A Systematic Review and topic modelling of the concept of power in urban planning

Document Type : review

Authors

1 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Healthy Communities, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

10.22059/jurbangeo.2024.379614.1967

Abstract

ABSTRACT
The definition of power in urban planning and the identification of its influential dimensions has been a topic of recent interest among experts in various humanities fields. However, there is still no adequate definition for this concept, and research on its relationship with urban planning has been limited. This article aims to develop a conceptual framework based on the themes shared in articles extracted from the Web of Science database. Due to differing perspectives, there is no consensus on the theoretical understanding of power within this field or its connection to urban planning. In addition to analyzing key concepts related to the link between power and urban planning based on relevant published articles (including time-related, spatial, and conceptual distribution analyses), this article also conducts a content analysis of these texts. To achieve this, 63 articles were selected through screening titles, abstracts, and main bodies to identify frequently mentioned concepts with strong connections in power and urban planning using a text extraction method based on Hierarchical Dirichlet process modeling for topic modeling. The findings reveal that grasping roles such as formal and informal education, participation, class dynamics, space utilization, and language influence cultural benefits and knowledge discourse within city planning is crucial for understanding the concept of power as it pertains to urban development; understanding their collective interaction enables a comprehensive understanding of power dynamics within urban planning
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The concept of power in urban planning has increasingly garnered attention from scholars across various humanities disciplines. Despite its widespread usage, defining power and its influential dimensions remains challenging. Additionally, studies that directly relate power to urban planning are scarce. This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework based on commonalities found in articles extracted from the Web of Science database, highlighting the lack of theoretical consensus on power and urban planning. This paper includes a bibliometric analysis of key concepts linking power and urban planning, analyzing their temporal, spatial, and conceptual distribution, and a content analysis of the texts. Using 63 articles identified through title, abstract, and full-text screening, the study employs text extraction methods based on Hierarchical Dirichlet Process (HDP) modeling to identify related, frequent, and interconnected concepts in power and urban planning. The results underscore the importance of understanding the interplay between formal and informal education, participation, class, space, language, benefit, knowledge, and discourse in comprehending power in urban planning.
 
Methodology
This study employs a systematic review approach to identify the thematic dimensions of power in urban planning. Detailed and methodical categorization of statements was utilized to ensure a comprehensive study. The article selection process included articles with "power" in the title and "planning" and "city" in the abstract. The search spanned all relevant disciplines, including political science, economics, sociology, humanities, and urban planning, with no restrictions on the field of study or the academic journal. Temporal constraints were also not applied. The article search was conducted using the Web of Science database. Articles lacking scientific articles' standard structure (e.g., an abstract, conclusion, or references) were excluded. Ultimately, 63 articles met the criteria and were analyzed using the PRISMA method.
The data analysis employed bibliometric methods to understand the temporal, spatial, and conceptual characteristics of the research, and text mining to uncover key concepts linking power and urban planning. Bibliometric analysis, a recognized technique for reviewing extensive literature, combines mathematical and statistical methods to analyze books and other communication media, typically in conjunction with scientific mapping techniques to visualize the knowledge structure of a specific topic.
For text mining, tools like Vosviewer and Orange were used, with Orange being chosen for its interactive data visualization capabilities. The HDP model was employed for topic modeling, providing a probabilistic framework for explaining the connection between observed documents and underlying topics.
 
Results and discussion
The annual distribution of articles ranged from before 1980 to the present, showing a general upward trend, peaking with 10 articles (16%) after 2020.The initial codes included "power" (1.2%), "planning" (1.02%), "city" (0.66%), "local" (0.38%), "communities" (0.25%), "participation" (0.22%), and "social" (0.23%). These codes indicate that "planning" at the "city" level, when faced with "power," requires "social" "participation" at the "local" "community" level. Leading journals included Planning Theory (11.1%), Geojournal (8%), Habitat International (5%), Journal of Planning Education and Research (5%), and Land Use Policy (5%). The thematic analysis showed that power influences and is influenced by various fields such as "urban planning" (22%), "social" (20%), "environmental" (15%), "planning" (17%), and "land use, economics, and housing" (5%). Geographical analysis indicated a global distribution, with the highest research concentration in the USA, India, China, and some African countries. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (57%), followed by upper-middle-income (27%), lower-middle-income (12%), and low-income countries (4%).
The HDP model identified eight main topics, including community power, urban planning, political power, space planning, participatory planning, rural empowerment, local participatory dynamics, and urban knowledge. Key findings highlighted the need for urban planners to consider power as an influential factor in executing urban decisions, shaping discourses, and engaging political actors. Schools can educate local communities about land changes driven by power dynamics and foster public participation to protect collective interests.
 
