IN
DEGREE PROJECT TECHNOLOGY, FIRST CYCLE, 15 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2017,
Mapping Public Participation in Sweden
An overview of the individual's voice in the planning process
DOUGLAS CARLSON
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
TRITA SoM EX Kand 2017-4
www.kth.se
1
Abstract
Public participation in Sweden is something that has grown fourth after the democratisation of the planning process in urban and regional planning. The goal was to strengthen the sustainability of the projects while inviting the concerned to directly influence and discuss the needs and solutions that arise during exploitation. Three areas are examined to create an understanding of how public participation looks like today. The representations of these areas are Boverket and SKL for the public sector, Arkus for the research community and PLAN for the professional forums. There is a general consensus on what public participation is today as well as what problems it faces, with some differing aspects. An imbalance in representation of different social groups where some create a stronger voice and influence than others affect the decision-making, based on lacking resources, apathy concerning the subject or project in question or even existing prejudice. This, in combination with what is considered to be insufficient information and difficult communication in general, leads to misunderstandings and a more arduous planning process. Some point to that the legislature needs additional streamlining and centralisation of decision-making structure while others point to greater dialogue outside existing public hearings with a permanent and continuously updated platform outside the legislature. Modernisation of the general means and technology used in the dialogue seem like the next step and further research should be made on this to determine its effect on public participation and its development.
Sammanfattning
Medborgardeltagande i Sverige är något som kommit till efter demokratisering av planeringsprocessen i samhällsbyggnadssektorn. Målet var att stärka hållbarheten hos projekten medan man samtidigt bjöd in de berörda att direkt påverka och resonera kring behov och lösningar som uppstår vid exploateringen. För att ta reda på hur läget ser ut idag för medborgardeltagande så undersöks tre olika forum för planerare. De forum som utgås från är dels Boverket och SKL för den offentliga sektorn, dels Arkus som forskning samt PLAN som debatt och professionell plattform. Samtliga undersökta källor visar generellt konsensus om vad medborgardeltagande är i dagsläget samt dess problem, med några skillnader i synpunkter. Det råder obalans i representationen för olika sociala grupper där vissa har en betydligt starkare röst i påverkan av beslut, på grund av bland annat bristande resurser, viss apati angående ämnet eller projektet i fråga samt existerande fördomar. Detta, i kombination med vad som anses vara bristande kommunikation och information i överlag, leder till missförstånd och i allmänhet en mödosammare planeringsprocess. Vissa pekar på att lagstiftningen behöver effektiviseras och centralisera beslutsorganen mer medan andra pekar på större dialog utöver existerande samråd med en ständigt pågående och uppdaterande plattform utanför lagstiftningen. Modernisering av medlen och tekniken som används i dialogen verkar vara nästa steg i utveckling och vidare forskning bör göras för att fastställa dess effekt på medborgardeltagandet och dess vidare utveckling.
2
Table of contents
Abstract ... 1
Sammanfattning ... 1
Table of contents ... 2
Introduction ... 3
Aim and objectives ... 3
Method and delimitations ... 3
Public participation and planning theory... 4
Nonparticipation ... 4
Tokenism ... 4
Citizen power ... 5
Boverket and SKL ... 5
Swedish research community ... 6
Public hearing ... 6
Public influence ... 7
Social hierarchy ... 7
The planner’s responsibilities ... 8
Results of public participation ... 8
Professional forums ... 9
Language ... 9
Cultural perspectives ... 9
Participation ... 10
Discussion ... 11
Conclusion and reflection ... 13
References ... 14
Figures ... 15
3
Introduction
Swedish public participation in itself is a relatively old application of transparency and inclusion in urban and regional development. Legalwise, the current platform dates back to 1987 with the then new legislature Planning and Building Act, PBL, in which a new groundwork for how to plan new areas or re-develop old areas in Sweden was enacted based on a collection of older laws. In PBL the influence of the public was strengthened and the effected people were meant to be given a chance to review upcoming changes in their areas for them to speak up against and later settle in court if the criticised parts remained. The aim of this was, according to the authorities, to better the long-term sustainability of the planned areas and to democratise the planning process (Boverket, 2014).
