Planning Mode Transformation and Path Selection Based on Complex Theory

(A) the nature of uncertainty, complex systems and planning

The essence of planning is to guide and regulate the future. In the market environment, the quality and quantity of future land use will always change with the change of time and space, especially with the rapid development of regional economy and urbanization, which is extremely complicated. Therefore, when people take action in their environment or system, it is bound to be full of uncertainty. From the perspective of planning, there are at least four kinds of uncertainties: environmental uncertainty, value uncertainty, related decision uncertainty and scheme finding uncertainty (Hopkins, 198 1).

Traditional planning deals with uncertainty mostly on an ideal problem framework, similar to the small world proposed by Savage (1972). By constructing utility theory theorem through utility and subjective probability, decision makers can choose the best action calmly and rationally to maximize its utility. However, both planning practice and cognitive psychology experiments show that people's decision-making behavior usually violates the utility maximization criterion, and there will be traps such as anchoring, status quo, sunk cost and conformity evidence in the decision-making process. Land use covers three industries and 16 industries of the national economy, which is a very complicated system. Due to the limitation of information processing capacity, people often think that land use is a tree-like hierarchical structure, but in fact the system is a semi-grid structure (Alexander,1965); For another example, most people think that the organizational structure of plan management is hierarchical, but in fact, the organizational system of plan management is extremely complex and its evolution is full of uncertainty. Therefore, due to the limitation of cognitive ability, traditional planning methods often fail in solving practical problems.

Taking a city on the eastern coast as an example, during the period of 1997 ~ 20 10, which was implemented in the last round of overall land use planning, the actual newly-increased urban construction land area within the planned urban construction land boundary was 29. 1km2. The area of new urban construction land outside the boundary is as high as 33.9km2. A large number of new construction land is located at the outer edge of the planned urban construction land boundary, and the new land development has appeared at the outer edge of the planned urban construction land boundary, with a length of 66.3km, accounting for 28% of the total length of the boundary (239.3km). In 2003, the city began a new round of revision of the overall land use planning (2006-2020), which lasted for more than seven years due to various reasons. It is estimated that it will not be approved by the State Council until the first half of 20 10. It is worth considering that in the past seven years, the plan has been continuously revised, with nearly 50 versions revised, with an average revision every two months. This fully shows that planning is a multi-stage dynamic decision-making problem in the complex system environment with rapid development at this stage. These decision-making behaviors, which are interdependent, irreversible, indivisible and imperfect, form a complex system through interaction (Hopkins, 2009).

Facing the planning problem that needs dynamic decision-making, complexity theory and method provide a basic tool to understand the overall phenomenon caused by the interaction of individual elements in the system and solve practical problems. From chaos, fractal, nonlinear dynamical systems and artificial life to complexity theory, the knowledge system of complex systems is constantly improving. According to the kernel definition of complex system, the high complexity of land use system evolution, or the morbid problems that need to be solved due to environmental uncertainty, all come from the intricate relationship between different decisions in the system, which can be understood under the theoretical framework of complex system. With the help of the superiority of computer processing power, the cognitive causes of uncertainty (such as the capacity of permanent memory and temporary memory and the time spent on information conversion between them) can be found from the achievements of existing literature on the limitation of information processing power, and the knowledge section of complex theory can put forward appropriate ways to solve the problem of planning uncertainty.

(2) Planning decision-making paradigm under complex system: framework rationality, opportunity flow and space trash can theory.

Land use is a complex system, and the core of planning is to explore how to make reasonable scheme selection in this complex system. The theory of complete rational choice in economics is not enough to face such a complicated land use system. At present, the most widely accepted rational paradigm is the theory of subjective expected utility, which assumes that the world faced by decision makers is simple and emphasizes the importance of making single and independent decisions. As we all know, when the world faced by decision makers is complex, such thinking will fail. In addition, due to the limitation of decision makers' own ability, they can't have a completely rational state in the decision-making process, but make decisions on the premise of "limited rationality". Therefore, the theory of subjective expected utility has been severely challenged by psychologists and experimental economists in recent years (Hogarth et al., 1987). Dividing decision-making paradigm into narrative, normative and descriptive choice theory is not helpful to solve practical problems (Lai Shigang et al., 20 10). Through exploration and combing, we put forward a framework rationality to solve the uncertainty of land use planning in complex systems, which may be a new cognitive path.