Conclusion
Power is omnipresent and significantly impacts urban areas, making it imperative for urban planners to address urban inequality and deprivation perpetuated by power dynamics. This study provides a systematic review and data extraction to identify key concepts and aid in analyzing the primary reasons for urban changes. The research underscores the interlinked nature of various elements influencing urban planning processes and their power connection. Eight thematic models and four clusters of interconnected concepts were identified, emphasizing the importance of spatial planning and local community development in addressing power in urban planning. Future studies should examine the specific impacts of power-related components in urban planning, such as social and economic classes, individual and collective interests, and language practices.
 
Funding
There is no funding support
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahmed, W. (2006). Global discourses and local politics in the production of power policy in India. Development, 49(3), 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100275
  2. Al-Nammari, F. (2013). Participatory urban upgrading and power: Lessons learnt from a pilot project in Jordan. Habitat International, 39, 224-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.01.001
  3. Arkaraprasertkul, N. (2010). Power, politics, and the making of Shanghai. Journal of Planning History, 9(4), 232-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/15385132103823
  4. Arkesteijn, M. H., & Volker, L. (2013). The power of pluralism for urban strategies. Cities, 31, 328-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.001
  5. Baeten, G. (2000). From community planning to partnership planning. Urban regeneration and shifting power geometries on the South Bank, London. GeoJournal, 51, 293-300. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012236328008
  6. Basu, I. (2019). Elite discourse coalitions and the governance of ‘smart spaces’: Politics, power and privilege in India's Smart Cities Mission. Political Geography, 68, 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.11.002
  7. Beard, V. A. (2003). Learning radical planning: The power of collective action. Planning Theory, 2(1), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520300200100
  8. Bennett, A., Acton, L., Epstein, G., Gruby, R., & Nenadovic, M. (2018). Embracing conceptual diversity to integrate power and institutional analysis: Introducing a relational typology. International Journal of the Commons, 12. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.819
  9. Benton, J. F. (2023). How Community School Members Discuss Power: A Case Study. The Urban Review, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-023-00677-2
  10. BondGraham, D. (2011). Building the new New Orleans: Foundation and NGO power. The Review of Black Political Economy, 38(4), 279-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-010-9081-z
  11. Boschken, H. L. (2003). Global cities, systemic power, and upper-middle-class influence. Urban Affairs Review, 38(6), 808-830. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087403038006003
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
  13. Buyana, K., Walubwa, J., Mukwaya, P., Lwasa, S., & Owuor, S. (2021). City residents, scientists and policy-makers: power in co-producing knowledge. Urban Transformations, 3, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-021-00020-6
  14. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research feld: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory feld. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
  15. Cocks, R. (2004). Power, Policy and Co-ordination in Law Reform: a Civil Servant and Town Planning Law, 1929–1930. Liverpool Law Review, 25, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LLLL.0000009848.66502.2
  16. Craft, J. A. (1990). The community as a source of union power. Journal of Labor Research, 11(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685384
  17. de Castro Mazarro, A., Sikder, S. K., & Pedro, A. A. (2022). Spatializing inequality across residential built-up types: A relational geography of urban density in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Habitat International, 119, 102472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102472
  18. Demšar, J., & Zupan, B. (2012). Orange: Data mining fruitful and fun. Inf. Družba IS, 6, 1-486.
  19. Diehl, J. A., Németh, J., Thomas, D. S., & Bose, M. (2022). Power through social networks: a case study of urban farmers facing land development in Delhi, India. Habitat International, 128, 102626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102626
  20. Fainstein S (2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087400035004
  21. Fainstein, S. S. (2017). Urban planning and social justice. The Routledge handbook of planning theory, 130-142.
  22. Fan, Y., Yu, G., & He, Z. (2017). Origin, spatial pattern, and evolution of urban system: Testing a hypothesis of “urban tree”. Habitat International, 59, 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.11.012
  23. Ferguson, T. S. (1973). A Bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems. Annals of Statistics, 1(2), 209–230. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2958008
  24. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd
  25. Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of planning education and research, 21(4), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100401
  26. Fox-Rogers, L., & Murphy, E. (2014). Informal strategies of power in the local planning system. Planning theory, 13(3), 244-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213492512
  27. Franklin, M. (1997). “Power to the people”: Sociopolitics and the archaeology of black Americans. Historical archaeology, 31(3), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374229
