A CITY TO GROW UP IN -A Study of How the Integrated Child Impact Analysis Tool Can Contribute to Social Sustainability in Urban Planning

(1)

A CITY TO GROW UP IN

A Study of How the Integrated Child Impact Analysis Tool Can

Contribute to Social Sustainability in Urban Planning

SEPTEMBER 7, 2020

UNIVERSITY OF ÖREBRO

Author: Hannes Kärrman

Supervisor: Helga Sadowski

(2)

i It can be difficult to adapt to an uncertain world that disregard that you have planned to write your thesis on a specific topic, at a specific time, needing to be at a specific place. In times like these, there is little you can do than to improvise, adapt, and overcome.

I want to thank everyone that has helped me in the process of writing this thesis. I want to thank my supervisor Helga that has given me many insightful comments during the process. I want to thank Lise at Landskapslaget that was my contact person throughout the process, helping me find an interesting topic. At last, I want to thank my mother. Whether I called and rambled about different theoretical perspectives of social sustainability, or tried to challenge her view on the concept of adulthood, I could not have done this without her help.

(3)

ii

Abstract

This case study explores how the Integrated Child Impact Analysis (ICIA) tool is used in the urban planning process in the city of Stockholm. The purpose of the study is to understand how the focus on children’s rights can contribute to social sustainability through urban planning projects. It sets out to answer the research questions: (1) how do the ICIA and the perspective of the rights of children contribute to social sustainability? (2) What strengths and weaknesses can be identified with the implementation of ICIA in the cases of Focus Skärholmen, and Gamla Tyresövägen regarding social sustainability? (3) How do the researched cases answer the following phronetic planning research questions? Where are we going; who gains and who loses; is this development desirable; what, if anything, should we do about it? – What should be done to improve the operationalization of the ICIA process for future implementation to promote children’s rights and social sustainability? The study is based on mixed literature regarding social sustainability, deliberative planning, citizenship of children, and health over the life course.

The study reviews the ICIA operationalization in the cases of Focus Skärholmen and Gamla Tyresövägen in Stockholm, by viewing the reports published in the process. The results of the study show that (1) the ICIA is a useful tool for social sustainability, as the dialogue process and cities accommodated for children can contribute ‘socially sustainable citizens’. (2) Both cases had their strengths and weaknesses based on their different contexts, regarding scale and how they are communicated. Both cases show that the ICIA process may be subjugated due to the timeframe of a project, whether it is initiated early in the planning stage or lacking participation for stakeholder groups in the deliberation process. (3)The ICIA tool is recognized as a good tool, demonstrating that the rights of children are becoming a priority. It still has room for improvements when being implemented, and requires a reflexive approach that continues to evaluate if the tool will have a long-lasting impact, and not risk to become a part of an insignificant check-list in procedures of urban planning.

(4)

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1 (Dryzek, 2013) ... 9 Figure 2 (Wheeler, 2013) ... 9

Figure 3 (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017) ... 11

Figure 4 Process of the ICIA (City of Stockholm, 2017) ... 34

Figure 5 This mas show the target points (Målpunkter) in the area that have been identified. The blue marks represent the underground stations. The beige marks represent the district city center. The green marks represent sport fields, green spaces, and swimming areas. The deep purple mark represents the schools that participated in the dialogue. The light purple mark represents the preschools that participated in dialogues (Ramböll, 2016). ... 40

Figure 6 The area of “Mälaräng” that is meant to connect Bredäng and Mälarhöjden ... 43

Figure 7: This map shows where the planning area is situated. At the top, you see how much time is required to travel into Stockholm City center. The yellow area is the planning area. The black line represents the border between city districts. Retrieved from Landskapslaget (2019a) ... 46

Figure 8: This is how the detailed plan was looking during the time of writing the step 3 of the ICIA. Retrieved from Landskapslaget (2019b). ... 51

List of Tables

Table 1 ... 38

Table 2 ... 53

List of Boxes

Box 1 Boström et al (2015, p. 151f) list of Prerequisites for Social Sustainability ... 11

(6)

1

1. Introduction

Sustainable development (SD) has become an important tool in urban planning for handling multiple priorities or conflicts (Campbell, 2016). As many texts before this one have stated, the idea of SD entered on to the global political agenda with the presentation of the ‘Brundtland Report’ of the United Nations Commission on Environmental and Development. SD in the report is defined as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Bundtland, 1987). The model presented was one of three interdepended pillars, intended to develop practices to ensure present and future prosperity; the economic, the ecological, and the social (Mensah & Ricart Casadevall, 2019).

The concepts of ‘present’ and ‘future’ can feel vague and separate, but there is a physical manifestation of that gap: children. Interestingly enough, children have gotten limited attention in the general discourse of SD. Still, it is somewhat implied that SD is working for creating a pleasant world that left behind for them when they become adults. However, there has been limited opportunity for children to participate in processes to shape the future (Percy-Smith, 2018; Skelton, 2007). Before they can participate in society as full-fledged citizens, that not only have rights but have the authority to exercise them as well (Cockburn, 2013), they are viewed as beings to be protected and provided for by adults (Skelton, 2007).

The lack of focus on children as a social group can be traced back to the overall lack of focus regarding the social pillar of sustainability. According to Boström (2012), it could be referred to as ‘the missing pillar’. Instead of incorporating all the pillars of SD, the most focus has been on combining the economic and ecological pillars, leading to a discourse of ecological modernization (EM), disguised as SD (Dryzek, 2013). EM has made attempts to transform industrial society with green technology to reduce negative environmental impacts, in terms of ecosystem degradation or emissions of greenhouse gas. Although this results in some social benefits, it has not been sufficient to combat the social inequalities, that have become more salient. This has led to new initiates to further increase to focus on social sustainability in the latter years. This has been the case in urban planning as well, where the most focus has been to build energy-efficient buildings while protecting biodiversity. It is not until recently that agencies such as the City of Stockholm made significant efforts to prioritize social sustainability

(7)

2 in their urban development strategy (Sharif, 2020a), such as collectively framing social issues, democratic processes, and designing neighborhoods that encourage to healthy lifestyles. In 2015 the report ‘A Stockholm of Differences’ was published by the Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm (2015), mapping out different statistics of social inequalities in the city and voicing concerns to whether the city is growing together or growing apart, in regards to materialistic and democratic inequalities that have increased between residencies of different areas in the city. The same year the City council adopted the plan of Vision 2040, which incorporated a more ambiguous stance to implement the SD principles into urban development and also making children’s rights a bigger priority (City of Stockholm, 2017). In June 2018, the Swedish Riksdag (the parliament) voted into making the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into Swedish law (Regeringen, 2020). It passed and it became active as of January the 1st_{2020. The purpose to pass this formerly voluntary act into}

law was “a way of creating a basis for a more child-rights-based approach in all public activities” (Regeringen, 2020). The UNCRC provides a progressive alternative view on children, compared to the traditional conceptualization of children. It incorporates participation, to join the other two Ps of provision and protection (Skelton, 2007). Children have mostly been thought of as a ‘stage of becoming’ instead of a ‘stage of being’, meaning that they were to be cared for until they become of age. The shift to acknowledge their right to participation means they are further recognized as citizens with an agency to represent their interests (Cockburn, 2013).