Aim and objectives
The aim of this work is to create an overview of the different academic and professional views and applications of what public participation in modern Sweden is, and its possible future developments.
❖ The first objective is to investigate the views of groups and organisations with different levels of expertise and relations regarding public participation.
❖ The second objective is to discuss the similarities and differences between these views.
Method and delimitations
The starting point will be to examine Arnstein’s ladder of participation and the ranking within.
This may be used as a reference point against which later discussion can be compared.
To get an understanding of what stance the public sector has in relation to public participation, Boverket under the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation as a public agency together with SKL as a public representative will both serve as the public sector’s point of view.
From the research community, two issues on public participation has been chosen from Arkus.
Arkus is an independent forum for development and research in architecture and the built environment. Its purpose is to initiate and fund independent research and development projects and share the results with the members of the community and the public. These two issues, Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration? (issue 72) and Medborgardialog – om det svåra i att mötas (issue 74), contain the work of several researchers of varying backgrounds as well as individual stories, respectively (Arkus, 2017).
Lastly, PLAN has been chosen as the source for debate in the professional forums. PLAN is a journal for debate around the built environment and its development. The articles used are published between 2015 and 2017.
These will be presented and analysed in the text from which the discussion will later build upon.
The work will revolve around applications and voiced views concerning, and therefore the focus will be on, recent years apart from older anecdotes about underlying theories and relevant data.
The resulting discussion will put these in sources and their perspectives in relation to each other with that be able to create a conclusion on what state public participation is in and where it should go.
4
Public participation and planning theory
Sherry R. Arnstein published an article in 1969 regarding the different levels of public participation. In her work, she ranks participation in degrees of a citizen’s power in the decision-making process, ranging from manipulation to citizen control (see figure 1 for illustration). These can be further categorised in to three different grades, namely nonparticipation, tokenism and citizen power.
Arnstein stresses that this type of analysis builds on generalisation since it is not a monolithic system. Apart from that, across the world these should be hundreds of different levels with varying distinctions between one another. But this works in a way as a general standpoint, as long as one is aware of its flaws (Arnstein, 1969).
Nonparticipation
‘Manipulation’ is at the bottom of the ladder in a way the reverse of public influence. It is the powerholders that influences the public by educating and manipulating them to think like they should, at least according to the powerholders. This is a very authoritarian way of including the public in the planning process. Hence, the lowest form of public participation rather than the first. A smaller step in the towards stronger influence is the ‘Therapy’ form of participation.
This is still very like Manipulation, but not quite as aggressive. In this case, an example would be tenant groups being used as promotion of certain operations and to assimilate in to the larger society (Arnstein, 2016). Today, these forms are mostly viewed as being part of dystopian fiction or even in authoritarian regimes. Most western countries seem to not use this kind of public participation, at least not openly. The public is not really participating, but are mainly another object in the planning with makes it more like a nonparticipation.
Tokenism
In the middle category, the ‘Informing’ degree ranks as the next form of participation. The powerholders are in this case in charge of informing the public in a sort of one-way communication. This might sometimes work in the same manipulating way as the lower forms when its used as a passive intimidation by invoking the sense of futility in the public. That there is no way for the public to change the process and the decisions that have been made. But by asking for the public’s thoughts on the process, ‘Consultation’ works as the first step toward actual participation. However, this is limited to a sort of legitimisation process where the powerholders seek to receive the agreement of the public. Surveys and the like are usual ways of investigating the public by a way of seemingly consulting it. But by placing some chosen members of the public amongst the committees and boards, the powerholders create ‘Placation’
and further the public influence and opportunities to participate if only by a small margin. The majority in these bodies are still not part of the public and leaves the powerholders to have the final say (Arnstein, 2016). These can collectively be different ways for the powerholders to
Figure 1: Arnstein's ladder with its different degrees of public participation.
5
legitimise their projects by appearing like they implement the public in a democratic process in the form of tokenism.
