Alternative perspectives? The implementation of public participation in local heritage planning

This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]On: 05 October 2014, At: 12:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal ofGeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sgeo20

Alternative perspectives? The implementation ofpublic participation in local heritage planningGrete Swensen , Gro B. Jerpåsen , Oddrun Sæter & Mari S. TveitPublished online: 31 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Grete Swensen , Gro B. Jerpåsen , Oddrun Sæter & Mari S. Tveit (2012) Alternative perspectives?The implementation of public participation in local heritage planning, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal ofGeography, 66:4, 213-226, DOI: 10.1080/00291951.2012.707988

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2012.707988

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sgeo20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00291951.2012.707988

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2012.707988

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Alternative perspectives? The implementation of public participation inlocal heritage planning

GRETE SWENSEN, GRO B. JERPASEN, ODDRUN SÆTER & MARI S. TVEIT

Swensen, G., Jerpasen, G.B., Sæter, O. & Tveit, M.S. 2012. Alternative perspectives? The implementation of public participation in

local heritage planning. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift�Norwegian Journal of Geography Vol. 66, 213�226. ISSN 0029-1951.

Recently, increased attention has been paid to the importance of everyday landscapes in the Western world, and a stronger political

will to involve local participation in planning processes has emerged. The authors discuss the implementation of the political will to

engage the Norwegian public in local heritage planning and whether or not this new role can have a mobilising effect on heritage

protection. In Norway, cultural heritage managers have established methods for identifying valuable heritage assets in cultural

historic landscapes. As increased responsibility for cultural heritage management is given to municipalities, more municipalities are

making their own heritage plans to improve local heritage management. The article investigates how cultural heritage management

in everyday landscapes is taking place, how heritage plans are developed, how local knowledge is involved, and what assets local

residents appreciate in their environment, based on an in-depth study of two medium-sized Norwegian regional towns. The results

show that local stakeholders were often invited to participate in planning processes, but that their contributions were largely kept

out of official plans at the final stage. Further, the study revealed that memories and personal histories related to heritage

appreciations are important elements in building identity, both at a personal level and at a local level.

Keywords: cultural heritage, everyday landscapes, landscape planning, user participation

Grete Swensen, Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, NIKU, Storgata 2, Postboks 736, Sentrum, NO-0105

Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]; Gro B. Jerpasen, Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Postboks 736,

Sentrum, NO-0105 Oslo, Norway, and Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life

Sciences, NO-1432 As, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]; Oddrun Sæter, Storbyprogrammet, Oslo and Akershus University

College of Applied Science, Wergelandsveien 27, NO-0167 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]; Mari S. Tveit, Department

of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1432 As, Norway. E-mail:

[email protected]

Introduction

The European Landscape Convention, which was adopted

by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in

2000 and came into force in 2004, obliges signatories to

establish procedures for public participation and to take into

account diverse landscape values (Council of Europe 2000).

Within landscape research and management, attention is

increasingly being paid to the importance of everyday

landscapes. Cultural heritage managers have developed

acknowledged methods for identifying valuable heritage

assets in culturally historic landscapes, but often feel less

well equipped to identify heritage assets in modern everyday

surroundings. Although a relatively high level of awareness

of heritage features as individual objects exists, recognition

of complex cultural historical environments is much more

challenging. There is a growing awareness of local heritage

values and local participation within heritage management,

and increased responsibility for cultural heritage manage-

ment in Norway has been given to municipalities. The 2009

Year of Cultural Heritage initiated by the Norwegian

Government focused on objects representative of everyday

life. Some Norwegian municipalities have subsequently

made their own heritage plans in order to improve

local heritage management. Their planning processes place

greater emphasis on local participation and effective dialo-

gue between local communities and heritage management

authorities.

In this article, we discuss the implementation of the

political will in Norway to engage members of the public

in local heritage planning and whether or not this new

role can have a mobilising effect on heritage protection

work. We ask:

. How is local participation used to develop cultural

heritage plans?

. Does user participation introduce perspectives other than

authorised heritage management in cultural heritage

planning?

. In what ways can user participation in spatial planning

contribute to increased local appreciation of cultural

heritage assets?

Different actors and modes of orientation

Several problems arise when urban and heritage policies are

expected to deal with different interests in urban planning

and development, including preservation. The inhabitants of

towns experience their surroundings in their everyday lives

through their subjective appreciation of artefacts and places

and through practical and sensual experiences in which both

individual and collective memories play a part. For most

people the everyday landscape is a local one, often without

any remarkable features or pretensions and lacking formal

designation or protection value (Aasbø 1999). The term

everyday landscapes is often used synonymously with

ordinary landscapes, which are defined as ‘common cultural

landscapes that do not hold a shared social consensus as to

their quality, their values and the need to protect them’

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift�Norwegian Journal of Geography Vol. 66, 213�226. ISSN 0029-1951

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2012.707988 # 2012 Norwegian Geographical Society

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2012.707988

(Vouligny et al. 2008, 890). Despite the ordinariness of

everyday landscapes, it is claimed that there is no such thing

as a dull landscape, that all human landscapes have cultural

meaning, and that ordinary landscapes are important

archives of social experience and cultural meaning (Jackson

1984; Groth & Bressi 1997). The concept everyday landscape

thus opens up for focus on both physical and social

landscape dimensions, as well as laypersons’ perceptions of

landscape. In this article, we argue that there is a dialectic

relationship between physical landscapes and experienced

landscapes. Individual landscape experiences do not arise

independently of those related to physical landscapes,

but are influenced by them (Ingold 1992; Setten 1999;

Jacobs 2002). Stephenson (2008) has developed what she

calls a ‘cultural values model’, which takes into account

multiple ways in which landscapes are valued. By cultural

values, she means ‘those values that are shared with a group

or community or are given legitimacy through a socially

accepted way of assigning value’ (Stephenson 2008, 129).

This model makes multiple ways of valuing landscapes

possible. Stephenson’s cultural values model includes three

components � forms (physical and/or tangible), relationships

(human relationships with landscape), and practices (past

and present actions, traditions, and events) � which interact

with one another, and are both temporal and dynamic. She

sees a present landscape as a continuum of forms, relation-

ships, and practices of the past that influence those of the

present and contribute to shape perceptions of present

landscapes. She argues that this perspective offers a basis

for an integrated understanding of landscape and its values.

Within public and professional discourses, heritage man-

agers and planners are expected to map and appreciate

heritage objects from an expert point of view, using a set of

formal standards of valuation (Graham et al. 2000; Smith

2006; Smith & Waterton 2009). In Norway, cultural heritage

sites and objects that date from before the Reformation in

1537 and buildings that date from before 1650 are auto-

matically protected by the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act

(The [Norwegian] Government 1978). The Act also enables

the listing of buildings and cultural environments

(kulturmiljø) of particular national value. The Planning

and Building Act (The Ministry of the Environment and

the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Develop-

ment 1985) is the main planning tool to ensure protection of

other important elements in the built environment at

municipal level.