In Sweden the local municipal governments have planning monopoly as stated by the Law of Planning and Building (Plan- och bygglagen [PBL], SFS 2010:900), meaning that public agencies now are required by Swedish law to focus on children’s rights in urban planning. Urban planning projects are complex and result in alterations of the urban landscape that will have a continuing impact of everyday life over a very long time (Klosterman, 2016). Therefore they must be planned well by professionals that understand the complexities of urban planning. It can be difficult for planners to allow children to participate, as the barrier in terms of skills is significant when attempting to involve children in such processes. To get around this problem, specific approaches need to be applied when consulting with children to allow the issues of children to become salient to influence the planning process.

(8)

3 A tool that has been used to account for children’s issues and rights in urban planning is the Child Impact Analysis (Sharif, 2019). When planning and developing new buildings, a Child Impact Analysis can help to determine what consequences that will bring to children, whether they are forming an understanding of what children value and what they do not, where they feel safe or unsafe, or how they interact with their surrounding environment. There are many different models of how one should do child impact analyses, whether it is the Child Ombudsman (Barnombudsmannen, n.d), making a general description of the risks and opportunities that might affect children by collecting data that support this analysis, the Administration of Transport (Trafikverket, 2016), focusing on children’s safety and protection from risks that can be linked to traffic, or the Stockholm Model, called the Integrated Child Impact Analysis, that is an integrated part in spatial planning in the city of Stockholm (City of Stockholm, 2017). As the ICIA is used in the City of Stockholm it is especially interesting to study as Stockholm experience the highest degree of urbanization in the county. Their model may arguably affect most children in Sweden in regards to urban planning.

The ICIA model as a tool is useful to promote children’s rights and social sustainability (City of Stockholm, 2017). This specific tool uses dialogues with children as the main approach to map out how children will be affected by urban development projects. The ICIA is used in multiple contexts and by multiple actors. In this study, the cases of Focus Skärholmen, where the consultant firm Ramböll (2016; 2017) conducted the ICIA, and the case of Gamla Tyresövägen, where the landscape architecture firm Landskapslaget (2019a; 2019b) conducted the ICIA.

The case of Focus Skärholmen is a pilot project initiated by the City of Stockholm to develop methods of socially sustainable urban planning (Sharif, 2020a). It consists of 16 detailed plans in the city districts of Skärholmen, Bredäng, Vårberg, and Sätra in the southwest of Stockholm. The documents viewed will be the initial reports of dialogues that took place over the whole geographical area of the Focus Skärholmen project by Ramböll (2016). As Focus Skärholmen consist of many development projects, this study will focus on how the ICIA was finalized in the detailed plan of Mälaräng, that is situated in the south of the project, between the districts Mälahöjden and Bredäng.

The case of Gamla Tyresövägen is a smaller project that involves the development plans of building housing by the road of Gamla Tyresövägen that runs between the city districts of North

(9)

4 Sköndal and Skarpäck in the southeast of Stockholm (Landskapslaget 2019a). Landskapslaget has been using ICIA on multiple occasions before this, but still looks to explore new ways of operationalizing the tool. This study was initiated by working alongside Landskapslaget to explore the ICIA tool from a sociological perspective, to reveal new insights that can improve their own as well as other agencies, operationalization of the ICIA in future work in urban planning within the City of Stockholm.

1.1 Aim and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to understand how children’s rights are accounted for in urban planning in the use of ICIA and how that relates to the scientific discourse and theorizing on social sustainability. Taking inspiration from Aristotle’s distinctions of the different types of knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2004), the research questions will seek to provide knowledge for episteme (scientific knowledge), techne (technological knowledge), and phronesis (practical knowledge) to get a better understanding of the ICIA tool from multiple points of interest. The different types of knowledges that are incorporated into the questions are now to be listed in the same order as above. The research questions I wish to answer are:

• How do the Integrated Child Impact Analysis tool and the perspective of the rights of children contribute to social sustainability?

• What strengths and weaknesses can be identified with the implementation of ICIA in the cases of Focus Skärholmen, and Gamla Tyresövägen regarding social sustainability? • How do the researched cases answer the phronetic planning research questions? (i)Where are we going; (ii) who gains and who loses; (iii) is this development desirable; (iv) what, if anything, should we do about it? What should be done to improve the operationalization of the ICIA process for future implementation to promote children’s rights and social sustainability?

1.2 The Layout of the Text

In the following part of this study, the Previous Research and Theoretical Perspective will be discussed. It takes inspiration from many different fields. It starts by discussing the concept of SD to then focus on social sustainability. There will be a move on to literature regarding deliberative planning and how involving people in deliberative democracy is a way to make urban planning socially sustainable. It is followed by a discussion of the concept of children.

(10)

5 The focus will be on how children have been viewed throughout history and their position in society (Cockbrun, 2013). How the shift regarding the discourse of children has changed, from protecting and providing for children to one with participation (Skelton, 2007). This shift is an opportunity to create more socially sustainable citizens. A perspective inspired by the field of sociology of health will be used, to see how social determinates in early childhood can put children on different trajectories through life in their health practices (Maggi et al, 2010), which is also argued to be the case for practices that contribute to social sustainability.

Next, the Methodological Perspective and Method Used are discussed. The framework of phronetic planning research is described and motivated for this study, which highlights the importance of practical knowledge, phronesis, when seeking knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2004). It is compared to the other types of knowledge that are traditionally explored in science: episteme (universal knowledge) and techne (technological skills). Afterward, the elaborations of the method used when analyzing, which is both analysis of interviews, the reports published when operationalizing the ICIA in the cases, and participatory observations that were done through video conference calls of meeting with Landskapslaget in their ongoing process of operationalizing ICIA in Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm. Next, there are elaborations regarding the selection of the cases of Focus Skärholmen (Ramböll, 2016) and Gamla Tyresövägen (Landskapslaget, 2019a), as well as elaborations on the other empirical material. Alternative methods were also discussed, such as a more extensive ethnographic approach through participatory observations at Landskapslaget’s office or diary method. Lastly in this section, the ethical considerations are discussed in terms of ethical science as ‘good’ science, and what the point of conducting social science is (Flyvbjerg, 2004).