Citizen power
A more evenly spread form of sharing planning and decision-making capabilities is the form of
‘Partnership’. Through joint policy boards and planning committees, the public and the powerholders can together work for the benefit of all. In most cases, governmental bodies like city councils and the like might have the final veto power but the recommended course of actions that reach this stage are approved by the public and its representatives. Yet, with having the public as part of the veto gives birth to the form of ‘Delegated Power’. Here, the public receives the upper hand by having the dominant decision-making authority. This tends to be in the form of policy boards or delegate agencies, but nevertheless takes the last word away from the powerholders and forces them to bargain with the public. With that, there is only complete
‘Citizen Control’ left. This form is the ultimate public participation as in it is only the public that participates. This is usually not sought after since it promotes separatism and balkanisation of public services, which might be positive on a local level but makes it difficult to coordinate on a regional and national stage (Arnstein, 2016). These different forms represent a quantitative background upon which a general comparison and categorisation can be made and further sort aligning views accordingly.
Boverket and SKL
The Swedish public agency for planning, building and housing is called Boverket and manages related issues in the service of the public sector. Their purpose is to ensure that everyone is following the legislature and proper procedures by investigating processes and offering advice.
According to them, public participation is a chance for the public to contribute with their knowledge and experience to fulfil both their own needs and the needs of the community (Boverket, 2017).
Boverket stresses that a constant flow of information between the municipality, or other project leading authorities, and the public will contribute to a smoother process when it comes to developing projects. An earlier initiative for public participation gives the public a chance to enter the process with their knowledge, experience and needs to be a basis in the decision- making process. Through dialogue, especially if started early on, the risk of misunderstandings and deadlocks are heavily reduced. The public in this case being the people currently living in the affected community, not only Swedish citizens. But the main part of public participation and the dialogue still takes place during the public hearings, with the purpose of collecting all relevant opinions and needs to a single discussion and hopefully reaching a conclusion together (Boverket, 2017). Boverket as an agency works as a central hub for information to which queries can be made. It is here that most people will be directed if they ever have an issue regarding the planning process or the built environment in general. Centralisation can be good as a way of avoiding drawn-out processes and for the public to be less confused as to where to turn to for information regarding the planning process or current events and projects.
SKL, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, is an employers’ and interest organisation for local governance in Sweden. SKL promotes the interest of municipalities, county councils and regions as their representative organisation. Its purpose is to better the conditions for local and regional self-governance and to develop the welfare system and its services (SKL, 2017a).
6
SKL’s work includes supporting its members in their work through collaboration and offering further material upon which they may expand. A new concept has grown fourth namely co- production within planning to describe a growing vision to include user, customers, clients, patients and kin by giving them more influence and responsibility. This has been a priority subject for SKL since 2015 to push towards changing how leadership must be reshaped to make way for new approaches and framework. Co-production is to systematically take advantage of relevant experience and opinions from the clients while changing the relation between them and the professionals. This, among other innovative participatory models, have been promoted by SKL for further advancement in collaborative development between the public and the local governing authorities (SKL, 2017b).
Swedish research community
Looking on the academic level, the focus is to examine the work of published researchers and their thoughts on the public participation in Sweden. The material that is discussed can be broken down into five groups: dialogue, public influence, social hierarchy, the planner’s role and the results of public participation. Although they overlap, these groups make up a foundation from which an overview can be made.
Public hearing
The main form of dialogue between the public and the planners in Swedish public participation takes place during the planning process in public hearings related to an upcoming project. These so-called ‘samråd’ are open for the public to attend and discuss the project with representatives from the project’s participating groups.
