Arenas of conflict: Planning and Participation in plural Democracy

该项目的目的是通过区分理性、沟通和竞争性规划类型，进一步发展现有的处理冲突的规划理论，并在此基础上通过实证案例研究来审视实践中的各种规划冲突。该项目寻求将规划研究与民主和参与研究的政治科学方法建立更紧密的联系。为了对规划冲突进行实证分析，该项目将“竞技场”一词从政治转移到规划研究。竞技场被理解为规划参与过程中解决公共冲突的场所，利益冲突的参与者在决策之前会面并争论。采用冲突场分析的政治学方法进行实证分析。冲突的背景、客体、参与者、解决方案、规则和动态之间存在区别。在进行实证案例研究时，重点关注三个核心问题：第一：实践中冲突案例中理性型、沟通型和对抗型规划类型之间的关系如何？第二：哪些领域和参与程度有助于民主解决和调节冲突以及如何？第三：在什么条件下，参与过程会在规划中将对抗性冲突转变为对抗性冲突？六个实证案例研究涵盖了城市发展规划、土地利用规划和项目审批等领域的规划冲突。案例选择涉及柏林和汉堡等不断发展的大都市中加速住房建设与保护开放空间之间的冲突，波茨坦和弗莱堡的公共利益冲突，以及辛钦和阿默讷堡小镇能源转型背景下风力涡轮机审批的冲突。通过从定性研究的演绎和归纳方法的转变，该项目旨在实现规划理论与实践之间的紧密联系。

The aim of the project is to further develop existing planning theories in dealing with conflicts by distinguishing between rational, communicative and agonistic planning types and, on this basis, examining various planning conflicts in practice by using empirical case studies. The project seeks for a closer connection of planning research with political science approaches of democracy and participation research. For the empirical analysis of planning conflicts, the project transfers the term “arena” from political to planning research. Arenas are understood as places of public conflict resolution in planning participation processes, in which actors with conflicting interests meet and argue in advance of decisions. The political science approach of conflict field analysis is used for empirical analysis. A distinction is made between the context, the object, the actors, the resolution, the regulation and the dynamics of conflicts. When carrying out empirical case studies, the focus is on three central questions: First: What is the relationship between rational, communicative and agonistic planning types in conflict cases in practice? Second: Which arenas and levels of participation contribute to the democratic resolution and regulation of conflicts and how? Third: Under what conditions do participation processes transform antagonistic into agonistic conflicts in planning? The six empirical case studies cover planning conflicts in the fields of urban development planning, land-use planning and the approval of projects. The case selection relates to conflicts between the acceleration of housing construction and the preservation of open spaces in the growing metropolises of Berlin and Hamburg, conflicts over the common good in Potsdam and Freiburg, and conflicts in the approval of wind turbines in the context of the energy transition in the small towns of Sinzing and Amöneburg. By switching from deductive and inductive methods of qualitative research, the project aims for a close connection between planning theory and practice.