Corresponding author: Guillermo Reher ( guillermo.reher@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Linde Egberts
© 2020 Guillermo Reher, Véronique Karine Simon, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Lone Kristensen, Jørgen Primdahl.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Reher G, Simon VK, Šmid Hribar M, Kristensen L, Primdahl J (2020) Approaches to collaborative landscape analysis and planning. Journal of European Landscapes 1: 49-63. https://doi.org/10.5117/JEL.2020.1.56265
|
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.
public participation, landscape, European Landscape Convention, planning
Public or non-expert, participation in research has increasingly become an aspiration placed upon the research community by both science and public policymakers.
Although this aspiration is not alien to the field of planning
Despite new governance rhetoric aimed to mandatorily include public participation in planning and managing, it is a substantial challenge to carry this out.
One of the outcomes of these changes regarding participation has been the recent development of Integrated Landscape Management –ILM–, which has public participation as a cornerstone. In analysing ILM, Mann has identified clear positive outputs of community engagement in planning but also a glaring lack of effective tools to carry it out.
The collaborative planning concept, which originated in the mid 1980’s
Innes & Booher have identified four models of planning, from the most traditional to the most innovative, where the role and participation of the public in planning increases concomitantly.
John Dryzek is one of the main theorists behind the principle of deliberative democracy, a theory which roots the legitimacy of democracy on free and open debate –deliberation–, when that debate can affect the outcome of political decisions.
A deliberative system is composed by the following elements
• Public space: a free space for open discussion, which can range from social media to public squares.
• Empowered space: a space for discussion promoted or recognized by institutions.
• Transmission: a mechanism where public space can influence empowered space.
• Accountability: a mechanism of control of empowered space by public space.
• Decisiveness: the previous four elements contribute to political decision.
More recently, Dryzek has published a review of the theory and application of deliberative governance.
One strand of deliberative theory has focused on the potential for approaching ‘wicked problems’, i.e. ill-defined problems depending on elusive political judgement for resolution.
The deliberative approach has been used in many instances to negotiate problems.
However, as Innes and Booher indicate, the deliberative model still remains “the least privileged, the least recognized, and the least understood of the models”.
This tradition in landscape planning however appears to fall short from the running paradigms of deliberative democracy theory.
The aim of this paper is to contribute to existing scholarship on public participation in rural landscape planning by providing case studies that involved varied but comparable methodologies. This will be done by contending to Opdam’s observation that there is much to be said for applying a deliberative approach to landscape planning. This requires involvement of the community in order to exchange and share knowledge and values, as an alternative and supplement to top-down analysis and solutions. This article builds upon the literature of previous studies that have evaluated participation processes in planning and management. It provides an analytical framework described in the methodology section for assessing some of the tools and methods that can be used, helping to overcome the challenge described above.
Based on a literature review, Paul Opdam noted that “it is obvious that the scientific state of the art is not ready to deliver adequate tools to support community-based landscape planning”.
The public participation paradigm responds to a general challenge of traditional forms of expert roles in society, such as the so-called dissemination model –also known as “deficit model”– in which the boundaries between experts and the public are blurred but not eliminated.
This debate, hence, has much to do with how knowledge is conceived in our society. A common response to this is to increase the amount of knowledge transmission, and facilitate the positive effects that science has on society: knowledge transfer. In planning this usually involves a closer relation between research and the planning process and governance.
Dryzek himself has addressed the potential of applying deliberative theory to environmental sciences.
Conrad et al. have claimed that “…there is … a need for more explicit assessment and evaluation of public participation procedures, introducing a stronger element of rigour”.
One such study can be found in the production of a Forest Landscape Management Plan in Italy, which involved a detailed participation process at an initial stage, that turned out to be very successful –as proven by a second participatory process– both in implementing the management plan, and in providing the participants with many benefits.
There is ample experience of the different methods used to ensure public participation. The pioneering study of Mumpower, for instance, contrasted the various techniques with the constraints they suffered, including the competing reasons for doing participation, as well as the negotiation of different expectations.
Measuring the success of participation is as old as the paradigm itself, as the ‘ladder of participation’ created by Sherry Arnstein bears witness.
According to Primdahl and Kristensen
• Landscape as a common good
• Landscape rights: users vs. owners
• Landscape as a development factor
Whereas the first two are closely related to conflict management, the latter is linked to place-making. Both must be dealt with in all landscape planning processes, although the ‘right’ combination of conflict management and place-making is context-dependent.
