Urban governance: Public space management and ‘what’s in common’

Abstract The move towards more participatory forms of governance has demanded new public space management tools, techniques, practices, and processes, including increased opportunities and avenues for consultation. Somewhat problematically, these formal processes of governance and management do not always help resolve tensions among diverse (potential and active) users, particularly in areas where relationships between inhabitants and urban authorities are strained or non-existent. In such cases, ‘commoning’ is a useful concept for exploring how negotiations of active use may interact with formal urban planning processes. We draw on the results of an ethnographic study of the Inner City East of Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand (AoNZ) to identify “common-deering” (the co-option of public space), “commons-management” (co-management), “activation” and “decommoning” as four commoning processes that enable us to knit analyses of participatory governance with nuanced microspatial practices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
URBAN DESIGN International
Published
2025-10-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-025-00286-3
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Urban Planning and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.35
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Urban governance: Public space management and ‘what’s in common’

Wendy R. Hoddinott, Suzanne Vallance, Sally Carlton
2 citations
URBAN DESIGN International
Urban Planning and Governance
12.35
article

Urban governance: Public space management and ‘what’s in common’

Wendy R. Hoddinott, Suzanne Vallance, Sally Carlton
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract The move towards more participatory forms of governance has demanded new public space management tools, techniques, practices, and processes, including increased opportunities and avenues for consultation. Somewhat problematically, these formal processes of governance and management do not always help resolve tensions among diverse (potential and active) users, particularly in areas where relationships between inhabitants and urban authorities are strained or non-existent. In such cases, ‘commoning’ is a useful concept for exploring how negotiations of active use may interact with formal urban planning processes. We draw on the results of an ethnographic study of the Inner City East of Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand (AoNZ) to identify “common-deering” (the co-option of public space), “commons-management” (co-management), “activation” and “decommoning” as four commoning processes that enable us to knit analyses of participatory governance with nuanced microspatial practices.

URBAN DESIGN InternationalVol. 30(4)
Lincoln University (NZ), Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (NZ)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Urban Planning and Governance
12.35
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Urban governance: Public space management and ‘what’s in common’ — Wendy R. Hoddinott, Suzanne Vallance, et al. · URBAN DESIGN International (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS