IN DEGREE PROJECT TECHNOLOGY,FIRST CYCLE, 15 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2017

Mapping Public Participation in SwedenAn overview of the individual's voice in the planning process

DOUGLAS CARLSON

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

TRITA SoM EX Kand 2017-4

www.kth.se

1

Abstract Public participation in Sweden is something that has grown fourth after the democratisation of

the planning process in urban and regional planning. The goal was to strengthen the

sustainability of the projects while inviting the concerned to directly influence and discuss the

needs and solutions that arise during exploitation. Three areas are examined to create an

understanding of how public participation looks like today. The representations of these areas

are Boverket and SKL for the public sector, Arkus for the research community and PLAN for

the professional forums. There is a general consensus on what public participation is today as

well as what problems it faces, with some differing aspects. An imbalance in representation of

different social groups where some create a stronger voice and influence than others affect the

decision-making, based on lacking resources, apathy concerning the subject or project in

question or even existing prejudice. This, in combination with what is considered to be

insufficient information and difficult communication in general, leads to misunderstandings

and a more arduous planning process. Some point to that the legislature needs additional

streamlining and centralisation of decision-making structure while others point to greater

dialogue outside existing public hearings with a permanent and continuously updated platform

outside the legislature. Modernisation of the general means and technology used in the dialogue

seem like the next step and further research should be made on this to determine its effect on

public participation and its development.

Sammanfattning Medborgardeltagande i Sverige är något som kommit till efter demokratisering av

planeringsprocessen i samhällsbyggnadssektorn. Målet var att stärka hållbarheten hos projekten

medan man samtidigt bjöd in de berörda att direkt påverka och resonera kring behov och

lösningar som uppstår vid exploateringen. För att ta reda på hur läget ser ut idag för

medborgardeltagande så undersöks tre olika forum för planerare. De forum som utgås från är

dels Boverket och SKL för den offentliga sektorn, dels Arkus som forskning samt PLAN som

debatt och professionell plattform. Samtliga undersökta källor visar generellt konsensus om vad

medborgardeltagande är i dagsläget samt dess problem, med några skillnader i synpunkter. Det

råder obalans i representationen för olika sociala grupper där vissa har en betydligt starkare röst

i påverkan av beslut, på grund av bland annat bristande resurser, viss apati angående ämnet eller

projektet i fråga samt existerande fördomar. Detta, i kombination med vad som anses vara

bristande kommunikation och information i överlag, leder till missförstånd och i allmänhet en

mödosammare planeringsprocess. Vissa pekar på att lagstiftningen behöver effektiviseras och

centralisera beslutsorganen mer medan andra pekar på större dialog utöver existerande samråd

med en ständigt pågående och uppdaterande plattform utanför lagstiftningen. Modernisering av

medlen och tekniken som används i dialogen verkar vara nästa steg i utveckling och vidare

forskning bör göras för att fastställa dess effekt på medborgardeltagandet och dess vidare

utveckling.

2

Table of contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Sammanfattning ......................................................................................................................... 1

Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Aim and objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3

Method and delimitations ........................................................................................................... 3

Public participation and planning theory.................................................................................... 4

Nonparticipation ..................................................................................................................... 4

Tokenism ................................................................................................................................ 4

Citizen power ......................................................................................................................... 5

Boverket and SKL ...................................................................................................................... 5

Swedish research community ..................................................................................................... 6

Public hearing ......................................................................................................................... 6

Public influence ...................................................................................................................... 7

Social hierarchy ...................................................................................................................... 7

The planner’s responsibilities ................................................................................................. 8

Results of public participation ................................................................................................ 8

Professional forums .................................................................................................................... 9

Language ................................................................................................................................ 9

Cultural perspectives .............................................................................................................. 9

Participation ......................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 11

Conclusion and reflection ......................................................................................................... 13

References ................................................................................................................................ 14

Figures .................................................................................................................................. 15

3

Introduction Swedish public participation in itself is a relatively old application of transparency and

inclusion in urban and regional development. Legalwise, the current platform dates back to

1987 with the then new legislature Planning and Building Act, PBL, in which a new

groundwork for how to plan new areas or re-develop old areas in Sweden was enacted based

on a collection of older laws. In PBL the influence of the public was strengthened and the

effected people were meant to be given a chance to review upcoming changes in their areas for

them to speak up against and later settle in court if the criticised parts remained. The aim of this

was, according to the authorities, to better the long-term sustainability of the planned areas and

to democratise the planning process (Boverket, 2014).