The next section, The Integrated Child Impact Analysis Tool, starts by describing the ICIA process as it is described in the official document that is used by professionals (City of Stockholm, 2017). The cases of Focus Skärholmen (Ramböll, 2016) and Gamla Tyresövägen are showcased by describing the method they used for the dialogues, the results, and how they were communicated. It follows the steps of the ICIA process of (1) dialogues and inventory, (2) preparation of the proposal, (3) impact analysis of the proposal, and at last (4) feedback. Next is the Analysis. It used the interviews from the Urbanastica podcast (Sharif, 2019; 2020a; 2020b), as well as the insights from the participatory observations to supplement the theoretical framework with phronesis. The analysis starts by focusing on the different approaches adopted

(11)

6 in the cases by the different agencies. Insights from the cases are discussed by themselves, analyzing both the positives and negatives regarding social sustainability. This was followed by conflicts of interest when planning for children, such as how the negotiations between the SD pillars makes it hard to prioritize issues regarding children (Campbell, 2016). The analysis ends with answering the phronetic planning research questions. (i) Where are we going; (ii) who gains and who loses; (iii) is this development desirable; and (iv) what, if anything, should we do about it?

The main points of analysis are then concluded under the title Conclusion. The research questions are once again introduced and then answered. The ICIA is here described as a tool that can contribute to social sustainability by giving children an arena to participate in the democratic process and develop skills and meaning (Kennedy & Hauslik, 2018) that are necessary for them to become adults that engages in processes of social sustainability (Percy-Smith, 2018). The material outcomes the ICIA might contribute to in the planning process regards to the planning layout, design, and opportunity for movement can put children on better life trajectories, compared if no ICIA would have been made. A list of positives and negatives are then presented in the operationalization of the ICIA in Focus Skärholmen and Gamla Tyresövägen. Afterward, the answers to the phronetic planning research questions are concluded. This is followed by the presentation of a list of recommendations for future operationalization of the ICIA from what has been discovered in this study.

At last, there is a Final Discussion regarding this study. General insights and difficulties are brought up, as well as limitations that the study might have had. It concludes with giving recommendations of future research areas in regards to children’s participation, representation, and influence in urban planning. Furthermore, different Child Impact Analysis tools can be looked at in comparative studies to see how they compare in terms of taking children’s issues and rights into consideration.

(12)

7

2. Previous Research and Theoretical Perspective

When researching the topic of Child Impact Analysis my first observation was the lack of academic research concerning the tool. This has meant that this study has taken a mixed approach, by looking at literature from different fields.

This thesis will use a sociological perspective and examine literature of sustainable development – specifically social sustainability, to see how the ICIA is a product of the rising priority of the social pillar of sustainability (Boström, 2012; Böström et al, 2015; Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). Next, the concept of deliberative democracy and planning (Fainstein, 2016) will be discussed how it can be viewed as a process of social sustainability. Then, the concept of children (Cockburn, 2013) is going to be explored and conceptualized by problematizing children's rights and their citizenship. The section will end by relating childhood to different stages of the life course (Maggi et al, 2010) and how childhood and social determinates form practices in adulthood with inspiration from Pierre Bourdieu (2019). Finally, it is argued that a socially sustainable society is created by socially sustainable citizens, and the forming of socially sustainable citizens must begin in childhood to internalize the particular values and skills that are needed to form engaging citizens (Kennedy & Hauslik, 2018).

2.1 Concept of Sustainable Development

Sustainable development (SD) is a concept that tries to incorporate the ideas that you can sustain something at the same time you can make it bigger through development (Mensah & Ricart Casadevall, 2019). Development is a hegemonic force in the modernization theory, describing the process of increasing the capacity of human infrastructures, the ability to solve problems, and attaining specific goals. Thus, in this term, there are no limits to how much society might develop, as new bigger problems can be handled by new bigger developments. Sustainability, however, does not necessarily have a specific goal in itself, as it merely means to contain the status quo and keep retaining something over time, indefinitely if possible. Thus, combining the normative aspect of development (reaching a set goal) and the wish for this development to be present through time is the foundation of the concept.

The definition of SD described in the Bruntland Report is interpreted differently by many (Dryzek, 2013; Jacobs, 1999), but the general understanding of SD is the referring to the model of three interdepended pillars, intended to work together in harmony in development practices

(13)

8 to ensure present and future prosperity; the economic, the ecological, and the social (Mensah & Ricart Casadevall, 2019). The economic pillar stands on the convictions that development requires economic growth to function. This should be done by meeting today’s need for consumption without jeopardizing the future ability to do so. The ecological pillar highlight the finite resources on earth, and the importance to protect and upkeep the unique and complex ecosystems and their carrying capacity that enables the existence of human societies. Smart and efficient use of environmental resources may ensure intergenerational stability and enable future generations to live in a prosperous world. The social pillar stands on the convictions that high standard of living, health, equality, and democracy, are of huge importance to contain the process of SD. The profits of economic and ecological sustainability should be evenly distributed. The collective reap of the benefits within society will ensure collective motivation, for society as a whole, to ensure the continued practice of sustainable processes (Jacobs, 1999). Overall the concept of SD is concerned with bigger processes and societal issues that leave it being unclear and unspecific. SD has become the latest trendy buzzword where many organizations, institutions, and agencies all support SD, but as Kemp and Martens (2007) argue, sustainability must be conceptualized into specific goals to be practical. The UN’s Agenda 2030 goals are an example of how priorities and ideals are embedded in policy and in that process written down, but it is also a testament of what is left out (Murphy, 2012). The power dynamics within the process of formulating SD goals is highly relevant. What they state as goals are based on what is questioned or taken for granted, encouraged, or shut down in the process of negotiating. It is about discourse, which will be elaborated on next (Dryzek, 2013).

The dominant three pillar model of SD is a result of a specific development discourse (see Figure 1) (Dryzek, 2013). The social pillar, economic pillar, and ecological pillar are entities described as hierarchically equal in a functioning society. Wheeler (2013) instead describes an alternative view by categorizing the pillars hierarchically (see Figure 2). First, we have an environment which gives the potential for life with the ecosystem services to support humans living in a society. For human society to function easily and to enable the trade of goods and services, the capitalistic economic system has been formed through history and has become the hegemonic system. This understanding highlights that the economic system causing ecosystem degradation and destruction is dependent on society to sustain the system. Meaning, that the economic system is not a separate entity of existence but a societal structure protected, prioritized, and taken for granted. The economic system is therefore not understood as a tool to

(14)

9 create a sustainable society, but something portrayed equally important as saving the world from climate change, environmental destruction, social inequality, world hunger, and discrimination.

