公众参与使城市规划制定更加的民主外文翻译.doc

毕业论文：外文翻译学生姓名： 定稿时间：2013-01-28毕业论文外文翻译题目：现代行政中心发展概述及其亲民性设计理念外文翻译之一Is Public Participation Making Urban Planning More Democratic? The Israeli ExperienceAuthor：NURIT ALFASINationality：IsraeliReference：Planning Theory & PracticeABSTRACT: The article examines the alleged connection between the goal of democratization of the Israeli planning system and public participation in planning. It begins by claiming that the planning system in Israel is a non-democratic environment within the democratic state. This situation has stimulated the enormous development of theoretical and practical work relating to public participation. Yet, statutory and voluntary participation mechanisms in Israel have not been able to inuence the decision-making structure in planning. Moreover, most public organizations and NGOs that are supposed to represent the voice of the public are far from being genuine public delegates. The article also relates to the power/knowledge problem, stating that participation processes cannot escape it. The article highlights the widely experienced tensions between the democratization of planning through more consultative and participative processes, the role of elected representatives and of civil society movements which choose co-operative rather than oppositional strategies.IntroductionPublic participation is an idea that has been around for a long time, as long as modernurban planning. Yet it refuses to exhaust itself or become jaded. On the contrary, a brief look at recent planning practice and academic studies will reveal that public participation is the subject of an ongoing, lively debate. It is in the forefront of the latest planning projects, opens leading international planning conferences and is the topic of some of the most fashionable books. Interest in the subject does not seem to fade, therefore it is safe to assume that the large body of academic and practical work dealing with public participation will continue to grow. This article focuses on the barriers to public participation in the Israeli planning system and the uneasy relationship that exists in Israel between participation and the democratization of planning. The article begins by contending that planning represents a non-democratic environment within the framework of a democratic state, an inconsistency that may also be found in other countries beside Israel and which has stimulated the extensive development of public participation worldwide. The article attempts to show that most conventional approaches to public participation in Israel have not made planning more democratic, and that the concept of direct democracy, presented in the growing involvement of NGOs and voluntary organizations, is illusory. In addition, the article casts doubt on the effectiveness of challenging power/knowledge relationships Nurit Alfasi, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. through the usual community participation routes and points at another trap, the visioning trap, that exists in planning and participation. Finally, an initial framework for democratization of planning in Israel is briey discussed.Why Is there a Need for Public Participation?“If the planning process is to encourage democratic urban government then it mustoperate so as to include rather than exclude citizens from participation in the process”claims Davidoff in his classic Advocacy and pluralism in planning (1965/1973). A sense of discomfort has accompanied urban and regional planning since its early modern beginnings. Much has been written about planning being a useful tool in exercising power and control (Harvey, 1985, 1989; Yiftachel, 1998). Critics of planning, as well as radicl planners and theoreticians, agree that planning is not democratic enough, as it lacks the integrated representation of different sectors of society (Forester, 1999; Healey, 1997; Sandercock, 1998). This is certainly true of Israels planning system as will be presented at length in this article, as well as of planning systems in many other Western democracies. In fact, the exclusion of individuals from planning processes which affect them has been a dominant theme running through modern planning thought. The issue was already raised in the Athens Charter (Le Corbusier, 1941/1973), a seminal manifesto on modern planning and architectural thought, which stated that “The ruthless violence of private interest provokes a disastrous upset between the thrust of economic forces and the powerlessness of social solidarity” (Principle 73). Therefore, the charter