In this study there are four experiences derived from case studies which have taken place in the more traditional realm of in-person exchange. The cases have been chosen because they have been followed through to the implementation phase, and they have included a deliberative approach to the research, planning project or implementation phases. The experience and techniques used for participation are shared, and evaluated, and conclusions will be reached regarding the best strategies with which to ensure their success.
Specific issues to be described will be the public participation methodology (data source, data gatherers, workshops, use of mediators and facilitators, exhibitions, kitchen-table discussions, etc.), the effect of this participation on the recommendations, and the evidence of the impact of this participation on the final result. These issues will be analysed and discussed in the discussion section.
The Črni Vrh plateau is in the Municipality of Idrija in Slovenia which was included, together with Almaden (Spain), in the UNESCO World Heritage List, as the largest mercury mine in the world. The Črni Vrh plateau, encompassing several karst fields, sinkholes, and forested mountain ridges, is in the southern part of the municipality. For ages, this unique environment, with its harsh living conditions, has offered its inhabitants a rigorous but prosperous way of life. Since the Middle Ages it has been in contact with other regions thanks to a road connecting it with the coast. The mid-19th century saw a rapid development of cottage industries (joinery, basketry, rake-making, shoemaking, lacemaking, and the production of linen and pails). Additionally, in the inter-war period tourism also flourished.
The municipality of Idrija was a case study within the project SY_CULTour – Synergy of Culture and Tourism: Utilisation of Cultural Potentials in Less Favoured Rural Regions –, which started in March 2011 and lasted 3 years. The local community of the Črni Vrh plateau was chosen as a specific pilot area after consultations with the municipality and with the Idrija and Cerkno Developmental Agency –ICRA– in 2012. At the time, 654 people lived within the pilot area’s main village, and 1250 on the whole plateau. Additionally, Črni Vrh had never benefited from involvement in comparable development projects in the past, and the municipal government showed keen interest in testing new strategies that would produce sustainable development.
Initial fieldwork followed standard methodologies, including documenting listed cultural heritage assets, and the definition of landscape characters. Local participation, therefore, followed a traditional appraisal survey on behalf of the research team. It would, however, have a profound effect in the second part of the research phase, as well as in the implementation phase.
Initially, the strategy was to use local mediators, people who could be used as relays and collectors of local stakeholders. This method failed to bring together a representative group, prompting the research team to contact stakeholders – public institutions, companies, tourism, individuals etc.– directly for the first workshop in Fall 2012. A combination of internet search, field work, and phone conversations provided enough information to identify and select individuals who could be instrumental to the project. This started a process were contacts led to further contacts, and even to other participants becoming interested. Eventually, more than 40 people attended the first meeting. Overall, the following 7 workshops convened forty-five to fifty people. In these meetings the Geopark Idrija was always included, due to their interest in the oversight of further development in this area in the future.
The participation was high and people were willing to meet, discuss and, for some of them, to work on the implementation of different planned tourist products –e.g. preparing a guiding booklet, organizing a bilateral meeting between Slovenian and Italian community, visiting local community in Italy, opening the Military museum, organizing activities around sowing and later picking flax, etc.–. The participants of the workshops were mostly individuals, but among them were also local holders of cultural values and representatives of local associations. The first workshop hosted many representatives from official institutions: The Municipality, the Developmental Agency, the Tourist Information Centre and Geopark Idrija. The second one, however, had only one representative present.
Local participation had a great effect in the research phase, primarily by enhancing the inventory of cultural values available. Not only was there an extension of the official lists, but also the types of heritage become more diversified. For example, before local input was included, only one item of intangible heritage was included in the official register – bobbin lace-making–; after the workshops the focus shifted from listed tangible heritage – old homesteads, churches, WWII memorials– to practices and skills inherent to the area. Locals themselves started to point out specific cultural values that they believed had development potential. This revealed the following structural pattern
• Cultural heritage lists are developed by experts with the intention of preserving and recognizing heritage. These lists are neither designed for, nor useful for, finding strategies for local development.
• Local communities are much more sensitive towards what good can come out of the heritage, which is why they quickly associate it with a development potential. The ‘lists’ they can come up with might be completely different from the official lists.
