Conceptual Framework of Power Interaction and Collaborative Planning
Keywords:
Collaborative Planning, Structuration, Power InteractionAbstract
Abstract
This qualitative research aims to study the meaning and significance of the Collaborative Planning under the interaction between structure and agency, and the result of the interaction that occurs in the form of power interaction resulted from the processes of collaborative planning. By doing the comprehensive literature review, the study result found that the collaborative planning is a type of the city development planning that grounds the cooperation to develop the city of all parties, especially the public sector (civil society) who is required to participate in city development with the government sector. In consequence, it causes the interaction between government structures and agency who considers that the public sector is important. Such joint actions created power interaction between bipolar relationships which cooperate to develop the city development plan by which the agency is able to change the structure for the urban development in the new format. In addition, the power interaction arising from the urban development planning process indicated that all parties participating in the process want to take power to gain the most personal benefits. Therefore, the processes and roles of urban development planners are important to create the perfect benefits for all parties. The collaborative planning process can reduce power and promote the decentralization of power to all parties involved in the city development planning process, especially at the community action and policies that arise from the real needs of the people.
Downloads
References
กาญจนา แก้วเทพ. (2547). ทฤษฎีและแนวทางการศึกษาสื่อสารมวลชน.
กรุงเทพฯ : แบรนด์เอจ.
กาญจนา แก้วเทพและสมสุข หินวิมาน. (2551). สายธารแห่งนักคิดทฤษฎี
เศรษฐศาสตร์และการเมือง. กรุงเทพฯ : สำนักพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์
มหาวิทยาลัย.
เจมส์ กอร์ดอน ฟินเลย์สัน. (2559).ฮาเบอร์มาส มนุษย์กับพื้นที่สาธารณะ. แปลจาก
Habermas A very Short Introduction. แปลโดย วรารัก เฉลิมพันธุศักดิ์:
กรุงเทพฯ: สวนเงินมีมา
เชษฐา พวงหัตถ์. (2548). โครงสร้าง-ผู้กระทำการ. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักงาน
คณะกรรมการวิจัยแห่งชาติ.
ณัฐวุฒิ อัศวโกวิทวงศ์. (2009). ปฏิสัมพันธ์ของการวางแผน-บทเรียนจากการศึกษา
เปรียบเทียบในการปฏิบัติการจากล่างสู่บน. Journal of Architectural/Planning Research and Studies 6, (2).
รัตนา โตสกุล. (2548). มโนทัศน์เรื่องอำนาจ (The concept of power). กรุงเทพฯ:
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการวิจัยแห่งชาติ.
สมศักดิ์ สามัคคีธรรม. (2551). ‘ความสมเหตุสมผล/อำนาจ และสภาวะสมัยใหม่:
หนทางสู่หายนะของมนุษยชาติแห่งศตวรรษที่ 21’. วารสารร่มพฤกษ์ 26 (1).
สำนักงานราชบัณฑิตยสภา.(2560). Collaborative Planning : การวางแผนแบบ
รวมพลัง. [ออนไลน์]. เข้าถึงเมื่อวันที่ 28 กุมภาพันธ์ 2560, จาก [email protected]
Campbell, S. and Susan S. Fainstein. (1996). The Structure and Debates of
Planning Theory. Readings in Planning Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Cedar, A. J. M. (2009). Evaluating Collaborative planning : A case study
of the Morice land and Resourse management. School of Resource and Environmental Management. SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Forester, J. F.. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. The Berkeley
Planning Journal
Foucault, M. (1982). Disclipline and Punish: The Birth or Prison.
Harmundsworth : Penguin Books Ltd..
Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society
(T. McCarthy,Trans.). Canada: Beacon Press. (Original work
published 1976).
Harper, T. L. & Stein, S. M. (2006). Dialogical planning in a fragmented
society. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research
Harris, N. (2002). ‘Collaborative planning: from theoretical foundations
to practice forms, Planning Futures: New Directions for
Planning Theory. London: Routledge
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in
Fragmented Societies. University of Columbia: Canada.
Healey, P. (1998). ‘Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative
Approaches to Urban Planning’. Environment and Planning.
Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics.
Planning Theory, 3(1), 5-20.
Margerum, D. R. (2002). Collaborative Planning Building Consensus and
Building a Distinct Model for Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research.
McGee, G. J. A. (2006). Evaluating collaborative planning: A case study of
the north coast land and resource management plan. MRM
Report 399. Burnaby, BC:Simon Fraser University, School of
Resource and Environmental Management.
Olson, N, S. & Khalid Yahia, S. (2006). Structuration Theory : Giddens
Explored Structuration Theory : Giddens Explored. 2006, pp.1–15. Available at: http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html/files/geoapp/Werkstukken/Giddens.pdf.
Susskind, L., Wansem, M.W., & Ciccarelli, A. (2003). Mediating land use
disputes: Proandcon. Environments. 31(2), 39-58.
Taylor, N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. London: Sage.
Yagüe, O. L. & Christian, B. (2012). PLANNING THEORY IN
POSTMODERNITY. Adolfo Cazorla & James Midgley, PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:CASE STUDIESUC Berkeley – Technical University of Madrid. Madrid (Spain): Grupo GESPLAN-UPM.
Translated Thai References
Finlayson, J. G. (2016). Habermas: A man of public space. Translate from
Habermas: A very Short Introduction. Translate by Wararak Chalearmpansak: Bangkok. Suangein mi ma.
Kaewteap, K. (2004). Theories and Guidelines for Mass Communication
Studies. Bangkok: Brandage
Kaewteap K. and Somsuk, H. (2008).The flow of thinkers, economic
and political theorists. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Office of the Royal Society. (2017). Collaborative Planning [Online].
Retrieved February 28, 2017, from [email protected]
Puanghut, C. (2005). Structure-agency. Bangkok:
National Research Council.
Samukkhethum, S. (2007). Reasonableness / power And modernism: the
path to disaster Mankind of the 21st Century’, Rom Phruek Journal. 26 (2).
Tosakul, R. (2005). The concept of power. Bangkok:
National Research Council.
Usavagovitwong, N. (2009). Planning Interaction – Lessons from a
Comparative Study of Bottom-up Approach in Practice. Journal of Architectural/Planning Research and Studies. Volume 6. Issue 2. 2009. Thammasat university.