In the theory of frame rationality, frame is defined as a decision event under the behavior of decision makers. According to the psychological experiment designed by Kahneman and Tversky in 1979, the framework of the problem will affect the cognitive choice of decision makers, resulting in the phenomenon of preference inversion (Kahneman et al., 1979). By using the same question in Kahneman and Tversky experiments, we found that no matter how the question is constructed, a statistically significant number of subjects will maximize their subjective expected utility when making choices. In other words, preference inversion does not violate the SEU (Subjective Expected Utility) model, but verifies the effectiveness of the model within a specific framework. Therefore, no matter how the framework of the problem is defined, decision makers are generally rational as defined by the theory of subjective expected utility, so the explanation of this choice behavior can be called frame rationality. Frame rationality denies the hypothesis of neoclassical economic theory and the concept of comprehensive and complete rationality developed from positivist philosophy of science, thus consolidating the effectiveness of SEU model (or similar concepts) under a specific framework. The framework rationality theory no longer looks for the optimal action plan in the planning, but explores which subset of actions in the planning can best reflect the income robustness in all possible future situations. This concept is similar to the planning cohesion theory put forward by donaghy et al. (2006) aiming at the impossibility of a complete master planning theory.

In the process of compiling and implementing land use planning, the current model is still guided by the theory of subjective expected utility, and its typical characteristics are to assume an ideal future and find the best action; It is believed that through top-down strict control, the optimal allocation of land use under specific objectives can be realized. In a complex system closer to the real world, due to the dynamic flow of decision-making elements and the rapid change of environment, there are also great differences between the central and local governments in information, alternatives and target orientation, and the land use planning is very different from the completely rational decision-making environment assumed in the subjective expected utility theory. Therefore, it is impossible to optimize the allocation of resources under the guidance of subjective expected utility theory.

Frame rationality provides a thinking paradigm for rational selection of planning schemes, but it does not explain how planners find methods and schemes for efficient allocation of land resources in complex environments. Therefore, constructing a paradigm is an important issue worthy of serious discussion. Because an effective paradigm can make the problem transparent and then find an effective solution. The opportunity flow model proposed by Professor Hopkins properly describes the real decision-making situation faced by planners. According to the concept of trash can model (Cohen et al., 1972), he explained that planners should grasp the decision-making situation in the opportunity flow and solve the problem with appropriate solutions when faced with complex and uncertain environment (Hopkins, 2009). Lai Shigang put forward a spatial trash can model based on the trash can model, taking into account the spatial factors of location. He believes that specific decision makers, solutions, opportunities, problems and facilities meet randomly in the opportunity flow to make decisions and then solve problems. The experimental results he designed show that the main effect of channel structure is statistically significant in influencing system efficiency, while the influence of spatial structure is not significant (Lai Shigang, 2002). This means that in the process of land use system evolution, the traditional method of improving system efficiency through spatial design is not as effective as the method of changing activities through institutional design, or at least the method of giving consideration to both. In many cases, the land use system may be disorderly, and the causal relationship between the elements in the system is not intuitive. Planning schemes sometimes come into being before land use problems appear, and planners can only achieve the goal of land use planning by constantly planning and solving problems in such an environment. Both the opportunity flow paradigm and the spatial trash can model show that the complexity and dynamic changes of land use system are beyond the control of planners. The only thing a planner can do is to understand the relationship between decisions, problems and plans in time and space, and constantly draw up plans, modify plans and implement plans.

(c) Selection of planning modes in complex systems

In the face of uncertainty and planning considering relevant decisions, there are traditionally two planning mechanisms: design and strategy (Hopkins, 2009). Design is the process of finding the optimal solution of linear programming problems. Facing the land use planning problem that is difficult to find the optimal solution, design is suboptimal and can only be a means to seek local optimization. Strategy is different from design, and the pursuit is not a one-time solution, but a stopgap measure. It is closely related to decision analysis, and it is most suitable for the environment where many decision makers participate and face great uncertainty, such as complex systems. Both design and strategic planning will bring net benefits to planners, but the timing of application is different. Design is like a comprehensive long-term plan. Once formulated, it must be implemented as planned. Like short-term rolling planning, strategy is constantly revised and formulated with the evolution of time.

Previous computer simulation experiments have found that although the design planning with optimization as the goal is more effective than no planning in the utilization of resources and brings order to the system, it cannot solve more problems (Lai Shigang et al., 2009). When faced with regular or random systems, such as balanced economic systems, design may be able to meet the demand, because the events in these systems show a fixed pattern; However, in the face of complex systems between the two, such as land use, the occurrence of events presents an unpredictable form, and the design of independent decision-making will be invalid. At this time, strategic planning considering relevant decisions can bring better benefits. Strategic planning is more effective than design planning in solving problems in a rapidly changing environment. Mainly because of the flexibility of strategic planning and its low cost. From a certain point of view, strategic planning is between gradual unplanned planning and blueprint design planning, that is, between chaos and order in complex theory, so it can take into account the advantages of both (Han et al., 2009). The main features of the design and strategy are compared as shown in Table 7- 1.