Local participation significantly changed and enhanced the list of cultural values. Another important finding discovered by the research team during participation process was the fact that cultural values are especially important for providing social benefits such as building local cohesion, fostering an intergenerational dialogue, maintaining local identity, promoting the local living environment, and empowering people. In the initial stage of the project the cultural values were rarely associated with economic gains.
One of the project outputs which symbolises the engagement of the local community is the guide booklet for the Črni Vrh plateau which was published with the support of the SY_CULTour project, by the local community and the Geopark Idrija, as well as an annotated map.
Flyndersø Nature Park is a 90 km
In 2006 an administrative reform merged many small municipalities into larger ones, one of which was Skive, which englobed 5 previous municipalities. One of the core challenges this rural population faced was economic decline. To combat it, one proposal by the council was to create a nature park, which would add new assets to the municipality as a living and visiting place. Their interest dovetailed with a new university-led research project, which provided funding for action research activities. Thus, a consortium was formed between the university and the municipality aimed at doing preparatory work for the nature park.
The project involved deliberative dialogue with the local community. It started by preparing a planning process in collaboration with people who were invited through open announcements in the local newspaper as well as personal invitations sent to particularly engaged citizens, identified by municipal planners. Municipal staff and outside experts also attended the process which ran from January 2012 to September 2012. The process was organized with open-ended sessions, meaning that nothing had been decided beforehand except the testing of the idea of a regional nature park. The chief municipal planner expressed it in this way to the participating citizens: ‘If you want to move fast with this park process we will follow you, if you want to make the process slower we will slow down as well’. Patsy Healey’s concepts of strategic planning were used as an inspiration for guiding the process, including the tasks of mobilizing attention to the landscape as a whole, scoping the situation, mobilizing resources and generating frameworks for strategic projects.
The process included an excursion and four expert lectures –with an attendance of 50–80 people each–, which allowed the local population to engage with the potential values of the area. Also, an interview survey was conducted including app. 80% of farmers with properties over 5 ha. The survey provided information about landowners’ agricultural and landscape management practices, their values and plans for the future.
The second part of the planning process included three workshops in a span of 6 weeks. They reviewed the values and potential of the area, and formulated visions for strategic projects. In this process, it became clear that the area was not perceived as a coherent whole by the 25–30 participants –understandably, as they came from different communities within or from outside the area–. This was an enormous challenge which was overcome through trial and error. On the one hand, a landscape character map was provided
This process resulted in a new coherent view of the landscape, a view based on the ecological and geological significance of the area and resulting from a deliberative planning process which included a high number of participants. This new tangibility was quite evident towards the end of the process. A written strategy document was produced outlining what the landscape should look like in 2025, including possible strategic projects to be carried out. To prepare and oversee the implementation of these, voluntary working groups were formed.
The strategy was presented publicly and, after minor edits, formally adopted by the municipality for the implementation of its nature park. This was included into the municipal plan, which opened further opportunities for fundraising in support of the working groups and the implementation of specific projects. Some municipal budgetary constraints froze the implementation in 2014, but in 2015 the process continued after a large grant was given by a charitable foundation and public pressure compelled the politicians to continue with the park. Now, with funds, a project leader has been appointed and there is strong cooperation between the municipality and the local community; the process is back on track.
Local participation in this project included landowners –many of whom were farmers–, and landscape users. In the final strategy, it was the user perspective in combination with the nature curation perspective that predominated. This is natural since it was a nature park that was being created. On the other hand, this perspective thwarted any further discussion of possible farming uses of the land, including multifunctional farming, which might have been rewarding. A potentially contentious issue, access rights to private land, was overcome rather easily as many landowners were willing to allow this in order to improve the ecological development of their land.
Ultimately, participation worked because there was actual room for decision-making, and a trust between the participants was quickly established, partly due to the facilitating and mediating role carried out by the university academics involved. Local participants greatly enriched their understanding regarding cultural and natural heritage of the area, as well as recreational possibilities. Finally, participants willingly participated in the implementation process, supplementing a municipal administration which initially had neither the resources nor the will to carry it out.
This case is an example of bottom-up processes leading to a proposal for a regional nature park designation of a mosaic landscape in central Jutland. Local landowners and residents have played a key role in formulating the aims and content of the park and their pressure was key when local political priorities seemed to threaten the establishment of the park. The case also represents an example of intensive activities focused on establishing a common awareness of an area as a coherent landscape, rich in natural and cultural histories.