Laypersons and experts may have conflicting interests

even when their objective is to combine them in a common

planning or preservation strategy (Howard 2004; Jones et al.

2007). Smith (2006) uses the term ‘authorised heritage

discourse’ (AHD) to describe a nation’s official heritage

understanding in condensed form. This mode of orientation

is seen as ‘a set of texts and practices that dictate the ways in

which heritage is defined and employed within any con-

temporary Western society’ (Benton 2010, 3). Within

environmental impact assessments, a more detailed value

assessment scale that is more adapted to local values is

necessary (Erikstad et al. 2008). Regarding conflicts in urban

planning, Lefebvre (1991) has pointed out that experts’

mapping and strategies tend to take place within a language

of abstraction, whereas laypersons’ perspectives operate at a

descriptive level, connected to symbols of identification,

belonging, and memory.

Official cultural heritage and its sets of texts and practices

are characterised by the language of abstraction. Norwegian

cultural heritage management has been criticised for not

raising the concept of values and value criteria for regular

discussion (Hygen 1996; Holm 2004), although there is

continuous treatment of the topic within academia (Brattli

2006; Solli et al. 2011). Analyses of strategy documents

suggest that in cultural heritage management values are

postulated in advance as part of a set procedure and not seen

as part of further investigations into cultural heritage. In this

way, values have been considered as objective and inherent

dimensions rather than assessments made by cultural

heritage management (Hygen 1996, 127).

Tangible heritage can be understood as ‘all traces of

human activities in our physical environment, including

places associated with historical events, beliefs and tradi-

tions’ (Cultural Heritage Act 1978, § 2 (Government no.

1978)), although in public discussions tangible cultural

heritage is most often understood and referred to in the

light of how the law is practised and what assets are formally

listed and protected by it. In this article, we use a broad

definition of cultural heritage in which processes of defini-

tion and demarcation of the field in focus are of more

interest than the objects as such. However, all cultural

heritage has a proportion of intangibility (Marmion et al.

2009), and this dimension informs our further investigations.

The role of public participation in planning

Active local participation is frequently mentioned as an

element of desirable planning processes. However, it is

important to develop an understanding of the motivations

that lie behind its realisation: Is participation meant to be an

end in itself as an expression of democratic principles, or is it

seen as a means to increase information, or to justify a

policy decision to be made? (Sevenant & Antrop 2010,

375). In her discussion of user participation (collaborative

planning), Healey (1997; 2003) points out the importance of

developing shared ownership of plans. In such a perspective,

planning does not appear as a master plan developed by

experts, but as the end result of participation and dialogue

and of a diverse set of interactions that includes mobilising

constituencies, community organisation, and publicity

(Douglass & Fridemann 1998; Marris 1998). Such intentions

are often expressed in political programmes and documents,

but in general local participation is reduced to a single

hearing after planners have finished their work (Sager 1994).

A strong argument for more public involvement in decision

processes is the outcomes it can yield in developing skills of

active citizenship that are advantageous for all involved

parties. Citizens can both learn from and inform government

representatives, just as the latter can learn from and be

informed by citizens (Irvin & Stansbury 2004, 56). The

outcome can be better policy and better implementation of

decisions. However, as Irvin & Stansbury (2004) show, some

citizen-participant programmes primarily serve a marketing

214 G. Swensen et al. NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 66 (2012)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

purpose, through which government representatives guide

citizens towards decisions that administrators would have

made anyway. In such cases, time-consuming participatory

processes can prove pointless if the conclusions reached are

ignored.

Certain risks are involved when participation is weakened

by lack of information and agreement, and by lack of real

decision-making power (Enengel et al. 2011, 1256). In

describing several methods for public involvement in local

planning, Jones (2007, 615) argues that ‘participation is not

the same as the complete delegation of powers to local

communities. It should not be seen as a substitute for official

decision-making but as a complement to it’. He argues that

whereas a participatory dialogue-based approach is a way

forward, it is necessary to recognise that it is time-consum-

ing. It may conflict with a result-oriented administration and

be restricted by competing economic interests and the

apathy of the general public. However, if performed in the

right way, it may also generate enthusiasm. In relation to

community-based heritage values, Jones (2007) also stresses

that heritage values may vary and communities may not

always agree on important values.

Participants’ perceptions of participatory planning pro-

cesses can be influenced by the broader context of planning

practice. Participants are likely to feel that they have not

been taken seriously if they perceive the process as unfair

due to the domination and instrumental use of participation

by some actors (Hoppner et al. 2007, 197). Conan (1995, 51)

writes, in connection with inhabitants’ participation in the

design of public housing in France, ‘[A]fter the program-

ming or the planning is finished the groups never meet

again. Collective energy wanes out, and the sense of

common identity and mutual support vanishes away. The

groups disband quietly during the process.’

Healey (2003, 527) describes the importance of combining

formal analysis with local knowledge and popular imagina-

tion ‘to identify key qualities of places which people want to

maintain, develop, enhance and create’. She points to the

importance of ‘conversations’ between different relational

worlds, where inhabitants and officials can reach a common

understanding and ‘share the ownership’ of the landscapes

in question and develop common strategies for change, while

also acknowledging the existence of tensions and conflicts.

There is increasing acceptance that planning is no longer the

monopoly of university-trained professionals, but a more

fluid, democratic set of arrangements expressed through a

variety of forms and media within civil society (Freestone

2000). A more open planning process might provide

opportunities for the exchange of arguments and views,

with the aim of achieving a common platform of under-

standing rather than focusing on points of conflict (Savage

& Lapping 2003). The basic problem, however, is that

methods and procedures capable of translating theory into

practice are still largely lacking (Hartz & Kestermann 2004;

Dane 2006). As pointed out by Enengel et al. (2011, 1266),

there is a critical lack of knowledge of how to facilitate

collaboration between local and non-local actors in terms of

fair participation processes and adequate outcomes.

Stephenson (2005) states that planners should rely on

experts to a large extent, and this is particularly the case

when cultural heritage values are assessed, as the methodol-

ogies used by heritage experts are seldom questioned by

planners. She discusses the difficulties in taking community

views into account in planning decisions when such values

are seldom expressed in the formal language of professionals

and are systematically synthesised, making such expressions

difficult for a planner to understand and take into con-

sideration. Further, she states that the planning discipline

lacks an integrated framework for considering both physical

and socio-cultural aspects, which means that it is difficult to

give voice to intangible and subjective values.

There is a longer tradition within landscape studies of

focusing on local participation than in cultural heritage

studies. The demand for public participation and stake-

holder involvement in landscape planning has increased,

particularly in association with the debates on sustainable

development and multifunctional landscapes (Hoppner et al.

