Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Communicative Planning and Participation in Sweden Through Planner’s Perspective: Case of Ullerâker Region

Yıl 2020, Cilt 18, Sayı 37, 657 - 684, 28.07.2020
https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.683917

Öz

The communicative planning approach that has come to the fore in the urban planning literature in the last decades has changed both the urban planning processes and the position and role of the planners. The concept of communicative planning, which carries traditional and hierarchical planning processes to a communicative base by developing dialogue and cooperation between participants/actors, has brought planners beyond being a simple bureaucrat/technocrat as well. This study problematizes how planners perceive and implement the roles of communicative planning for planners. In this problematic context, in this study, which selected Ulleråker urban planning project in Uppsala, Sweden as a case study, face-to-face semi-structured interview data with 13 planners who worked in Ulleråker project were analyzed.

Kaynakça

  • Allmendinger, Philip; Tewdwr-Jones, Mark (2002). “The Communicative Turn in Urban Planning: Unravelling Paradigmatic, Imperialistic and Moralistic Dimensions”, Space & Polity, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 5-24. Ball, Michael (1998). “Institutions in British Property Research: A Review”, Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 1501-1517. Beckman, Norman (1964). “The Planner as a Bureaucrat”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 323-327. Booher, David E.; Innes, Judith E. (2002). “Network Power in Collaborative Planning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 221-236. Boverket (1998, 2006, 2010). Vem Bestämmer? Om Medborgarinflytande och Kommunal Planering (Who is in charge? About Citizens’ influence and Municipal Planning), (Karlskrona, Sweden: Boverket Pubs.). Castell, Pal (2012). “Dialogues and Citizen Initiatives in Stigmatized Urban Areas: Reflections on the Development of Participatory Planning Principles in Gothenburg”, Paper presented at the IFHP 56th World Congress: Inclusive Cities in a Global World, Gothenburg, Sweden. Castell, Pal (2016). “Institutional Framing of Citizen Initiatives: A Challenge for Advancing Public Participation in Sweden”, International Planning Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 305-316. Danielsson, Marianne; Hertting, Nils; Klijn, Erik-Hans (2018). “Tricky for Good Reasons: Institutionalizing Local Participatory Governance in Representative Democracy”, (Eds. Nils Hertting; Clarissa Kugelberg), Local Participatory Governance and Representative Democracy: Institutional Dilemmas in European Cities, (pp. 18-63), (New York and London: Routledge). Dryzek, John S. (1990). Discursive Democracy, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). Dryzek, John S. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press). Fainstein, Susan S. (2000). “New Directions in Planning Theory”, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 451-478. Fischer, Frank; Forester, John (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, (London: The University College London (UCL) Press). Forester, John (1989). Planning in the Face of Power, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press). Forester, John (1992). “Critical Ethnography: On Field Work in a Harbemasian Way”, (Eds. Mats Alvesson ve Hugh Willmott), Criticial Management Studies, (pp. 46-65), (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Pubs.). Forester, John (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Fox-Rogers, Linda; Murphy, Enda (2015). “Self-Perceptions of the Role of the Planner”, Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, Vol. 47, pp. 1-19. George, Alexander L.; Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Gilljam, Mikael (2006). “Demokratisk samhällsplanering klämd mellan sköldar: Om avigsidirna med medborgardialog och expertinflytante (Democratic planning squashed between Shileds: On the disadvantages of citizen dialogue and expert influence”, (Eds. Gösta Blücher; Göran Graninger), Planering med nya förutsättningar: Ny lagstiftning, nya värderingar (Planning with new conditions: New legislation, new values), (pp. 25-37), (Linköping: Linköping University Interdisciplinary Studies). Habermas, Jürgen (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, (London: Polity Press). Harris, Neil (2002). “Collaborative Planning: From Theoretical Foundations to Practice Forms”, (Eds. Philip Allmendinger; Mark Tewdwr-Jones), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, (pp. 21-43), (London: Routledge). Healey, Patsy (1992). “A Planner’s Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 9-20. Healey, Patsy (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, (London: Macmillan Press). Healey, Patsy (1998). “Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, pp. 1531-1546. Henecke, Birgitta; Khan, Jamil (2002). “Medborgardeltagande i den fysiska planeringen: en demokratiteoretisk analys av lagstiftning, retorik och praktik (Citizen participation in physical planning: A democracy theoretical analysis of law, rhetorics and practices)”, Working Paper in Sociology, Lund University, Lund. Hibbard, Michael; Lurie, Susan (2000). “Saving Land but Losing Ground: Challenges to Community Planning in the Era of Participation”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 187-195. Hooper, Alan J. (1992). “The Construction of Theory: A Comment”, Journal of Property Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 45-48. Innes, Judith E. (1995). “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 183-189. Innes, Judith E. (1996). “Planning through Consensus-Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 460-472. Innes, Judith E. (1998). “Information in Communicative Planning”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 52-63. Innes, Judith E.; Booher, David E. (2000). “Planning Institutions in the Network Society: Theory for Collaborative Planning”, (Eds. Willem Salet; Andreas Faludi), The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, (pp. 175-189), (Amsterdam, NL: Royal Amsterdam Academy of Arts and Science). Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performances in Thirty-Six Countries, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Listerborn, Carina (2007). “Who Speaks? And Who Listens? The Relationship between Planners and Women’s Participation in Local Planning in a Multi-Cultural Urban Environment”, GeoJournal, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 61-74. Mazza, Luigi (1995). “Technical Knowledge, Practical Reason and the Planner’s Responsibility”, The Town Planning Review, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 389-409. Monno, Valeria; Khakee, Abdul (2012). “Tokenism or Political Activism? Some Reflections on Participatory Planning”, International Planning Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 85-101. Moote, Margaret A.; McClaran, Mitchel P.; Chickering, Donna K. (1997). “Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning”, Environmental Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 877-889. Overdevest, Christine (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, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 685-696. Sager, Tore (1994). Communicative Planning Theory, (Aldershot, UK: Avebury). SKL (Sveriges kommuner och landsting/ The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions) (2008). Lyssna och lyssna igen: medborgardialoger i fem kommuner (Listen and Listen Again: Citizen Dialogues in Five Municipalities), (Stockholm: Sveriges kommuner och landsting). Tahvilzadeh, Nazem (2015). “Understanding Participatory Governanvce Arrangements in Urban Politics: Idealist and Cynical Perspectives on the Politics of Citizen Dialogues in Göteborg, Sweden”, Urban Research & Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 238-254. Uppsala Municipality (Uppsala Kommun) (2016). Ulleråker medborgardialog, Rapport: Möte om detaljplan för Vattentornsparken, (pp. 1-10), (Uppsala, Sverige: Uppsala Kommun). Vestbro, Dick Urban (2012). “Citizen Participation or Representative Democracy? The Case of Stockholm, Sweden”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 5-17.