Kosovelje is a small village in the Municipality of Sežana in Slovenia, located in the Karst region –a 500 km
The Slovene Research Agency funded a research project entitled “Cultural Landscapes Caught between Public Good, Private Interests and Politics” (2014–2018). The focus was on public goods, common-pool resources and commons
Local participation began early, for their concerns were already a matter of debate before the project started. Later these proved to be a good practice and became fundamental drivers of the project activities themselves. Experience had taught the research team the importance of having a mediator –a person, who knows the situation in the community and who has capacity, or resources, to gather and activate people–. One such person harnessed the synergy between Kosovelje and the research project by arranging an unofficial visit in August 2015, which tapped the extraordinary energy and willingness of this tiny community.
Each activity carried out was previously informed and explained to participants, as well as organized, by the local mediator. This led to a first official workshop in November 2015, organized by invitation by the same person. On this occasion, the local community shared and explained their heritage, revealing the importance of drystone walls that were falling apart. Indeed, these had already garnered the attention of civil society in the Karst, and this project helped foster greater synergy. As a result, two specific workshops took place – one in September 2016 and another one in March 2017 –, aiming to educate residents how to restore drystone walls.
The mediator arranged more individual, face to face, meetings with 15 residents during December 2015 to June 2016 in order to include the opinion of most households in the village. Conducting interviews meant several visits to the place and allowed talking about different topics related to the people, their way of life and the perception of their landscape. A field walk in May 2016 further mobilised local energy and initiative, including people volunteering to provide breakfast, put on an art exhibit, etc. Furthermore, the researchers noticed the positive side effects of just dropping by or participating in other local activities, which helped create social ties between them. Local participation has revealed genuinely interesting aspects, as listed underneath:
• How and what residents consider valuable in their landscapes.
• How locals perceive the benefits of Ecosystem Services.
• Any conflicts regarding landscape use.
With the project activities, locals got better insight into their landscape/living environment; they became more aware of their role towards desired landscape changes. For example, the local drystone walls, which are an integral part of the society’s identity and pride, were falling apart. The regional unit of the Institute for cultural heritage conservation did not have the necessary financial resources, so the residents decided to take charge of the restoration themselves. Another example is the overgrowth of agricultural land due to abandonment. Locals realized that it is a threat to their landscape and one or two families nowadays hire a farmer from a neighbouring village to mow meadows on their properties.
The research changed perceptions of a landscape, including perception of benefits and ecosystem services obtained by locals, perception of public good, common-pool resources and commons in their landscape, the key role played by drystone walls etc.
The residents became not only more aware of the research project, but they also better understood their landscape. They also saw themselves as the main responsible agent for its preservation. This fact empowered them and contributed to their decision to actively participate in a drystone wall restoration. They raised awareness of public goods and common-pool resources in their living environment. In Autumn 2016 they decided to redevelop an old “pond” in the middle of the settlement that had been filled with stones for decades and finished the construction by September 2018. Appropriately, the construction contains a drystone wall around the pond, providing a public space for gatherings.
Midden-Delfland is an agricultural area in the southern wing of the Randstad. One of the characteristics of this area is that it preserved many of its natural qualities, such as the peat meadow landscape
The Gebiedvisie Midden Delfland 2025 –Middle Delfland future vision for 2025– started off as an initiative of Midden-Delfland municipality. The process which started in 2005 gathering together various parties composed of various stakeholders, and the surrounding municipalities, and generating the starting document that would shape the process.
Thus, the project Landschapontwikkelingsperspectief (LOP) Midden-Delfland 2025 was born, a landscape development scheme shared between 6 municipalities and the local water board. This LOP substituted the 1977 plan whose end in 2009 prompted the need to decide what to do with the area. The LOP was carried out by architecture firm Bosch-Slabbers. It presented three scenarios for future use of the land: a nature reserve, continued farmland, or recreational use. These three scenarios were then considered, and shared, in the consultations done with local communities. At first major workshops, in the style of 2005, were established, called ontwerptafel –design table–, in July 2008. But these became difficult due to the competing perspectives of the stakeholders that were present. Therefore, Bosch-Slabbers decided to change the perspective. Thus, Kitchen-table discussions occurred with neighbours, asking them for specific goals, visions, and requesting more global visions, not focused solely on the individual’s priorities. This allowed a closer and negotiated understanding of the aspirations and priorities of neighbours. The final result was the creation of a comprehensive Atlas
The implementation stage has been used to enhance the positive momentum derived from public participation. In October 2015 De 24 uur van Midden-Delfland –24-hours of Middle-Delfland–, was an intensive workshop which served to generate a report regarding the implementation strategy.