Nazem Tahvilzadeh (Tahvilzadeh, 2015) criticises this participational steering after examining it in an optimistic and pessimistic perspective, based on Fung and Wrights’ empirical study Deepening democracy – Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participationary Governance as well as the work of the political theorist Chantal Mouffe. Although there is a lot of different means and incentives for public participation, the execution on a local level leaves a lot to be desired according to Tahvilzadeh. In a positive and optimistic light, the logic behind the policies for public participation and a dialogue seem like a genuine wish for deepened democracy. This form of dialogue is still relatively young and it might be too soon to deem it as a failed initiative when there is still room for a lot of experimentation and development. A negative outlook on the other hand is that the dialogue is a by-product of an ever-evolving renewal of trends and a transformation for more neoliberal and welfare-centric ideals and ideas. Globalisation and individualisation among other factors drive the governing figures to pursue dialogue as a tool to legitimise their results in the planning process. Göran Cars (Cars, 2015) shares Tahvilzadeh’s concerns regarding the future of the current model in Swedish public participation in that the vocal resistance groups have unproportioned power and the appeal system is not fit to handle conflicts as they are today. The dialogue needs a stronger emphasis on the public’s interest and constructive conversation between differing groups and individuals. Cars agrees that there is potential in this form of dialogue but it needs to be reworked. Others, like Teresa Lindholm (Lindholm, 2015), point to that the scope may need to get bigger than specific projects and aim for a broader implementation of dialogue between different parties in the planning process. This is important to further develop the social capabilities of areas and avoid segregation. The involvement of communities as well as individual’s needs will strengthen the social sustainability on a local level and help combat the growing anonymity in cities. Moa Tunström (Tunström, 2015) reaches the conclusion that social sustainability is an ambition and a balance
7
act rather than an end goal which needs to be addressed when forming a dialogue in public participation.
Modern dialogue is in need of a revision to remove the power of loud parties that put the development and lesser parties at risk. It is currently at a point where the representation and decision-making are unbalanced between its participants, where an already lengthy process is put on hold with appeals in case of disagreements. The need for understanding and finding common ground are important factors that have grown stronger, without the consensus transforming in to the wishes of the majority.
Public influence
Apart from the current form of the dialogue, the actual influences the public has is difficult to pinpoint. However, it does not make it impossible to study the results of different projects compared to what the starting point was and the end of said project. As discussed in previous segment, appeals tend to appear from vocal nay-sayers and tires all parties involved. But stopping or allowing projects to proceed as planned is not the only things the public should or can influence.
The city building today is different than that of the last century. The development and building is now dominated by private companies with further outsourcing in the planning process with, for example, consultants and architects from other companies. This makes the dialogue, and its actual effect, difficult to understand when the public is not sure of who to turn to for information and the power to influence the process (Listerborn, 2015). This makes it troublesome for the individual to participate and in turn affects their influence. In the same vein as Tahvilzadeh, Listerborn criticises the possibility that the dialogue is a way for the politicians to legitimise the process and projects rather than implementing real influence from the public. Even with more dialogue, the system may need more power to the public to have any effect on the process and its results. In some cases, the people’s voiced concerns reach the governing body and start an initiative to reach out to the affected people. But, as in the case of Järvalyftet, the resulting dialogue turns out to be more of a monologue with no real results or actual effect on the development. The reaction after the public had sent in over 30,000 thoughts on what they desired in the area was to proceed with the project with little to no changes regarding what the public wanted (Al-khamisi, 2015).
Social hierarchy
There is and has always been a power struggle between different groups. Whether it has been between social classes, genders or ethnicities, it has always been present in all levels of society.
The need for marginalised groups to have their voice heard has always existed but even now has little presence.
When tackling the issue of gender, one must be careful not to get trapped in generalisations and categorisation so not to consolidate the relations of power that need change. The focus is supposed to be on the relation between the genders but has in recent times devolved to treating women as a category, when individuals are defined by more than just their gender (Listerborn, 2015). The wish to involve a more inviting tone to new projects has arisen where the planning can revolve around treating new habits outside the traditional gender-based activities. When inspecting the Malmö suburb of Rosengård, the preferred locations and environment to spend free time differed immensely between teenage boys and girls. While the boys hung around in semi-public and public areas, the girls preferred to stay at either their own home or at a friend’s
8
place, if not on the other side of town. The habit of a male oriented environment is still ever present in the planning of public areas (Björnson, 2015). The fear of conflicts stemming from the act of balancing different forces in our society has led to a search for consensus, to achieve the greater good for the public. But the public is not always well represented. There is a need for the marginalised groups of the past and present to get involved in the planning, otherwise a new crisis awaits urban development (Listerborn, 2015).