Table 7- 1 Comparison Table of Design and Strategy Features

(According to Hopkins University, 2009)

(D) the implementation path of the strategic planning model

China's traditional planning, whether urban planning or land use planning, is a blueprint planning, which determines the complete results of relevant decisions at one time, so it is a typical design planning. This planning model is mainly composed of a group of highly related actions, only a few actors participate, and the uncertainty of actions is very small. Therefore, it is suitable for the planned economy with single development subject and definite development behavior; Under the condition of multi-agent and sporadic market economy, its role is limited. In today's increasingly complex land use, it should be the general trend to change from the traditional design planning model to a more flexible strategic planning model. This transformation can be realized in the following four aspects: ① from "time-driven" to "event-driven"; ② Change from "result-oriented" planning to "process-oriented" control; ③ Change from single mode zoning to diversity zoning; ④ Change from "zoning" planning to "zoning-permission mixed planning" (see Table 7-2).

1. Transition from "time-driven" to "event-driven"

Plan control usually includes two basic ways: time-driven and event-driven. Time-driven planning means that the decision-making time of land expansion is fixed, for example, it is revised every five years; Event-driven planning refers to the land expansion decision when the land stock decreases to a certain threshold. In the past, all kinds of master plans in China, whether urban master plans or land use master plans, were traditional time-driven plans. For example, in theory, the overall land use planning is revised every five years, or 10 years, or 15 years.

Table 7-2 Comparison between Design Planning and Strategic Planning

Knaap et al. (200 1) theoretically estimated the holding cost, order cost and defect cost of land stock management in urban land expansion, and found that although the traditional time-driven planning revision method saves administrative costs, it also needs to pay environmental costs such as rising house prices and deteriorating environmental quality caused by insufficient land stock, which is likely to reduce the overall benefits of spatial planning. Compared with time-based planning, the advantage of event-based planning is that its decision to expand urban land stock will not produce additional losses except land stock reservation and ordering.

The disadvantages of the traditional time-oriented planning control method have been confirmed by many recent domestic research cases. For example, in the field of urban planning, Mao Jiangxing and others (2008) discussed the regulation efficiency of Shenzhen urban planning on land use according to the data issued by the construction land planning permit, and found that the scale and spatial layout of urban construction land were quite different from the overall urban planning. Tian Li et al. (2008) compared the data of Guangzhou master plan (200 1 ~ 20 10) with the data of urban spatial development in 2007, and found that the implementation effect of the master plan was not ideal. Han et al. (2009) used multi-temporal remote sensing to test the effectiveness of the Urban Construction Land Boundary Plan in controlling urban land growth, and found that in the actual implementation cycle of the 1983 version of the plan and the 1993 version of the plan, the actual urban construction land growth scale outside the Sixth Ring Road in Beijing was higher than that within. In addition, the UCB developable land stock initially set in the master plan cannot meet the actual land development demand. In the field of land planning, time-driven land use control is far from meeting the requirements of planning objectives. The existence of these problems shows the necessity and urgency of establishing event-oriented strategic planning in China.

2. Change from "result-oriented" planning to "process-oriented" control.

The transition from outcome-based planning to process-based control has been widely discussed in the field of urban planning. The former is emphasized as the core content in the traditional design-oriented planning, that is, by drawing the development blueprint for several years, controlling the urban development with the control indicators and spatial forms in different periods such as short-term, medium-term and long-term, and realizing the planning objectives; The latter does not set the control index or the final form of planning at a certain point in the future, but specifies the requirements in the process of planning implementation in detail and clearly, including the conditions that are allowed to be developed, the conditions that need to be met during and after development, the form and degree of public participation, etc., so it belongs to the category of strategic planning more.

After the 1960s, on the basis of the traditional rational planning model, the United States gradually developed the advocacy planning model and the contact planning model. Land use planning has gradually shifted from the exclusive professional field dominated by the government and experts to the arena and arena with multi-stakeholder participation (Kaiser et al., 1995).

In order to achieve good planning, it is very important to control "results" and "processes". However, at present, the operation of land use planning pays too much attention to the result and ignores the process. Therefore, this book holds that the focus of land use planning and control should shift from "result-oriented" planning to "process-oriented" control. In order to realize this change, it is necessary to reform the planning index system and compilation method. Specifically, in the planning, the scale, development sequence and spatial form of each land use zoning at a certain point in the future cannot be clearly defined, but access indicators can be set for each project, such as the amount of land consumed by each new population, whether it conforms to the national industrial policy, unit land investment, floor area ratio, building density, the number of jobs that can be provided, tax and environmental impact, and so on. Under the premise of full understanding and supervision of local public, process control indicators can be dynamically adjusted according to local social and economic development and special needs to cope with uncertainty. The core of process planning is process rationality, not result rationality. Therefore, the main input of planning can be shifted to the direction of process design and control, rather than the result setting.

