Multiple rounds of experimentation have focused on how to capture, represent, and materialize the public interest in urban planning, crystallizing various regulatory planning regimes in different historical and political-economic contexts. However, how to define the “public” and capture the public interest in urban planning remains problematic in both planning practice and democratic theory. In China, the growing awareness of a heterogeneous society has, again, foregrounded the issue with the ever-proliferating insurgent activities of the settler community, the participatory of the industries, and the knowledge bodies, on top of the (semi-)vertical decentralization of the land-and-planning sector itself.

This study is supported by two central pillars - Dewey’s public interest theory and Giddens’s structuration theory. These two pillars are not separate pieces of material but rather the weft and the warp woven by institutional structures and community actions in collaborating to make decisions. Five core concepts are involved.

The first major pillar of the framework draws insights into the public from the literature on democratic development and its application to planning. John Dewey’s philosophical reflection on “public” and its relations with the origins of the state provided a new way of thinking about the study of state-society relations. The “public interest”, in this sense, is considered to be a community-based value shared among members of the public at various scales. Drawing upon Dewey’s definition of the “public” as “spontaneous groups of citizens who share the indirect effects of a political action”, this study further incorporates the concept of intersubjectivity into the more recent communicative turn of urban planning, which has benefited from neo-Marxist theorists ranging from Habermas and David Harvey to Patsy Healey.

The second major pillar of the framework provides insights into the politics of scale through the lens of Giddens’s structuration theory. This study develops a theoretical framework to revisit how the mechanisms of public interest representation evolve through inherited structures and active agencies. Structuration refers to the process by which active agencies of renovated communities drive changes in inherited governance structures or regeneration policies and stimulate the reinstitutionalization of informal rules or local needs. On the one hand, the “inherited structure” is reflected in the institutionalization of the public interest, which will be examined in this study in terms of the evolution of the scales, norms, and regulatory systems of urban planning. On the other hand, “active agencies” is embodied in the collective actions of renovated communities. Combining these pillars with an in-depth empirical investigation of Guangzhou neighborhood regeneration practices, this study reveals the interactions between inherited structure and active agency by analyzing the changing relationships among key actors in different planning configurations, their perceptions of inherited notions of public interest, and their physical initiatives to participate in or resist specific urban regeneration projects.

While John Dewey’s theory of representative democracy provides the fundamental philosophy for this study, Giddens’s structuration theory inspires the methodological framework for understanding scalar politics in the evolution of urban planning systems. Paradoxically, although Dewey envisions democratization by capturing the public’s genuine interest, he does not indicate a path to that goal. Similarly, while Giddens proposes a basic framework for analyzing structure-agency interaction, he does not suggest specific analytical methods. Moreover, Giddens’s praxis-centric perspective overemphasizes cognitive actors and quietly devalues the critical role of material practices in human society, which is crucial in the Chinese context. Therefore, this study applies Dewey’s theory to illustrate the composition and systemic evolution of the public interest in China and then uses a modified version of Giddens’s framework to empirically examine the driving forces and trajectories of change in the mechanisms of public interest representation that have evolved through interaction between institutional structures and community actions.

Grounded in the context of China’s ongoing rapid transformation from property-led urban redevelopment to small-scale community-oriented regeneration, this study reexamines the changing role of urban planning between the market and the government in the context of this new communicative era and its different configurations in terms of conceptualizing, representing, and materializing the public interest.

Regarding methodology, this study uses both quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis and structural equation modeling, and qualitative methods, such as participatory action research and in-depth interviews. The empirical research consists of three parts: 1) panel data analysis, including policies of 32 provinces in China and 776 community renovation projects in Guangzhou; 2) 580 structured questionnaire surveys in 9 renovated communities in Guangzhou; and 3) in-depth comparative case studies of 3 typical cases in Guangzhou. The findings are threefold:

First, the institutionalization of the public interest in China since 1949 is characterized by four features: pluralization of participatory subjects, communalization of scalar governance, networking of collective action, and routinization of informal rules. Theoretically, this study finds two scalar transformations embodied in representation mechanisms of the “public” in planning and two devolution processes of urban regeneration policymaking. In practice, this study finds three levels of representation of the public interest in China’s planning regime: the People’s Congresses system at the national scale, the planning committee system at the local scale, and the community planners system at the community scale. The results show that the trajectories of institutionalizing the public interest in planning share different origins, as in Western countries and the Chinese context.

