Hearing but Not Listening? A Participatory Assessment of Public Participation in Planning

Conrad, Elisabeth; Cassar, Louis F.; Christie, Michael; Fazey, Ioan

doi:10.1068/c10137

Cited by 72 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another aspect of the law in books is that this right to appeal can be questioned if the public participation never affects the decisions taken. Are they, to use the title of the Conrad et al (2011) article, 'Hearing but not listening'? In that case it risks looking like a right, without functioning as one, and the already taken decision to roll out infrastructure for an extreme mobile coverage may end up in a top-down information strategy aiming at only convincing the public that the decision is for the best-as a 'token participation' (see Evans-Cowley and Hollander, 2010, page 399).…”

Section: Localmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has been a way of arguing for the necessity of public participation in planning. Conrad et al (2011) state that, although public participation is now accepted as an essential requirement of planning, there is limited literature that considers the effectiveness of participation in practice (see also Davies et al, 2005). One way to analytically categorise it from a sociolegal perspective, as is done below, is to separate the 'law in books' from the 'law in action' or 'planning in practice' (Larsson, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Type of Knowledge Rules Where? Legally Regulated Participation in Large-Scale Mobile Infrastructure Planning in Sweden

Larsson

2014

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. I investigate the field of tension between the national and the local level in spatial planning from a decision-making perspective. In doing so, I analyse the legal regulation for a large-scale 3G mobile infrastructure development in Sweden with a focus on how participation is expressed both in terms of the 'law in books' as well as empirically, 'in action'. Theoretically, a model of decision making is elaborated, based on two axes: one concerning the decision level on a central or national to local scale, and one concerning what type of knowledge is regarded as the most legitimate in terms of a calculating approach versus a communicative approach. These two issues or approaches to decision making-who decides and based on what knowledge-are of direct importance for understanding the frameworks as well as the practical outcomes of public participation. The case of 3G in Sweden demonstrates how different types of knowledge are perceived as legitimate at different levels in the planning system. For example, appeals against building permits rarely change the outcome of permits issued, and appeals based on fear of electromagnetic radiation are always rejected. The juridification of a given mast conflict meant a development from a deliberative approach, where any concern is heard, to a calculating and expert-based one, where the general stance on a particular topic (such as whether or not the electromagnetic radiation from mobile masts is hazardous) is applied. This means that what knowledge is legitimate depends on where in the permit process it is presented.

show abstract

Section: Localmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Type of Knowledge Rules Where? Legally Regulated Participation in Large-Scale Mobile Infrastructure Planning in Sweden

Larsson

2014

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ciertamente, varios estudios empíricos han centrado su atención en cómo la participación pública mejora (o no) los procesos de formulación de las políticas. Algunas de estas investigaciones, además, se interesan por los procesos participativos vinculades a cuestiones territoriales o ambientales como la ordenación del territorio o la gestión de recursos naturales (Baker et al, 2010;Conrad et al, 2011;Groves et al, 2013;Parés, 2011) . Sin embargo, como apuntan Blanco y Lowndes (2011), a pesar del claro aumento de las iniciativas participativas por parte de los gobiernos de distinta índole, hay pocas evidencias relativas a los efectos de la participación.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Gobernanza deliberativa en la gestión de cuencas hidrográficas: analizando las consecuencias de la Directiva Marco del Agua en Cataluña

Parés¹,

Ballester²,

Espluga³

et al. 2014

Ingeo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENLos primeros planes de cuenca previstos en la Directiva Marco del Agua fueron aprobados en España muy recientemente, motivo por el cual todavía no disponemos de estudios que evalúen los resultados de los procesos participativos llevados a cabo. En este artículo se analiza una experiencia participativa que, por su carácter ejemplar y atípico, ha sido considerada una buena práctica: el proceso deliberativo del Distrito de Cuenca Fluvial de Cataluña. Nos interrogamos sobre las consecuencias de la deliberación y, más concretamente, sobre si un buen proceso de deliberación mejora la política de aguas. Es decir, investigamos la relación entre las características procedimentales de la deliberación y sus resultados. Para ello combinamos datos cuantitativos con información cualitativa obtenida a partir de análisis documental y treinta entrevistas en profundidad. Las limitaciones de la estrategia comunicativa, la poca integralidad con la que se planifica la política de aguas y la falta de una cultura política deliberativa son algunas de las debilidades identificadas en el caso estudiado. Concluimos que un buen proceso deliberativo es una condición necesaria pero no suficiente para garantizar un impacto significativo sobre la política de aguas. The first river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive have been adopted in Spain recently. For thus, there are no studies evaluating the results of the participatory processes carried out. This article discusses a participatory experience that has been considered a good practice: the deliberative process of River Basin Management planning in Catalonia. We are interested on the consequences of deliberation and, more specifically, we want to know if a good deliberative process improves water policy. Drawing upon quantitative and qualitative data obtained from documentary analysis and thirty interviews, we investigate the relationship between the procedural features of deliberation and its results. The limitations of the communication strategy, the lack of comprehensiveness with which water policy planning has been made and the lack of a deliberative political culture are some of the weaknesses identified in the case study. We conclude that a good deliberative process is a necessary but not a sufficient requierement to ensure a significant impact on water policy.

show abstract

“…In this line, Conrad et al (2011) illustrate the inadequacy of present legal requirements for ensuring effective participation, and a related need for institutionalizing review mechanisms in Mediterranean countries. In Canada, Stewart & Sinclair (2007) detected some problems in the processes of public participation in environmental assessment.…”

Section: Easier Execution Of the Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public participation: a need of forest planning

Bruña-García¹,

Pérez²

2014

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder participation in decisions related to forest planning is essential to get long-lasting and viable solutions. Nowadays, public participation is necessary to reach consensus in natural resource management and in citizen governance of land. It is a key element in a forest planning on a strategic level. However, only the first steps are being taken to include public participation in forest planning within the forestry sector. This paper proposes a review of public participation processes in forest planning as a reference for the development of new methodologies in areas with no previous experience in participative processes. The assessment of the existing scientific literature and its use in different models and countries show a high diversity of responses to the challenge of including social aspects and integrating them with methodological proposals.

show abstract

Hearing but Not Listening? A Participatory Assessment of Public Participation in Planning

Cited by 72 publications

References 48 publications

What Type of Knowledge Rules Where? Legally Regulated Participation in Large-Scale Mobile Infrastructure Planning in Sweden

What Type of Knowledge Rules Where? Legally Regulated Participation in Large-Scale Mobile Infrastructure Planning in Sweden

Gobernanza deliberativa en la gestión de cuencas hidrográficas: analizando las consecuencias de la Directiva Marco del Agua en Cataluña

Public participation: a need of forest planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About