2004
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN: 2452-1051

Abstract

Abstract

This paper aims to ground the research paradigm of public engagement within the field of landscape and heritage. Both the European Landscape Convention and the Faro Convention, major international agreements that shape both these dimensions, stress the need to reinforce the democratic nature of projects. This participation needs to go beyond informing stakeholders and formal hearings, and community values and ideas should be included in the planning process. This entails addressing the complexities of stakeholder deliberation and the solution of thorny problems. The present study examines in detail four case studies from the Netherlands, Slovenia and Denmark, in which public participation was crucial in different stages of the project development. The methodologies employed, as well as the effect that such engagement had on the general results, will be highlighted. Finally, the discussion of results will evaluate the findings through the lens of deliberative democracy within territorial planning.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2020.1.56265
2020-12-01
2023-02-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/24521051/1/1/JEL.2020.1.56265.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2020.1.56265&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Arnstein, Sherry R.“A Ladder of Citizen Participation.”Journal of the American Institute of Planners35, no. 4(1969): 216–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arts, Bas, MarleenBuizer, LuminaHorlings, VerinaIngram, Coravan Oosten, and PaulOpdam. “Landscape Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review.”Annual Review of Environment and Resources42, no. 1(2017): 439–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060932
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Azcárate, Juan. “Fostering Participation and Dialogue Using Strategic Environmental Assessment.”Licentiate, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barratt, Mark, and AlexanderOliveira. “Exploring the Experiences of Collaborative Planning Initiatives.”International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management31, no. 4(2001): 266–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030110394932
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer, Martin W.“The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science—Discourse and Comparative Evidence.”Science Technology & Society14, no. 2(2009): 221–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benhabib, Seyla. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by SeylaBenhabib, 67-94. Princeton (USA): Princeton University Press, 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bole, David, Mateja ŠmidHribar, and PrimožPipan. “Participatory Research in Community Development: A Case Study of Creating Cultural Tourism Products.”AUC Geographica52, no. 2(2017). https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2017.13
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolton, Roger E. “A Comparison of a Habermas-Inspired Approach and Economists’ Approaches to Social Capital.” In North American Regional Science Council Conference. Washington (USA): North American Regional Science Association, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Callon, Michel, PierreLascoumes, and YannickBarthe. Agir Dans Un Monde Incertain. Essai Sur La Démocratie Technique.Paris: Seuil, 2001.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cegan, Jeffrey, AshleyFilion, JeffreyKeisler, and IgorLinkov. “Trends and Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Sciences: Literature Review.”Environment Systems & Decisions37, no. 2(2017): 123–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-017-9642-9
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Christensen, Andreas Aagaard, Lone SøderkvistKristensen, and JørgenPrimdahl. “Landbrugsundersøgelse Form Området Flyndersø – Sønder Lem Vig, Skive Kommune.” In Arbejdsrapport Skov & Landskab, 34. Copenhague: Københavns Universitet, 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. CoE. The European Landscape Convention. Ets. Vol. 176: Council of Europe, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Collins, Harry M., and Robert J.Evans. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.”Social Studies of Science32, no. 2(2002): 235–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Conrad, Elisabeth, Louis F.Cassar,MichaelJones, SebastianEiter, ZitaIzaovičová, ZuzanaBarankova, MikeChristie, and IoanFazey. “Rhetoric and Reporting of Public Participation in Landscape Policy.”Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning13, no. 1(2011): 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2011.560449
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Contreras, Santina. “Using Arnstein’s Ladder as an Evaluative Framework for the Assessment of Participatory Work in Postdisaster Haiti.”Journal of the American Planning Association85, no. 3(2019): 219–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1618728
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cvitanovic, Christopher, MarkHowden, R. M.Colvin, AlbertNorström, Alison M.Meadow, and P. F. E.Addison. “Maximising the Benefits of Participatory Climate Adaptation Research by Understanding and Managing the Associated Challenges and Risks.”Environmental Science & Policy94(2019): 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.028
    [Google Scholar]
  17. De Meo, Isabella, FabrizioFerretti, AlessandroPaletto, and Maria GiuliaCantiani. “An Approach to Public Involvement in Forest Landscape Planning in Italy: A Case Study and Its Evaluation.”Annals of Silvicultural Research41, no. 2(2017): 13.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. DN Urbland. Poorten Van Midden-Delfland, Verslag En Visualisatie Workshop ‘Poorten Van Midden-Delfland’ - November 2007. Delft: DN Urbland, 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryzek, John S.Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dryzek, John S.“Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building.”Comparative Political Studies42, no. 11(2009): 1379–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009332129
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dryzek, John S.Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dryzek, John S., and SimonNiemeyer. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dryzek, John S., and SimonNiemeyer. “Mini-Publics and Their Macro Consequences.” Chap. 8 In Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance, edited by John S.Dryzek and SimonNiemeyer, 156-77. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Egoz, Shelley, KarstenJørgensen, and DeniRuggeri, eds. Defining Landscape Democracy. A Path to Spatial Justice, Social and Political Science: Edward Elgar, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786438348
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Egoz, Shelley, JalaMakhzoumi, and GloriaPungetti, eds. The Right to Landscape. Contesting Landscape and Human Rights: Routledge, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Eiter, Sebastian, and Marte LangeVik. “Public Participation in Landscape Planning: Effective Methods for Implementing the European Landscape Convention in Norway.”Land Use Policy44(2015): 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.012
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Evans-Cowley, Jennifer, and JustinHollander. “The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet-Based Participation Tools.”Planning Practice & Research25, no. 3(2010): 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503432
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Faehnle, Maija. “Collaborative Planning of Urban Green Infrastructure – Need, Quality, Evaluation, and Design.”PhD, University of Helsinki, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Faehnle, Maija, PiaBäcklund, LiisaTyrväinen, JariNiemelä, and VesaYli-Pelkonen. “How Can Residents – Experiences Inform Planning of Urban Green Infrastructure? Case Finland.”Landscape and Urban Planning130(2014): 171–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.012
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Forester, John. “On the Theory and Practice of Critical Pragmatism: Deliberative Practice and Creative Negotiations.”Planning Theory12, no. 1(2013): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212448750
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fors, Hanna, Julie FrøikMolin, Melissa AnnaMurphy, and Cecil Konijnendijkvan den Bosch. “User Participation in Urban Green Spaces – for the People or the Parks?”. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening14, no. 3(2015): 722–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.007
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Freeman, Claire, KarenNairn, and JudithSligo. “’Professionalising’ Participation: From Rhetoric to Practice.”Children’s Geographies1, no. 1(2003): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280302182
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gagné, Sara A., FelixEigenbrod, Daniel G.Bert, Glenn M.Cunnington, Leif T.Olson, Adam C.Smith, and LenoreFahrig. “A Simple Landscape Design Framework for Biodiversity Conservation.”Landscape and Urban Planning136(2015): 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.006
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gorjup-Kavčič, Mojca, UrškaBajec, IvanRudolf, LilijanaHomovec, JožeČar, AnkaVončina, PrimožPipan, and RomanRupnik. The Črni Vrh Plateau: Part of the Alpine-Dinaric Transition Zone. Založba ZRC, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Griffioen, Jan. Gebiedsvisie Midden-Delfland® 2025. Midden-Delfland: Gemeente Midden-Delfland, 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis F.Thompson. Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton (USA): Princeton University Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826339
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Translated by ChristianLenhardt and Shierry WeberNicholsen. 2 ed. Cambridge (USA): The MIT Press, 1990 [1983].
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Haklay, Muki, PiotrJankowski, and ZbigniewZwoliński. “Selected Modern Methods and Tools for Public Participation in Urban Planning – a Review.” [In English]. Quaestiones Geographicae37, no. 3(2018): 127. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018-0030
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Head, Brian W., and Wei-NingXiang. “Why Is an Apt Approach to Wicked Problems Important?”. Landscape and Urban Planning154(2016): 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.018
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Healey, Patsy. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Healey, Patsy. “In Search of the “Strategic” in Spatial Strategy Making.”Planning Theory & Practice10, no. 4(2009): 439–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903417191
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoch, Charles. What Planners Do: Powers, Politics and Persuasion. Chicago: APA, 1994.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Huang, Ivy B., JeffreyKeisler, and IgorLinkov. “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Sciences: Ten Years of Applications and Trends.”Science of The Total Environment409, no. 19(2011): 3578–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Innes, Judith E., and David E.Booher. “Collaborative Rationality as a Strategy for Working with Wicked Problems.”Landscape and Urban Planning154(2016): 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.016
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Innes, Judith E., and David E.Booher. “Public Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century.”Institute of Urban & Regional Development: University of California Berkeley, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Innes, Judith E., and David E.Booher. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century.”Planning Theory & Practice5, no. 4(2004): 419–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Innes, Judith E., and JudithGruber. “Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission.”Journal of the American Planning Association71, no. 2(2005): 177–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976691
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Jones, Michael. “European Landscape and Participation – Rhetoric or Reality?”. In The European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation, edited by MichaelJones and MarieStenseke, 27-44. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9932-7_2
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Karjalainen, Timo P., MikaMarttunen, SimoSarkki, and Anne-MariRytkönen. “Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Impact Assessment: An Analytic–Deliberative Approach.”Environmental Impact Assessment Review40(2013): 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.001
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kleinman, Daniel Lee. “Democratizations of Science and Technology.” In Science, Technology, and Democracy, edited by Daniel LeeKleinman. Science, Technology, and Society139-65. Albany (US): SUNY Press, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kleinman, Daniel Lee., ed. Science, Technology, and Democracy, Science, Technology, and Society Albany(US): SUNY Press, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Langemeyer, Johannes, ErikGómez-Baggethun, DagmarHaase, SebastianScheuer, and ThomasElmqvist. “Bridging the Gap between Ecosystem Service Assessments and Land-Use Planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (Mcda).”Environmental Science & Policy62(2016): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., and Lars HasselbladTorres. “Public Deliberation: A Manager’s Guide to Citizen Engagement.” In Collaboration Series, 68: IBM Center for The Business of Government, 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. MacDonald, Sharon. Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum. Materializing Culture. Oxford: Berg, 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Mann, Carsten, MariaGarcia-Martin, Christopher M.Raymond, Brian J.Shaw, and TobiasPlieninger. “The Potential for Integrated Landscape Management to Fulfil Europe’s Commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals.”Landscape and Urban Planning177 (2018/09/01/ 2018): 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.017
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Martin, Carcasson. “Tackling Wicked Problems through Deliberative Engagement.”National Civic Review105, no. 1(2016): 44–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21258
    [Google Scholar]
  57. May, Jon, and NigelThrift. Timespace: Geographies of Temporality. Routledge, 2003. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203360675
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Menzel, Susanne, and JackTeng. “Ecosystem Services as a Stakeholder-Driven Concept for Conservation Science.”Conservation Biology24, no. 3(2010): 907–09. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01347.x
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Mouffe, Chantal. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?”. Social Research66, no. 3(1999): 745–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mumpower, Jeryl L.“Selecting and Evaluating Tools and Methods for Public Participation.”International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management1, no. 1(2001): 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2001.001745
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Paletto, Alessandro, Maria GiuliaCantiani, and IsabellaDe Meo. “Public Participation in Forest Landscape Management Planning (Flmp) in Italy.”Journal of Sustainable Forestry34, no. 5(2015): 465–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2015.1026447
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Parkins, John R., and Ross E.Mitchell. “Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management.”Society & Natural Resources18, no. 6(2005): 529–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947977
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pedroli, Bas, Teresa PintoCorreia, and JørgenPrimdahl. “Challenges for a Shared European Countryside of Uncertain Future. Towards a Modern Community-Based Landscape Perspective.”Landscape Research41, no. 4(2016): 450–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1156072
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pocewicz, Amy, MaxNielsen-Pincus, GregBrown, and RussSchnitzer. “An Evaluation of Internet Versus Paper-Based Methods for Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (Ppgis).”Transactions in GIS16, no. 1(2012): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1156072
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Primdahl, Jørgen, and Lone SøderkvistKristensen. “Landscape Strategy Making and Landscape Characterisation – Experiences from Danish Experimental Planning Processes.”Landscape Research41, no. 2(2016): 227–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2015.1135322
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Primdahl, Jørgen, Lone SøderkvistKristensen, FinnArler, PerAngelstam, Andreas AagaardChristensen, and MarineElbakidze. “Rural Landscape Governance and Expertise: On Landscape Agents and Democracy.” In Defining Landscape Democracy. A Path to Spatial Justice, edited by ShelleyEgoz, KarstenJørgensen and DeniRuggeri. Social and Political Science 2018, 153-64. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786438348.00024
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M.Webber. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.”Policy Sciences4, no. 2(1973): 155–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Rodela, Romina. “Advancing the Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management: An Analysis of Discourses on the Use of Local Resources.”Journal of Environmental Management96, no. 1(2012): 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.013
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Rothblatt, Donald N.“Rational Planning Reexamined.”Journal of the American Institute of Planners37, no. 1(1971): 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367108977351
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Schröter, Matthias, Emma H.van der Zanden, Alexander P. E.van Oudenhoven, Roy P.Remme, Hector M.Serna-Chavez, Rudolf S.de Groot, and PaulOpdam. “Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments.”Conservation Letters7, no. 6(2014): 514–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Shuib, Kamarul Bahrain, HabsahHashim, and Nurul AkmanizaMohd Nasir. “Community Participation Strategies in Planning for Urban Parks.”Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences168(2015): 311–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.236
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Sjölander-Lindqvist, Annelie, PetraAdolfsson, and AnnaBohlin. “Negotiations on Place and Heritage: Public Participation as Social Drama.”The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social and Community Studies8(2014): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.18848/2324-7576/CGP/v08i03/53517
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Šmid Hribar, Mateja, DavidBole, and PrimožPipan. “Sustainable Heritage Management: Social, Economic and Other Potentials of Culture in Local Development.”Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences188(2015): 103–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.344
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Šmid Hribar, Mateja, JaniKozina, DavidBole, and MimiUrbanc. “Public Goods, Common-Pool Resources, and the Commons: The Influence of Historical Legacy on Modern Perceptions in Slovenia as a Transitional Society.”Urbani Izziv29, no. 1(2018): 96–109. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2018-29-01-004
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Šmid Hribar, Mateja, and Špela LedinekLozej. “The Role of Identifying and Managing Cultural Values in Rural Development.”53, no. 2(2013): 8. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53402
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Söderholm, Patrik. “The Deliberative Approach in Environmental Valuation.”Journal of Economic Issues35, no. 2 (2001/06/012001): 487–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2001.11506383
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Søderkvist Kristensen, Lone, JørgenPrimdahl, and HenrikVejre, eds. Dialogbaseret Planlægning I Det Åbne Land – Om Strategier for Kulturlandskabets Fremtid. Nykøbing Sjælland (DK): Bogværket, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Southern, Adrian, AndrewLovett, TimO’Riordan, and AndrewWatkinson. “Sustainable Landscape Governance: Lessons from a Catchment Based Study in Whole Landscape Design.”Landscape and urban planning101, no. 2(2011): 179–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.010
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stephenson, Janet. “The Cultural Values Model: An Integrated Approach to Values in Landscapes.”Landscape and Urban Planning84, no. 2(2008): 127–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.003
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Swensen, Grete, Gro B.Jerpåsen, OddrunSæter, and Mari S.Tveit. “Alternative Perspectives? The Implementation of Public Participation in Local Heritage Planning.”Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography66, no. 4 (2012/09/012012): 213–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2012.707988
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Tritter, Jonathan Quetzal, and AlisonMcCallum. “The Snakes and Ladders of User Involvement: Moving Beyond Arnstein.”Health Policy76, no. 2 (2006/04/01/ 2006): 156–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008
    [Google Scholar]
  83. van der Ploeg, Gemma, EricSpaans, JanGriffioen, RolfResink, and IngeborgSchuitemaker. Meesterwerkenmaak Je Samen. Ottoland (Molenwaard): Future Search, 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Wates, Nick. The Community Planning Handbook: How People Can Shape Their Cities, Towns & Villages in Any Part of the World. London: Earthscan, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Zorn, Matija, PeterKumer, and MatejaFerk. “Od Gozda Do Gozda, Ali Kje Je Goli, Kamniti Kras?”. Kronika63, no. 3: Iz zgodovine Krasa (2015): 561–74.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2020.1.56265
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2020.1.56265
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error