2007, 196). In Norway, new guidance for landscape assess-

ments has recently been developed by the Norwegian

Directorate for Cultural Heritage in order to improve spatial

planning in rural and urban areas (Riksantikvaren 2009;

Direktoratet for naturforvaltning og Riksantikvaren 2011).

In this regard, local participation is considered essential for

the identification of values. As stressed by Swiss landscape

researcher Buchecker et al. (2003, 29), sustainable landscape

development does not simply require the protection of

landscapes, but also, perhaps most of all, the participation

of local residents in shaping them. However, to reach this

goal, is it necessary to develop a new strategy for sustainable

landscape management. Buchecker et al. (2003) ask: What

factors prevent local residents from participation in the

processes that shape their landscapes? How can they be

encouraged to participate?

Experiments have been carried out to bridge the gap that

has long existed between expert-based approaches and

locally responsive (place-based), participatory, and inclusive

approaches in resource and environmental management

(Dakin 2003; Stenseke 2009; Sevenant & Antrop 2010).

Dakin (2003, 198) has described her experiments as expres-

sing an ‘experiential approach to landscape assessment’, in

which a participant-directed landscape imaging process was

developed. Her application of the method succeeded in

revealing rich, overlapping, and dynamic landscape experi-

ences, which in turn made it possible to reveal individual and

shared feelings and attachments. She concludes that describ-

ing, characterising, and appreciating landscapes all require a

place-based perspective and a broadened notion of both

valuation and of who should make such valuations.

It is important to include local voices in cultural heritage

management in order to gain a better understanding of what

people identify as their important cultural environments

(Stenseke 2001; 2009). Such perspectives can contribute to a

redefinition of cultural heritage and enable people to feel

that they have a role to play in the protection of valued

environments.

In this article, using Norwegian examples, we examine

forms of local participation used in the development of

cultural heritage plans and address the question of whether

local participation in the planning process influences the

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 66 (2012) Implementation of public participation in local heritage planning 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

extent and type of historical memorials that are defined in

such plans as cultural heritage assets.

Study areas

The research was conducted as case studies of two Norwegian

towns, namely Sarpsborg and Levanger. The selected towns

fulfilled certain criteria: they are regional centres situated in

different parts of the country and in regions with different

characteristics, and they have cultural heritage plans that

have been developed with a certain degree of user participa-

tion. The second criterion was particularly important in

determining the choice of towns. Few Norwegian towns have

heritage plans, and extensive user participation is rare.

The case study towns share some common features. Both

are medium-sized district centres (although small in com-

parison to most European towns) and are typical of their

respective regions. In addition, in each case the old town

centre is surrounded by a belt containing multifunctional

landscapes, including dispersed agricultural settlements.

Sarpsborg is situated in the county of Østfold in south-

east Norway (Fig. 1). It was founded in 1016, and is the

third oldest town in Norway. It has a long history as an

industrial town, particularly due to the manufacturing

companies Borregaard (Fig. 2) and Hafslund, which are

situated on Norway’s longest river, Glomma, which runs

through the town. In 1992, the town incorporated the

surrounding municipalities of Skjeberg, Tune, and Varteig.

According to population estimates published by Statistics

Norway (2011), Sarpsborg Municipality had almost 53,000

inhabitants in 2011 and c.8000 of them lived in the town. In

2005, the local authority agreed on a cultural heritage plan

(Sarpsborg kommune 2005).

Levanger is situated in the county of Nord-Trøndelag in

Central Norway, north of Trondheim (Fig. 1). The landscape

is varied, with coastal, forested, and mountain areas.

Levanger is an old trade town, and has been active since

the Iron Age, with trading routes to Sweden. The munici-

pality has several industrial establishments, including paper

manufacture. In 1962, Levanger incorporated four neigh-

bouring municipalities: Asen, Skogn, Ytterøy, and Frol.

According to population estimates published by Statistics

Norway (2011), Levanger Municipality had almost 19,000

inhabitants in 2011, of which c.12,000 lived in the town. The

town is well known for its well-preserved wooden buildings,

and in 1995 the municipality agreed to a cultural heritage

plan (Levanger kommune 1995).

In both Sarpsborg and Levanger, local heritage organisa-

tions have surveyed local heritage monuments and taken

part in planning processes by participating in meetings.

Methods: qualitative interviews anddocument analysis

The study on which this article is based was part of a wider

interdisciplinary investigation undertaken by the authors in

2008�2009 that integrated visual historicity analysis and

archaeological landscape analysis with local heritage assess-

ments based on qualitative interviews and is published

elsewhere (Tveit et al. 2006; Ode et al. 2008; Jerpasen

2009; Tveit & Jerpasen 2009; Swensen & Sæter 2011).

Interviews were carried out with a selection of relevant

agents within three main groups: (1) municipal planners and

heritage managers; (2) representatives of relevant NGOs

(historical societies (including the Society for the Preserva-

tion of Norwegian Ancient Monuments), neighbourhood

associations, voluntary museum supporter groups (what

were termed ‘circles of friends’)); and (3) local inhabitants.

Different forms of interviews were carried out in the two

towns; in Sarpsborg semi-structured interviews were con-

ducted with individuals, whereas in Levanger focus group

interviews were held. A focus group interview is a qualitative

data-gathering technique that relies on the systematic

questioning of several individuals simultaneously (Fontana

& Frey 2005, 703). In Levanger the interviews took place as

semi-structured conversations between two researchers and

two or three informants and lasted c.1.5 hours. Interviews

were conducted with key figures in the two municipalities

with the objective of obtaining insight into planning

processes related to cultural heritage on a municipal level

and the role public participation has played in these

processes. The interview guide consisted of a series of

questions structured around various themes, such as perso-

nal views on the most important cultural heritage, the

cultural heritage plan and the processes behind it, degree

of public participation, the central actors in the processes,

and relevant planning tools.

In order to cover the third group, i.e. the local inhabitants,

other interview methods were tested. Some important

qualitative data were collected by the ‘mall method’, which

gave insight into the subjective attachment local inhabitants

had to place and heritage. For the ‘mall method’, people

were approached in places where they undertook part of

their daily routines and asked what dimensions influenced

their views of the local heritage assets that they appreciated.

Visual materials, such as photos, drawings, and maps, were

actively used in communications with local inhabitants.

