IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6525-d288651.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Difference Does Public Participation Make? An Alternative Futures Assessment Based on the Development Preferences for Cultural Landscape Corridor Planning in the Silk Roads Area, China

Author

Listed:
  • Haiyun Xu

    (Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

  • Tobias Plieninger

    (Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
    Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany)

  • Guohan Zhao

    (Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

  • Jørgen Primdahl

    (Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

Abstract

Landscape corridor planning (LCP) has become a widespread practice for promoting sustainable regional development. This highly complex planning process covers many policy and planning issues concerning the local landscape, and ideally involves the people who live in the area to be developed. In China, regional planners and administrators encourage the development of landscape corridor planning. However, the current LCP process rarely considers ideas from local residents, and public participation is not recognized as beneficial to planning outcomes. We use a specific Chinese case of LCP to analyze how citizen involvement may enrich sustainable spatial planning in respect to ideas considered and solutions developed. To this end, we compare a recently approved landscape corridor plan that was created without public participation with alternative solutions for the same landscape corridor, developed with the involvement of local residents. These alternatives were then evaluated by professional planners who had been involved in the initial planning process. We demonstrate concrete differences between planning solutions developed with and without public participation. Further, we show that collaborative processes can minimize spatial conflicts. Finally, we demonstrate that public participation does indeed contribute to innovations that could enrich the corridor plan that had been produced exclusively by the decision-makers. The paper closes with a discussion of difficulties that might accompany the involvement of local residents during sustainable LCP in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Haiyun Xu & Tobias Plieninger & Guohan Zhao & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "What Difference Does Public Participation Make? An Alternative Futures Assessment Based on the Development Preferences for Cultural Landscape Corridor Planning in the Silk Roads Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-24, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6525-:d:288651
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6525/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6525/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patsy Healey, 2004. "The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 45-67, March.
    2. Haiyun Xu & Tobias Plieninger & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "A Systematic Comparison of Cultural and Ecological Landscape Corridors in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-32, February.
    3. Paul Selman, 2004. "Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 365-392.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xuesong Xi & Haiyun Xu & Qiang Zhao & Guohan Zhao, 2021. "Making Rural Micro-Regeneration Strategies Based on Resident Perceptions and Preferences for Traditional Village Conservation and Development: The Case of Huangshan Village, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Xu, Haiyun & Meng, Miao & Zhu, Fangyu & Ding, Qi, 2024. "The role of local officials in promoting public participation during local urban planning processes: Evidence from Chinese cities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    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. Mengting Liu & Yueqing Ji, 2020. "Determinants of Agricultural Infrastructure Construction in China: Based on the “Participation of Beneficiary Groups” Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. GEVAERT, Anouk & KUPERS, Stefan Jonathan & HEIJMAN, Wim, 2014. "Participatory Landscape Planning: The Case Of The “Westvaardersplassen” In The Netherlands," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 17(2), pages 1-11, November.
    5. Luis Miguel Moctezuma Teresa & José Luis Aparicio López & Columba Rodríguez Alviso & Herlinda Gervacio Jiménez & Rosa María Brito Carmona, 2022. "Environmental Competencies for Sustainability: A Training Experience with High School Teachers in a Rural Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Alberto Amore & C Michael Hall & John Jenkins, 2017. "They never said ‘Come here and let's talk about it’: Exclusion and non-decision-making in the rebuild of Christchurch, New Zealand," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 32(7), pages 617-639, November.
    7. Banai, Reza & Wakolbinger, Tina, 2011. "A measure of regional influence with the analytic network process," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 165-173, December.
    8. Hongtao Jia & Lei Zhu & Jing Du, 2022. "Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model of the Farmers’ Sense of Gain in the Provision of Rural Infrastructures: The Case of Tourism-Oriented Rural Areas of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Melika Levelt & Leonie Janssen-Jansen, 2013. "The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area Challenge: Opportunities for Inclusive Coproduction in City-Region Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 540-555, June.
    10. Donghyun Kim & Up Lim, 2016. "Urban Resilience in Climate Change Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Ruiying Liu, 2022. "Long-Term Development Perspectives in the Slow Crisis of Shrinkage: Strategies of Coping and Exiting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-30, August.
    12. Van den Hoek, Duncan & Spit, Tejo & Hartmann, Thomas, 2020. "Certain flexibilities in land-use plans Towards a method for assessing flexibility," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Francesco Pinna & Valeria Saiu, 2021. "Greenways as Integrated Systems: A Proposal for Planning and Design Guidelines Based on Case Studies Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Mark Wiering & Irene Immink, 2006. "When Water Management Meets Spatial Planning: A Policy-Arrangements Perspective," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(3), pages 423-438, June.
    15. Yihe Huang & Shouyun Shen & Wenmin Hu & Yurou Li & Guo Li, 2022. "Construction of Cultural Heritage Tourism Corridor for the Dissemination of Historical Culture: A Case Study of Typical Mountainous Multi-Ethnic Area in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Neale Blair & James Berry & Stanley McGreal, 2007. "Regional Spatial Policy for Economic Growth: Lessons from the Deployment of Collaborative Planning in Northern Ireland," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(3), pages 439-455, March.
    17. Tao Liu & Le Yu & Xin Chen & Yunmiao Chen & Xiaomeng Li & Xinyi Liu & Yue Cao & Fan Zhang & Chenggang Zhang & Peng Gong, 2024. "Identifying Potential Urban Greenways by Considering Green Space Exposure Levels and Maximizing Recreational Flows: A Case Study in Beijing’s Built-Up Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, October.
    18. Antonio Santoro & Martina Venturi & Mauro Agnoletti, 2021. "Landscape Perception and Public Participation for the Conservation and Valorization of Cultural Landscapes: The Case of the Cinque Terre and Porto Venere UNESCO Site," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, January.
    19. Hans Henriksen & Jens Refsgaard & Anker Højberg & Nils Ferrand & Peter Gijsbers & Huub Scholten, 2009. "Harmonised Principles for Public Participation in Quality Assurance of Integrated Water Resources Modelling," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(12), pages 2539-2554, September.
    20. Federico Savini, 2016. "Self-Organization and Urban Development: Disaggregating the City-Region, Deconstructing Urbanity in Amsterdam," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1152-1169, November.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6525-:d:288651. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.