When discourse dictate the questions being asked some tend to be valued higher than others (Dryzek, 2013). While Sweden perceivably adopted SD ideas into politics early, the focus has been mainly on ecological modernization (EM) (Lundqvist, 2004). EM accepts the dynamic production-consumption relationship between industry and consumers, but it attempts to make it ‘green’. By replacing technology that is degrading the ecosystems or releasing a high amount of greenhouse gases to technologies that reduce the stress it puts on the environment, the economy can continue to grow and support an expensive welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1998). This position is not free from critique (Boström, 2012), as the social continuation of endless economic growth and overconsumption are the main causes of climate change, and that social welfare cannot be sorely reliant upon practices that are causing these major problems. There are other more radical discourses (Dryzek, 2013) that advocate for a drastic change in green policy and everyday lives of individuals that are not reliant on productionism. The hegemonic discourse of environmental politics is the three pillars model of SD (Dryzek, 2013). There has been noticeably less focus on the social pillar of SD. Nevertheless, as of late there has been more focus on research and politics to explore the internalization of the social pillar in policy and practice (Boström, 2012).

Figure 1 Figure 2 Environment Society Economy Economic Sustainability Social Sustainability Sustainable Development Ecological Sustainability

(15)

10

2.2 Social Sustainability

The concept of SD is situational and subjective (Kemp & Martens, 2007), this is specifically salient regarding the social pillar. The social pillar is to a greater degree ‘fuzzy’ (Persson, 2013), it is unclear and harder to measure in terms of progress and implementation than the other pillars (Boström, 2012), something which has been highlighted as both a strength (can be implemented in most contexts) and a weakness (requires constant attention and evaluation).

There have been different attempts to conceptualize what areas social sustainability entails. Boström (2012) differentiates between subjective goals and procedural aspects. The former address issues such as basic materialistic needs (food, housing, income), equality of rights, capacity to develop civil society, health, social infrastructure availability and sufficient education, to name a few. The latter focuses on process principles such as deliberative democracy and planning, proactive stakeholder communication, and social inclusion in framing social challenges.

Eizenberg and Jabareen (2017) are advocating the concept of risk as to the foundation of social sustainability, integrating it as a core ontological foundation based on risk theory, regarding how risks are affecting society differently. Their model split social sustainability into four sub-categories of safety (measures adapting to risks), equity (recognition, redistribution, participation regarding risks), eco-prosumption (mitigation measures in society to combat environmental risks), and sustainable urban forms (physical urban landscape to promote diversity, mixed land uses, clean energy, mobility, etc). Olofsson et al (2016) further highlight the importance of intersectional risk analysis when analyzing risk exposure of social groups. Certain policies or developments might be give-and-take in terms of positives and negatives depending on different belonging to ethnicity, social class, gender, and age, which requires different attention. Indeed, as planning is a future-oriented discipline with visions of the future, it is characterized by some uncertainty due to the impossible task of predicting the future (Flyvbjerg, 2004). Social outcomes should thus be spoken of as risks in planning, as they are not guaranteed to happen, but depending on the risk have a varying degree of certainty and impact to do so.

(16)

11 Regardless of what kind of subjective goal and procedural aspects addressed, they are dependent on existing institutions and practices already in place that is characterized as social sustainability. Boström et al (2015) identify six different procedural prerequisites for reaching substantive goals of social sustainability, by analyzing different case studies around the world. The procedural prerequisites that were identified and were summed up into a list that SD projects should include can be found in Box 1. These are however big organizational issues that take time to establish and develop the rights skills and tools for operationalization. Still, it

• “find, invite, and categorize available stakeholders from different spheres of society, including civil society; and achieve the sustainability discourse’s communicative potential … both within and among stakeholder categories;

• make productive use of stakeholders’ capabilities such as utilizing and expanding their existing social capital; avoiding rise of power asymmetries among stakeholders by developing a variety of targeted empowerment measures (financially, cognitively, socially, symbolically); and recognizing each stakeholder’s framing and political potential… within the general sustainable development discourse; • develop a democratic organization that becomes reflectively aware about drives toward

bureaucratization, recognizing and making efforts to avoid its possible side-effects in relation to, for example, narrow sustainability frames and participatory obstacles;

• acknowledge the tension between universalist aspirations and the need for local adaptation/translation, for example by relating to cultural frames that result in frame resonance within local communities and among other audiences;

• make productive use of local social, economic and cultural capabilities, and being reflectively aware of the risk that local elites monopolize the voices of the community;

• stimulate broad and long-term civil society monitoring of sustainability projects.”

Socaial Sustainability Safety Equity Eco-Prosumption Sustainable Urban Forms

Figure 3 (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017)

(17)

12 provides good guidelines for how actors working with processes for social sustainability should strive for in a project.

The list in Box 1 will be an important analytical tool that will be used to reveal if procedures can be deemed as socially sustainable within the planning processes. When the focus is set on a specific goal, the process might be given secondary priority for social sustainability. Even though social sustainability needs further focus on development projects, thinking about the pillars as separate entities do not represent SD. Differentiating value hierarchies between experts (environmentalists, economists, social justice advocates) requires focus to be on how the pillars are interdependent (Campbell, 2016). Campbell identifies three main conflicts between the different pillars: the property conflict (economic growth and social justice), the development conflict (social justice and environmental protection), and the resource conflict (environmental protection and economic growth). The property conflict lifts the difficulties regarding the claim to land use and property – should it be for economic prosperity and dictated by the market or should it be determined on social needs. The development conflict revolves around the need to protect the environment while still acknowledging that there are social needs like affordable housing. The resource conflict revolves around the fact that environmental protection might halt the economic growth as it limits the extraction of resources that might be highly demanded on the market. When increasing focus on any SD pillar cannot result in disregard of the other. Campbell (2016) argue that there needs to be a common language used that makes environmentalists, economists, and social justice advocates to speak the in terms the others understand, only then will real adaption to the SD approach be possible.

2.3 Deliberative Planning

The ICIA tool and its goal to include children into the planning processes have a lot resemblance of deliberative planning, something that can be described as a way to create a socially sustainable planning process (Bollens, 2002; Fainstein, 2016; Innes & Booher, 2004). The Habermasian idea of deliberative democracy is to invite people to participate in debate and deep discussion with each other to clarify common interests, conflicts, and possible solutions. Planners should in this school of thought, like a sponge, absorb these concerns, and formulate a plan that is democratically agreed on (Fainstein, 2016).

