公眾參與使城市規(guī)劃制定更加的民主外文翻譯

1、畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯 畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯題目： 題目：現(xiàn)代行政中心發(fā)展概述及其親民性設(shè)計(jì)理念 現(xiàn)代行政中心發(fā)展概述及其親民性設(shè)計(jì)理念畢業(yè)論文：外文翻譯學(xué)生姓名：定稿時(shí)間：2013-01-28- ２ -within the framework of a democratic state, an inconsistency that may also be found in other countries beside Israel and wh

2、ich 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, a

3、nd 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 re

4、lationships 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 tra

5、p, that exists in planning and participation. Finally, an initial framework for democratization of planning in Israel is briefly discussed.Why Is there a Need for Public Participation? “If the planning process is to enco

6、urage 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 se

7、nse 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, 1

8、998). 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,

9、 1997; Sandercock, 1998). This is certainly true of Israel’s 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 i

10、ndividuals 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 o

11、n 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”

12、(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 th

13、e public from wild private interests. While this priority is crucial for the justification of state intervention in land and property markets, in Israel it has a double impact. As it has been argued before, the Israeli

14、 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