In this section, a brief analysis is carried out regarding the participation methodologies used in the four case studies presented, and the effects this participation had on the overall project.
Case study | Open workshop | Event by invitation | Interview |
---|---|---|---|
Črni Vrh (SI) | Yes | Yes | No |
Flyndersø Nature Park (DK) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Kosovelje (SI) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Midden-Delfland (NL) | No | Yes | Yes |
Open workshops: Workshops with open invitation to local communities can be organised by means of collective e-mails, public announcements, etc. However, results of such calls can be disappointing when it comes to organizing meaningful community involvement, as the phenomenon of self-exclusion or self-selection often occurs, as is common in any context of volunteering. At Črni Vrh, the attempt to use locals as ‘gateways’ to the community proved to be a failure, so the research team resorted to contacting local stakeholders directly.
Workshops by invitation: A workshop by invitation requires personal engagement with various stakeholders and members of local communities, to ensure their participation in collective events. Črni Vrh was a venue where seven on invitation workshops were held.
Interviews: Interviews have to do with small-scale events where small groups of people belonging to the local community. These do not only include interviews, but also conversation and collaboration, in the spirit of deliberation: a broad exchange of ideas. In Flyndersø, interviews were streamlined through a survey that reached 80% of the landowners.
The results of the workshops held at Črni Vrh were well above expectations. Participants were asked to add local cultural values to their landscape, and although the official lists were not changed, there is a sharper understanding of the value of listed and unlisted cultural heritage. Community contributions have indeed brought to light a wide range of intangible heritage. It was noted that the official lists lacked local priorities and were sometimes outdated. Research with local participation revealed that cultural values are particularly important in creating social benefits such as building local cohesion, maintaining intergenerational dialogue, contributing to local identity or pride, promoting the local environment and empowering people.
The carefully organized educational and collaborative process at Flyndersø helped form, in the minds of the local community, the idea that it was a coherent landscape, in which all the parts were interdependent. They developed a strategy based on a vision for 2025, and organized working groups to oversee the implementation of the strategy. Deliberative cooperation at Flyndersø led the local strategy to be presented to and accepted by the municipality. Hence, the local government sought further funding for the actual implementation. The receptivity that local population in Denmark found towards this deliberative role renders it unsurprising that for Dryzek and Niemeyer it was also their Danish case study which appeared to best reflect the potential of deliberation within that socio-political context which they labelled as ‘actively-inclusive’.
In Kosovelje, the effect of participation was similarly rewarding, revealing the local perception of cultural values, and made the locals more aware of the positive effect that taking responsibility for their own landscape could have. Two drystone wall restoration workshops were held to give the local residents the opportunity to restore their own landscape and numerous smaller local activities followed. In Midden Delfland, on the other hand, public participation effectively shaped the nuances of the implementation plan carried out.
In order to effectively assess this potential, it is necessary to re-examine what John Dryzek argues should be ‘deliberative democracy’
• pluralistic in embracing the necessity to communicate across difference without erasing difference;
• reflexive in its questioning orientation to established traditions (including the tradition of deliberative democracy itself;
• transnational in its capacity to extend across state boundaries into settings where there is no constitutional framework;
• ecological in terms of openness to communication with non-human nature;
• dynamic in its openness to over-changing constraints upon and opportunities for democratization”.
The case studies described in this paper show a clear link to the deliberative model. They distance themselves from traditional participation techniques, but still borrow some essential parts of the social sciences research methods, like inviting ordinary people to come together and reflect over values and visions of how the world should be. Yet they don’t make the same mistakes as the social sciences research methods described earlier. These cases benefit from a pro-active participation approach where all involved parties shared ownership of plans and where the results intend to be advantageous for all involved parties.
Another point to a successful participation process is paying attention to the context. “The boundaries drawn for participation need to be understood in a social, geographical and historical context as this will affect what interests can be advanced”.
Although the degree of participation varies from one case to another, all cases demonstrate that the encouragement for more interactive conversations among public officials, interest groups and individual citizens has created new synergies among all these parties and helped them create local agendas that are sustainable and applicable.