(18)

13 Deliberative planning as a tool can be very valuable when planning for SD, specifically social sustainability, as it provides an answer to what kind of society we try to sustain (Boström, 2012) by letting people give their insights and make their voices heard. Regarding spatial planning for common usage across citizens should arguably involve the common people to decide that. Pellizzoni (2018) explore Garret Hardin's famous work of The Tragedy of the Commons, and Elinor Ostrom's concept of Common Pool Resources. Pellizzoni highlight that the Commons, that which everyone and no one owns, that no individual can claim true ownership over (e.g. public roads, parks, squares, etc.) must be understood together with the process of commoning (creating and setting restrictions of the common). Ideally, deliberative planning could be understood to provide social sustainability to the process of commoning, letting everyone decide for that which we share, as it will have consequences regarding mobility, cultural value, and social interaction. This is a limitation of market forces, as the market does not take responsibility for external costs their developments might bring to the public government (Foglesong, 2016).

Thus, commoning could result in a common good (Pellizzoni, 2018). However, it is not an unproblematic concept, as it relies on participation, engagement, and influence from all groups in society to frame their common interet. Deliberative planning requires ‘good citizen’ to function, amd to enable them to participate. When addressing citizens as ‘good’, ‘engaging’, or ‘ideal’, they will be referred to as citizens that engage in processes of deliberation, collectively framing social issues, or simply put those that involve themselves in processes of social sustainability.

2.3.1 Public Participation

To effectively practice deliberative planning requires citizens to take responsibility to participate, which can be difficult (Innes & Booher, 2004). There are challenges to motivate citizens to participate as they might feel alienated from formal governments and feel that participation will not improve their quality of life. There seem to be structural difficulties resulting in “systematic biases guide who gets to participate and who chooses to participate” (Kremer et al 2019, p.2). This is especially clear when talking about children’s participation in democratic processes (Percy-Smith, 2018).

(19)

14 To get more representative public participation, there needs to be a focus on involving those that have traditionally neglected. Planners need to thoroughly identify relevant stakeholders and enable their participation (Boström et al, 2015). Public interest can be portrayed as conflicting (Bollens, 2002), requiring an intersectional perspective to distinguish different power relations and interests (Olofsson, Öhman, & Girtili Nygren, 2016). Success stories of deliberative planning (Boström et al, 2015; Innes & Booher, 2004) underlines the importance of civic organizations. A prosperous civil society engages people to participate in discussions, leading to better planning outcomes, but also makes it much more challenging in areas with poor civic engagement.

Fainstein (2016) highlights a fundamental problem regarding deliberative planning. Fainstein means that even after deliberation, people still make choices that may harm themselves and society. Just because people partake in deliberative democracy does not guarantee social sustainability. Functioning deliberative democracy requires equal opportunity (time, motivation, and knowledge) to enable participation in the process. If certain people do not have the time to participate, have an interest in the matter, or are misinformed will result in certain groups being more salient in the discussions. Planners should, therefore, balance the weight of deliberative planning with the implications of a just outcome (Fainstein, 2016).

Deliberative planning can create solutions and developments that are both socially progressive and democratically justified. A big challenge is the amount of time it takes (Rosa, 2013), and the difficulty it has to justify in public funding and efficiency (Klosterman, 2016).

Rosa (2013) argue that the capitalistic system has brought societal change where our life tempo is accelerated with each introduction of a new technologic innovation that works, communicates, or moves faster. Rosa means that deliberative democracy is next to impossible to implement as the ever-increasing acceleration in society makes it difficult for people to participate in deliberative democracy. Instead, they are busy experiencing (consuming) the world as fast as possible. Discussions must take time in deliberative democracy. Arguments are to be presented, understood, weighted, and later answered to. Stakeholders are to be identified and provided space to participate until a final decision is made. According to Rosa (2013) society remains stable by accelerating (economic growth required to retain the status quo). It has lead to a cultural shift of values regarding time, and that doing something in a short time is

(20)

15 closely linked with efficiency. This makes for a difficult landscape for deliberative democracy to operate.

Deliberative planning requires citizens that participate, but where do these citizens come from? Do they suddenly appear evenly throughout the population or are they created from childhood?

2.4 Children’s Rights and Action Based Learning for Developing

Citizenship

The contemporary idea of a child and its rights has not always been as it is today but it has, just as citizenship, developed throughout history (Cockburn, 2013). Throughout this development of citizenship, children have not gained the same status (Cockburn, 2013). They were seen as something which was to be protected from the world, and viewed as irrational and needed to develop into rational adults that can think for themselves and represent their needs and rights (Cockburn, 2013; Skelton, 2007).

Human rights are the idea that humans are entitled to some material needs, freedom of expression, and choice (Cockburn, 2013). They are social constructs that are created and enforced through pragmatic agreement, political power, and a limited moral consensus. There are conflicting ways in which a good society is, and these rights will be enforced depending on local morality and law. The right to free speech can be compromised regarding private personal or classified information. There are homeless and hungry people, although it is their human right to have some residence and food. Human rights are therefore only as useful to the degree they are enforced (Cockburn, 2013).

From the concept of human rights, an extension was created to include children’s rights (Cockburn, 2013). The introduction of children’s rights is a way to change the discourse used regarding human worth. By highlighting how children have different needs then adults, more attention will be brought to issues of children. However, it is a complex situation as they have rights, but they do not have the agency to exercise them. Throughout history, our discourse of children, it has been discussed in terms of the two Ps: provision and protection (Skelton, 2007).

(21)

16 Children are part of a triangular relationship of child-family-state (Cockburn, 2013). There are different debates regarding who has the responsibility to act for children’s rights. The child in itself has the right’s as defined in the UN’s Conviction of Children’s Rights, such as the right to food and shelter, health, freedom to speak their mind, but who that are to enforce those rights are not defined. The family is the one that is primarily responsible for honoring those rights, but in social democratic welfare states such as Sweden, a lot of responsibility is given to the state (Esping-Andersen, 1990). This creates a special dynamic of different institutions trying to represent the best of a child (Cockburn, 2013). Children have rights, but at the same time, they cannot express them. A child might speak for its wants or needs, but they are not legally able to give consent to certain things, e.g. sexual intercourse until the age of 15 (in Sweden) which the state has determined. Family might still attempt to govern certain sexual behaviors of their child based on morals or religion as long as the child is financially dependent on the family. In other cases, the state can intervene and remove a child from a family is the family is not providing for the child’s rights, even this is against the consent of a child that might want to stay in a dysfunctional family. Acknowledging this triangular relationship is important to understand how a children’s rights perspective can be complex and conflicting between these actors, but also how they can cooperate and represent the best intentions of a child (Cockburn, 2013).