Communicative Planning and Participation in Sweden Through Planner’s Perspective: Case of Ullerâker Region

Yıl 2020, Cilt 18, Sayı 37, 657 - 684, 28.07.2020
https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.683917

Öz

The communicative planning approach that has come to the fore in the urban planning literature in the last decades has changed both the urban planning processes and the position and role of the planners. The concept of communicative planning, which carries traditional and hierarchical planning processes to a communicative base by developing dialogue and cooperation between participants/actors, has brought planners beyond being a simple bureaucrat/technocrat as well. This study problematizes how planners perceive and implement the roles of communicative planning for planners. In this problematic context, in this study, which selected Ulleråker urban planning project in Uppsala, Sweden as a case study, face-to-face semi-structured interview data with 13 planners who worked in Ulleråker project were analyzed.

Kaynakça

  • Allmendinger, Philip; Tewdwr-Jones, Mark (2002). “The Communicative Turn in Urban Planning: Unravelling Paradigmatic, Imperialistic and Moralistic Dimensions”, Space & Polity, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 5-24. Ball, Michael (1998). “Institutions in British Property Research: A Review”, Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 1501-1517. Beckman, Norman (1964). “The Planner as a Bureaucrat”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 323-327. Booher, David E.; Innes, Judith E. (2002). “Network Power in Collaborative Planning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 221-236. Boverket (1998, 2006, 2010). Vem Bestämmer? Om Medborgarinflytande och Kommunal Planering (Who is in charge? About Citizens’ influence and Municipal Planning), (Karlskrona, Sweden: Boverket Pubs.). Castell, Pal (2012). “Dialogues and Citizen Initiatives in Stigmatized Urban Areas: Reflections on the Development of Participatory Planning Principles in Gothenburg”, Paper presented at the IFHP 56th World Congress: Inclusive Cities in a Global World, Gothenburg, Sweden. Castell, Pal (2016). “Institutional Framing of Citizen Initiatives: A Challenge for Advancing Public Participation in Sweden”, International Planning Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 305-316. Danielsson, Marianne; Hertting, Nils; Klijn, Erik-Hans (2018). “Tricky for Good Reasons: Institutionalizing Local Participatory Governance in Representative Democracy”, (Eds. Nils Hertting; Clarissa Kugelberg), Local Participatory Governance and Representative Democracy: Institutional Dilemmas in European Cities, (pp. 18-63), (New York and London: Routledge). Dryzek, John S. (1990). Discursive Democracy, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). Dryzek, John S. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press). Fainstein, Susan S. (2000). “New Directions in Planning Theory”, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 451-478. Fischer, Frank; Forester, John (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, (London: The University College London (UCL) Press). Forester, John (1989). Planning in the Face of Power, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press). Forester, John (1992). “Critical Ethnography: On Field Work in a Harbemasian Way”, (Eds. Mats Alvesson ve Hugh Willmott), Criticial Management Studies, (pp. 46-65), (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Pubs.). Forester, John (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Fox-Rogers, Linda; Murphy, Enda (2015). “Self-Perceptions of the Role of the Planner”, Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, Vol. 47, pp. 1-19. George, Alexander L.; Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Gilljam, Mikael (2006). “Demokratisk samhällsplanering klämd mellan sköldar: Om avigsidirna med medborgardialog och expertinflytante (Democratic planning squashed between Shileds: On the disadvantages of citizen dialogue and expert influence”, (Eds. Gösta Blücher; Göran Graninger), Planering med nya förutsättningar: Ny lagstiftning, nya värderingar (Planning with new conditions: New legislation, new values), (pp. 25-37), (Linköping: Linköping University Interdisciplinary Studies). Habermas, Jürgen (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, (London: Polity Press). Harris, Neil (2002). “Collaborative