These interviews took the form of spontaneous conversa-

tions and included the collection of several ‘city narratives’

(Franzen 1997). The latter were related by different citizens

belonging to a specific area, and included texts from local

media as well as texts, images, and performances produced

in connection with activities and events in the area (e.g.

discussions in the local newspaper, cultural arrangements

such as theatre and concerts, and promotional booklets and

brochures). The method is inspired by semiotics and involves

analysing how people describe and interpret symbols, traces

of former cultural activities, landscapes, and buildings in

their surroundings. As a first step to establishing commu-

nication with people visiting the mall in each town, we either

used a selection of photos as a way of initiating reflections

on what the subjects meant to them, or used examples of

comments from conversations with the inhabitants. The

photos included a wide range of places and had been

consciously selected to present not merely well-recognised

heritage assets, but also artefacts from recent decades and

new buildings. People who showed interest in talking were


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

asked to mark on a map which heritage objects they

appreciated. We noted their choices on a blank sheet

attached to the map; sometimes we were given names of

places, museums, or other buildings, and sometimes we were

told a long story that demanded our closer attention. We

sometimes helped people with their reflections by suggesting

possible examples of heritage sites or objects (although we

were careful not to steer their replies), and sometimes a short

conversation with us marked the beginning of longer or

shorter recollections. In total, we had maps marked with

heritage sites and objects, and records of narratives provided

by 37 persons in Sarpsborg and 12 in Levanger.

The document studies involved examination of the two

cultural heritage plans that were current at the time when the

study was conducted. Other relevant plans concerning town

development in the two towns were not included in the study.

Fig. 1. Location of Sarpsborg and Levanger in Norway


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Cultural heritage plans

In both Levanger and Sarpsborg local heritage organisations

had surveyed local heritage monuments and taken part in

the respective planning processes by participating both in

meetings and in external reference groups with representa-

tives and members of the municipalities, regional heritage

authorities, museums, and the Society for the Preservation of

Norwegian Ancient Monuments. In Levanger, members of

the local heritage organisations served as contact persons

for the internal working group, and in Sarpsborg they

were members of the external reference group. The reference

groups were responsible for the selection of cultural heri-

tage monuments and environments to be included in the

heritage plans.

In Sarpsborg the head of the municipality’s environmental

department had applied for and been granted funding from

the National Directorate for Cultural Heritage Management

through the project ‘Local cultural heritage’ (Kulturarven i

lokalmiljøet). As external funding had been provided by the

national authorities, the heritage plan was given priority by

the local authorities. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage

Management accepted the project plan and both external

and internal reference groups were established. In addition,

separate meetings were held with the local heritage organisa-

tion. Open meetings for all inhabitants were also held. The

responsible coordinator had good overall knowledge of

cultural heritage and good insight into the planning process.

In Sarpsborg the decision was made to focus on cultural

environments dating from after 1537 that were not already

protected by law. The 12 most valuable cultural environ-

ments in the municipality were selected to constitute the

heritage plan, with the purpose of making a calendar or

poster to share information with the inhabitants and others.

The environments were categorised according to eight

different themes: gardens and parks; technical and industrial

objects; residential areas for different sub-groups of the

population; communications; graveyards; holiday dwellings;

quarries; and cultural environments. The results of the local

surveys undertaken by the local heritage organisation were

collected in registers and plotted on maps. Almost 400 sites

and objects were registered and the records were reproduced

in digital format intended for use as a land use planning

resource (Table 1). Most of the sites and objects were linked

to former farming settlements, small-scale industrial activity,

or memorial sites, and were situated in forested outfield

areas. They varied from being related solely to individuals

and local stories, such as particular buildings or meeting

points (Fig. 3), to being well known and included in national

registers. However, only one or two of the objects were

included in the final plan.

The local heritage organisations were also invited to

discuss criteria for selection. The criteria were decided

upon by the reference groups, and the main focus was on

place identity and thus those cultural heritage sites and

objects considered to be of greatest importance to the

identity of Sarpsborg. The chosen criteria closely matched

those applied by national cultural heritage management,

such as authenticity, state, coherence, symbolic value,

architectural value, utility value, scientific value, and repre-

sentativeness. Some effects of the plan can be seen in relation

to stewardship and information, including the production of

Fig. 2. The chimneys of Borregaard factory � a valued landmark in Sarpsborg

(Photo: Gro B. Jerpasen, September 2008)

Table 1. Local surveys in Sarpsborg

Local surveys in Sarpsborg

Categories in survey Type of objects Number of objects

Farmhouses/buildings Settlement/cottage 55

Croft 89

Outhouse 19

Labour house/official’s

residence

4

Cabin 5

Cellar 11

Well 12

Hotel/pension/kiosk 5

Community centre 2

School building 5

Communication Bridge/wading place 9

Ferry landing/quay 8

Industry Industrial construction 61

Mill/dam 30

Boundaries Boundary stone/fence 30

Beacon 3

Memorials Grave/church place 5

(War) memorial 18

Green areas Sports ground 7

Garden/park 5

Other 6

Total 389


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

a poster. Another outcome was a guide to local cultural

heritage management written for local authorities and

politicians. According to a municipal planner interviewed

in Sarpsborg,

We have seen marked effects of the plan. To give some examples,

the timber-floating boom ‘Eidet-lensa’ has been restored by a

‘circle of friends’, and sightseeing is being arranged at the

site. . . .Plans are ready to be implemented for the grave mounds

at Opstadfeltet, where more and more of the site has been cleared

and is visible. This is being done in cooperation between the

county, municipality, and voluntary helpers . . .The workers’

tenement Tarris is being restored according to antiquarian

principles. People living there are very proud of the effort being

made, and even though the buildings have no formal protection,

they treat them as if they have, and then the effect is the same.

According to the informant, the most important effect had

been increased awareness among the population of the

cultural heritage in their local environments.

Figure 4 shows the organisation of the planning process

for the cultural heritage plan in Sarpsborg and the relationship

Fig. 3. A discussed kiosk in Sarpsborg, mentioned in a local survey (Photo NIKU, September 2008)

Fig. 4. The planning process for the cultural heritage plan in Sarpsborg

The dashed horizontal line represents the loose connection between the cultural heritage plan and the database for local heritage


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

between the national database for automatically protected

cultural heritage (Askeladden), the local surveys, and

the cultural heritage sites and objects included in the

plan. However, very few of the national surveys were

included in the local surveys, and conversely very few of

the local surveys were incorporated into the final plan. A

local database was developed which included both the

national and local surveys, but it has minimal status in the

municipality.

Levanger chose to focus on many different single monu-

ments. Many of the included monuments date from before

1537 (Fig. 5), and are therefore protected by the Cultural

Heritage Act. The plan is thematically organised into

‘prehistoric monuments’, and monuments related to ‘valuable

cultural environments’, ‘settlement and agriculture’, ‘indus-

try’, ‘communication’, and ‘defence’. The divisions were

meant to mirror the history of Levanger from the Stone

Age onwards. The criteria applied for the selection of

monuments were the same as those applied by the national

heritage management at the time, such as scientific value,

experiential value, pedagogical value, and utility value.