Aim and objectives The aim of this work is to create an overview of the different academic and professional views

and applications of what public participation in modern Sweden is, and its possible future

developments.

❖ The first objective is to investigate the views of groups and organisations with different

levels of expertise and relations regarding public participation.

❖ The second objective is to discuss the similarities and differences between these views.

Method and delimitations The starting point will be to examine Arnstein’s ladder of participation and the ranking within.

This may be used as a reference point against which later discussion can be compared.

To get an understanding of what stance the public sector has in relation to public participation,

Boverket under the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation as a public agency together with SKL

as a public representative will both serve as the public sector’s point of view.

From the research community, two issues on public participation has been chosen from Arkus.

Arkus is an independent forum for development and research in architecture and the built

environment. Its purpose is to initiate and fund independent research and development projects

and share the results with the members of the community and the public. These two issues,

Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration? (issue 72) and Medborgardialog – om det

svåra i att mötas (issue 74), contain the work of several researchers of varying backgrounds as

well as individual stories, respectively (Arkus, 2017).

Lastly, PLAN has been chosen as the source for debate in the professional forums. PLAN is a

journal for debate around the built environment and its development. The articles used are

published between 2015 and 2017.

These will be presented and analysed in the text from which the discussion will later build upon.

The work will revolve around applications and voiced views concerning, and therefore the focus

will be on, recent years apart from older anecdotes about underlying theories and relevant data.

The resulting discussion will put these in sources and their perspectives in relation to each other

with that be able to create a conclusion on what state public participation is in and where it

should go.

4

Public participation and planning theory Sherry R. Arnstein published an article in 1969

regarding the different levels of public

participation. In her work, she ranks

participation in degrees of a citizen’s power in

the decision-making process, ranging from

manipulation to citizen control (see figure 1 for

illustration). These can be further categorised

in to three different grades, namely

nonparticipation, tokenism and citizen power.

Arnstein stresses that this type of analysis

builds on generalisation since it is not a

monolithic system. Apart from that, across the

world these should be hundreds of different

levels with varying distinctions between one

another. But this works in a way as a general

standpoint, as long as one is aware of its flaws

(Arnstein, 1969).

Nonparticipation

‘Manipulation’ is at the bottom of the ladder in a way the reverse of public influence. It is the

powerholders that influences the public by educating and manipulating them to think like they

should, at least according to the powerholders. This is a very authoritarian way of including the

public in the planning process. Hence, the lowest form of public participation rather than the

first. A smaller step in the towards stronger influence is the ‘Therapy’ form of participation.

This is still very like Manipulation, but not quite as aggressive. In this case, an example would

be tenant groups being used as promotion of certain operations and to assimilate in to the larger

society (Arnstein, 2016). Today, these forms are mostly viewed as being part of dystopian

fiction or even in authoritarian regimes. Most western countries seem to not use this kind of

public participation, at least not openly. The public is not really participating, but are mainly

another object in the planning with makes it more like a nonparticipation.

Tokenism

In the middle category, the ‘Informing’ degree ranks as the next form of participation. The

powerholders are in this case in charge of informing the public in a sort of one-way

communication. This might sometimes work in the same manipulating way as the lower forms

when its used as a passive intimidation by invoking the sense of futility in the public. That there

is no way for the public to change the process and the decisions that have been made. But by

asking for the public’s thoughts on the process, ‘Consultation’ works as the first step toward

actual participation. However, this is limited to a sort of legitimisation process where the

powerholders seek to receive the agreement of the public. Surveys and the like are usual ways

of investigating the public by a way of seemingly consulting it. But by placing some chosen

members of the public amongst the committees and boards, the powerholders create ‘Placation’

and further the public influence and opportunities to participate if only by a small margin. The

majority in these bodies are still not part of the public and leaves the powerholders to have the

final say (Arnstein, 2016). These can collectively be different ways for the powerholders to

Figure 1: Arnstein's ladder with its different degrees of public

participation.