The planner’s responsibilities
It is easy to get caught up putting the responsibility of public participation solely in the public’s hands, but much of that is really the responsibility of the actual planners. It is up to these planners to find a way that gets the public to participate.
The idea of social interaction with the public during the early stages of planning in Sweden is not a widespread phenomenon. Sara Brolund de Caravalho actively searched for an architect’s role in the service of the public. Good examples were found in the US and UK with community design centres and the like set up so that citizens could participate. But in Sweden it seemed difficult to find a corresponding initiative. Creative and pedagogical ways to inform the public and discuss ways to find new solutions and developments are needed. She reasons that may be because of the differences of relation to the governing bodies and their agencies, since Sweden tend to have a public sector that wishes to address movement-related issues. There is a lot of different factors that decide on how to go about solving a problem and different societies have different vantage points, depending on what is deemed as obligatory. Crowd-funding is not a normal activity for social movements in Sweden, probably because of a higher state welfare than other countries. However, local associations and interest organisations are present today and it should be up to the architect, or planner, to negotiate with these bodies. Apart from this, the planners are also responsible for explaining projects and goals from the local governance side while deciphering all the information for everyone to understand. Brolund de Caravalho stresses that what’s needed is a platform for open and continuous communication through dialogue to further spread information and avoid unnecessary conflict (Brolund de Caravalho, 2015). But how impartial should the planner be in their bureaucratical role? Not everyone can be everywhere all the time, something Marie Halldin regrets in her contact with people obviously struggling with dementia. By focusing on certain individuals, a particular form of neglect is turned towards the rest of the participants, which she reveals in her experience with said individuals. At the same time, one must give appropriate assistance to those in need of help.
This dilemma has perplexed Halldin, who concludes that everyone should be able to offer the right type of assistance by making sure they get help, not only as planners but also as fellow humans (Halldin, 2016).
Results of public participation
The most notable results of public participation, or lack thereof, is most notably the appealing process. The participants tend to be individuals with a strong feeling against the development in question, usually of NIMBYism related nature.
In her own experience, Kristina Sandberg tells about her work as a consultant and mediator during public hearings. Her involvement in the planning process tend to be perceived as yet another official in the eyes of the public. The resulting dialogue at the hearing turned in to a
‘we’ against ‘them’, with both sides turning in to antagonists. Sandberg, too, cites Mouffe with having a proper democracy means allowing every opinion and attitude to have its place to
9
express itself but also being open for criticism under a common set of rules. The planners and officials had sent out their talking points and argument in written form three weeks in advance, to let the public know what to expect. Nevertheless, the project’s presentation put the public in the position to react to these changes. This led to a major protest against the officials and their project. Sandberg ponders if this could have been avoided by reaching out earlier for the public’s viewpoint rather than inviting them to ‘defend their neighbourhood’ so the first point could be less chaotic (Sandberg, 2016). With a growing dissent between the professional planners and the public, the need for a more open and welcoming dialogue is needed without anyone forced in to the defensive.
Professional forums
PLAN is a journal focused on urban development and planning. The content involves debate on both old and new challenges and methods in the subject with participants ranging from professionals and academics to people interested in planning. The following subjects are from articles published in PLAN concerning public participation.
Language
When looking at the basis of participation and communication, language is the key to mediating the concerns between individuals and groups. If not careful, one can create barriers or even manipulate by having an upper hand with knowledge. The language that authorities and agencies use plays a vital role in a process when democratic ideals are to be upheld. Jonas Carlquist, Linda Pfister, Ulrika Åkerlund and Olof Stjernström have together investigated a planning process in a smaller municipality in Sweden. In this project, a simplification of language has led to more confusion with no clear understanding on actions the involved parties had taken. Furthermore, a lack of clear authority between the different parties led to doubt on where to turn to for information and influence. In all likelihood, this has been a way for the planners to try to simplify the information for a broader audience but in turn lost the cohesion needed to understand the structure if the project. It might also be an attempt at hiding information that might not be beneficial to the ones in charge. Carlquist and his colleagues points out that if the processes behind the information still can’t be put in to question, the power of the public wanes in the face of uncertainty. They conclude that the ones that decide on how to express the information have a unique and complicated power (Carlquist et al., 2017).