Concrete action points were included to safeguard the

condition of the monuments, such as preparing specific

guidelines for maintenance. A small amount of money was

set aside each year for this purpose, although far from enough

to fulfil the ambitious plan. However, the municipal heritage

management succeeded in cooperating with members of

NGOs on carrying out a number of practical tasks, such as

putting up small signs and removing vegetation in order to

make the monuments more visible and accessible. The

responsible coordinator in Levanger had first-hand knowl-

edge of the cultural heritage plan. The Directorate for

Cultural Heritage was involved in the financing of the plan,

as it was classified as a pilot project in which public

participation was included as a project goal. Guidelines for

the registration work were drawn up, and the project was met

with considerable local engagement. The local historical

society was involved in the registrations, and documented

128 sites and objects by marking their locations on maps and

compiling registers with their details (Table 2). As in

Sarpsborg, many of the objects were linked to deserted farms

(Fig. 6) and small-scale industrial sites situated in the forested

outfields. In addition, several prehistoric sites and objects

recorded in the survey carried out by the local historical

society were included, which distinguishes these surveys from

those done for Sarpsborg. However, none of the sites and

monuments recorded in the local surveys was included in the

final plan. We were told by informants that the regional

heritage management did not have the opportunity to

Fig. 5. Prehistoric grave mounds on a hill in Levanger included in the local cultural heritage plan (Photo: Gro B. Jerpasen, October 2008)

Table 2. Local surveys in Levanger

Local surveys in Levanger

Categories in survey Types of objects Number of objects

Prehistory Prehistoric monument/site 22

Farmhouses/buildings Farmhouse/settlement/

cottage

6

Croft 28

Outhouse 4

Cellar 1

Well 1

Community centre 2

Museum 3

Nursing home 2

Shop 1

Communication Bridge/wading place 2

Road 5

Industry Industrial construction 12

Charcoal stack 4

Mill/dam 24

Boundaries/markers Beacon 1

Memorials (War) memorial 4

Place name 2

Green areas Sports ground 1

Other 3

Total 128


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

undertake quality controls of the local surveys. In the 1990s,

the NGOs, such as the local historical society, neighbourhood

associations, museum volunteers, and the Society for the

Preservation of Norwegian Ancient Monuments (Fortids-

minneforeningen), had had great expectations for the plan.

Representatives from different districts of Levanger

Municipality were selected for involvement in the survey

work. The municipality had originally allocated resources to

engage NGOs in the preparatory work and pay them, but

payments were never made. This may account for why no

heritage plan that includes NGOs’ surveys is currently

operational, and why the NGOs anticipate that such a

plan would not be given high priority.

Figure 7 shows the organisation of planning process in

Levanger and the relationship between the national database

for automatically protected cultural heritage (Askeladden),

the local surveys, and the cultural heritage sites and objects

included in the cultural heritage plan. The plan incorporated

several of the national surveys from Askeladden, but very

few of the local surveys were taken into account and included

in the final plan. The local surveys ended up having no

status after the compilation of the plan was completed.

Fig. 6. Combined farmhouse and outbuilding in Levanger, included in the local survey (Photo: Gro B. Jerpasen, October 2008)

Fig. 7. The planning process for the cultural heritage plan in Levanger


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Degree of user participation

By analysing the cultural heritage plans for Sarpsborg and

Levanger in the light of information gained from the

interviews, we found that local knowledge played a role in

the initial stages of the planning processes in the two towns,

but the form and degree of involvement differed. In both

towns, the plans were the result of pilot projects in which

user participation was emphasised as one of the important

project goals. While the responsible parties in Levanger had

organised local surveys as sub-projects under the leadership

of the NGOs, in Sarpsborg they had chosen to arrange

separate meetings with the local heritage organisation as well

as open meetings for all inhabitants.

When examining the ways in which the local surveys were

taken into account in the process of constructing heritage

plans, we found that the cultural heritage managers did not

fully succeed, even when, in the case of Levanger, they had

the strongest intentions to involve and use the local surveys

provided by the NGOs. When asked about their role in

planning, the representatives of the NGOs indicated frus-

tration about the lack of active use of the surveys they had

provided. Despite the fact that our interview with them took

place many years after the plan had been agreed, the NGO

representatives did not seem to have changed their view in

this respect. This exemplifies and supports the argument

that participants, such as NGO representatives, are likely to

feel that they are not taken seriously if their findings are not

considered or used (Hoppner et al. 2007, 197). Despite the

fact that user participation was ascribed a prime role in both

pilot projects, and communication among the actors in-

volved in the process was emphasised in the initial phases,

the process never went deeper than to engage activity

through a few meetings. When we analysed the strategic

documents on which the pilot projects were based, we found

a mixture of unspecified goals. In the case of Levanger, the

lack of definition of purpose and function of the final plans,

and the unfulfilled expectations of the role of the participat-

ing actors in the different stages of implementation of the

plans, are the main reasons why there was general dis-

satisfaction concerning the final result among the local

participants. In Sarpsborg, more weight was placed on

discussion and communication between the parties involved

in the process. After the plan was published, however, the

follow-up process was never discussed with the local

participants. As stressed by Sevenant & Antrop (2010), it

is important to develop an understanding of the motivations

that lie behind active local participation. In the two cases

presented here, the unspecified goals suggest that publicity

and marketing had been the major arguments, not shared

ownership.

In short, we found that there were cases of people and

organisations external to the municipal administrative

system that were working with the project and were waiting

to be respected for the role they played. They expected to be

taken into account rather than be seen as a group providing

a pretext for local participation and collaboration, and

delivering reports that were quickly forgotten in the

municipal archives, without consequences for practical

policies in the field. These experiences have been paralleled

in other research, where critical lack of knowledge of how to

facilitate collaboration between local and non-local actors

has been identified, and where lack of a fair participation

process with adequate outcomes has been reported (Enengel

et al. 2011, 1266).

The situation in the two case towns differed also regarding

whether the plans had led to increased consciousness among

local inhabitants concerning heritage monuments. There is

no doubt that the heritage discourses used by official

heritage management and the museums played an important

role in forming local conceptions of what cultural heritage

means in general. The NGO representatives in Levanger

expressed:

We consider our role to be that of watchdogs. It is positive when

we now [in 2009] register greater interest towards preservation

issues. This is partly linked to the effects of the temporary

preservation order, which means that 190 buildings in the old

town are safeguarded. . . .Our motto is voluntariness and public

competence. We find that a lot of young people are interested in

things that are happening in town, and local history is popu-

lar. . . .But we wish that the politicians were more interested in our

work.

Subjective attachment to place and heritage

The annotated maps constructed in co-operation with the

informants are the most important data to result from the

study presented in this article. Our analysis revealed that

there were some common themes regarding what people

appreciated most. The themes indicate several important

elements linked to reflections on heritage discourses and

show how a broader invitation to reflect on cultural heritage

can reveal new types of memory sites, including fringe areas

in towns and cities.