Just as the progression of children’s rights, there has been a development in the distinction regarding children’s transition into adulthood (Cockburn, 2013). Girls could be considered adults from the moment they could bear children and would be carried away, and from the moment a couple were married and formed a family, they would be considered adults, even before the ages of eighteen. However, in the mid-20th_{century there evolved a middle stage}

between childhood and adulthood: adolescence. The distinction between adults and children had been blurred (Skelton, 2007).

People postponed the process of forming families and establishing themselves in the labor market by focusing on youthful entertainment and educating themselves. This has brought up some arguments regarding when someone truly is an adult, and as this process has continued until today, some are advocating talking about an “extended adolescence” instead of early adulthood, as those things characterized as adult qualities are now often delayed to the late 20s (Johnson, Crosnoe & Elder, 2011). It is arguments that the human brain is not developed until the age of 25, indicating that adulthood is only possible when a certain cognitive ability is

(22)

17 reached (Cockburn, 2013). Age is however no guarantee of being an exemplar citizen, to have the skills to care for their own needs and participate in the democratic processes of society. Many children prove to be much more intelligent and competent than certain adults, whereas said ‘incompetent’ adults only have their status due to their age. Citizenship based on competence is therefore in today’s world difficult to argue for, especially as competence and ability to maneuver effectively in a society based on social determinates (Maggi et al, 2010). The critique of younger people and their perceived inability to act like a proper citizen can be understood through an intergenerational perspective (Cockburn, 2013). Having an intergenerational perspective regarding children and adults acknowledges how different generations’ experiences differentiate due to the historical context (Cockburn. 2013). Different generations are brought up in different times that characterize them, e.g. baby boomers or millennials. These different areas are imposing different conditions for a good life with social benefits, in terms of different states of the economy, entrance level to stable high paying jobs, and social benefits that change over time. Contemporary issues might be argued to be due to externalities (Fairborther, 2016) of prior generations, and how they have solved issues. This simply evolves into blaming the ‘other’ group for not doing well enough in society, or that the prior generation sabotaged their future through unsustainable practices. This can prove to impose a hindrance when adults try to represent the interest of the young and those who are to transition to adulthood, e.g. younger people tend to value the environmental issues more than adults (Cockburn, 2013).

Taking children’s rights into consideration can be difficult, as the discourse regarding children is that they are ‘citizens to be’ (Skelton, 2007). However, there might be a shift to a new paradigm as the UNCRC was introduced, as it also introduced the third P, adding participation along with the needs for protection and provision. Although it was progressing in regards to recognizing children’s place in society, it was still unclear how this participation was to be organized and operationalized (Percy-Smith, 2018).

The intent might be right when involving children’s participation in processes like the ICIA, but outcomes might still be biased. Conducting dialogues with children might lead to situations of hearing what they have to say, but not listening (Cockburn, 2013). Social sustainability is not something that can be fixed in time and space, but it is life itself. Lack of hunger and good housing does not mean it can be handled through methods of oppression and tyranny if it to be

(23)

18 classified as social sustainability. It is not enough to fulfill material needs for social sustainability, but it must include processes of mutual involvement (Boström, 2012). On the other hand, children should not bear responsibility for being uninformed and suggesting naïve propositions that will not work in practice. Indeed, children may not want to make final decisions for the future, but they still prefer to have their claims and voices listened to (Cockburn, 2013).

Percy-Smith (2018) studied how educating local leaders for minority Roma groups in actions research, to help children develop their skills to act for sustainable societal change for Roma people. They invited young Roma (11-18 years old) to engage and share their experience of geographical areas, discuss them with each other, prepare sets of actions, taking action, and then evaluating and learning from the experience. This way, they could act for positive change and learn at the same time. As a result, they developed skills to act for change by acting for change. This can also be argued in SD literature as well, where Tilbury (2007) argues that ‘learning by doing’ is a necessary approach for societies to become more sustainable, abiding by the idea that SD should incorporate reflexivity through constant action and evaluation to become more sustainable, just as argued for by Boström and Davidson (2018). Changing practices through participatory learning is a potent way to move forward. However, that in itself might be a challenge.

Social sustainability must be an integrated way of life for citizens, states, businesses, and various organizations in their daily practices. Advocates for social practice theories (Kennedy & Hauslik, 2018) argue that practices can only standardized and changed if material needs are met, proper skills developed and used, and particular meaning ascribed to the practice that motivates actors to do them. Trying to account for materiality is the main purpose of spatial planning, and the ICIA tool is used to create an understanding of what is meaningful to children through dialogues (City of Stockholm, 2017). However, the use of any tools is dependent on skills. The practitioners need to gain experience with the tool to expand the ways it can be used, but the effectiveness depends on the capabilities of the children to share their needs and participate in processes of deliberation (Cockburn, 2013).

Percy-Smith (2018) discuss that although children are more regularly given room to participate in representative democratic processes in the latest years, they rarely get to influence the decision-making. He argues that instead of a generally used method of ‘Assess, Plan, Do,

(24)

19 Review’, where children only are a part of one of the project’s phases. He argues that they should be involved in all of them. Participatory democratic processes should, according to Percy-Smith, be seen as a learning process for children. There are barriers in regards to understanding complex processes that adults frame for children's participation, he argues that it is inefficient when involving children as they will not learn anything from. Instead, one should start by letting children talk about their experiences and use those to frame the issues, and reoccurring participation in the process will lead to them developing skills and meaning (Percy-Smith, 2018), by seeing how they influenced the decision-making. However, participation without influence is not enough, as Percy-Smith puts it: “Excluded young people tend not to become more included through having a say in the decision-making of a system that has already excluded them” (2018, p.171).

In current times it is unlikely that children will suddenly become competent citizens that participate in deliberative democracy (Cockburn, 2013. If children are ‘citizens to be’, they should be prepared to become good citizens. It cannot be learned theoretically in school, although the educational field can prove to be valuable for practicing deliberative citizenship, it should be practiced in the family, community, sports organizations, and school alike to truly manifest and become internalized (Cockburn, 2013). For this, the children must be involved in ways that allow them to participate and to influence.