  28. Ganguly, S., Sahoo, N. C., & Das, D. (2013). Recent advances on power distribution system planning: a state-of-the-art survey. Energy Systems, 4, 165-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-012-0073-x
  29. Gerber, J. D., & Debrunner, G. (2022). Planning with power. Implementing urban densification policies in Zurich, Switzerland. Land use policy, 123, 106400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106400
  30. Gibson, C., & Woolcock, M. (2008). Empowerment, deliberative development, and local-level politics in Indonesia: Participatory projects as a source of countervailing power. Studies in comparative international development, 43, 151-180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-008-9021-0
  31. Gijs, C., & Godfried, E. (2022) The urban class structure: class change and spatial divisions from a multidimensional class perspective. Urban Geography, 43(6), 917-943, https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1887633
  32. Gressgård, R. (2015). The power of (re) attachment in urban strategy: Interrogating the framing of social sustainability in Malmö. Environment and Planning A, 47(1), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130167
  33. Gurran, N., & Bramley, G. (2017). Urban planning and the housing market. Urban planning and renewal. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46403-3
  34. Hardy, C., & Leiba-O'Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: Implications for research and practice. Human relations, 51(4), 451-483. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679805100402
  35. Harvey, D. (2015). The right to the city. In The city reader (pp. 314-322). Routledge.
  36. Hayward, C. (1999). “The Environment”: Power, Pedagogy, and American Urban Schooling. The Urban Review, 31(4), 331-357. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023284816589
  37. Isaac, J. (2004). Conceptions of power. M.E. Hawkesworth and M. Kogan. eds. Encyclopedia of
  38. Jeong, K., Kim, Y. (2021) Dynamic hierarchical Dirichlet processes topic model using the power prior approach. J. Korean Stat. Soc. 50, 860–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42952-021-00129-1
  39. Johansen, P. H., & Chandler, T. L. (2015). Mechanisms of power in participatory rural planning. Journal of Rural Studies, 40, 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.05.006
  40. Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14, 221-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-014-9333-z
  41. Kamete, A. Y. (2012). Interrogating planning’s power in an African city: time for reorientation?. Planning Theory, 11(1), 66-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211419116
  42. Kennedy-Walker, R., Amezaga, J. M., & Paterson, C. A. (2015). The role of power, politics and history in achieving sanitation service provision in informal urban environments: a case study of Lusaka, Zambia. Environment and Urbanization, 27(2), 489-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247815583253
  43. Khan, M. S., & Syrett, S. (2022). An institutional analysis of ‘power within’local governance: A Bazaari tale from Pakistan. World Development, 154, 105882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105882
  44. Kiess, J. (2022). Learning by doing: The impact of experiencing democracy in education on political trust and participation. Politics, 42(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395721990287
  45. Koltcov, S., Ignatenko, V., Boukhers, Z., & Staab, S. (2020). Analyzing the Influence of Hyper-parameters and Regularizers of Topic Modeling in Terms of Renyi Entropy. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 22(4), 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22040394
  46. Korableva, E., Shirobokova, I., Pachenkov, O., & Bernt, M. (2023). Dwelling in failure: Power and uncertainty in a socialist large housing estate regeneration program in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 38(1), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09892-3
  47. Kudla, D. (2021). Business improvement areas and the socio-cultural power of lobbying: Imposing market interests to affordable housing development. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(8), 1974-1992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211031919
  48. Lang, M. H., & Camden, N. J. (1977). Devolution vs. regionalization of power in Britain and the USA: The consequences for citizen participation. GeoJournal, 1, 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00195542
  49. Latour, B. (1984). The powers of association. The Sociological Review, 32(1_suppl), 264-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00115.x
  50. Lauermann, J., & Mallak, K. (2023). Elite capture and urban geography: Analyzing geographies of privilege. Progress in Human Geography, 47(5), 645-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325231186810
  51. Leino, H., Karppi, I., & Jokinen, A. (2017). It’s all about the birds! Non-human actors’ situational power in creating conditions for human engagement. Planning Theory, 16(2), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215617985
  52. Leone, M. P., & Hurry, S. D. (1998). Seeing: The power of town planning in the Chesapeake. Historical Archaeology, 32, 34-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374271
  53. Lewis, J. A. (2008). The power of knowledge: information transfer and açaí intensification in the peri-urban interface of Belém, Brazil. Agroforestry Systems, 74, 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9096-z
  54. Li, X., Han, S. S., & Wu, H. (2019). Urban consolidation, power relations, and dilapidated residential redevelopment in Mutoulong, Shenzhen, China. Urban Studies, 56(13), 2802-2819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018799950