Second, the conceptualization of the public interest can be understood in four dimensions: spatial performance, economic efficiency, public participation, and collective consciousness. Three models of materializing the public interest in urban regeneration can be identified from the perspective of policymakers: a) physical upgrading led by local governments; b) collective benefits oriented toward market participation; and c) knowledge sharing based on the coordination of community and society. Empirically, the data derived from the structural equation analysis of 580 questionnaires provide a detailed picture of residents’ different perceptions of the public interest and the mechanisms that influence them. The conclusions corroborate the assumption of this study that people are more likely to be motivated by endogenous reflexive factors, such as the level of trust in the community, satisfaction with the renovation, and personal structural background.

Third, based on the comparative analysis of three typical cases in Guangzhou, this study identifies three trajectories of community action when affected members of the public take action against planning interventions: a) insurgent activities through network coalition, b) rightful resistance through community mobilization, and c) community inspiration through a partnership of commons creation. In the first case (Enninglu, collective benefiting), local residents collaborate with third-party actors (local media, radicalism experts, etc.) to form a counterdiscourse coalition and facilitate discourse transformation through insurgent activities. In the second case (Dongcheng, physical upgrading), residents affected by a renovation project and the demolition of illegal construction are motivated and band together to participate in political negotiations as a whole. In the third case (Pantang, knowledge sharing), the community planner plays a more critical role in creating the commons to develop a collective consciousness among residents. This enhances residents’ neighborhood identity and their capability to participate in the planning process and other community public affairs.

In summary, this study aims to uncover the evolutionary mechanisms of the public interest in urban regeneration policymaking and revisit the representative democratization process in China’s planning regime. The critical question is the role of coalitions of third-party actors (community planners, NGOs, and other social groups) and insurgent participants in changing the balance of power relations at the heart of inherited participatory or communicative forms of planning. On the one hand, this study takes an institutional perspective to examine how democratization is practiced in community-based regeneration through various planning configurations in China. On the other hand, it takes an action-centric view to examine people’s perceptions and actions in relation to different planning interventions. It investigates how the public affected by urban regeneration can facilitate collective self-emancipation through insurgent practices, community mobilization, and creating the commons to escape market and state constraints. Theoretically, this study complements Dewey’s public interest theory and Giddens’s structuration theory by combining these theories with field investigations in Guangzhou, China. In doing so, it attempts to provide an empirical analysis of Dewey’s vision of democratization. Practically, this study contributes to policy suggestions for developing more adaptive urban regeneration plans in the emerging era of collaboration by critically assessing contentious participatory practices in Guangzhou, China.

公眾利益（public interest）的捕獲、實現和演替始終是城市規劃政策制定和實踐的核心話題，其中，公眾利益的實現機制由概念化、制度化、訴求表達—制度反饋三部分構成，反映在社區更新規劃制定、實施、監督管理全過程中。在城市存量發展的轉型背景下，以社區為單元的非正式治理活動在城市更新實踐中不斷突顯，“共建共治共享”和“人民城市”等理念的提出對於城市規劃更加科學、合理、前瞻地處理多元主體間關係提出更高要求。當前我國各地正在推進的老舊社區改造工作，強調原居民留居背景下的在地人居環境改善、社區活力提升、地方文化保護和基層治理培育。然而，由於“公眾利益”概念的模糊性及其在規劃實踐中還原的困難性，國內相關研究偏向由規劃專業人員或政策制定者進行統一代表的規制主義視角。但是，在社區更新實踐中，既有的結構性制度安排和規劃策略難以適應多樣化的集體訴求，不僅面臨規劃低效、政策彈性滯後、資金接續短缺、居民參與度低等治理困境，並且在部分社區中引發集體抗議、動員維權、聯合上訪、多渠道意見反饋等主動式社區參與行動，其中公眾利益的可還原性問題已成為製約我國進一步深化參與式社區規劃的瓶頸。因此，本研究以廣州老舊社區更新實踐為實證研究對象，以城市規劃中公眾利益的實現為問題域，從“公眾”構成、表現形式、表達機制與製度反饋等方面分析既有製度結構與主動社區行動之間的相互作用，並探究我國社區更新規劃中公眾利益的實現機制。基於廣州社區更新實證，本研究一方面對杜威的公眾理論和吉登斯的結構化理論提供補充，為變化中的國家—社會關係下多尺度公眾利益的概念捕獲和實現機制提供新的理解。另一方面對我國具有爭議性的參與式規劃實踐提供系統實證，為提升社區更新中公眾利益還原度、增強居民參與積極性、完善社區治理制度化提供實證依據和適應性政策意義。

