Public Participation in Municipal Planning as a Tool for Coastal Management: Case Studies from Western Sweden

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, researchlibraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Public Participation in Municipal Planning as a Tool for Coastal Management:Case Studies from Western SwedenAuthor(s): Andrea MorfSource: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(2):74-83. 2005.Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.74URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.74

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books publishedby nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiriesor rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.74

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.2.74

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005http://www.ambio.kva.se

74 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 2, March 2005

Public Participation in Municipal Planning as a Tool for Coastal Management: Case Studies from Western Sweden

Andrea Morf

This article analyses four main models of participa-tion in Swedish natural resource management and assesses strengths and weaknesses of one model (participation in physical/spatial planning) based on empirical studies of coastal resource conflicts in two Swedish west coast municipalities. In comparison to other administrative and planning procedures, physi-cal planning offers possibilities to coordinate land and water management across sectors and resources and to broaden stakeholder participation. Local influence on coastal management increases with participation beyond the statutory minimum requirements, although management frameworks and practice of participa-tion need to be developed further. Besides educating professionals and experimenting with combinations of existing procedures, in the long run an adaptation of legislation to the requirements of integrated and sustainable coastal management will be necessary.

DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENTDuring the 20th century the pressure of growing population and human activities in many coastal areas caused problems of pollution, a decline in resource quality, and a resource shortage. Governmental agencies and administrations could not successfully manage many of the resulting problems and conflicts. Therefore, since the 1970s, new initiatives for cross-sectoral and integrated management of resources have been initiated in many countries. Since the 1990s the interna-tional debate, research, and exchange of knowledge between researchers and practitioners about coastal and marine man-agement has followed the now established ideas of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). Scientific contributions were at first mainly related to the natural sciences and tech-nology—dealing mainly with, e.g. ecosystem characteristics, resources status, human impacts, and coastal engineering (1, 2). These are now being complemented by social science and interdisciplinary research into the human components of the resource management system. This research focuses on ef-fectiveness of rules and regulations, human behavior, pre-conditions for successful administration, and the inclusion of local actors and their knowledge. The important conclusions from the international ICZM debate so far can be summa-rized in four basic recommendations concerning i) integra-tion and coordination; ii) subsidiarity; iii) adaptability; and iv) user-participation (Box 1). New roles are developing for political and administrative actors and for resource users, which requires continuous updating of knowledge and the renewal of institutional structures, including a further devel-

opment of structures for communication and participation of stakeholders. Institutions can be developed either by adapting the exist-ing system of resource administration and connecting institu-tions, or by creating new authorities and institutions to man-age coastal areas. Developed countries use both strategies. Australia, for instance, created new management systems for coastal and ocean management, while other countries, including Sweden, have made minor changes to the tradi-tional system of public administration. The measures taken to institutionalize participation in coastal management were dependent on stakeholder pressure and on the degree of par-ticipation already existing in the political and administrative system. This article discusses the potentials and problems of pub-lic participation in physical planning (5) for the purpose of managing coastal resource conflicts. It is based on case stud-ies of coastal resource conflicts in municipal planning from two municipalities on the West Coast of Sweden (Strömstad and Kungälv, Fig. 1, Table 3).

COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SWEDENThe Swedish system of natural resource management is sec-tor-based and centralized and includes three main levels of

Box 1Basic requirements for integrative coastal managementIntegration and coordination: Applying a systems-per-spective and adaptation of administrative institutions to the problems not vice versa; enhancing coordination and restructuring of those administrative systems with a nar-row onshore perspective and little attention to environ-mental interconnectedness; integrating policies aiming at the management of water and land; integrating private and public activities, and integrating scientific knowledge and traditional resource usersʼ knowledge. Subsidiarity: Taking decisions on the lowest appropri-ate level with controls at higher levels.Adaptive approach: Continuous monitoring of effects and adaptation of the management frameworks and the use of a precautionary approach are necessary because the managed resource- and ecosystems change con-tinuously.Participation: Enhancing the involvement of the public and of local resource users to improve the quality of re-source management and its acceptance.

Sources: (1,3,4).