  55. Lo Piccolo, F., & Todaro, V. (2022). ‘Landscape of exception’: Power inequalities and ethical planning challenges in the landscape transformation of south-eastern Sicily. Planning Theory, 21(1), 8-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211000400
  56. Lukes, S. (1986). Power. ed. Blackwell: Oxford.
  57. Mandell, B.S., Petraeus, S. & Subramanian, G. (2020), Sources of Power in Public Negotiations: A Framework Applied to Public-Public and Public-Private Negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 36, 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12337
  58. Marcuse, P. (2011). The forms of power and the forms of cities: building on Charles Tilly. In Contention and Trust in Cities and States (pp. 339-353). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0756-6_23
  59. Mashhadi Moghadam, S. N., & Rafieian, M. (2019). If Foucault were an urban planner: An epistemology of power in planning theories. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), 1592065. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1592065
  60. McGuirk, P. M. (2000). Power and policy networks in urban governance: local government and property-led regeneration in Dublin. Urban studies, 37(4), 651-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980050003955
  61. Mohandas, M., & Purayil, V. P. (2023). ‘Aestheticization of Poverty’and ‘Manufactured Consent’: How Power Imbalances Between Stakeholders Led to the Failure of the Kannankund ‘Model Village’Housing Rehabilitation Project. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 14(1), 142-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/09754253221151104
  62. Morriss, P., 2002[1988]. Power: a philosophical analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press
  63. Murphy, K., & Fafard, P. (2012). Taking power, politics, and policy problems seriously: the limits of knowledge translation for urban health research. Journal of Urban Health, 89, 723-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-012-9694-6
  64. Mushkani, R. A., & Ono, H. (2022). Urban planning, political system, and public participation in a century of urbanization: Kabul, Afghanistan. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2045452. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2045452
  65. Myers, G. A. (2003). Designing power: forms and purposes of colonial model neighborhoods in British Africa. Habitat International, 27(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(02)00045-0
  66. Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Sage Publications, Inc.
  67. Nuhu, S. (2019, March). Peri-urban land governance in developing countries: Understanding the role, interaction and power relation among actors in Tanzania. In Urban Forum (Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 1-16). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-018-9339-2
  68. Oliveira, E., & Hersperger, A. M. (2018). Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation. Land use policy, 76, 623-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.042
  69. Pacione, M. (2014). The power of public participation in local planning in Scotland: the case of conflict over residential development in the metropolitan green belt. GeoJournal, 79, 31-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9477-y
  70. Pansardi, P. (2012). Power to and power over: two distinct concepts of power?. Journal of Political Power, 5(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2012.658278
  71. Pansardi, P. (2021). Why we do need a concept of power. Journal of Political Power, 14(2), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1901195
  72. Partridge, P. H. (2017). Some notes on the concept of power. In Power, Authority, Justice, and Rights (pp. 18-38). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1963.tb01054.x
  73. Patel, P. (1988). Politics of Local Power, Local Institutions And The'powerless'people. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 386-401. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855883
  74. Patel, S., Baptist, C., & d’Cruz, C. (2012). Knowledge is power–informal communities assert their right to the city through SDI and community-led enumerations. Environment and Urbanization, 24(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247812438366
  75. Peris, A., Meijers, E., & van Ham, M. (2021). Information difusion between Dutch cities: Revisiting Zipf and Pred using a computational social science approach. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 85, e101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101565
  76. Prabha, S., & Sardana, N. (2023). Question Tags or Text for Topic Modeling: Which is better. Procedia Computer Science, 218, 2172-2180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.193
  77. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of documentation, 25(4), 348–349.
  78. Rojas Alcayaga, M. (2017). Heritage and the Social Construction of Citizen Power in Historic Neighborhoods of Santiago. Latin American Perspectives, 44(3), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X16682798
  79. Rojas-Rueda, D., & Morales-Zamora, E. (2023). Equitable Urban Planning: Harnessing the Power of Comprehensive Plans. Current Environmental Health Reports, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-023-00399-3
  80. Rüdiger, M., Antons, D., Joshi, A. M., & Salge, T. O. (2022). Topic modeling revisited: New evidence on algorithm performance and quality metrics. PloS one, 17(4), e0266325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266325
  81. Sadler, D. (1990). The social foundations of planning and the power of capital: Teesside in historical context. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 8(3), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1068/d080323
  82. Saha, B., & Kakani, R. K. (2007). Knowledge, power and action: towards an understanding of implementation failures in a government scheme. Ai & Society, 21, 72-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-006-0043-8
