power”, Critical Inquiry, 8, pp. 777-95. In New Critical Writings in Political Sociology. Routledge.
Ozawa, C. P. (2019). Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429303920
Pasquero, J. (1991). Supraorganizational Collaboration: The Canadian Environmental Experiment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391271003
Patrão Neves, M. (2016). Consensus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_119-1
Peltola, T., Arpin, I., Leino, J., Peltonen, L., Ratamäki, O., & Salmi, P. (2022). Management plans as resources in conservation conflicts. Environmental Policy and Governance, 33. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2014
Poplin, A., & Vemuri, K. (2018). Spatial Game for Negotiations and Consensus Building in Urban Planning: YouPlaceIt! In O. Ahlqvist & C. Schlieder (Eds.), Geogames and Geoplay (pp. 63–90). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22774-0_4
Purbani, K. (2017). Collaborative planning for city development. A perspective from a city planner. Przegląd Naukowy Inżynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska, 26(1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.22630/PNIKS.2017.26.1.12
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community (1. Touchstone ed). Simon & Schuster [u.a.].
Ratamäki, O. (2022). Luonnonvaraoikeudelliset konfliktit ja legitimiteetti: Koettu, tulkittu ja päätelty hyväksymisenarvoisuus. Itä-Suomen yliopisto. https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/27176
Raynor, K. E., Doyon, A., & Beer, T. (2017). Collaborative planning, transitions management and design thinking: Evaluating three participatory approaches to urban planning. Australian Planner, 54(4), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2018.1477812
Redpath, S. M., Gutiérrez, R. J., Wood, K. A., Sidaway, R., & Young, J. C. (2015). An introduction to conservation conflicts. In Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions (pp. 3–18). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139084574.002
Rousseau, J.-J. (2002). The Social Contract and The First and Second Discourses. Yale University Press. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=2cee6fc25f3bfb3d4299b009c5dbd1d1
Sidaway, R. (2013). Resolving Environmental Disputes (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772372
Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1989). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes (13. Dr.). Basic Books.
Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (Eds.). (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (Online-Ausg). SAGE.
Susskind, L., & Ozawa, C. (1984). Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: The Planner as Mediator. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 4(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X8400400103
Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(11), 1975–1989. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301975
ESCAP, & Participation (IAP2), I. A. for P. (2018). Creating a seat at the table: Stakeholder engagement planning and assessment tool for the 2030 agenda. UN.ESCAP. https://repository.unescap.org/handle/20.500.12870/4830
United Nations Department of Public Information. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Van Assche, K., & Duineveld, M. (2013). The good, the bad and the self-referential: Heritage planning and the productivity of difference. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.632639
Van Ewijk, H. (2011). Collaboration in community research: Samenwerking in buurtonderzoek. European Journal of Social Work, 14(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2010.516630
Webster, D. G. (2009). Adaptive governance: The dynamics of Atlantic fisheries management. MIT Press.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing Management Skills. Pearson Education.
Winer, M. B., & Ray, K. L. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Yiftachel, O. (1998). Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side. Journal of Planning Literature, 12(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229801200401
Young, I. M. (2001). Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690.
Young, J. C., Marzano, M., White, R. M., McCracken, D. I., Redpath, S. M., Carss, D. N., Quine, C. P., & Watt, A. D. (2010). The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: Characteristics and management strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(14), 3973–3990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9941-7