Ambio Vol. 34, No. 2, March 2005 75

formal regulation: national, regional, and municipal. A large part of the rights regarding coastal natural resources are cod-ified in national laws and ordinances (fisheries, conservation, agriculture, forestry, environment, building, infrastructure, etc.). National authorities and their regional offices regulate resource use in detail through laws, ordinances, licenses, fees, and bans. So far, regional political institutions have only marginally been involved in natural resource manage-ment, with the exception of the Stockholm area. On the mu-nicipal level, physical planning (strategic and operational planning) and sector authorities (especially infrastructure, environment, health) manage natural resources. Resource use can also be formalized and managed by local organiza-tions managing facilities for their members (roads, harbors, drinking water or sewage treatment plants). Common prac-tice and tradition are a further source of rules. The Swedish debate about management of natural resourc-es across sectors began relatively early during the 1960s, in connection with increasing pressure on the coast from the development of industry and tourism. A territorial planning approach with a cross-sectoral natural resource perspective was used (National Physical Planning), though not with a

coastal focus. It resulted in municipal and cross-munici-pal coastal plans in some regions and in the codification of general national priorities in a Natural Resource Act (NRA, 1987). Except in the Stockholm Region, the cross-municipal plans have not been renewed. Between 1978 and 1990, a na-tional Marine Resource Commission coordinated research, supported method tests in coastal planning (6), and fulfilled other connecting functions within and outside the adminis-tration. Today there are no permanent cross-sectoral manage-ment institutions such as national coastal or marine plans on the national level. The debate about participation is fragmented and is fo-cused less on coastal management than on physical plan-ning (7), rural development (8), planning and rural devel-opment (9), or planning and urban environmental concerns (sustainable urban development (10, 11)). Exceptions are a project on planning in coastal villages on the West Coast in the early 1980s (12) and a few reports (13–15). The idea of local participation in coastal management combined with a comprehensive approach has become a guiding idea of sus-tainable development in archipelagos (16–18), of manage-ment of marine areas (19), of Community Initiatives of the European Union (LEADER, INTERREG, and ICZM-recom-mendations (4, 20)). How far participation of local resource users has been incorporated in the Swedish system of coastal management will be analyzed below.

Participation in Swedish Coastal Management

In Sweden, the involvement of affected stakeholders in the pro-cess of rule design is widely accepted. The question is when and why they should participate, and how strong their influence should be. As there is no single marine management author-ity, there are diverse sector specific participation procedures, relevant to coastal management. In natural resource adminis-tration, four main procedural models for formal stakeholder participation can be distinguished, none of which are restricted to marine resource management:i) negotiations between authorities and stakeholder repre-

sentatives (resource management);ii) small-group negotiations with all affected stakeholders

facilitated by authorities (land management);iii) public hearings with affected stakeholders and interested

NGOs (for court verdicts in environmental matters); and iv) public participation facilitated by authorities where the

specific form of involvement is open but guided by mini-mum requirements (municipal territorial management).

The possibilities of public influence and the degree of integration across administrative sectors, resources, hierar-chical levels, and between different types of knowledge vary considerably between these models. Sector authorities typi-cally apply one of them, with varying degrees of formaliza-tion, based on the history of administration, the management problems faced, and the stakeholders involved. The procedur-al models are characterized in Table 1 and compared below. Sector based resource management (with participation-model 1) has developed over a long time and can include noncodified procedures for stakeholder participation proce-dures of stakeholder participation. For the national co-man-agement system in fisheries see (21). With conservation areas, affected individuals (landowners) have to be consulted and can appeal against authority decisions (recently modernized legislation) (21). With the growing tasks of state- and inter-national management during the 20th century, management became more formalized and new administrative sectors were formed. To balance the increasing control by authori-

Figure 1. Map of the Swedish west coast showing the municipal territory of coastal municipalities. Strömstad and Kungälv are the case study municipalities. Sites of conflict studies are indicated. Shaded: coastal zone according to the natural resource regulation paragraphs in the Environmental Code SFS 1998:808 (except one further inland area).(Electronic source: County Administration Västra Götaland, adapted.)



ties, other stakeholders—interest organizations of producers, consumers, and distributors—found ways to be included in management (e.g. through referrals, negotiations, represen-tatives in authorities). Local resource users may not have the right to participate in all the important negotiations or can participate only through representatives in national organi-zations, which is no longer seen as sufficient participation. Involvement of local stakeholders is so far mainly found in experimental studies Authorities have become interested in including local stakeholders on the basis of test-projects - for conservation see (22). A recent example regarding fisheries and conservation is an agreement for non-trawling areas in the Koster Trench on marine territory of Strömstad and Ta-num municipalities. It was reached in 2000 by a bi-sectoral discussion group involving authorities, fisheries organiza-tions, fishing gear developers, local politicians, and local fishermen (21) (22).