concludes, “private interest will be subordinate to the collective interest” (Principle 95). Similarly, modern urban and district planning is primarily concerned with protecting the public from wild private interests. While this priority is crucial for the justication of state intervention in land and property markets, in Israel it has a double impact. As it has been argued before, the Israeli planning doctrine was shaped in its initial phase by an ideology of giving priority to the collective over the individual (Shachar,1998). Thus, substantial planning decisions were shaped by national objectives such as population dispersal rather than economic utility and social justice. For example, during the 1950s, nearly 30 development towns were constructed in the countrys periphery and new immigrants were sent to the remote settlements on arrival. This was later described as the creation of internal frontier regions (Yiftachel, 1996) where immigrants were used as a tool for conquering land while promoting the economic interests of the founders group. In addition, the ongoing national conict over boundaries and territory, and the scarcity of land in the small-sized country, led to tight governmental control over land and spatial development, reinforcing the dominance of national interest arguments. Thus the National Land Authority (established 1960) owns about 90 per cent of the countrys land, and other governmental agencies control public housing and physical infrastructure. As a result, individual needs and wills are subordinated to wider public interest considerations, and no protection is offered to private interests against public desires. This policy is manifested in planning and building legislation by the fact that the public is hardly mentioned at all. Individuals have only minimal representation in planning processes via an indirect mechanism allowing public representatives to be members of Planning and Building Commissions. However, Regional Planning and Building Commission members and National Planning and Building Board members are usually government civil servants, municipal ofcials or public institution members, all of which are appointed by ofcial administrators.The motivation for the democratization of planning in Israel has been questioned, as it becomes evident that dening the public interest is a problematic, controversial, issue. The illusive nature of public interests makes them hard to dene and agree upon. Each of the many groups in the Israeli society may perceive different collective interests. Furthermore, as Fenster (1999) and Yiftachel (1995) have shown, planning in Israel frequently appears to be protecting some private interests at the expense of others rather than securing the public interest from the adverse effects of private initiatives. The resultis a growing distrust in administrative planning agencies and demand for a more democratic planning system. Another motivation for the democratization of planning has been the legal status of urban and regional plans. The Israeli planning system is structured in a hierarchical, top-to-bottom form, which applies both to the institutions and the statutory plans, as shown in Figure 1. Planning and building commissions make decisions regarding zoning plans, which once authorized gain statutory validity and become the ofcial spatial legislation.公众参与使城市规划制定更加的民主？以以色列的经验为例作者：NURIT ALFASI国籍：以色列出处：规划理论与实践摘要：本文探讨了所谓在以色列的规划体系中民主化的目标和公众参与之间的联系。本文的开始通过声称以色列规划体系是一在民主国家环境内的个非民主的体系，这种情况刺激了理论与实践的工作“公众参与” 巨大发展。然而，在以色列的法定和自愿参与机制没有能力影响规划决策结构。此外，代表公众的声音的大多数公共组织和民间组织，远非真正的公众代表。文章还涉及权力/知识问题，指出公众参与过程不能逃避它。本文突出的广泛经验的紧张局势，这种局势在通过更多的协商使规划的民主化和公众参与的过程之间，民选代表的角色和公民社会运动，应该选择合作而不是对立的策略。引文正如城市规划一样,公众参与是一个已经存在了很长时间的体制。然而它拒绝彻底讨论其本身或变得厌烦。相反,简单地看看最近的规划实践和学术研究将揭示,公众参与是一个持续的主题,一场生动的讨论。公众参与是在最新的前沿规划项目,它打开了国际领先的规划会议和一些最流行的书。人们对于这个主题的兴趣似乎不会褪色,因此大量的学术和实践工作处理公众参与将继续增长的假设是安全的。本文关注的是以色列计划系统的公众参与的障碍以及存在于以色列的“参与”和“民主化的规划”之间的不安关系,。本文以这样的主张开始，规划代表了一个个民主国家框架内的非民主环境,在除了以色列以外的国家发现一个不一致的现象，这一现象广泛地刺激了公众参与全球化的全面发展。本文试图表明,在以色列城市规划中这种最传统的方法公众参与还没有使规划更加民主, 由不断介入规划的的非政府组织的和志愿组织提出的直接民主概念是虚幻的。此外,文章质疑了存在于城市规划和公共参与的挑战权力的有效性/知识的关系通过通常的社区参与路线并指向另一个陷阱。最后, 简要地讨论了一个关于以色列民主规划在初始框架。为何还需要公众参与? “如果规划过程是为了鼓励民主的城市政府,那么它必须执行公众参与过程,而不是将之排除在外。大卫杜夫在他的经典之作倡导和多元化的计划这样说道(1965/1973)。某种意义上来说，现代城市规划形成以来，不适就伴随着城市和区域规划。“在权力和控制领域，已经有许多被写入规划并使其成为一个有用的工具”(哈维、1985、1989;Yiftachel,1998)。规划的批评，以及“激进”的策划者和理论家，都同意规划不够民主，因为它不能够完全代表社会不同阶层 (森林人，1999年的综合表现;希利，1997 Sandercock，19988)。这真正的以色列的规划体系以及许多其他西方民主国家的规划体系都将被列举在本文中。事实上, 影响这些国家的是要在规划过程中排除个人因素的影响，这是一个占主导地位的主题，它贯穿现代规划思想。这个问题早已在雅典宪章中提出过了 (勒柯布西耶,1941/1973)，一个关于有创意的宣言现代的城市