Language is an important factor, no matter the subject. It is the foundation of our communication and if that is flawed then it will affect everything that rests upon it.
Cultural perspectives
Using artists during the planning process is another way of channelling the public’s wishes by using them as a mediator, or further diverting attention from topics by creating new ones.
Thomas Borén and Craig Young examined different projects in Europe where artists and planners interacted with each other to create new ideas for the built environment. Recent years have showed us that the policies around cultural development has placed economic growth as the foremost goal. This has been heavily criticised by both the artist and science community to be detrimental to the future of culture and arts in our environment. Their research boils down to five conceptual rooms, where the first is when the planners include the artist as advisors to reach the goals set in the overall planning. This can be accomplished in ways like creating dialogue or giving a voice to the public. It is a method to add additional knowledge which the planners themselves usually do not possess to the process. The second one is in a similar vein, but the artist is a part of the process from the start and stands equal with the planner. This has
10
shown to increase the meaningfulness in the eyes of all the people involved when the artist has more freedom than the planner, as well as the artist being able to open new solutions and ideas through dialogue with different professions. The artist was able to not only contribute with design but also new perspectives and mindsets. A third way is to create so-called cool forums where the participants could be free to suggest changes or ideas completely outside of the box without being burdened by policies, economic limits or other possible consequences. In short, cool forums are for people not to worry about losing face or possible shortcomings in negotiation. In the fourth conceptual room, the artist is the one that initiates the changes even before the conceptual phase. Much in the same way that local groups who desire change start their own movements, the artist may also be some sort of creative initiators. Partnership with other local movements and planning agencies are important here to realise the goals that are set out, otherwise the project in question will fall apart under the weight of its ambitions. The fifth and final room is where the art in itself is the centre of change, rather than the location. The art will create action and the resulting atmosphere will create a conceptual room from which new ideas and meetings can grow fourth. But these categorised conceptual rooms are not absolute, since there is so much more than simple summarisation can convey. It might, however, create an overview from which planners and artists can survey what alternatives are at hand and how to proceed (Borén and Young, 2015). Mediators are important in a society where expertise and professional experience are a growing need to even begin to understand topics, while at the same time be careful not to lose anything in the exchange.
Participation
A lack of proper goals of the future aspects regarding local city planning clouds the vision of the inhabitants and adds to the uncertainty they usually feel towards new projects, according to Kristina Berglund. She argues that a large part of the delays in the planning process stems from a growing disconnection between the local government and its populace, mainly since the actual participation and dialogue is initiated late in the process. This leads to a perception that there is no alternative to the project other than a choice between ‘for’ or ‘against’. The solution to this is further emphasis on the overall comprehensive area-based planning (områdesplanering) in larger areas rather than allotment plans (detaljplaner) on a local level, with the former taking place earlier and lays down a foundation for the public to more easily comprehend the aim of the planning and development. The results will be a process where all the projects will be collected under a local set of rules from which the planners can centralise information and legislature procedures. Berglund hopes that this will solve the issue of running the risk of having several appealing cases during separate projects by dealing with such concerns during this land and area use process (Berglund, 2015). By aiming to combat disagreement at an early stage, this would probably help to shorten legal premises in theory.
In retaliation to this argument, Maria Håkansson and Krister Olsson urges to take a step even further by engaging the public outside the process. The municipality itself may be perceived as a single unit, which contradicts the actual processes that issues go through when passing several different layers and levels of agencies, committees and boards. This might discourage inhabitants to pursue their wishes when it comes to the development of the shared environment.