本研究的理論框架建立於對兩個基礎理論的適應性調整。第一，實用主義哲學家杜威（John Dewey）的公眾利益理論為本研究提供了基本認識論和哲學視角。根據杜威的理論，“公眾”是由一群自發組織的市民構成的，受到一項政策干預的共同影響，由於位處同一空間領域而產生物質聯繫，並由於響應干預的自發行動而產生集體認同。通過強調公眾利益的異質性、協商性和動態性，杜威理論為理解變化中的“國家—社會關係”提供了新的視角，並廣泛影響了後來城市規劃中有關主體間關係的研究，例如哈貝馬斯的交往理性理論與希利的協作規劃理論。第二，吉登斯（Anthony Giddens）的結構化理論（Structuration Theory）為本研究提供了方法論和分析框架。該理論是發展於結構主義和行為主義之間的“第三條道路”，用以理解“結構—行為”的互動關係。

基於我國社區更新規劃的製度背景，本研究建構“結構—行為”互動視角下的理論框架。其中，“結構化”的過程體現在結構制約性與非正式治理能動性相互作用下，產生的政策變化、治理動態、結構轉型、模式推廣等反饋過程。 “既有結構（Inherited structure）”體現為自上而下式延續性的政策制定與製度結構，體現為價值規範、制度規則、治理結構、傳統慣例等。 “積極行為（Active agency）”體現在自下而上式社區主動參與行為及非正式治理過程，體現為主體認知、主觀能動、反思性集體行動等。本研究通過分析不同主體關係變化、公眾利益認知及其行動，論證自上而下的製度結構與自下而上的社區行動之間的相互作用，及其對社區更新規劃中公眾利益實現機制的影響。

本研究以廣州社區更新背景下的規劃實踐和社區響應為研究對象，採取政策分析、定量分析、質性分析相結合的多層次研究方法，論證社區更新規劃制定、實施、監督管理全過程中公眾利益的實現機制，包括公眾利益的概念化、制度化、特別是表達—反饋機制。首先，通過文獻綜述、政策分析、關鍵政策制定者訪談等方法，系統考察廣州社區更新政策演變的背景與規劃實踐情況，包括三方面內容：一是三階段國家政策話語轉型，二是各省老舊小區改造政策流動與實施情況，三是全市776個已實施的老舊社區微改造項目（2016-2021年）的規劃策略、實施情況、參與活動開展情況等。其次，通過問卷調查與定量分析方法，考察廣州社區更新的規劃模式、實施效果、改造後評價、居民參與意願和社區治理水平，分析社區居民對公眾利益的認知屬性及其受結構和行為要素的影響路徑，數據來源於在九個具有差異特徵的改造社區中收集的580份問卷。最後，通過深度訪談、焦點小組、參與式行動研究等質性研究方法，對廣州市恩寧路、東成花苑、泮塘五約三個典型案例進行深度實證，剖析不同公眾利益配置下響應規劃干預的社區態度、組織策略、公眾訴求及集體行動，重點分析非正式治理行為對於推動規劃策略調整、更新政策變化、治理關係轉型和自下而上式公眾利益實現的製度反饋作用。

