Arenas of conflict: Planning and Participation in plural Democracy

该项目的目的是进一步发展现有的规划理论，通过区分理性、沟通和对抗的规划类型来处理冲突，并在此基础上，通过实证案例研究来研究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更紧密地联系起来。对于规划冲突的实证分析，本项目将“竞技场”一词从政治转向规划研究。竞技场被理解为在规划参与过程中解决公共冲突的场所，在这里，利益冲突的行为者在决策之前会面并辩论。运用冲突场分析的政治学方法进行实证分析。在语境、对象、行为者、解决、调节和冲突的动态之间做出了区分。在进行实证案例研究时，重点关注三个核心问题：第一：在实践中的冲突案例中，理性、沟通和对抗计划类型之间的关系是什么？第二：哪些领域和层次的参与有助于民主解决和调节冲突，以及如何促进？第三：参与过程在什么条件下将计划中的对抗冲突转化为对抗冲突？六个实证案例研究涵盖城市发展规划、土地使用规划和项目核准领域的规划冲突。案例选择涉及柏林和汉堡不断发展的大都市中住房建设的加速与开放空间的保护之间的冲突，波茨坦和弗莱堡共同利益的冲突，以及辛辛和Amöneburg小城镇能源转型背景下风力涡轮机批准的冲突。通过从定性研究的演绎法和归纳法的转换，该项目旨在将规划理论与实践紧密联系起来。

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.