IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v10y2025a9119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Mobilisation Through Translation: A Sustainable Framework for Participatory Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaohong Tan

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangdong University of Technology, China / Department of Urban Regeneration and Planning Theory, University of Kassel, Germany)

  • Yongjian Xu

    (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, China)

  • Guangye Rui

    (School of Art and Design, Guangdong University of Technology, China)

Abstract

Participatory planning in neighbourhood regeneration faces challenges, including engagement difficulties, consensus-building, implementation complexities, and expectation management. This article investigates participatory planning processes aimed at addressing the aforementioned challenges in Bijiang Village, China. Using the framework of translation, it explores how this approach facilitates community mobilisation and engagement to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically focusing on fostering sustainable communities. Translation theory comprises four moments: problematisation, interessement, enrolment, and mobilisation. The empirical studies demonstrate that these moments are dynamic and iterative. Initial problem framing, focused on historical landscapes, was unclear at first but became more defined through interest assignment, recruitment, and mobilisation. The interessement phase identifies stakeholders with shared concerns and values, empowering them early in the decision-making process. Enrolment effectively expanded participation by mobilising key stakeholders, such as clan elders and parents, through context-specific social networks and social ecology. This approach ensures that planning outcomes reflect community values and priorities. Mobilisation in Bijiang expanded participation, turned consensus into action, and fostered collective ownership and unity. Workshops, exhibitions, and focus groups translated public issues into defined community planning problems, facilitating the co-construction of solutions. These participatory methods made complex planning terms accessible, fostering deeper community involvement. The cyclical nature of problem framing and consensus-building in Bijiang Village underscores the importance of local socio-cultural context in rural regeneration. Translation theory offers a robust framework for managing complexities in participatory community planning. It demonstrates how continuous negotiation and realignment of interests through translation address immediate concerns and foster long-term engagement, contributing to sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaohong Tan & Yongjian Xu & Guangye Rui, 2025. "Community Mobilisation Through Translation: A Sustainable Framework for Participatory Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v10:y:2025:a:9119
    DOI: 10.17645/up.9119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/9119
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.9119?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. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    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. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    2. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    3. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    4. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    5. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    7. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. repec:ags:ijag24:345027 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    10. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    11. Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    12. Richard Apatewen Azerigyik & Michael Poku-Boansi & Justice Kuffour Owusu-Ansah, 2024. "Herders’ Haven or Farmers’ Foe? Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on Grazing Reserves and Transhumance Corridors," World, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Peter Wilshusen, 2009. "Social process as everyday practice: the micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 137-162, May.
    14. David Brain, 2005. "From Good Neighborhoods to Sustainable Cities: Social Science and the Social Agenda of the New Urbanism," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 217-238, April.
    15. Mickey Lauria & Mellone Long, 2017. "Planning Experience and Planners’ Ethics," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(2), pages 202-220, April.
    16. Kenneth M. Reardon, 2005. "Empowerment planning in East St. Louis, Illinois," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 85-100, April.
    17. Malene Freudendal-Pedersen & Sven Kesselring, 2016. "Mobilities, Futures & the City: repositioning discourses – changing perspectives – rethinking policies," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 575-586, August.
    18. Gaber, John & Gaber, Sharon L., 2010. "Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 138-146, May.
    19. Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    20. Vanessa Watson, 2009. "Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe’s Central Urban Issues," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(11), pages 2259-2275, October.
    21. Michael Duijn & Marc Rijnveld & Merlijn van Hulst, 2010. "Meeting in the middle: joining reflection and action in complex public sector projects," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 227-233, July.

    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:cog:urbpla:v10:y:2025:a:9119. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    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.