No abstract

Between protocol and reality: Swedish municipal comprehensive planning. Spatial planning using a landscape approach has been recognized as being essential for reconciling ecological, cultural and socioeconomic dimensions in sustainable development (SuD). Although embraced as a concept, there is a lack of planning tools capable of incorporating multi-level, multifunctional and multi-sectoral perspectives, especially in a rural context. The departure point in this paper is the legal requirements for municipal comprehensive planning (MCP) in Sweden and an e-mail survey about incentives, stakeholder involvement, policy integration and implementation in MCP in all 15 Swedish mountain municipalities. The purpose of this explorative study is to examine whether MCP could be a tool in planning for SuD. Results indicate a general lack of resources and a low status of MCP that affect, and even limit, stakeholder involvement, policy integration and implementation. However, legal requirements for MCP are targeted at SuD, and municipal personnel responsible for planning appreciate the potential of MCP. Therefore, there is potential to develop the MCP into an effective landscape planning tool. To accomplish this, the status of an active planning process has to be raised, the mandate of the local planning agency has to be secured, and residents and land users have to be involved throughout the planning process. European Planning StudiesARTICLE HISTORY

Strong land-use pressure challenges sustainable development and calls for landscape approaches that balance economic, ecological, and socio-cultural aspects and interests. In the boreal, sub-alpine, and alpine regions in Sweden, encompassing 32 million ha, many and different land-use interests overlap, which causes risks for conflict, but potentially also suggests integration and synergy opportunities. Based on geographic information system (GIS) analyses of geographically delineated national interests regulated in the Swedish Environmental Code, including, amongst others, Natura 2000, contiguous mountains, recreation, reindeer husbandry, and wind power, and based on forestry as a dominating land use, we found extensive overlap among similar but also between dissimilar types of interest. In some mountain municipalities, our results show that the designated national interest area is four times as large as the available terrestrial area. Moreover, the overlap is much higher in the alpine than in the boreal biome, and there is increasing designation for nature conservation and a decreasing designation for national interests for culture, recreation, and tourism from south to north. We interpret the results with reference to multiple-use needs and opportunities for landscape approaches to sustainable planning. Departing from biodiversity conservation values, we also discuss opportunities to focus planning strategies on assessing synergy, integration, and conflict based on nature-based and place-based land-use characteristics.

Sweden’s mountain areas are sensitive ecosystems that are used by a wide range of stakeholders, and this raises multiple sustainability concerns. Collaborative governance solutions are becoming increasingly common in such situations to promote more sustainable practices. While the Swedish mountain area is indeed a hot spot for different forms of public–private partnerships (PPPs) related to natural resources management, as yet, little is known about the shaping of participation, leadership, and implementation of these processes. What are the drivers for implementing collaborative environmental partnerships, do the drivers differ, and if so, how? What role does the specific context play in the design of these PPPs? Are the PPPs useful, and if so, for what? To analyze those issues, we conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with project leaders from a sample randomly selected from a database of 245 public–private collaborative projects in the Swedish mountains. Our results indicate that consequential incentives in the form of funding and previous successful collaborations seem to be the major drivers for such partnerships. A critical discussion of the possibilities and limitations of public–private forms of governance in rural mountain areas adds to the ongoing debate on the performance of environmental PPPs in a regional context.

No abstract