Planning Ecologies: Issue Publics and the Reassembling of Urban Green Trajectories

  • Anders Blok


While science and technology studies (STS) has provided fresh takes on the material practices of urban planning, discussions so far have tended to downplay the way STS may also help rethink its core political and institutional forms. In this chapter, I suggest that a pragmatist issue-centred approach to politics—as developed around actor-network theory (ANT)—has much to offer in terms of bringing the contested ecologies of urban planning processes into focus. I develop this claim by way of a (quasi‑)ethnographic case study into 20 years of controversy over the (un‑)sustainable future of the Kai Tak waterfront site in Hong Kong, as seen from the vantage point of emerging publics and their attempts to influence the trajectories of formal planning in this semi-democratic, executive-led polity.


  1. Abbott, Andrew. 2005. Linked Ecologies: States and Universities as Environments for Professions. Sociological Theory 23 (3): 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aibar, Eduardo, and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1997. Constructing a City: the Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Science Technology & Human Values 22 (1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, Clive, and Gary Bridge. 2013. Geographies of Radical Democracy: Agonistic Pragmatism and the Formation of Affected Interests. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (4): 1022–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blok, Anders, and Ignacio Farías, eds. 2016. Urban Cosmopolitics: Agencements, Assemblies, Atmospheres. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, Adele E. 2003. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory Mapping after the Postmodern Turn. Symbolic Interaction 26 (4): 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  7. Farías, Ignacio. 2011. The Politics of Urban Assemblages. CITY 15 (3–4): 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farías, Ignacio, and Thomas Bender, eds. 2010. Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Gomart, Emilie, and Maarten Hajer. 2003. Is that Politics? For an Inquiry into Forms in Contemporary Politics. In Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back, Ahead, ed. B. Joerges and H. Nowotny, 33–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gouldson, Andrew, Peter Hills, and Richard Welford. 2008. Ecological Modernisation and Policy Learning in Hong Kong. Geoforum 39: 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jensen, Casper Bruun. 2014. Continuous Variation: The Conceptual and the Empirical in STS. Science, Technology & Human Values 39 (2): 192–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, Eliza W.Y., Elaine Y.M. Chan, Joseph C.W. Chan, Peter T.Y. Cheung, Wai Fung Lam, and Wai-man Lam. 2013. Public Policymaking in Hong Kong: Civic Engagement and State-Society Relations in a Semi-Democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Leino, Helena, and Markus Laine. 2011. Do Matters of Concern Matter? Bringing Issues Back to Participation. Planning Theory 11 (1): 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mäntysalo, Raine, Alessandro Balducci, and Jonna K. Kangasoja. 2011. Planning as Agonistic Communication in a Trading Zone: Re-Examining Lindblom’s Partisan Mutual Adjustment. Planning Theory 10 (3): 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marres, Noortje. 2007. The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy. Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McFarlane, Colin. 2010. The Comparative City: Knowledge, Learning, Urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34 (4): 725–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? Social Research 66 (3): 745–758.Google Scholar
  18. Ng, Mee Kam. 2005. Planning Cultures in two Chinese Transitional Cities: Hong Kong and Shenzhen. In Comparative Planning Cultures, ed. B. Sanyal, 113–144. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2008. From Government to Governance? Politics of Planning in the First Decade of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Planning Theory & Practice 9 (2): 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2010. Hong Kong: Place-Making Battlefields: Three Empty Reclaimed Sites in Victoria Harbour. disP – The Planning Review 46 (180): 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2011. Power and Rationality: The Politics of Harbour Reclamation in Hong Kong. Environment and Planning C 29 (4): 677–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2014a. Intellectuals and the Production of Space in the Urban Renewal Process in Hong Kong and Taipei. Planning Theory & Practice 15 (1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2014b. The State of Planning Rights in Hong Kong: A Case Study of “Wall-Like Buildings.”. Town Planning Review 85 (4): 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2015. Research Methodology and My Life: Some Personal Reflections. In The Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods, ed. E.A. Silva, P. Healey, N. Harris, and P.v.d. Broeck, 18–23. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Pløger, John. 2004. Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism. Planning Theory 3 (1): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rankin, Katharine N. 2011. Assemblage and the Politics of Thick Description. CITY 15 (5): 563–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers, Richard. 2013. Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Roy, Ananya, and Aihwa Ong, eds. 2011. Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Rydin, Yvonne. 2013. Using Actor-Network Theory to Understand Planning Practice: Exploring Relationships Between Actants in Regulating Low-Carbon Commercial Development. Planning Theory 12 (1): 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Star, Susan Leigh. 1995. Introduction. In Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology, ed. S.L. Star, 1–35. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices. Cultural Studies Review 11 (1): 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang, Bo-sin, Lennon H.T. Choy, and Joshua K.F. Wat. 2000. Certainty and Discretion in Planning Control: A Case Study of Office Development in Hong Kong. Urban Studies 37 (13): 2465–2483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tironi, Manuel. 2015. Modes of Technification: Expertise, Urban Controversies and the Radicalness of Radical Planning. Planning Theory 14 (1): 70–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders Blok
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CopenhagenKøbenhavnDenmark

Personalised recommendations