2.5 Children from a Life Course Perspective

To explore children’s conditions for social sustainability there will be applied a life course perspective inspired by the field of sociology of health. Using the conceptualization of health, social sustainability will be contextualized and understood without being as context-dependent and vague. Social sustainability and health (even though it is a part of social sustainability) have a lot in common. Health and social sustainability are both not constant, they both require ongoing processes to retain their quality. E.g if one stops doing recreational activities and eat poorly, the value of one’s health will decrease. If relevant stakeholders are not allowed to frame what kind of society is being developed in an SD project it will sooner or later result in worse social outcomes for those people (Boström, 2012). They can also be understood as enablers – or as Boström et al (2015) puts it in the titling of their article of prerequisites for a socially sustainable procedures: “Social sustainability requires social sustainability”. To enable someone to live a healthy life, they must first have the health that enables the lifestyle. It is

(25)

20 difficult to be healthy if one is obese, has diabetes or lung cancer. Likewise for children to participate in deliberation in urban development, those in power must enable them to do so, there must be an idea that including children’s perspective is of value. Connecting these concepts to children and a life course perspective helps us to understand how children’s rights can be used both for children as a group and individual children throughout their life course. Children as a social group will always be present. Everyone are members of this group from birth until the transition to adulthood, unlike other social stratifications such as gender, social class, ethnicity that are arguably limited to radical change during a life-time (Hylland Eriksen, 2004). When children become adults new families will be form and new children will come through parenthood, putting a lot of responsibility on the parent to raise the child and stress of balancing this with work-life (Aldwin & Levenson, 2001). Said children will grow up and form their own families and provide grandchildren for their grandparents. The period of early adulthood might arguably have less involvement with children as people have chosen to have children later today than during the 20th_{century (Cockburn, 2013). Children are generally a big}

part of social life and family interactions all through life. Social well-being in any of these stages of the family will have to affect a child’s development. Their social capital can have implications for raising children, as divorced parents, distant grandparents, or parental work occupation will all affect children in various ways, and the ability to have positive relationships and babysitters for children can help them develop socially and lessen the stress of parents (Maggi et al, 2010).

The status of children is temporary for the individual. Children should become prepared to ‘sustain’ their life, grow old, and live well. Health can be understood as sustainability incarnate, the purest concept of sustainability. It is therefore important to understand the transition from childhood to adulthood (Johnson, Crosnoe & Elder, 2011).

In the sociology of health, there are talks of social determinates of health that will have indications for future health developments. Although genetics might give indications to certain health trajectories, it is mostly in terms of social determinates that are the main factors (Maggi et al, 2010). Peoples’ ability to practice health as well as deliberation is based on the skills they develop, and the meanings of why it is important (Kennedy & Hauslik, 2018). Health practices are formed and maintained in social structures. Researchers (Reczek & Umbreson, 2012) looked at how couples of same and different genders ‘practice health’ relationships (e.g.

(26)

21 encourage to eat well/exercise) in the USA. They found that women in heterosexual relationships often do most of the work in their relationships, in comparison to homosexual relationships that distribute these practices more evenly. These are behaviors that are formed and internalized in individuals through socialization. In an overview regarding social determinates of early childhood development, Maggi et al (2010) give the following example:

… early life social origins influence readiness for school and then, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral readiness for school subsequently affect school success and social adjustment. Later, adults with less education demonstrate poorer self-reported behaviors such as smoking and unhealthy diet, failure to use preventive health care. (p.630).

Economic rationalists argue that the most good is done at an early age for public interventions and aid (Johnson, Crosnoe & Elder, 2011). The prior quote implies that much good can be done if parents that struggle financially can get aid to care for a child and improve their early life conditions. This helps put children on good health trajectories. However, it can also lead to complications if it is deemed ‘enough’ to help the youngest as it is economically rational. If resources aimed to aid needing adolescence to disappear before entering adulthood, they might lose needed momentum to establish themselves on the labor market, or lose interest in civic society and deliberative democratic processes. A focus on early childhood investment may overlook how other factors e.g. economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital internalizes based on the family when they grow older (Bourdieu & Richardson, 1986), and become a part of our habitus (Wacquant, 2016).

The concept of habitus, in this case, refers to French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's work and theory of social class reproduction (Bourdieu, 2019). Habitus is in a sense our unreflective view of reality that forms our life course path, in what we see as possible and impossible, desirable or undesirable, and fine or poor. It is described as “the internalization of externality and the externalization of internality” (Cited in Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 299). The different types of capital (Bourdieu & Richardson, 1986) and habitus are social determinates of becoming a good citizen (Cockburn, 2013). If a child, from a dysfunctional working-class family, is raised and needed to be actively provided and protected by the state, they might still lack the right skills to transition into adulthood smoothly, as their lack of social capital cannot aid them to the degree another more privileged person can. Equal opportunity in the educational system does not

(27)

22 ensure equal outcomes in a meritocratic society, that separates the ‘good’ ones form the ‘bads’ (Jaeger, 2009). The privileged with the proper capital and habitus may instead thrive as they are better prepared and have a better understanding of how to maneuver efficiently in society. Children from lower socioeconomic status or different cultures tend to value focusing on other activities than school, as compared to their privileged counterparts (Cockburn. 2013). E.g. informal arrangements more closely related to family activities and care. Even though this can result in the development of very useful qualities for these individuals in terms of social competence and compassion, it lacks in symbolic recognition, unlike school grades which have national (or even international) recognition and keeps their influence even if an individual loses the knowledge got them said grades (Bourdieu & Richardson, 1986). Knowledgeable parents with a habitus that understand this will probably try to influence their child to navigate the educational field effectively and to seize these advantages (Wacquant, 2016).

Schools as institutions are identified as a good place to use ICIA as it has children from different social backgrounds (City Council of Stockholm, 2018). However, schools systematically differentiate between children that to certain degrees are seen as competent or incompetent by grading them (Jaeger, 2009). ‘Good’ students might be more secure in such a setting, giving them the ability to speak their mind and argue for a cause, and entitled to learn things, resulting in them occupying the space of influence, and misrepresenting the ‘perspective of a child’, to the perspective of a privileged child (Cockburn, 2013). Practitioners that talk with such children in dialogues may relate and listen more to these children that presumably are interested in social questions. Just as the critique of white middle-class feminism, talking about children as a homogenous group undermines their vastly different social realities that an intersectional perspective can highlight (Cockburn, 2013).

2.6 Summary of Theoretical Framework

Many theories and concepts have been presented in this chapter. The theoretical framework can be summarized in the following way:

• SD needs to combine the priorities of the economic, ecological, and social sustainability pillars (Campbell, 2016). The discourse around these priorities is important when addressing potential conflicts.

(28)

23 •_{Social sustainability is hard to measure, incorporating both procedural aspects and the} distribution of materiality. Both aspects need to be addressed for something to be socially sustainable (Böström, 2012).