Generally, the people we talked to appreciated especially

places that they knew well and that played a role in their

daily routines. In Sarpsborg we were told that the inhabi-

tants are very proud of their working-class history, which is

linked to the town’s paper industry (one of the largest

industries in Norway). When asked about places they

appreciated, several mentioned the waterfall. A woman in

her sixties, who had returned and settled in her home town

after an absence of 25 years, listed a series of places that

meant a lot to her: Sarpefoss (the waterfall where the main

industry is situated), Festiviteten (the old community hall),

the church park, the old sculptures located near the water-

fall, and ‘the memories from my childhood, the old buses’.

A man in his forties, who had moved to the town eight years

earlier, responded to the question of significant places thus:

‘My heritage places? A parking meter, which is 30 years old

and placed just down the street, as well as the waterfall and

the Borregaad smell that is part of my memories’. In

Sarpsborg, the work related to heritage had been greatly

concerned with safeguarding the factory buildings, working-

class housing, a worker’s garden, and other spaces linked to

the town’s industrial history. This focus on industrial history

was apparently very different from that of a neighbouring

town, where people were ashamed of their industrial history,

and wanted to forget and hide it through heritage initiatives


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

linked to other aspects of architecture, culture, and aes-

thetics.

Museums and local history groups played a role in both

Sarpsborg and Levanger. During the conversations that

took place in the mall, we found that many women and a

few men were especially interested in local museums and

local history work. Such people were particularly likely to

stop and describe to us what they were interested in. They

said that we needed to recognise the most important

heritage spaces and traces of former cultural activities, and

they reacted more strongly to the public plans than the

others, whether positively or critically. Some of them were

very interested in supplementing the heritage list by adding

buildings or places that were not mentioned. Suggestions

for new heritage objects that they considered ought to have

been added to the municipal plan often concerned places

of memory, including old buildings, meeting places such as

parks, and small shops at street level. Events linked to

childhood, youth, and everyday life seem to have played a

crucial role in the suggestions made by the inhabitants.

When asked what he appreciated in his town, a man

in his fifties, who had been born in Trondheim but had

later married and become a resident of Levanger,

answered:

The telephone booth. I am a former employee of Norwegian

Telecom. The telephone booth was put up and removed many

times, because of vandalism as well as the degree of mobile phone

coverage. It was common to pour Coca-Cola into the automat,

because then the money got stuck. It is strange about the

connection one feels to certain places and things due to one’s

profession. When I visit people, I look at their telephone

connections, whereas an employee in a glass factory would notice

other things.

In the case of those interviewed in the mall, their answers

partly related to the fact that they had been encouraged to

think about the places, buildings, and artefacts that they

themselves appreciated most.

In Levanger, examples of typical places mentioned were

the park in the centre of town and the small industrial or

residential buildings in the old centre and market place. By

contrast, some interviewees mentioned an old church, the

rock carvings located in the vicinity of the town, the library

building with a peaceful atmosphere, and a stamp mill near

the town centre. The most remarkable stories concerned

personal biography and memory, which could be linked to

heritage objects in both subtle and obvious ways, but also to

childhood, belonging, and loss.

When interpreting the stories, we noted the importance of

everyday practice and the role of memory. Our attention was

drawn to the fact that subjective memories are strongly

linked to sensual affiliations, to smell (e.g. the smell from the

factory reminding the storyteller of smoked ham), sound

(e.g. childhood memories of the stone quarry situated near

where an interviewee had grown up), and visual perception

(e.g. the role that an old factory chimney played as a

landmark).

Official heritage approaches and publicparticipation

Based on our analysis, three predominant types of heritage

approach appear to be present in the local arena: one

dominated by purely personal arguments, one more related

to planning, and one in which the personal and plan-related

approaches are intertwined.

When cultural heritage plans such as those discussed in

this article are developed, they are included in the formal

planning system at municipal level. Whereas formal respon-

sibility for the development of the plans is located at

municipal level, the expertise in cultural heritage manage-

ment is primarily located at county level. This means that

planners at municipal level are dependent on having good

dialogues with the county-level heritage managers. As

mentioned by Stephenson (2005), planners should rely on

experts to a large extent, and this should particularly be the

case when cultural heritage values are being assessed because

methodologies used by heritage experts are seldom ques-

tioned by planners. This is evident from the plans in the way

they portray official heritage policy. The analysis of the two

plans revealed that elements of the experts’ ‘language of

abstraction’ (Lefebvre 1991) are present in both plans, most

noticeably in presentations of the value criteria and methods

of assessments. In this respect, both plans relate to what

Smith (2006) terms the authoritative heritage discourse. In

the case of Sarpsborg this includes references to authenticity,

state, coherence, symbolic value, architectural value, utility

value, scientific value, and representativeness. In the case of

Levanger it includes scientific value, experiential value,

pedagogical value, and utility value. However, the author-

itative heritage discourse is not fixed in time. Changes in

cultural heritage approaches occur as part of broader

societal changes. There was a 10-year gap between the

production of the two towns’ cultural heritage plans.

Whereas the 1994�1995 plan for Levanger focuses on single

objects from prehistory, the 2005 plan for Sarpsborg is more

inclusive, as it includes the cultural heritage of the working

class and of recent decades.

The analysis of the two towns’ plans suggests some factors

that prevent local residents from participation in the

processes that shape their landscape (Buchecker et al. 2003,

29). One factor that influences the potential for participation

is whether there are well-organised NGOs in the town. Some

NGOs, such as historical societies, are limited in their scope

to primarily historical themes. The national NGO that deals

most with cultural heritage issues, the Society for the

Preservation of Norwegian Ancient Monuments, is orga-

nised at county level. Another important factor is the

presence of a local museum, since museums tend to develop

their own voluntary support systems to a large extent. The

presence of such organisations is important if local residents

are to be assigned a role as participants in developing

cultural heritage plans in towns under development.

Analysis of the plans enabled us to evaluate whether or

not local participation in the planning process influenced the

extent and type of historical memorials defined in the plans


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

as cultural heritage assets. To answer this question, we

needed to consider first whether there was a discrepancy

between what we found defined as local cultural heritage

assets and what people informed they were concerned about

in their local surroundings. When we compared the local

surveys (Tables 1 and 2) with the selection of monuments

included in the plans, we found that objects covered by the

plans were closely related to the established assessment

criteria for cultural heritage. Hence, it appears to have been

the case that if local values and registrations did not fit in

with established value judgements, they were not included,

regardless of the extent of local participation. Howard

(2003) has stated that local heritage is personal and

emphasises activities and people whereas official manage-

ment concentrates on conservable objects. He also argues

that locals, or insiders, form a completely different category

from outsiders and express a different set of values in their

use of heritage. Insiders are not opposed to the preservation

of objects, but their motivations may be very different from

those of the conservation authorities. Further, Howard

suggests that commemoration is a more effective means of

maintaining people’s memories than conservation.

The recollections that people in the two case study towns

shared with us echo the implications we find in the work of

both Heidegger (1975) and Casey (2001), who stress the

important bond between practice and experiences of place,

sometimes unconscious and not articulated, but also voiced

in place narratives of different kinds. Our findings accor-

dance closely with the results of a Canadian study of

agrarian cultural landscapes (Vouligny et al. 2009), which

revealed clear differences between experts’ and laypersons’

assessments, and found that formal visual criteria used by

experts appeared to be less important in evaluations made

by lay people. In the inhabitants’ case, the value of ordinary

landscapes was based on a set of criteria related to emotion,

everyday experience, and their intimate knowledge of places.

By contrast, the experts’ perspective on landscape assess-

ment was more closely associated with the view of the

outsider, such as that of the tourist. Hence, to capture the

value of ordinary landscapes in a planning perspective, a

combination of approaches is necessary. Paying enough

attention to integration of the subjective-objective dimen-

sions in cultural heritage value assessments can be seen as a

means to ensure public joint responsibility. When there is

correlation between the themes that the official heritage

management and museums focus on and the personal

memories that individuals attach to them, people’s apprecia-

tion of and consideration for these assets are strengthened.

When, and if, this correlation between memories and

monuments is stressed in cultural heritage work, including

planning documents, the important task of safeguarding

narratives and monuments has a better chance of succeeding

and becoming a shared consideration and responsibility.

Conclusion

As user participation has become more common as a

premise in planning, more frequent opportunities arise to

study the effect it has and whether it has influenced planning

processes to any great extent. The study presented in this

article was based on cultural heritage plans defined as pilot

projects in which user participation had been given parti-

cular attention. Local residents had been involved at

different stages and to varying extents in the development

of the cultural heritage plans. One of the most important

results from the study of the plans was that even though

local heritage organisations had been invited to take part in

the planning process by performing their own surveys, very

few of the local monuments registered by them were

incorporated in the heritage plans. The registers compiled

from data from the extensive local surveys were shelved and

virtually forgotten, and the local authorities had no further

plans for them. This showed that if local values and

registrations did not fit with established value judgements,

they would not be included, regardless of the extent of local

participation. A strong argument for greater public involve-

ment in decision processes is the outcomes such involvement

can yield in terms of developing activist citizenship skills. To

succeed in the attainment of such goals, changes are

necessary in established planning routines and to fixed

attitudes. The evaluation of ordinary landscapes requires

employment of several methods. Paying more attention to

the close relationship between memories and monuments

will increase possibilities for building a shared responsibility

for the local environment between cultural heritage man-

agers and planners on the one hand and local residents on

the other hand. We also conclude that, at least, user

participation contributes to greater awareness of and debates

on cultural heritage. However, lack of implementation of the

plans led to frustration among the NGOs that took part in

the planning process. In both towns, the planning processes

were dependent on two key persons. When the follow-up of

such plans is made solely dependent on a few dedicated

experts, and not integrated in the daily tasks of municipa-

lities, they are more likely to be neglected or forgotten.

Municipalities wishing to develop cultural heritage plans

with local involvement should consider ways to implement

plans and keep engagement active, even after a plan has been

completed.

Acknowledgements. � The project ‘Local heritage values and cultural heritage

plans in urban fringe areas’ was funded by The Norwegian Research Council

(2008�2010) and carried out in cooperation with researchers from the

Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU), the Department

of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning at the Norwegian University

of Life Sciences, and the Urban Programme at Oslo University College. An

early version of the paper was presented at an international conference on

Landscape Legacy held in Wageningen, Netherlands in 2010. We thank the

informants for kindly sharing their knowledge with us. We also thank the

anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Manuscript submitted 23 March 2011; accepted 4 June 2012

References

Aasbø, S. 1999. History and ecology in everyday landscape. Norsk Geografisk

Tidsskrift 53, 145�153.

Benton, T. 2010. Understanding Heritage and Memory. Manchester University

Press, Manchester.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Brattli, T. 2006. Fortid og forvaltning: En analyse av norsk kulturminneforvalt-

ning i perioden 1990�2005, med hovedvekt pa arkeologiske forhold.

Doktoravhandling. Institutt for arkeologi og religionsvitenskap, Norges

teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Trondheim.

Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M. & Kienast, F. 2003. Participatory landscape

development: Overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape

and Urban Planning 64, 29�46.

Casey, E. 2001. Body, self and landscape. Adams, P., Hoelscher, S. & Till, K.E.

(eds.) Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies, 403�425.

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Conan, M. 1995. User oriented architectural design in a critical perspective.

Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 3, 43�58.

Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention: Explanatory

Report. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Dakin, S. 2003. There’s more to landscape than meets the eye: Towards

inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental manage-

ment. The Canadian Geographer 47, 185�200.

Dane, S. 2006. Prerequisites for participatory approaches in spatial planning.

Boer, I., Carsjens, G.J. & Valk, A. (eds.) Multiple Landscapes Merging Past

and Present in Landscape Planning [unpaginated]. Fifth International

Workshop on Sustainable Land-Use Planning in Wageningen 2004.

[Proceedings on CD-ROM.] Netherlands Organization for Scientific

Research (NOW), Wageningen University, and International Study Group

on Multiple Uses of Land (ISOMUL), Wageningen.

Direktoratet for naturforvaltning og Riksantikvaren. 2011. Veileder: Metode

for landskapsanalyse i kommuneplan. Direktoratet for naturforvaltning og

Riksantikvaren, Oslo.

Douglass, M. & Fridemann, J. (eds.) 1998. Cities for Citizens: Planning and the

Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Enengel, B., Penker, M., Muhar, A. & Williams, R. 2011. Benefits, efforts and

risks of participants in landscape co-management: An analytical frame-

work and results from two case studies in Austria. Journal of Environmental

Management 92, 1256�1267.

Erikstad, L., Lindblom, I., Jerpasen, G., Hanssen, M.A., Bekkby, T.,

Stabbetorp, O. & Bakkestuen, V. 2008. Environmental value assessment

in a multidisciplinary EIA setting. Environmental Impact Assessment

Review 28, 131�143.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. 2005. The interview: From neutral stance to political

involvement. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), 695�727. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Franzen, M. 1997. City narratives: The peculiarities of Stockholm south side.

Kalltorp, O., Elander, I. & Ericsson, O. (eds.) Cities in Transformation:

Transformation in Cities: Social and Symbolic Change of Urban Space,

184�204. Avebury, Aldershot.

Freestone, R. (ed.) 2000. Urban Planning in a Changing World: The Twentieth

Century Experience. E & FN Spon, London.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J. & Tunbridge, J.E. 2000. A Geography of Heritage:

Power, Culture and Economy. Arnold, London.

Groth, P.E. & Bressi, T.W. 1997. Understanding Ordinary Landscapes. Yale

University Press, New Haven, CT.

Hartz, A. & Kestermannn, R. 2004. New planning concepts and regional

cooperation: Responding to the challenges of new urban landscapes.

Tress, G. & Tress, B. (eds.) Planning Metropolitan Landscapes: Concepts,

Demands, Approaches, 178�198. Delta Series 4. Delta, Wageningen.

Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented

Societies. University of Newcastle, Newcastle.

Healey, P. 2003. Planning in relational place and time: Responding to new

urban realities. Bridge, G. & Watson, S. (eds.) A Companion to the City,

517�530. Blackwell, Oxford.

Heidegger, M. 1975. Poetry, Language, Thought. Harper & Row, New York.

Holm, I. 2004. Forvaltning av agrare kulturminner i utmark. Doktoravhand-

ling. Arkeologisk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen, Bergen.

Hoppner, C., Frick, J. & Buchecker, M. 2007. Assessing psycho-social effects

of participatory landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 83,

196�207.

Howard, P. 2003. Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. Continuum,

London.

Howard, P. 2004. Spatial planning for landscape: Mapping the pitfalls.

Landscape Research 29, 423�434.

Hygen, A.-S. 1996. Fornminnevern og forvaltning: En teoretisk og metodisk

tilnærming til planlegging og praksis i fornminnevernet. NIKU Temahefte 1.

Norsk institutt for kulturminneforskning, Oslo.

Ingold, T. 1992. Culture and the perception of environment. Croll, E. &

Parkin, D. (eds.) Culture, Environment and Development, 39�56. Routledge,

London.

Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J. 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: Is

it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64, 55�66.

Jackson, J.B. 1984. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale University

Press, London.

Jacobs, K. 2002. Subjectivity and the transformation of urban spatial

experience. Housing, Theory & Society 19, 102�111.

Jerpasen, G. 2009. Application of visual archaeological landscape analysis �some results. Norwegian Archaeological Review 42, 123�145.

Jones, M. 2007. The European Landscape Convention and the question of

public participation. Landscape Research 32, 613�634.

Jones, M., Howard, P., Olwig, K.R., Primdahl, J. & Sarlov-Herlin, I. 2007.

Multiple interfaces of the European Landscape Convention. Norsk

Geografisk Tidsskrift�Norwegian Journal of Geography 61, 207�216.

Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford.

Levanger kommune. 1995. Kommunedelplan kulturminner 1996�1999. Kultur- og

miljøetaten, Levanger kommune, Levanger.

Marmion, M., Wilkes, K. & Calver, S. 2009. Heritage? What do you mean by

heritage? Lira, S., Arnoeda, R., Pinheiro, C., Pinheiro, J. & Oliveira, F.

(eds.) Sharing Cultures: International Conference on Intangible Heritage,

575�584. Green Lines Institute, Barcelos.

Marris, P. 1998. Planning and civil society in the twenty-first century: An

introduction. Douglass, M. & Fridemann, J. (eds.) Cities for Citizens, 9�17.

John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Ode, A., Tveit, M. & Fry, G. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using

indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape

Research 33, 89�118.

Riksantikvaren. 2009. Kulturhistorisk stedsanalyse av byer og tettsteder:

En veileder i bruk av DIVE. Riksantikvaren, Oslo.

Sager, T. 1994. Communicative Planning Theory. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Sarpsborg kommune. 2005. Kommunedelplan for kulturminner i Sarpsborg

kommune 2005�2016 � nyere kulturminner. Sarpsborg kommune,

Sarpsborg.

Savage, L. & Lapping, M. 2003. Sprawl and its discontents: The rural

dimension. Lindstrøm, M. & Bartling, H. (eds.) Suburban Sprawl: Culture,

Theory and Politics, 5�17. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

Setten, G. 1999. Den nye kulturgeografiens landskapsbegrep. Nordisk

samhallsgeografisk tidsskrift 29, 55�72.

Sevenant, M. & Antrop, M. 2010. Transdisciplinary landscape planning: Does

the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent

(Flanders, Belgium). Land Use Policy 27, 373�386.

Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London.

Smith, L. & Waterton, E. 2009. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology.

Duckworth, London.

Solli, B., Burstrom, M., Domanska, E., Edgeworth, M., Gonzales-Ruibal, A.,

Holtorf, C., Lucas, G., Oestigaard, T., Smith, L.J. & Witmore, C. 2011.

Some reflections on heritage and archaeology in the Anthropocene.

Norwegian Archaeological Review 44, 40�54.

Statistics Norway. 2011. Tabell 08825: Framskrevet folkemengde, etter kjønn

og alder, i 9 alternativer (2011�2040). [See under ‘O2 Befolkning’.] http://

statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken (accessed February 2012).

Stephenson, J. 2005. Values in Space and Time: A Framework for Under-

standing and Linking Multiple Cultural Values in Landscapes. PhD thesis,

University of Otago, Dunedin.

Stephenson, J. 2008. The cultural values model: An integrated approach to

values in landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 84, 127�139.

Stenseke, M. 2001. Landskapets varde: Lokala perspektiv och centrala

utgangspunkter. Kulturgeografiska institutionen, Goteborgs universitet,

Gøteborg.

Stenseke, M. 2009. Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance:

Lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26, 214�223.

Swensen, G. & Sæter, O. 2011. The mall method: Applied in a study of

inhabitants’ appreciation of urban cultural heritage areas. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods 10, 125�139.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken

http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken

The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Local Government and

Regional Development. 1985. Act of 14 June 1985 No. 77 the Planning

and Building Act. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Planning-

and-Building-Act.html?id�173817 (accessed February 2012).

The [Norwegian] Government. 1978. Act of 9 June 1978 No. 50 Concerning the

Cultural Heritage. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/cultural-

heritage-act.html?id�173106 (accessed February 2012).

Tveit, M., Ode, A. & Fry, G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing

visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31, 229�256.

Tveit, M.S. & Jerpasen, G. 2009. Visual and archaeological landscape analysis

in the urban fringe. Ghersi, A. & Mazzino, F. (eds.) Landscape and Ruins:

Planning and Design for the Degeneration of Derelict Places. Proceedings

of the ECLAS Conference 2009, 89�102. Landscape Section, Polis

Department, University of Genoa, Genoa.

Vouligny, E., Domon, G. & Ruiz, J. 2009. An assessment of ordinary

landscapes by an expert and by its residents: Landscape values in areas

of intensive agricultural use. Land Use Policy 26, 890�900.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Planning-and-Building-Act.html?id=173817





http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/cultural-heritage-act.html?id=173106





Documents

Alternative perspectives? The implementation of public participation in local heritage planning