One important dimension described in the cases was the time factor as mentioned by Sjölander-Lindqvist et al. and Swensen et al.
The four case studies presented here demonstrate the importance of community participation in landscape projects. Although there is still a long way to go in terms of tools and approaches asked for by Opdam
When going beyond the traditional approaches and engaging with deliberative action, this type of participation can take project engagement to a new level. Local communities feel more involved and are even willing to volunteer in their free time. This leads to greater community care, and stewardship for a local landscape, which ultimately benefits the landscape as a cultural heritage.
This paper is the result of the collaboration among CHeriScape partners and network members. CHeriScape
Callon et al., Agir dans un monde incertain; Egoz et al., Defining Landscape Democracy; Egoz et al., The Right to Landscape; Kleinman, Science, Technology, and Democracy.
Bole et al., “Participatory research.”
e.g. European Commission White Paper on Governance, COM/2001/0428
Dietz and Stern, Public Participation; Ivner et al., “New tools”; Reed, “Stakeholder participation.”
Nared and Bole, “Participatory Research.”
CoE, The European Landscape Convention.
Jones, “The European landscape convention.”
Innes and Booher, “Reframing Public Participation”; Söderholm, “The Deliberative Approach.”
Collins and Evans, “The Third Wave”; Kleinman, “Democratizations of Science”; Parkins and Mitchell, “Public Participation.”
Rodela, “Advancing.”
Williams, “Making sense of ‘place’.”
Innes and Booher, Public Participation in Planning; “Reframing Public Participation”; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., “Negotiations.”
Innes and Booher, “Reframing Public Participation.”
Hoch, What Planners Do; Innes and Gruber, “Planning Styles in Conflict”; Lukensmeyer and Hasselblad Torres, “Public Deliberation”.
Mann et al., “The potential for integrated landscape management”.
Healey, Collaborative Planning; “In Search of the “Strategic”; Barratt and Oliveira, “Exploring the Experiences”.
Azcárate, “Fostering Participation and Dialogue Using Strategic Environmental Assessment”; an early critique in Rothblatt, “Rational Planning Reexamined”.
Campbell & Marshall, “Moral Obligations.”
cf. Cars et al., Urban Governance; Healey, “Collaborative Planning in Perspective.”
Innes & Booher, Public Participation in Planning.
Dryzek and List, “Social Choice Theory.”
John S. Dryzek, Discursive Democracy; Deliberative Democracy and Beyond.
Dryzek, “Democratization.”
Dryzek and Niemeyer, Foundations and Frontiers.
Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Mini-Publics.”
Rittel and Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”. For a definition: Innes and Booher, “Collaborative Rationality as a Strategy”.
Head and Xiang, “Why is an APT approach”; Martin, “Tackling Wicked Problems.”
Kühn, “Strategic planning.”
Tietjen and Jørgensen, “Translating a wicked problem.”
Forester, “On the theory and practice.”
Söderholm, “The Deliberative Approach.”
Benhabib, “Toward a Deliberative Model”; Gutmann and Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy?; Lukensmeyer and Torres, Public Deliberation; Mouffe, “Deliberative Democracy.”
Bolton, A comparison; see also Habermas, Moral consciousness.
Bolton, A comparison.
Giddens, The Constitution of Society; Healey, “Collaborative Planning in Perspective.”
Innes and Booher, Public Participation in Planning.
Dietz and Stern, Public Participation; Innes and Booher, Public Participation in Planning; Lukensmeyer and Torres, Public Deliberation; Mouffe, “Deliberative Democracy”; Yang, “Public Administrators’ Trust.”
Lo, “Analysis and Democracy.”
Menzel and Teng, “Ecosystem Services”; Schröter et al., “Ecosystem Services.”
Schröter et al., “Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept” 519.
Cegan et al., “Trends and applications”; Huang et al., “Multi-criteria decision analysis”; Karjalainen et al., “Integrating ecosystem services”; Langemeyer et al., “Bridging the gap.”
Opdam, “Using Ecosystem Services.”
Faehnle, “Collaborative Planning of Urban Green Infrastructure” Faehnle et al., “How Can Residents’ Experiences Inform”; Fors et al., “User Participation in Urban Green Spaces”; Bahrain Shuib, Hashim and Akmaniza Mohd Nasir, “Community Participation Strategies”; Wates, The Community Planning Handbook.
Arts et al. “Landscape Approaches”; Primdahl et al., “Rural landscape governance”; Southern et al., “Sustainable landscape governance.”
Nared et al., “Achieving sustainable spatial development.”
Nared et al., “Achieving sustainable spatial development.”
Conrad et al., “Rhetoric and Reporting”; Jones, “European Landscape and Participation”; Freeman, Nairn and Sligo, “’Professionalising’ Participation”.
MacDonald, Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum; Bauer, “The Evolution of Public Understanding”.
Jasanoff, “Technologies of humility”; Wylie, “The Integrity of Narratives.”
Popa et al., “Discussion structures.”
Reason and Bradbury, “Introduction to Groundings.”
Beunen and Opdam, “When landscape planning.”
Nassauer and Opdam, “Design in science.”
Nassauer, “Landscape as medium.”
Gagné et al., “A Simple Landscape Design Framework”.
Raymond et al., “Integrating multiple elements.”
Dryzek, “Deliberative engagement.”
Lecomte et al., “Participatory requirements.”
Lecomte et al., “Participatory requirements.”
Conrad et al., “Rhetoric and Reporting.”
Swaffield et al., “Discursive Relationships.”
Van Bommel et al., “Social learning.”
De Meo et al., “An Approach to Public Involvement”.
Paletto, Cantiani and De Meo, “Public Participation in Forest Landscape”.
Based on Lecomte et al., “Participatory requirements”; Paletto et al., “Public Participation.”
Eiter and Lange Vik, “Public Participation in Landscape Planning”.
Cvitanovic et al., “Maximising the Benefits”.
Mumpower, “Selecting and Evaluating”.
Haklay, Jankowski and Zwoliński, “Selected Modern Methods”.
Evans-Cowley and Hollander, “The New Generation”.
Pocewicz et al., “An Evaluation of Internet”.
Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”.
Quetzal Tritter and McCallum, “The Snakes and Ladders”.
Contreras, “Using Arnstein’s Ladder”.
Primdahl and Kristensen, “Landscape strategy.”
Healey, Collaborative Planning.
Gorjup-Kavčič et al., The Črni Vrh Plateau.
Šmid Hribar and Ledinek Lozej, “The Role of Identifying”.
Šmid Hribar, Bole and Pipan, “Sustainable Heritage Management”: 104–106; Bole, Šmid Hribar and Pipan, “Participatory Research in Community Development”.
Šmid Hribar, Bole and Pipan, “Sustainable Heritage Management,” 104–105.
Ibid., 106.
Gorjup-Kavčič et al., The Črni Vrh Plateau.
Søderkvist Kristensen, Primdahl and Vejre, Dialogbaseret Planlægning i Det Åbne Land.
Aagaard Christensen, Søderkvist Kristensen and Primdahl, “Landbrugsundersøgelse for Området Flyndersø”.
Primdahl and Søderkvist Kristensen, “Landscape Strategy Making”.
Zorn, Kumer and Ferk, “Od Gozda Do Gozda”.
Ddefined in Ostrom, Governing the Commons.
Šmid Hribar et al., “Public Goods”.
Šmid Hribar et al., “Public Goods”.
Pedroli, Pinto Correia and Primdahl, “Challenges for a Shared European Countryside”.
Griffioen, Gebiedsvisie Midden-Delfland.
Van der Ploeg et al., Meesterwerkenmaak Je Samen.
DN Urbland, Poorten Van Midden-Delfland.
Slabbers et al., Atlas.
Griffioen, Uitvoeringsprogramma.
Šmid Hribar, Bole and Pipan, “Sustainable Heritage Management: Social, Economic and Other Potentials of Culture in Local Development,” 104.
Ibid.
Christensen, Kristensen and Primdahl, “Landbrugsundersøgelse Form Området Flyndersø – Sønder Lem Vig, Skive Kommune”.
Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Mini-Publics and Their Macro Consequences.”
Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy.
Swensen et al., “Alternative Perspectives?,” 214.
Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., “Negotiations.”
Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., “Negotiations.”
Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., “Negotiations.”
Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., “Negotiations” and Swensen et al., “Alternative perspectives?”
Jones, “The European landscape convention.”
May and Thrift, Timespace.
Stephenson, “The Cultural Values Model,” 129.
Ibid.
May and Thrift, Timespace.
Opdam, “Using Ecosystem Services.”