Trust and governance in regional planning

Abstract

This paper seeks to understand how planning systems respond to narratives of distrust, focusing on regional planning as a particularly contested field. Using a framework to explore how reforms have enhanced trust, analysis of cases in England and Denmark reveals two distinct actions: firstly, a reliance on strengthening formal mechanisms of government, a feature common in England, and secondly, collaborative governance, as seen in Denmark. However, both strategies fail to adequately enhance trust in the values of regional planning, leaving it vulnerable to ideological critique as a worthwhile form of government.

Discretion and the erosion of community trust in planning: reflections on the post‐political

“…One portion of the literature deems that the shift toward more flexibility is positive insofar as it reflects the plural and fragmented characteristics of contemporary economic and social patterns (Carmona & Sieh, ; Forsyth, ; Jowell, ). Thus, “positive” discretion occurs when officials' interpretations of their powers are driven by an ethos to promote the principles and objectives of a given policy or plan, and there are prima facie expectations that decisions will be accounted for and subject to some constraints (Dworkin, ; Forsyth, ; Tait & Hansen, ). The flexibility associated with discretionary powers is needed to counteract the rigidity of rules when unanticipated factors arise in complex, long‐term work such as the implementation of neighbourhood and master plans (Tewdwr‐Jones, ; Titmuss, ; Waldron, ).…”

“…Trust is an intangible concept generally defined as the belief that other agents such as planners and politicians will apply expert knowledge and judgement to fulfil their civic obligations (Quah, ). The negotiation between interpersonal relations and institutional circumstances depends on trust and determines the success or failure and legitimacy of planning outcomes (Flyvbjerg, ; Laurian, ; Swain & Tait, ; Tait, , ; Tait & Hansen, ; Talvitie, ). Likewise, governance structures that build trust result in higher rates of voluntary compliance to decisions made in the name of the common good (Laurian, ).…”

“…Over at least four decades, public trust in planning systems appears to have been dissipating because of several social and spatial changeswhich, of course, are quite varied and place-based and interact with one another at various degrees. Below, we summarise the most relevant factors discussed in the literature (Gholamhosseini et al, 2018;Laurian, 2009;Shevellar et al, 2015;Swain & Tait, 2007;Tait & Hansen, 2013;Talvitie, 2011;Zucker, 1986).…”

Three performativities of innovation in public transport planning

“…The important relationships between planners and power in local politics as well as the politicisation of planning in the face of macro-economic growthoriented logics of neo-liberalism (Flyvbjerg, 1998;Sager, 2009;Andersen and Pløger, 2007;Olesen, Richardson, 2012, Hrelja et al 2012) have placed renewed interest on the 'new' role of planners. Scandinavian scholars have recently shown that pressure on the institutions of planning and ideologies of neoliberal planning transform the 'regulative' role of planners towards that of entrepreneurs (Sager, 2011) and have suggested an emerging planning culture in which the role of planners is transformed to be based less on authoritative behaviour and standardised approaches and more on personalised trust relations with effects on situationspecific planning (Tait, Hansen, 2013). In practice, an important dynamic that has emerged in the course of the research project from which this article is derived (Hrelja et al, 2013) during the in-depth interviews with the three key planners and in focus meetings and workshops with public planners in Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) is that the implementation of innovation in public transport planning presupposes the engagement of planners with the political realm.…”

Online engagement for sustainable energy projects: A systematic review and framework for integration

“…Gaining engagement from the public is a major precondition for organisations in the energy sector to achieve sustainability targets (Innes & Booher, 1999;Fredericks & Foth, 2013). An underlying assumption regarding consumer engagement is that provision of information is likely to increase knowledge and awareness amongst consumers, which in turn can have a significant impact on perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes toward energy transitions (see for example Røpke et al, 2010;Kozinets et al, 2012;Tait & Hansen, 2013). However, in order to enhance engagement, there are a number of challenges for the industry on how to communicate with consumers.…”