Summary and Implactions——Rationalism in Recognizing and Responding to Uncertainty in Urban Planning (3)
Table of Contents
Planning Uncertainty - This article is part of a series.
4. Conclusion and Discussion #
4.1 Summary of Rationalism’s Development and Methods of Solving Uncertainty in Planning #
As a key ideological core in planning, the development of rationalism has propelled the resolution of uncertainties in planning. Since the era of Descartes, a central idea of rationalism has been predictability and certainty, i.e., through rigorous cognition of existing laws, clearly and precisely understanding all things. However, with the evolution of rationalism, the recognition of uncertainties in the real world has gradually strengthened. Schools of thought such as bounded rationality, communicative rationality, and neo-rationalism have emerged, revising and supplementing traditional rationalist ideas. These supplements and revisions have led to a deeper understanding of planning uncertainties, while numerous experiences in planning practice have also helped to promote philosophical speculation in the field of planning and the resolution of uncertainties.
In summary, the development trajectory of rationalism and its corresponding planning models for solving uncertainties are shown in Table 1. Generally, the resolution of uncertainties in law cognition in planning is closely linked to advancements in other scientific tools and methods. Most theories still believe that certain laws of the city can be discovered through quantification and applied to future predictions. There is an increasing recognition of the impact of uncertainties in the discovery of laws and predictions, with a more proactive approach to finding certainties within uncertainties or reducing their impact.
In terms of uncertainties in planning goals, scenario planning and communicative planning, by transforming the role of planners, provide a potential platform for the determination of planning goals amidst uncertainties. Planning attempts to step down from elite politics to understand the demands of more people, which is of greater significance for higher-level social governance. This has been tried extensively in the West with relatively mature experiences, worthy of reference in China. However, it is clear that in terms of more broadly balancing interests and even understanding the potential future needs of the general public, there is still much planning can do.
Regarding uncertainties in planning intervention, most planning models propose ways of thinking about the unknown outcomes of interventions, whether it’s provisional quantification based on what is known or starting from certain achievable tasks. These paradigms provide possibilities for solving uncertainties. Planning has gradually recognized the boundaries and control requirements of planning interventions in dealing with uncertainties.
Table 2: Correspondence between Rationalist Thought and Planning Methods for Addressing Uncertainty
| Rationalist Thought | Planning Model | Approximate Emergence Time | Recognition and Resolution of Uncertainty in Planning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Rationality | Blueprint Planning | Pre-1940s | Lack of recognition of uncertainty in urban planning |
| Instrumental Rationality | Comprehensive Planning | 1950s | Believes that key parts of uncertainty can be resolved rationally, future optimal solutions can be proposed through project comparison and calculation, strict implementation ensures future state |
| Systems Planning | 1950s | Planning can form multiple developmental cross-sections through dynamic adjustments, which reflect development laws | |
| Quantitative Prediction Models | 1950s | Simulates urban laws quantitatively, predicts future development, addresses cognitive uncertainty | |
| Bounded Rationality | Incremental Planning (Continuous/Discontinuous) | 1960s | Addresses uncertainty in intervention, focuses on solving current limited real issues, future uncertainties are not a primary concern |
| Mixed-Scanning Model | 1970s | Utilizes long-term decisions of comprehensive planning, including micro, current limited issues | |
| Scenario Planning | 1990s | Acknowledges cognitive uncertainty, scenario simulation to reduce intervention uncertainty, provides a possible platform for uncertain planning goals | |
| Communicative Rationality | Communicative Planning | 1980s | Solves goal uncertainty through multi-party communication, facilitates implementation to reduce intervention uncertainty |
| Neo-Rationalism | Complex Adaptive Systems | 1990s | Summarizes existing cognitive uncertainty and explains its causes, emphasizes the city’s self-organization capabilities, values the combination of bottom-up and top-down planning |
4.2 Implications for Urban Planning in China #
4.2.1 Understanding: Coexistence of Certainty and Uncertainty #
Summarizing historical experiences in dealing with uncertainties, it should be recognized that certainty and uncertainty will coexist in the planning process for a long time. Urban planning needs to first accept the general laws of complex system cognition and control intervention on the level of understanding and have a reasonable prediction of uncertainties. Existing planning in China often relies on population and land-use scale predictions as the basis for subsequent schemes, showing a linear decision-making mindset of prediction upon prediction, which undoubtedly lacks recognition and response to uncertainties. In the planning compilation process, it is necessary to actively consider and attempt to address uncertainties, even starting from the uncertainties of the future in planning, shifting from the original elite decision-making status, combined with the role of the government, to become decision consultants, public participation leaders, and other roles.
4.2.2 Methodology: Multi-perspective Theoretical Frameworks in Planning Formulation, Implementation Management, and Social Governance #
Faced with numerous historical methods for solving uncertainties, China’s planning can attempt to draw from their excellent experiences. However, in addition to recognizing the approaches and models of these methods for solving uncertainties, it’s also important to acknowledge the core issues they addressed in their era. Facing the more diverse and complex current urban situation, planning needs to incorporate multiple frameworks to comprehensively consider decisions.
In the past decades of development, rationalism’s understanding has gradually become a consensus in China’s planning. However, on the one hand, the strong mindset of instrumental rationality has led to inadequate recognition and response to the complexity of cities and uncertainties in planning. On the other hand, in government decision-making, the rational understanding of planning is considerably lacking, with uncertainties becoming an excuse for unscientific or even meaningless planning. It should be recognized that some plans are already transitioning towards bounded and communicative rationality, but the practices are still quite insufficient. It is imperative to involve multi-perspective theoretical frameworks such as the mixed-scanning model, scenario planning, and communicative planning in the formulation, implementation management, and especially in the process of social governance.