5

legitimise their projects by appearing like they implement the public in a democratic process in

the form of tokenism.

Citizen power

A more evenly spread form of sharing planning and decision-making capabilities is the form of

‘Partnership’. Through joint policy boards and planning committees, the public and the

powerholders can together work for the benefit of all. In most cases, governmental bodies like

city councils and the like might have the final veto power but the recommended course of

actions that reach this stage are approved by the public and its representatives. Yet, with having

the public as part of the veto gives birth to the form of ‘Delegated Power’. Here, the public

receives the upper hand by having the dominant decision-making authority. This tends to be in

the form of policy boards or delegate agencies, but nevertheless takes the last word away from

the powerholders and forces them to bargain with the public. With that, there is only complete

‘Citizen Control’ left. This form is the ultimate public participation as in it is only the public

that participates. This is usually not sought after since it promotes separatism and balkanisation

of public services, which might be positive on a local level but makes it difficult to coordinate

on a regional and national stage (Arnstein, 2016). These different forms represent a quantitative

background upon which a general comparison and categorisation can be made and further sort

aligning views accordingly.

Boverket and SKL The Swedish public agency for planning, building and housing is called Boverket and manages

related issues in the service of the public sector. Their purpose is to ensure that everyone is

following the legislature and proper procedures by investigating processes and offering advice.

According to them, public participation is a chance for the public to contribute with their

knowledge and experience to fulfil both their own needs and the needs of the community

(Boverket, 2017).

Boverket stresses that a constant flow of information between the municipality, or other project

leading authorities, and the public will contribute to a smoother process when it comes to

developing projects. An earlier initiative for public participation gives the public a chance to

enter the process with their knowledge, experience and needs to be a basis in the decision-

making process. Through dialogue, especially if started early on, the risk of misunderstandings

and deadlocks are heavily reduced. The public in this case being the people currently living in

the affected community, not only Swedish citizens. But the main part of public participation

and the dialogue still takes place during the public hearings, with the purpose of collecting all

relevant opinions and needs to a single discussion and hopefully reaching a conclusion together

(Boverket, 2017). Boverket as an agency works as a central hub for information to which

queries can be made. It is here that most people will be directed if they ever have an issue

regarding the planning process or the built environment in general. Centralisation can be good

as a way of avoiding drawn-out processes and for the public to be less confused as to where to

turn to for information regarding the planning process or current events and projects.

SKL, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, is an employers’ and interest

organisation for local governance in Sweden. SKL promotes the interest of municipalities,

county councils and regions as their representative organisation. Its purpose is to better the

conditions for local and regional self-governance and to develop the welfare system and its

services (SKL, 2017a).

6

SKL’s work includes supporting its members in their work through collaboration and offering

further material upon which they may expand. A new concept has grown fourth namely co-

production within planning to describe a growing vision to include user, customers, clients,

patients and kin by giving them more influence and responsibility. This has been a priority

subject for SKL since 2015 to push towards changing how leadership must be reshaped to make

way for new approaches and framework. Co-production is to systematically take advantage of

relevant experience and opinions from the clients while changing the relation between them

and the professionals. This, among other innovative participatory models, have been promoted

by SKL for further advancement in collaborative development between the public and the local

governing authorities (SKL, 2017b).

Swedish research community Looking on the academic level, the focus is to examine the work of published researchers and

their thoughts on the public participation in Sweden. The material that is discussed can be

broken down into five groups: dialogue, public influence, social hierarchy, the planner’s role

and the results of public participation. Although they overlap, these groups make up a

foundation from which an overview can be made.

Public hearing

The main form of dialogue between the public and the planners in Swedish public participation

takes place during the planning process in public hearings related to an upcoming project. These

so-called ‘samråd’ are open for the public to attend and discuss the project with representatives

from the project’s participating groups.

Nazem Tahvilzadeh (Tahvilzadeh, 2015) criticises this participational steering after examining

it in an optimistic and pessimistic perspective, based on Fung and Wrights’ empirical study

Deepening democracy – Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participationary Governance

as well as the work of the political theorist Chantal Mouffe. Although there is a lot of different

means and incentives for public participation, the execution on a local level leaves a lot to be

desired according to Tahvilzadeh. In a positive and optimistic light, the logic behind the policies

for public participation and a dialogue seem like a genuine wish for deepened democracy. This

form of dialogue is still relatively young and it might be too soon to deem it as a failed initiative

when there is still room for a lot of experimentation and development. A negative outlook on

the other hand is that the dialogue is a by-product of an ever-evolving renewal of trends and a

transformation for more neoliberal and welfare-centric ideals and ideas. Globalisation and

individualisation among other factors drive the governing figures to pursue dialogue as a tool

to legitimise their results in the planning process. Göran Cars (Cars, 2015) shares Tahvilzadeh’s

concerns regarding the future of the current model in Swedish public participation in that the

vocal resistance groups have unproportioned power and the appeal system is not fit to handle

conflicts as they are today. The dialogue needs a stronger emphasis on the public’s interest and

constructive conversation between differing groups and individuals. Cars agrees that there is

potential in this form of dialogue but it needs to be reworked. Others, like Teresa Lindholm

(Lindholm, 2015), point to that the scope may need to get bigger than specific projects and aim

for a broader implementation of dialogue between different parties in the planning process. This

is important to further develop the social capabilities of areas and avoid segregation. The

involvement of communities as well as individual’s needs will strengthen the social

sustainability on a local level and help combat the growing anonymity in cities. Moa Tunström

(Tunström, 2015) reaches the conclusion that social sustainability is an ambition and a balance

7

act rather than an end goal which needs to be addressed when forming a dialogue in public

participation.

Modern dialogue is in need of a revision to remove the power of loud parties that put the

development and lesser parties at risk. It is currently at a point where the representation and

decision-making are unbalanced between its participants, where an already lengthy process is

put on hold with appeals in case of disagreements. The need for understanding and finding

common ground are important factors that have grown stronger, without the consensus

transforming in to the wishes of the majority.

Public influence

Apart from the current form of the dialogue, the actual influences the public has is difficult to

pinpoint. However, it does not make it impossible to study the results of different projects

compared to what the starting point was and the end of said project. As discussed in previous

segment, appeals tend to appear from vocal nay-sayers and tires all parties involved. But

stopping or allowing projects to proceed as planned is not the only things the public should or

can influence.

The city building today is different than that of the last century. The development and building

is now dominated by private companies with further outsourcing in the planning process with,

for example, consultants and architects from other companies. This makes the dialogue, and its

actual effect, difficult to understand when the public is not sure of who to turn to for information

and the power to influence the process (Listerborn, 2015). This makes it troublesome for the

individual to participate and in turn affects their influence. In the same vein as Tahvilzadeh,

Listerborn criticises the possibility that the dialogue is a way for the politicians to legitimise the

process and projects rather than implementing real influence from the public. Even with more

dialogue, the system may need more power to the public to have any effect on the process and

its results. In some cases, the people’s voiced concerns reach the governing body and start an

initiative to reach out to the affected people. But, as in the case of Järvalyftet, the resulting

dialogue turns out to be more of a monologue with no real results or actual effect on the

development. The reaction after the public had sent in over 30,000 thoughts on what they

desired in the area was to proceed with the project with little to no changes regarding what the

public wanted (Al-khamisi, 2015).

Social hierarchy

There is and has always been a power struggle between different groups. Whether it has been

between social classes, genders or ethnicities, it has always been present in all levels of society.

The need for marginalised groups to have their voice heard has always existed but even now

has little presence.

When tackling the issue of gender, one must be careful not to get trapped in generalisations and

categorisation so not to consolidate the relations of power that need change. The focus is

supposed to be on the relation between the genders but has in recent times devolved to treating

women as a category, when individuals are defined by more than just their gender (Listerborn,

2015). The wish to involve a more inviting tone to new projects has arisen where the planning

can revolve around treating new habits outside the traditional gender-based activities. When

inspecting the Malmö suburb of Rosengård, the preferred locations and environment to spend

free time differed immensely between teenage boys and girls. While the boys hung around in

semi-public and public areas, the girls preferred to stay at either their own home or at a friend’s

8

place, if not on the other side of town. The habit of a male oriented environment is still ever

present in the planning of public areas (Björnson, 2015). The fear of conflicts stemming from

the act of balancing different forces in our society has led to a search for consensus, to achieve

the greater good for the public. But the public is not always well represented. There is a need

for the marginalised groups of the past and present to get involved in the planning, otherwise a

new crisis awaits urban development (Listerborn, 2015).

The planner’s responsibilities

It is easy to get caught up putting the responsibility of public participation solely in the public’s

hands, but much of that is really the responsibility of the actual planners. It is up to these

planners to find a way that gets the public to participate.

The idea of social interaction with the public during the early stages of planning in Sweden is

not a widespread phenomenon. Sara Brolund de Caravalho actively searched for an architect’s

role in the service of the public. Good examples were found in the US and UK with community

design centres and the like set up so that citizens could participate. But in Sweden it seemed

difficult to find a corresponding initiative. Creative and pedagogical ways to inform the public

and discuss ways to find new solutions and developments are needed. She reasons that may be

because of the differences of relation to the governing bodies and their agencies, since Sweden

tend to have a public sector that wishes to address movement-related issues. There is a lot of

different factors that decide on how to go about solving a problem and different societies have

different vantage points, depending on what is deemed as obligatory. Crowd-funding is not a

normal activity for social movements in Sweden, probably because of a higher state welfare

than other countries. However, local associations and interest organisations are present today

and it should be up to the architect, or planner, to negotiate with these bodies. Apart from this,

the planners are also responsible for explaining projects and goals from the local governance

side while deciphering all the information for everyone to understand. Brolund de Caravalho

stresses that what’s needed is a platform for open and continuous communication through

dialogue to further spread information and avoid unnecessary conflict (Brolund de Caravalho,

2015). But how impartial should the planner be in their bureaucratical role? Not everyone can

be everywhere all the time, something Marie Halldin regrets in her contact with people

obviously struggling with dementia. By focusing on certain individuals, a particular form of

neglect is turned towards the rest of the participants, which she reveals in her experience with

said individuals. At the same time, one must give appropriate assistance to those in need of help.

This dilemma has perplexed Halldin, who concludes that everyone should be able to offer the

right type of assistance by making sure they get help, not only as planners but also as fellow

humans (Halldin, 2016).

Results of public participation

The most notable results of public participation, or lack thereof, is most notably the appealing

process. The participants tend to be individuals with a strong feeling against the development

in question, usually of NIMBYism related nature.

In her own experience, Kristina Sandberg tells about her work as a consultant and mediator

during public hearings. Her involvement in the planning process tend to be perceived as yet

another official in the eyes of the public. The resulting dialogue at the hearing turned in to a

‘we’ against ‘them’, with both sides turning in to antagonists. Sandberg, too, cites Mouffe with

having a proper democracy means allowing every opinion and attitude to have its place to

9

express itself but also being open for criticism under a common set of rules. The planners and

officials had sent out their talking points and argument in written form three weeks in advance,

to let the public know what to expect. Nevertheless, the project’s presentation put the public in

the position to react to these changes. This led to a major protest against the officials and their

project. Sandberg ponders if this could have been avoided by reaching out earlier for the

public’s viewpoint rather than inviting them to ‘defend their neighbourhood’ so the first point

could be less chaotic (Sandberg, 2016). With a growing dissent between the professional

planners and the public, the need for a more open and welcoming dialogue is needed without

anyone forced in to the defensive.

Professional forums PLAN is a journal focused on urban development and planning. The content involves debate

on both old and new challenges and methods in the subject with participants ranging from

professionals and academics to people interested in planning. The following subjects are from

articles published in PLAN concerning public participation.

Language

When looking at the basis of participation and communication, language is the key to mediating

the concerns between individuals and groups. If not careful, one can create barriers or even

manipulate by having an upper hand with knowledge. The language that authorities and

agencies use plays a vital role in a process when democratic ideals are to be upheld. Jonas

Carlquist, Linda Pfister, Ulrika Åkerlund and Olof Stjernström have together investigated a

planning process in a smaller municipality in Sweden. In this project, a simplification of

language has led to more confusion with no clear understanding on actions the involved parties

had taken. Furthermore, a lack of clear authority between the different parties led to doubt on

where to turn to for information and influence. In all likelihood, this has been a way for the

planners to try to simplify the information for a broader audience but in turn lost the cohesion

needed to understand the structure if the project. It might also be an attempt at hiding

information that might not be beneficial to the ones in charge. Carlquist and his colleagues

points out that if the processes behind the information still can’t be put in to question, the power

of the public wanes in the face of uncertainty. They conclude that the ones that decide on how

to express the information have a unique and complicated power (Carlquist et al., 2017).

Language is an important factor, no matter the subject. It is the foundation of our

communication and if that is flawed then it will affect everything that rests upon it.

Cultural perspectives

Using artists during the planning process is another way of channelling the public’s wishes by

using them as a mediator, or further diverting attention from topics by creating new ones.

Thomas Borén and Craig Young examined different projects in Europe where artists and

planners interacted with each other to create new ideas for the built environment. Recent years

have showed us that the policies around cultural development has placed economic growth as

the foremost goal. This has been heavily criticised by both the artist and science community to

be detrimental to the future of culture and arts in our environment. Their research boils down

to five conceptual rooms, where the first is when the planners include the artist as advisors to

reach the goals set in the overall planning. This can be accomplished in ways like creating

dialogue or giving a voice to the public. It is a method to add additional knowledge which the

planners themselves usually do not possess to the process. The second one is in a similar vein,

but the artist is a part of the process from the start and stands equal with the planner. This has

10

shown to increase the meaningfulness in the eyes of all the people involved when the artist has

more freedom than the planner, as well as the artist being able to open new solutions and ideas

through dialogue with different professions. The artist was able to not only contribute with

design but also new perspectives and mindsets. A third way is to create so-called cool forums

where the participants could be free to suggest changes or ideas completely outside of the box

without being burdened by policies, economic limits or other possible consequences. In short,

cool forums are for people not to worry about losing face or possible shortcomings in

negotiation. In the fourth conceptual room, the artist is the one that initiates the changes even

before the conceptual phase. Much in the same way that local groups who desire change start

their own movements, the artist may also be some sort of creative initiators. Partnership with

other local movements and planning agencies are important here to realise the goals that are set

out, otherwise the project in question will fall apart under the weight of its ambitions. The fifth

and final room is where the art in itself is the centre of change, rather than the location. The art

will create action and the resulting atmosphere will create a conceptual room from which new

ideas and meetings can grow fourth. But these categorised conceptual rooms are not absolute,

since there is so much more than simple summarisation can convey. It might, however, create

an overview from which planners and artists can survey what alternatives are at hand and how

to proceed (Borén and Young, 2015). Mediators are important in a society where expertise and

professional experience are a growing need to even begin to understand topics, while at the

same time be careful not to lose anything in the exchange.

Participation

A lack of proper goals of the future aspects regarding local city planning clouds the vision of

the inhabitants and adds to the uncertainty they usually feel towards new projects, according to

Kristina Berglund. She argues that a large part of the delays in the planning process stems from

a growing disconnection between the local government and its populace, mainly since the actual

participation and dialogue is initiated late in the process. This leads to a perception that there is

no alternative to the project other than a choice between ‘for’ or ‘against’. The solution to this

is further emphasis on the overall comprehensive area-based planning (områdesplanering) in

larger areas rather than allotment plans (detaljplaner) on a local level, with the former taking

place earlier and lays down a foundation for the public to more easily comprehend the aim of

the planning and development. The results will be a process where all the projects will be

collected under a local set of rules from which the planners can centralise information and

legislature procedures. Berglund hopes that this will solve the issue of running the risk of having

several appealing cases during separate projects by dealing with such concerns during this land

and area use process (Berglund, 2015). By aiming to combat disagreement at an early stage,

this would probably help to shorten legal premises in theory.

In retaliation to this argument, Maria Håkansson and Krister Olsson urges to take a step even

further by engaging the public outside the process. The municipality itself may be perceived as

a single unit, which contradicts the actual processes that issues go through when passing several

different layers and levels of agencies, committees and boards. This might discourage

inhabitants to pursue their wishes when it comes to the development of the shared environment.

This problem won’t be solved even if the process is simplified by moving it to a different level

without proper engagement with initiating dialogue. On top of this, the situation today has

advanced heavily in recent decades regarding economic and social aspects. The digitalisation

of society has shaken our conception of meeting places and communication. Our tools in the

planning process need to meet new demands or our dialogue will stagnate. Håkansson and

11

Olsson point to three perspectives that need to be addressed. The first having people take an

initiative themselves regarding mobilisation and action. Few are aware that what the local

governance has decided about projects they initialise are far from invincible from the voice of

the public, even outside the planning process. Also, their influence on companies as possible

consumers and customers, where the added economic weight might stir even the most stubborn

official. And lastly the power of unification through organisations and associations when

sharing a common goal. There is an incentive towards communication and dialogue between

officials and inhabitants in the legislature that helps the public participate but the conditions

and definitions of what is possible needs to be clarified (Håkansson and Olsson, 2015).

Discussion To summarise and for direct comparison, the table represent the differing areas’ general idea

considering public participation. While they exhibit a consensus, there is a slight variation in

troubleshooting and analysis between the areas.

The overall understanding from all levels is what seems like a genuine wish for the inclusion

of inhabitants and the public in the planning process, whether for sustainability or democratic

ideals. Sustainability in the form of further action to supply the needs of the inhabitants, both

ecologically and socially. Through activation of conscious communication and discussion, a

Public sector Researchers Professionals

Current form

For the most part taking

place during public

hearings according to the

legislature to integrate

the public in the planning

process.

Public hearings that

are organised by the

powerholders that

occur together with

corresponding

projects.

Dialogue between

parties during projects

with growing

misunderstandings and

stances of ‘we’ against

‘them’.

Results

Through unique

implementations and

innovative projects,

citizens and concerned

members of the public

are able to influence how

the development is

formed.

Projects are pushed

forward while the

hearings are used as a

medium to achieve the

goals of

democratisation.

Since the usual

participants from the

public tend to have

strong feelings against

the projects, lengthy

appeals and general

disagreement from

what tends to be a one-

way dialogue becomes

the final product in

disputed cases.

Progress

Better communication

and information is

sought-after for greater

understanding and less

conflict based on

misconceptions.

The dialogue needs to

evolve and adapt to

the modern public and

its communication

methods, with a more

open and sensible

approach to the issues.

A common ground and

platform is needed for

communication

between experts and

amateurs to understand

each other in the

specialised subjects.

12

consensus is seen on getting the voice of everyone to the discussion as essential for the dialogue

to succeed in making a difference. Some, like Brolund de Carvalho, Håkansson and Olsson,

point to the need of activating the public outside public hearings set up according to the PBL.

This also aligns with the wishes of Boverket and SKL where the dialogue is always there with

the public. As people’s habits change, so must the methods of which we use in society with

them. Social media seems like a necessary step to activate in order to move forward with an

open dialogue in accordance to planning, with events and interviews being transparent and open

for all to see or even drop by and casually ask a question themselves. At the same time,

anonymity seems like a growing problem in bigger cities and may give rise to apathy regarding

development and general isolation, but that is a discussion for another time. It seems that the

first category of Arnsteins ladder is far away from the reality of Swedish society. Thankfully,

all seem to understand that the current system works on the consultation degree at the least.

Tahvilzadeh brings up the risk that many projects might be plagued by powerholders on the

hunt for legitimisation, but even that is the lowest form projects might reach in Sweden today.

But the reality seems to be troubled by social dilemmas of marginalised groups. Current

dialogue being dominated by certain groups while, intentionally or not, silencing others turns

the ideal of democracy into a farce while issuing the impression of elitism and social class when

it comes to decision making and influence. Professionally, patriarchy has long since been a

present problem while groups may locally assert power through tradition or expertise when

people have no apparent attachment to the participation. Furthermore, barriers such as limited

time and/or resources hinders people from attending some forms of participation. These

problems pose a risk to jeopardise the fundamental reason behind modern public participation

and need to be countered through balancing the interest between these groups. The need to

empower marginalised groups in some cases grows fourth but has shown to be difficult to

identify unless it is known beforehand how the local groups are organised. It is in cases like

these that it is hard to pinpoint the exact level of participation and influence according to

Arnstein’s ladder, since the power of the citizen varies depending on which group it belongs to.

As Björnson recommends, the need to find neutral ground between groups might grow more

important especially if the divide between socioeconomic groups grows bigger and if even news

ones are formed. This ties in with the problem of communication as well, when the risk of

alienating certain groups based on how the communication and information is presented is a

problem since there is always a growing expertise around the subject area of urban planning.

The need to come across to the public with both language and proper modelling is essential if

the ideal of proper participation is to live up to its goals.

13

Conclusion and reflection With an ever-growing incentive for officials and professionals to activate the public, the current

views of public participation in Sweden seems to centre around how to improve the dialogue

between officials and inhabitants. The participation is not reaching out to everyone which may

result in imbalanced feedback from the public. The underlying problem is that there is not

enough incentive for the public to attend the public hearings which has led to warped viewpoints

and imbalanced opinion related arguments, and therefore need to find new methods outside the

current system. These methods may lie in a modernised communication platform, such as social

media or more interactive information outlets.

Further research should be made in these areas with a focus point on how to streamline and

empower the communication and information to the public and between the concerned actors

in the public participation.

14

References Al-khamisi, R. (2015) ’Dialogen som blev en monolog’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S.

and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72,

Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.

Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, JAIP, Vol. 35, No.4, July 1969, pp.

216-224.

Arkus (2017) Om Arkus, [Online] http://www.arkus.se/om-arkus/ [23 May 2017]

Berglund, K. (2015) ’Debatt – Forma staden i dialog med medborgarna!’, in Bosaeus, M. and

Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 1 2015, pp 50-51.

Björnson, M. (2015) ’Stadsplanering på tjejers villkor’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S.

and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72,

Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.

Borén, T. and Young, C. (2015) ’Interaktion mellan konstnärer och planerare’, in Bosaeus, M.

and Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 6 2015, pp 14–17.

Boverket (2014) PBL Kunskapsbanken – en handbok om plan- och bygglagen, [Online]

http://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/Allmant-om-PBL/lag--ratt/plan--och-

bygglagsstiftningens-utveckling/ [3 May 2017].

Boverket (2017) Medborgardialog, [Online]

http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/kommunal-planering/medborgardialog1/ [19

May 2017].

Brolund de Carvalho, S. (2015) ’Sökandet efter en arkitektroll i medborgarens tjänst’, in

Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller

dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.

Carlquist, J., Pfister, L., Stjernström, O. and Åkerlund, U. (2017) ’Språk och planering’, in

Bosaeus, M. and Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 1 2017, pp 48–51.

Cars, G. (2015) ’Medborgardialog – ett verktyg för att stärka demokratin i

samhällsplaneringen?’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.)

Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen

Arkus.

Halldin, M. (2016) ’Mannen i butiken’, in Bornemark, J. (.ed) Medborgardialog – om det

svåra i att mötas, Arkus issue 74, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.

Håkansson, M. and Olsson, K. (2015) ‘Debatt – Inflytande på medborgarnas villkor’, in

Bosaeus, M. and Ekelund, B. (ed.) PLAN, Issue No. 1 2015, pp 52-53.

Lindholm, T. (2015) ’Medborgardialog – ett sätt att bygga socialt kapital?’, in Lindholm, T.,

Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?,

Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.

15

Listerborn, C. (2015) ’Medborgarinflytande – om makt, genus och stadsutveckling’, in

Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller

dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.

Sandberg, K. (2016) ’Det goda samtalet’, in Bornemark, J. (.ed) Medborgardialog – om det

svåra i att mötas, Arkus issue 74, Stockholm: Stiftelsen Arkus.

SKL (2017a) Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, https://www.skl.se/ [22 May 2017]

SKL (2017b) Utveckla medborgardialoger i kommuner, landsting och regioner [Online]

https://skl.se/demokratiledningstyrning/medborgardialogdelaktighet/medborgardialog.372.ht

ml [22 May 2017]

Tahvilzadeh, N. (2015) ‘Deltagande styrning – optimistiska och pessimistiska perspektiv på

medborgardialoger som demokratipolitik’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg,

S. (ed.) Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm:

Stiftelsen Arkus.

Tunström, M. (2015) ’Gemenskap i den hållbara staden – social hållbarhet och

medborgarinflytande’, in Lindholm, T., Oliveira e Costa, S. and Wiberg, S. (ed.)

Medborgardialog – demokrati eller dekoration?, Arkus issue 72, Stockholm: Stiftelsen

Arkus.

Figures

Figure 1, Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, JAIP, Vol. 35, No.4, July

1969, pp. 217.