This problem won’t be solved even if the process is simplified by moving it to a different level without proper engagement with initiating dialogue. On top of this, the situation today has advanced heavily in recent decades regarding economic and social aspects. The digitalisation of society has shaken our conception of meeting places and communication. Our tools in the planning process need to meet new demands or our dialogue will stagnate. Håkansson and
11
Olsson point to three perspectives that need to be addressed. The first having people take an initiative themselves regarding mobilisation and action. Few are aware that what the local governance has decided about projects they initialise are far from invincible from the voice of the public, even outside the planning process. Also, their influence on companies as possible consumers and customers, where the added economic weight might stir even the most stubborn official. And lastly the power of unification through organisations and associations when sharing a common goal. There is an incentive towards communication and dialogue between officials and inhabitants in the legislature that helps the public participate but the conditions and definitions of what is possible needs to be clarified (Håkansson and Olsson, 2015).
Discussion
To summarise and for direct comparison, the table represent the differing areas’ general idea considering public participation. While they exhibit a consensus, there is a slight variation in troubleshooting and analysis between the areas.
The overall understanding from all levels is what seems like a genuine wish for the inclusion of inhabitants and the public in the planning process, whether for sustainability or democratic ideals. Sustainability in the form of further action to supply the needs of the inhabitants, both ecologically and socially. Through activation of conscious communication and discussion, a
Public sector Researchers Professionals Current form
For the most part taking place during public hearings according to the legislature to integrate the public in the planning process.
Public hearings that are organised by the powerholders that occur together with corresponding projects.
Dialogue between parties during projects with growing
misunderstandings and stances of ‘we’ against
‘them’.
Results
Through unique implementations and innovative projects, citizens and concerned members of the public are able to influence how the development is formed.
Projects are pushed forward while the hearings are used as a medium to achieve the goals of
democratisation.
Since the usual participants from the public tend to have strong feelings against the projects, lengthy appeals and general disagreement from what tends to be a one- way dialogue becomes the final product in disputed cases.
Progress
Better communication and information is sought-after for greater understanding and less conflict based on misconceptions.
The dialogue needs to evolve and adapt to the modern public and its communication methods, with a more open and sensible approach to the issues.
A common ground and platform is needed for communication between experts and amateurs to understand each other in the specialised subjects.
12
consensus is seen on getting the voice of everyone to the discussion as essential for the dialogue to succeed in making a difference. Some, like Brolund de Carvalho, Håkansson and Olsson, point to the need of activating the public outside public hearings set up according to the PBL.
This also aligns with the wishes of Boverket and SKL where the dialogue is always there with the public. As people’s habits change, so must the methods of which we use in society with them. Social media seems like a necessary step to activate in order to move forward with an open dialogue in accordance to planning, with events and interviews being transparent and open for all to see or even drop by and casually ask a question themselves. At the same time, anonymity seems like a growing problem in bigger cities and may give rise to apathy regarding development and general isolation, but that is a discussion for another time. It seems that the first category of Arnsteins ladder is far away from the reality of Swedish society. Thankfully, all seem to understand that the current system works on the consultation degree at the least.
Tahvilzadeh brings up the risk that many projects might be plagued by powerholders on the hunt for legitimisation, but even that is the lowest form projects might reach in Sweden today.
But the reality seems to be troubled by social dilemmas of marginalised groups. Current dialogue being dominated by certain groups while, intentionally or not, silencing others turns the ideal of democracy into a farce while issuing the impression of elitism and social class when it comes to decision making and influence. Professionally, patriarchy has long since been a present problem while groups may locally assert power through tradition or expertise when people have no apparent attachment to the participation. Furthermore, barriers such as limited time and/or resources hinders people from attending some forms of participation. These problems pose a risk to jeopardise the fundamental reason behind modern public participation and need to be countered through balancing the interest between these groups. The need to empower marginalised groups in some cases grows fourth but has shown to be difficult to identify unless it is known beforehand how the local groups are organised. It is in cases like these that it is hard to pinpoint the exact level of participation and influence according to Arnstein’s ladder, since the power of the citizen varies depending on which group it belongs to.