• Children as a concept are hard to define and are as a group heterogeneous (Skelton, 2007). This makes it difficult to represent them.

•_{People's social background in determining how the world is experienced (Bourdieu &} Richardson, 1986). What opportunities for action an individual perceived themselves to have is important to understand how practices such as democratic participation vary between the population (Bourdieu, 2019).

• Children’s participation in the processes of social sustainability throughout their childhood is important to secure their interests and capabilities to participate in the process of sustainability as adults (Percy-Smith, 2012).

(29)

24

3. Methodological Perspective and Method Used

This thesis will use Bent Flybjerg’s (2004) analytical approach of phronetic planning. Flyvbjerg takes inspiration from Aristotle and his thoughts of phronesis, the “intellectual virtue that is reasoned, and capable of action concerning things that are good or bad for man” (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 284), or in other words understood as common sense, practical judgment, and practical wisdom. Phronesis is separated from the other types of intellectual virtues; episteme (scientific knowledge, universal truths, and context-independency) and techne (craftsmanship, pragmatic implementation, and context-dependency). Flyvbjerg argues that both episteme and techne has gotten too much focus on contemporary planning research, and instead argues that phronesis needs more focus. “Phronesis concerns the analysis of values” (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p.288), whether something is to be deemed as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it is something which must be understood through praxis. Research that focuses on phronesis is phronetic planning research.

Although much focus and methodology revolve around phronesis specifically, both episteme and techne are represented in two of the research questions. The research question of episteme will be grounded in much of the literature and concepts stated in the Previous Research chapter for more universal and context independent knowledge. The interest regarding the knowledge of techne comes when looking at the ICIA tool itself and how it was applied in the different contexts.

Flyvbjerg (2004) distinguish that contemporary phronesis has a focus on power relations unlike, the classical work of Aristotle. Indeed, Cockburn (2013) argues that when discussing children’s participation in democratic processes, there needs to be attention to the dimension of power-relations. Flyvbjerg identifies four value-rational questions that form the basic departure for phronetic research and that should be asked in instances of planning:

(i) Where are we going? (ii) Who gains and who loses? (iii) Is this development desirable?

(iv) What, if anything, should we do about it?

The ‘we’ in question i and iv refer to the researcher and perspective of the group that is being researched (Flyvbjerg, 2004). In the case of this thesis, it is we as those who operationalize the ICIA model and those involved in the social sustainable urban planning in the region of

(30)

25 Stockholm. A ‘we’ also creates a ‘they’, underlining that this is just one perspective, and they are many more perspectives that can be researched in a study. It is a post-positivist approach not concerned with universal truths, as it is unrealistic to put expectations upon any humans to provide such knowledge, Flyvbjerg argues (2004). Question ii focuses on the power relation between groups, and question iii focuses on the normative aspect of the development, whether it is good for society, or in our case, for social sustainability.

As phronetic planning research is problem-based, it does not have any specific method used but can use a combination of different methods as long as they can conclude the said problem (Flyvbjerg, 2004). However, there are methodological guidelines that Flyvbjerg recommends that one should follow in phronetic planning research if possible. This thesis has adopted applicable guidelines, these will be written in italics below.

A focus on values makes researchers tackle questions of foundationalism versus relativism, whether their values are universally good or if different perspectives are of equal value (Flyvbjerg, 2004). Phronetic planning research disregard both and instead argue for context dependency and situational ethics. How many children should participate in deliberative urban planning is hard to universally agree on, but looking at specific contexts can give implications of what is desirable.

To place power at the core of the analysis is to acknowledge power as the ability to produce and act, it is relational and something that is practiced and not simply attained, it is the knowledge that enables and restrains, it is how, who, why someone has power, and also how that is visible in the specific process (Flyvbjer, 2004).

To be close to reality is to avoid ‘so what’ results, that does not lead to any new usefulness (Flyvbjerg, 2004). As there been in contact with the landscape architecture firm Landskapslaget and I set out to study this to help them, this research may contribute to how the ICIA can be operationalized better, or at least given them a perspective from the outside.

To emphasize “little things” is to understand how small questions can lead to answers to big questions, or as Flyvbjerg (2004, p.295) puts it: “‘God is in the detail’ the proverb says. ‘So is the Devil’ the phronetic planning researcher would add”. This study will, therefore, be keen on detail in its presentation of cases and highlight how these ‘small things’ are important.

(31)

26 Look at practice before discourse regard how discourse does not reflect real-life, unlike practices, referring to Foucault’s use of the term discourse (Flyvbjerg, 2004). Indeed, Foucault is a pioneer in the field of discourse analysis, but still one of many. Bergström and Boréus (2014) show how researchers as Norman Fairclough view “that ‘discourse’ is the use of language seen as a form of social practice, and discourse analysis is an analysis of how texts work within the sociocultural practice.” (Fairclough, cited in Bergström & Boréus, 2014, p.375). Discourse is therefore viewed in the language used and the practices alike. Furthermore, discourse can also be found in objects, what we call ‘material culture’ or ‘the social life of objects’ (Rapley, 2011). This study mainly looks at finished reports, and the idea of practices can be identified in the different documents. Documents are created through discourse and practice, but once they are created they set the framework for future discourse and practices (this will be continued upon when discussing moving beyond agency and structure).

Studying cases and contexts has already been briefly mentioned, but Flyvbjerg (2004) argues that planning research should focus on specific contexts instead of questionable universal truths. How people act is related to what Bourdieu (Flyvbjerg, 2004) describes as the ‘feel of the game’. There are countless moves one can make in a social setting, and there is no context that is identical to the other. Meaning, what ‘move’ one makes is dependent on past practical experiences that determine individual judgment for the best course of action in a given case, nothing contextless universal theory can predict. The cases in this thesis are different in both those who did them and scale which will display differences (the cases and specific contexts will be discussed in the section of Empirical Material Used).

Ask “How?” and do narrative, Flyvbjerg (2004) argues, that the small questions can give big answers. By understanding what role an actor or a phenomenon has in a narrative, e.g. the socially sustainable society or how children are formed to become ‘good’ citizens, by including children’s views. Ask “how?” something is decided and practiced and do narratives from what is discovered. There might be an intergenerational conflict of power and influence through gatekeeping public participation until adulthood do so that older generations can demonize those who lack in experience and cling onto power for longer (Cockburn, 2013).

To move beyond agency and structure is to focus on both structure and agency as they both interact with the other (Flyvbjerg, 2004). He brings attention to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus,

A CITY TO GROW UP IN -A Study of How the Integrated Child Impact Analysis Tool Can Contribute to Social Sustainability in Urban Planning