Planning: From Theoretical Foundations to Practice Forms”, (Eds. Philip Allmendinger; Mark Tewdwr-Jones), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, (pp. 21-43), (London: Routledge). Healey, Patsy (1992). “A Planner’s Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 9-20. Healey, Patsy (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, (London: Macmillan Press). Healey, Patsy (1998). “Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, pp. 1531-1546. Henecke, Birgitta; Khan, Jamil (2002). “Medborgardeltagande i den fysiska planeringen: en demokratiteoretisk analys av lagstiftning, retorik och praktik (Citizen participation in physical planning: A democracy theoretical analysis of law, rhetorics and practices)”, Working Paper in Sociology, Lund University, Lund. Hibbard, Michael; Lurie, Susan (2000). “Saving Land but Losing Ground: Challenges to Community Planning in the Era of Participation”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 187-195. Hooper, Alan J. (1992). “The Construction of Theory: A Comment”, Journal of Property Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 45-48. Innes, Judith E. (1995). “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 183-189. Innes, Judith E. (1996). “Planning through Consensus-Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 460-472. Innes, Judith E. (1998). “Information in Communicative Planning”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 52-63. Innes, Judith E.; Booher, David E. (2000). “Planning Institutions in the Network Society: Theory for Collaborative Planning”, (Eds. Willem Salet; Andreas Faludi), The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, (pp. 175-189), (Amsterdam, NL: Royal Amsterdam Academy of Arts and Science). Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performances in Thirty-Six Countries, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Listerborn, Carina (2007). “Who Speaks? And Who Listens? The Relationship between Planners and Women’s Participation in Local Planning in a Multi-Cultural Urban Environment”, GeoJournal, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 61-74. Mazza, Luigi (1995). “Technical Knowledge, Practical Reason and the Planner’s Responsibility”, The Town Planning Review, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 389-409. Monno, Valeria; Khakee, Abdul (2012). “Tokenism or Political Activism? Some Reflections on Participatory Planning”, International Planning Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 85-101. Moote, Margaret A.; McClaran, Mitchel P.; Chickering, Donna K. (1997). “Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning”, Environmental Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 877-889. Overdevest, Christine (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, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 685-696. Sager, Tore (1994). Communicative Planning Theory, (Aldershot, UK: Avebury). SKL (Sveriges kommuner och landsting/ The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions) (2008). Lyssna och lyssna igen: medborgardialoger i fem kommuner (Listen and Listen Again: Citizen Dialogues in Five Municipalities), (Stockholm: Sveriges kommuner och landsting). Tahvilzadeh, Nazem (2015). “Understanding Participatory Governanvce Arrangements in Urban Politics: Idealist and Cynical Perspectives on the Politics of Citizen Dialogues in Göteborg, Sweden”, Urban Research & Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 238-254. Uppsala Municipality (Uppsala Kommun) (2016). Ulleråker medborgardialog, Rapport: Möte om detaljplan för Vattentornsparken, (pp. 1-10), (Uppsala, Sverige: Uppsala Kommun). Vestbro, Dick Urban (2012). “Citizen Participation or Representative Democracy? The Case of Stockholm, Sweden”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 5-17.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Pinar AKARÇAY> (Sorumlu Yazar)
TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-5231-0567
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Temmuz 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 3 Şubat 2020
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020, Cilt 18, Sayı 37

Kaynak Göster

APA Akarçay, P. (2020). Communicative Planning and Participation in Sweden Through Planner’s Perspective: Case of Ullerâker Region . Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi , 18 (37) , 657-684 . DOI: 10.35408/comuybd.683917