As Björnson recommends, the need to find neutral ground between groups might grow more important especially if the divide between socioeconomic groups grows bigger and if even news ones are formed. This ties in with the problem of communication as well, when the risk of alienating certain groups based on how the communication and information is presented is a problem since there is always a growing expertise around the subject area of urban planning.
The need to come across to the public with both language and proper modelling is essential if the ideal of proper participation is to live up to its goals.
13
Conclusion and reflection
With an ever-growing incentive for officials and professionals to activate the public, the current views of public participation in Sweden seems to centre around how to improve the dialogue between officials and inhabitants. The participation is not reaching out to everyone which may result in imbalanced feedback from the public. The underlying problem is that there is not enough incentive for the public to attend the public hearings which has led to warped viewpoints and imbalanced opinion related arguments, and therefore need to find new methods outside the current system. These methods may lie in a modernised communication platform, such as social media or more interactive information outlets.
Further research should be made in these areas with a focus point on how to streamline and empower the communication and information to the public and between the concerned actors in the public participation.
14
References
Al-khamisi, R. (2015) ’Dialogen som blev en monolog’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S.
and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, JAIP, Vol. 35, No.4, July 1969, pp.
216-224.
Arkus (2017) Om Arkus, [Online] http://www.arkus.se/om-arkus/ [23 May 2017]
Berglund, K. (2015) ’Debatt – Forma staden i dialog med medborgarna!’, in Bosaeus, M. and Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 1 2015, pp 50-51.
Björnson, M. (2015) ’Stadsplanering på tjejers villkor’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S.
and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
Borén, T. and Young, C. (2015) ’Interaktion mellan konstnärer och planerare’, in Bosaeus, M.
and Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 6 2015, pp 14–17.
Boverket (2014) PBL Kunskapsbanken – en handbok om plan- och bygglagen, [Online]
http://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/Allmant-om-PBL/lag--ratt/plan--och- bygglagsstiftningens-utveckling/ [3 May 2017].
Boverket (2017) Medborgardialog, [Online]
http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/kommunal-planering/medborgardialog1/ [19 May 2017].
Brolund de Carvalho, S. (2015) ’Sökandet efter en arkitektroll i medborgarens tjänst’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
Carlquist, J., Pfister, L., Stjernström, O. and Åkerlund, U. (2017) ’Språk och planering’, in Bosaeus, M. and Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 1 2017, pp 48–51.
Cars, G. (2015) ’Medborgardialog – ett verktyg för att stärka demokratin i samhällsplaneringen?’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
Halldin, M. (2016) ’Mannen i butiken’, in Bornemark, J. (.ed) Medborgardialog – om det svåra i att mötas, Arkus issue 74, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
Håkansson, M. and Olsson, K. (2015) ‘Debatt – Inflytande på medborgarnas villkor’, in Bosaeus, M. and Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 1 2015, pp 52-53.
Lindholm, T. (2015) ’Medborgardialog – ett sätt att bygga socialt kapital?’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
15
Listerborn, C. (2015) ’Medborgarinflytande – om makt, genus och stadsutveckling’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
Sandberg, K. (2016) ’Det goda samtalet’, in Bornemark, J. (.ed) Medborgardialog – om det svåra i att mötas, Arkus issue 74, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
SKL (2017a) Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, https://www.skl.se/ [22 May 2017]
SKL (2017b) Utveckla medborgardialoger i kommuner, landsting och regioner [Online]
https://skl.se/demokratiledningstyrning/medborgardialogdelaktighet/medborgardialog.372.ht ml [22 May 2017]
Tahvilzadeh, N. (2015) ‘Deltagande styrning – optimistiska och pessimistiska perspektiv på medborgardialoger som demokratipolitik’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm:
Stiftelsen Arkus.
Tunström, M. (2015) ’Gemenskap i den hållbara staden – social hållbarhet och medborgarinflytande’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.
Figures
Figure 1, Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, JAIP, Vol. 35, No.4, July 1969, pp. 217.