  83. Schmidt-Thomé, K., & Mäntysalo, R. (2014). Interplay of power and learning in planning processes: A dynamic view. Planning Theory, 13(2), 115-135.
  84. Smith, N. R. (2021). Planning powers as property rights in contemporary China. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(3), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18787623
  85. Soltani, A. (2019). Urban land use planning. Shiraz university press.
  86. Stein, G. J. (1998). Heterogeneity, power, and political economy: Some current research issues in the archaeology of Old World complex societies. Journal of archaeological research, 6, 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02443149
  87. Stevens, K., Kegelmeyer, P., Andrzejewski, D., & Buttler, D. (2012). Exploring topic coherence over many models and many topics. In Proceedings of the 2012 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (pp. 952-961).
  88. Teh, Y. W., Jordan, M. I., Beal, M. J., & Blei, D. M. (2006). Hierarchical Dirichlet processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(476), 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000000302
  89. ickamyer, A. R. (2000). Space matters! Spatial inequality in future sociology. Contemporary sociology, 29(6), 805-813. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654088
  90. Turner RH (2001) Role theory. In: Turner JH (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36274-6
  91. Tutarel O. (2002). Geographical distribution of publications in the field of medical education. BMC medical education, 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-2-3
  92. Uddin, K. F, & Piracha, A. (2023b). Neoliberalism, Power, and Right to the City and the Urban Divide in Sydney, Australia. Social Sciences, 12(2), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12020083
  93. Uddin, K. F., & Piracha, A. (2023). Urban planning as a game of power: The case of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Habitat International, 133, 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102751
  94. Uddin, K. F., & Piracha, A. (2023a). Urban planning as a game of power: The case of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Habitat International, 133, 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102751
  95. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.2058.
  96. Van Gent, Wouter, Das, Marjolijn, & Musterd, Sako. (2019). Sociocultural, economic and ethnic homogeneity in residential mobility and spatial sorting among couples. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 51(4), 891–912. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18823754
  97. Viger, J. (2018). Class, political power, and nationalism in Syria: A historical sociology of state-society relations. Dialectical Anthropology, 42(4), 373-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-018-9504-y
  98. Wagenaar, M. (2000). Townscapes of power. GeoJournal, 51, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010841010012
  99. Wang, A., & Chan, E. H. (2020). The impact of power-geometry in participatory planning on urban greening. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 48, 126571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126571
  100. Weiss, J., & Parth, A. M. (2023). The democratic lessons learned—How experiences of (un-) equal treatment in school influence satisfaction with democracy in later life. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 33(1), 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-022-00332-4
  101. Whaley, L. (2018). The critical institutional analysis and development (CIAD) framework. International Journal of the Commons, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.848
  102. Woods, M. (1998). Rethinking elites: networks, space, and local politics. Environment and planning A, 30(12), 2101-2119. https://doi.org/10.1068/a302101
  103. Yao, B., Zhu, J., Ma, P., Gao, K., & Ren, X. (2023). A Constrained Louvain Algorithm with a Novel Modularity. Applied Sciences, 13(6), 4045. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13064045
  104. Zanotto, J. M. (2020). The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning. Planning Theory, 19(1), 104-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219898876
  105. Zhai, C., & Massung, S. (2017). Text Data Understanding. In Text Data Management and Analysis: A Practical Introduction to Information Retrieval and Text Mining. Association for Computing Machinery and Morgan & Claypool. https://doi.org/10.1145/2915031.2915035
  106. Zhang, H., Huating, S., & Wu, X. (2020). Topic model for graph mining based on hierarchical Dirichlet process. Statistical Theory and Related Fields, 4(1), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/24754269.2019.1593098
  107. Zhao, N., Liu, Y., & Wang, J. (2023). “Co-production” as an alternative in post-political China? Conceptualizing the legitimate power over participation in neighborhood regeneration practices. Cities, 141, 104462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104462
  108. Zhou, X., Lu, X., Lian, H., Chen, Y., & Wu, Y. (2017). Construction of a Spatial Planning system at city-level: Case study of “integration of multi-planning” in Yulin City, China. Habitat International, 65, 32-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.015
  109. Zondervan, N. A., & Tolentino-Zondervan, F. (2023). An original template solution for FAIR scientific text mining. MethodsX, 10, 102145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102145
  110. Zondervan, N. A., Tolentino-Zondervan, F., & Moeke, D. (2022). Logistics trends and innovations in response to COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis using text mining. Processes, 10(12), 2667. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10122667
  111. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)
Volume 12, Issue 2
August 2024
Pages 45-72

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics