HOW IS PARTICIPATORY PLANNING PERCEIVED WITHIN REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM?: A SWEDISH CASE OF ULLERÅKER REGION

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 1082 - 1105, 27.07.2021

Pınar Akarçay

https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.910042

Abstract

The participatory planning approach that emerged in urban planning in recent years is based on collaborative, communicative, and deliberative planning processes that cover the differences. The main purpose of participatory planning is to include the perspective of actors (political representatives, planners, citizens) in planning processes by developing horizontal planning tools and processes among actors. However, the decision-making system in Sweden is built on representative democracy based on top-down policy-making processes and vertical relations. Therefore, the simultaneous coexistence of representative top-down policy-making processes and multi-faceted participatory arrangements make Sweden an interesting example and suggests that some dilemmas and tensions may arise in practice. At this point, in a political system with strong representative democracy like Sweden, it provides important data on how actors perceive participatory planning and how participatory planning is implemented. In this context, this research discussed how participatory planning is perceived in urban planning in the logic of representative democracy in Sweden. Ulleråker region of Uppsala, in particular, was chosen to carry out the field research, and thus, interviews on the subject were conducted in this region with the main actors of decision-making processes in urban planning such as political representatives, public officials/planners, and citizens.

Keywords

Urban Planning, Sweden, Ulleraker Region

TEMSİLİ SİSTEMDE KATILIMCI PLANLAMA NASIL ALGILANMAKTADIR?: İSVEÇ'İN ULLERÅKER BÖLGESİ ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Son yıllarda kent planlamasında ortaya çıkan katılımcı planlama yaklaşımı, farklılıkları kapsayan işbirlikçi, iletişimsel ve müzakereci planlama süreçlerine dayanmaktadır. Katılımcı planlamanın temel amacı, aktörler arasında yatay planlama araçları ve süreçleri geliştirerek, aktörlerin (siyasi temsilciler, planlamacılar, vatandaşlar) bakış açısını planlama süreçlerine dâhil etmektir. Bununla birlikte, İsveç'teki karar alma sistemi, yukarıdan aşağıya politika oluşturma süreçlerine ve dikey ilişkilere dayalı temsili demokrasi üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Bu nedenle, temsili yukarıdan aşağıya politika oluşturma süreçlerinin ve çok yönlü katılımcı düzenlemelerin eşzamanlı olarak bir arada bulunması, İsveç'i ilginç bir örnek haline getirmekte ve uygulamada bazı ikilem ve gerilimlerin ortaya çıkabileceğini önermektedir. Bu noktada, İsveç gibi güçlü temsili demokrasiye sahip bir siyasi sistemde, aktörlerin katılımcı planlamayı nasıl algıladıkları ve katılımcı planlamanın nasıl uygulandığı konusunda önemli veriler sağlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, bu araştırma İsveç'te temsili demokrasi mantığında katılımcı planlamanın kent planlamasında nasıl algılandığını tartışmaktadır. Saha araştırması yapmak için, özellikle Uppsala'nın Ulleråker bölgesi seçilmiş ve bu nedenle, anılan bölgede siyasi temsilciler, kamu görevlileri/planlamacılar gibi kent planlamasında karar alma süreçlerinin ana aktörleri ve vatandaşlar ile konuyla ilgili görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Keywords

İsveç, Katılımcı Mantık, Ulleraker Bölgesi

References

• Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy, Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley University of California.
• Boverket (1998). Vem Bestämmer? Om Medborgarinflytande och Kommunal Planering (Who is in charge? About Citizens’ influence and Municipal Planning). Karlskrona: Boverket.
• Castell, P. (2016). “Institutional Framing of Citizen Initiatives: A Challenge for Advancing Public Participation in Sweden”, International Planning Studies, 21(4), 305-316.
• Danielsson, M., Hertting, N., and Klijn, E.H. (2018). Tricky for good reasons: Institutionalizing local participatory governance in representative democracy. N. Hertting and C. Kugelberg (Ed.). Local participatory governance in representative democracy in (18-63). New York and London: Routledge.
• Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.
• Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451-478.
• Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 165-187.
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. London: Polity Press.
• Hall, P. (1983). The Anglo-American connection: Rival rationalities in planning theory and practice, 1955-1980. Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design 10, 41-46.
• Healey, P. (1992). A Planner’s Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(1), 9-20.
• Healey, P. (1993). The communicative work of development plans. Environment and Planning B, 20, 83-104.
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
• Healey, P. (Ed.) (2008). Interface: Civic engagement, spatial planning and democracy as a way of life. Planning Theory & Practice, 9, 379-414.
• Hedlund, G., and Montin, S. (Ed.) (2009). Governance på svenska. Stockholm: Santérus Academic Press Sweden.
• Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hendriks, F. (2010). Vital democracy: A theory of democracy in action. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
• Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183-191.
• Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through Consensus-Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472.
• Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52-63.
• Khakee, A. (2000). Samhällsplanering. Nya mål, perspektiv och förutsättningar (Planning, New Goals, Perspectives and Premises). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
• Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performances in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Listerborn, C. (2007). Who Speaks? And Who Listens? The Relationship between Planners and Women’s Participation in Local Planning in a Multi-Cultural Urban Environment. GeoJournal, 70(1), 61-74.
• Monno, V., and Khakee, A. (2012). Tokenism or political activism? Some reflections on participatory planning. International Planning Studies, 17(1), 85-101.
• Moote, M. A., McClaran, M. P., and Chickering, D. K. (1997). Theory in practice: Applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 877-889.
• Overdevest, C. (2000). Insights and applications. Participatory democracy, representative democracy and the nature of diffuse and concentrated interests: A case study of public involvement on a national forest district. Society and Natural Resources, 13(7), 685-696.
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. London: Cambridge University Press.
• Stoker, G. (2011). Building a new politics: A report prepared for the British Academy. London: British Academy.
• Strom, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 261-290.
• Tahvilzadeh, N. (2015). Understanding Participatory Governanvce Arrangements in Urban Politics: Idealist and Cynical Perspectives on the Politics of Citizen Dialogues in Goteborg, Sweden. Urban Research & Practice, 8(2), 238-254.
• Uppsala kommun (2016). Ulleråker medborgardialog, Stadsbyggnadsförvaltningen. Uppsala.
• Uppsala Municipality (Uppsala Kommun) (2016). Ulleråker medborgardialog, Rapport: Möte om detaljplan för Vattentornsparken. Uppsala, Sverige: Uppsala Kommun.
• Vandenbussche, L., and Eshuis, J. (2018). A Trojan Horse in the Representative System: Participatory Governance in Rotterdam and the Redevelopment of the Fenix Storehouses. N. Hertting and C. Kugelberg (Ed.). Local participatory governance in representative democracy in (18-63). New York and London: Routledge.
• Warren, M. (1992). Democratic Theory and Self-Transformation. American Political Sciences Review, 86, 8-23.
• Webber, M. M. (1983). The myth of rationality: Development planning reconsidered. Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design, 10, 89-99.
• Vestbro, D. U. (2012). Citizen participation or representative democracy? The case of Stockholm, Sweden. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 29(1), 5-17.