理論與實證結果顯示，我國社區更新規劃中公眾利益的實現機制體現在自上而下式製度安排和自下而上式非正式行動兩個方面。具有四個演變特徵，即參與主體多元化、治理尺度社區化、集體行動網絡化、非正式規則的常規化。第一，在規劃制定層面，我國的公眾利益內涵具有和西方國家功利主義起源不同的製度化軌跡。從“公眾”構成來看，我國公眾利益的概念經歷了從統籌行動到集體獲利的內涵轉變，近年出現面向多主體協作的交往轉向。其中，公眾代表機制的尺度轉變體現在規劃決策的兩次權力下沉過程，尤其是近期對居委會、街道辦、社區組織等基層治理體系的日益強調。本研究分析了社區作為新興治理主體嵌入我國規劃制度中的多層級公眾利益表達機制，並聚焦廣州社區尺度基於社區規劃師制度的社區更新規劃地方實踐。第二，在規劃實施層面，我國公眾利益概念化體現在四個詮釋維度，即空間表現（規劃統籌式公共物品供應與製度建設）、經濟效益（市場權衡式權利人收益最大化和策略比選）、決策參與（公眾參與方案選擇和集體決策可能）、集體意識（共識目標達成和集體認同）。基於政府主體的認知表達，公眾利益在社區更新規劃中的實現有三種模式：一是地方政府主導的空間改善型（physical-upgrading），以統籌規劃配給、社區基礎設施配置、人居環境改善為公眾利益價值導向；二是市場主體參與下的集體獲利型（collective-benefiting），以市場參與決策、地區產業升級、提升權利人收益為公眾利益價值導向；三是基於“社區—社會”協作的知識共享型（knowledge-sharing），以培育多主體協作、推動社區和社會共享地方知識與改造成果為價值導向。基於社區行動主體的異質化認知，針對統籌式空間改善維度的公眾利益認知屬性最為明顯，對決策參與和集體意識維度的期望較為顯著，而對經濟效益的期望最低。其行動意願更多受到內生反思性因素驅動，例如對社區的不信任度、對改造的不滿意度、鄰里依戀程度、責任感知程度、個人社會結構積累等。第三，在規劃監督管理層面，本研究界定了社區響應規劃干預的三種行動軌跡及其對製度的反饋機制：一是通過網絡化治理開展的對抗性活動，推動拆遷政策改變、規劃方案調整、多方參與平台的製度化；二是通過社區動員開展的協商性活動，推動適老化改造規劃模式的推廣、社區組織的完善、社區協商政策的彈性；三是通過創造共同目標開展的社區協作活動，推動社區規劃師制度的深化、“社區—社會”協作下歷史文化保育公共化、地方知識與規劃師專業知識的遞進。其中，設立自下而上的製度化意見反饋渠道和第三方中間人（社區規劃師、非政府組織或專家學者）是促進社區行動從對立走向協商和協作的兩個重要條件。此外，我國社區參與下的更新規劃實踐中形成一種“共同生產（co-production）”模式，即多元主體通過共同設計、討論、協商等過程參與規劃方案的生成過程。該模式可視為協作規劃在我國的一種替代模式，具有政策流動性強、強化政府協調作用、重視地方知識的特點。總體而言，本研究基於“結構—行為”互動的理論框架，回應規劃文獻中有關公眾利益概念化與製度化的爭議，論證公眾利益實現機制中自上而下式製度結構與自下而上式社區行動的相互作用關係。在此基礎上，一方面通過分析社區更新規劃實效和治理動態，重新考察了“新發展階段、新發展理念、新發展格局”背景下我國城市規劃的轉型角色與作用。另一方面，通過批判性分析廣州社區更新規劃全過程中參與式規劃實踐和非正式治理的特徵與行動模式，為提升居民參與意願、強化社區治理水平、促進公眾利益還原提供實證依據和政策建議。

論文共由八章構成，第一章為緒論，第八章為研究結論及展望。主體部分包括四個部分，第一部分（第二章和第三章）是文獻綜述及框架搭建，其中，第二章通過文獻綜述和理論分析，探討了“公眾”的本質內涵，綜述了杜威和吉登斯理論的優勢與不足，在此基礎上構建出本研究的理論框架。第三章是研究設計和研究方法，闡述以廣州為實證對象的背景，及採取定量和定性結合的方法論。第二部分（第四章）回應題目中的“結構”視角，系統梳理我國社區更新政策制定中尺度關係、價值規範和公眾利益在規劃體系中的製度化演變，並針對性論述廣州社區更新政策演變和規劃制度。第三部分（第五章和第六章）回應題目中的“行為”視角，針對廣州社區更新規劃過程中自上而下的製度安排和自下而上的社區行動展開系統實證。其中，第五章結合實地調查與定量分析，系統考察廣州社區更新政策流動、規劃模式與實踐問題，論證社區更新規劃中自上而下的公眾利益實現配置，分析多元主體對公眾利益的認知及其影響機制。第六章深入論證廣州三個典型社區更新案例中的非正式治理行動，分析社區更新規劃制定、實施和管理全過程中自下而上的公眾利益實現路徑，剖析社區在應對不同規劃干預的行動軌跡，及其推動政策變化、治理動態、模式推廣等製度反饋作用。第四部分（第七章和第八章）在總結主要研究發現的基礎上，從規劃理念轉型、規劃制度建設、規劃編制與實施、規劃管理與反饋四個方面提出面向公眾利益的廣州社區更新規劃優化建議。