3. Change from single mode partition to diversity partition.

After the establishment of the control system of land use planning in the United States, it has been adjusting and improving. Take zon-ing, the main land use control method in the United States, as an example. The traditional Euclidean zoning is too rigid to achieve some important planning goals, such as leaving enough space for uncertain development, providing affordable housing for low-and middle-income people, and reflecting the interests of local residents and groups. Therefore, on this basis, various new zoning models have emerged (Proceedings of American and Japanese Urban Planning Experts, 1993), including inclusive zoning, incentive zoning, performance zoning and negotiation zoning.

(1) Inclusive zoning requires or encourages housing developers to provide a certain proportion of housing to low-and middle-income families. This type of planning attempts to add the goal of social equality to land use planning. Inclusive zoning can be compulsory or voluntary, allowing developers to build buildings with a density higher than that stipulated in the zoning system in order to obtain higher profits, but at the same time, more houses must be divided into cheap houses according to a certain proportion. In some cities, developers can choose to pay the low-rent housing construction fund instead of building such housing directly.

(2) Incentive zoning requires that developers who provide low-and middle-income housing be rewarded with construction area. For example, 1987, new york adopted a zoning resolution, allowing the use of incentive zoning in high-density areas. If developers provide new low-income housing or protect existing low-income housing on the land of beneficiary buildings, in the same community or within half a mile of beneficiary buildings, they can get a 20% increase in building area.

(3) Performance zoning is an elastic zoning form with "scoring system" as the core, which only pays attention to the influence of the way and method of investors using land on neighboring areas, without considering the land use nature and other attributes of the proposed project. Performance-based zoning stipulates that the proposed project will get several points for one advantage and deduct points for one disadvantage. Once the design of the project is completed and the total score exceeds the specified standard, the construction will be approved. You don't have to ask what kind of land the investment project belongs to, even if it is a factory, as long as it can meet the standards stipulated by the zoning, you can get the approval. The purpose of performance zoning is to eliminate the possible side effects of all development projects on neighboring areas and let the market decide what kind of use the land is most suitable for.

(4) Negotiation zoning stipulates that local governments can negotiate with individual investors to solve the problem of real estate zoning in detail one by one. One of the most common ways is "PUD (or planned joint development)". Its theoretical basis is that the government should be able to make some compromises on the zoning objectives of some regions through consultation in exchange for investors' contribution to public welfare. This zoning form does not apply to the whole area, but is decided by the government through consultation with the adaptive investors of each land zoning.

China's land use planning can draw lessons from the relevant experience of zoning reform in the United States. On the one hand, planning can combine land policy with other policy requirements such as housing and transportation to achieve more comprehensive and diversified goals. On the other hand, under the premise of reducing the side effects of development on neighboring areas and realizing more social welfare, the planning can set the achievable goals of market-oriented operation and adopt various flexible methods such as "scoring system" and "consulting system" to enhance the operability and implementation effect of the planning.

4. From "zoning" planning to "zoning-permission mixed planning"

Zoning planning and permission planning are two different types of land use control modes. The former is that the government has made comprehensive and detailed regulations on the nature of land use and development intensity within a certain range in advance. If the land use meets all the requirements specified in the plan in advance, the planning department will approve the development and utilization. The latter does not stipulate all the utilization requirements in advance, but gradually clarifies the planning requirements through individual application approval and negotiation, and carries out approval according to the final requirements.

From a global perspective, the United States is the main country that implements zoning planning, and Britain is the main country that implements licensing planning. Considering the characteristics of implementation, development permit planning is more flexible than zoning planning, but its transaction costs such as information collection costs and property rights division costs are higher than zoning planning (Lai Shigang, 2002), so it is more time-consuming and laborious.

At present, China is in the stage of rapid urbanization. Under the premise of not greatly increasing the technical strength of planning, controlling a large number of accidental development activities is the primary task of current planning. Zoning planning involves a wide range, which is a simple and low-cost planning technology and an effective way (Tan Zongbo, 200 1). However, this planning method can only make land development meet some basic requirements, such as polluting industries will not affect living life; There is nothing we can do for higher demand, such as shaping a good spatial form and living environment. Permission planning can make up for this disadvantage and achieve better planning effect through case negotiation; However, due to time-consuming and laborious, and relying on good consultation and the establishment of public welfare spirit, it can not be widely promoted in many places. In practice, we can combine the two, for example, in most urbanized areas that need general control, zoning planning is adopted, and in specific areas that need key development, licensing planning is adopted to realize the combination of "point" and "area". Of course, in the context of China's current national conditions, laissez-faire planning may lead to more rent-seeking, but this is a problem at the level of governance structure, not at the institutional level.