Author
Abstract
From around 1970 protests against many plans in Norway forced discussions about the role and results of planning. Protest came from people directly affected by plans and many others concerned about the environment. Planning was criticised for among other things, neglecting local interests and protection issues and for being authoritarian and directed from the top down. At the root of the criticism was a rejection of the prevailing politics and planning ideology. Demands for more democratic planning arose. Through experiments, partly initiated and encouraged by The Ministry of the Environment during the 1970s and 1980s, and extended process rules in the Planning and Building Act, the idea of public participation gradually emerged and became a commonly accepted part of plan preparation. The main picture is that planning in these years developed from an instrumental rationality into a more communicative approach, many plans were changed so that inhabitants could accept them, and public participation created innovative proposals. From the 1990s citizens' influence on planning became challenged by co-operation between developers and public agencies and by privately initiated local plans where great power lies in developers' hands. In this article the development of public participation in Norwegian physical planning is discussed. Some methods used and results achieved are analysed, illustrated with examples from practice. In the concluding part of the article some features of tomorrow's planning in Norway are discussed with regard to public participation and co-operation, and a proposal for stronger public control over the planning process is made.
Suggested Citation
Helge Fiskaa, 2005.
"Past and future for public participation in Norwegian physical planning,"
European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 157-174, January.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:13:y:2005:i:1:p:157-174
DOI: 10.1080/0965431042000312451
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:13:y:2005:i:1:p:157-174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEPS20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.