Cadastral procedures (model 2), an old tool in land use management, are negotiations led by experts (surveyors, ca-dastral officers) with formal rights of facilitation and deci-sion-making. Within Europe, this model has parallels only in Finland (23). Of special interest is the possibility of cre-ating local organizations to manage common facilities for small communities (beaches, harbor areas, green areas, etc.). Through these organizations, authorities can delegate man-agement tasks to landowners, e.g. regarding drinking water, and roads. New areas of application are being explored in connection with public planning and the implementation of the EU-Water Directive. The important features of Environmental Court hearings (model 3) are the cross-sectoral and project-oriented envi-ronmental perspective, the possibility of broad participa-tion, and the formal right of certain interest organizations to protest. In procedural model 4, participation in planning,

Table 1. Models of stakeholder participation in Swedish coastal management.

Type of participation model and hosting management procedurePurposes, characteristics and legal base

Possibilities of participation and appeal Decision making, role of main expert and other authorities

Forms and degree of integration

1) Negotiations with representatives in sector- natural resource managementApplied in, e.g. fisheries, agriculture, forestry, conserva-tion, etc. on national and to some extent regional level.Purposes: Distribution and enhancement of resource, effective production or protection.Often non-codified procedures for the involvement of stakeholders (history and traditions).Based on sector law such as Fisheries Act, conservation, forestry- or agriculture- legislation

Representation of interests: Negotiations with selected stakeholders, often organized representatives. Partially co-management on high level.Participation in many sectors optional. EU-regulation will eventually lead to enacting of user participation.Right of appeal against many types of decisions according to general procedural law.

Often on higher than local level (ordinances, licences, permits, etc.), decision by experts after consultation and negotiation with representatives of important stakeholder groups. Mainly author-itative expert decision, to some extent voluntary agreements.Content: rules for extraction & management of resource.

Often one specific resource is regulated (e.g. species of fish).Multilevel integration possible.Often bilateral, (e.g. fishermen – fisheries administration), rarely multilateral.Integration of local knowledge possible, increasing lately.

2) Cadastral procedures by land survey- or cadastral authorities (lantmäteriförrättning)Applied in local-scale territorial management with among other following purposes:a) Formalized management of collective facilities: creation of organizations to manage infrastructure or local natural assets: harbor, road, green area, groundwater. Specific management responsibilities located with landowners. Can imply a delegation of management rights.b) Distribution of land (territorial delimitation), use-rights and -duties or costs (rights of way, user rights).Legal base: Property Formation Act SFS 1970:988)

Participants: mainly landowners affected by specific real estate-& land use problem or building project requiring a collective and binding solution.After decision participants have to tolerate certain impact/use (or to contribute to an organization, in case of organizations receiving right to design management rules).Authorities or private actors can apply for procedures.Appeal possible for affected stakeholders.

Cadastral officer in multiple roles as legal- and land management expert, process-facilitator, mediator, and finally deciding authority. Officer can be assisted by two trustees.Possible content: decisions about organization form and -tasks, distri-bution of costs, other financial and material commitments of participants.Other authorities are included according to their role (landown-ers, defending state interests).

Multilateral.Many resources (sometimes).Multilevel integration to some extent: Focus on local level, with inclusion of higher levels.Integration of local knowledge relatively frequent (direct contact with land-owners).

3) Public hearings in Environmental- and Water-Court procedures (miljö- resp. vattendomstolsförfarande)Juridical procedure with environmental purpose. Lowest level of court is regional. Assessment of environmental impacts of applications for specific projects in specific sites. Required, e.g. for examining certain types of activities with considerable effect on the environment.An environmental impact assessment (EIA) report has to be presented.Legal base: Environmental Code SFS 1998:808

Participants: interested public, affected stakeholders, interest organizations. Process announced publicly, anyone may participate in hearings or write. Public hearings with party-statements. Written statements, writers are invited to the court sessions.Some stakeholders have further possibilities for influence (e.g. right of appeal for interested parties and some NGOs).

Expert-decision, juridical verdict (judge and issue-related experts), based on EIA and statements.Possible content: problems to address further, means to address them, exemptions from existing regulation, cost distribution.Political and administrative authorities included according to their role (stakeholders, defending state interests, controlling organs).

Project-scope.Multilateral.Multilevel integration.Often many resources.Integration of non-scientific knowledge possible (rare in usual EIAs). Most likely through direct stakeholder involvement at hearings and through letters.

4) Participation procedures in municipal (cross-municipal) physical planning for elaborating land- and water use plans for territorial management mainly on municipal and more local scale. Main territorial planning authority on municipal level (municipal planning monopoly). Possibility for cross-municipal planning (Regional Plan). Non-binding strategic, binding operational-level plans.Legal base: Planning- and Building Act SFS 1987:10. Further information on instruments and procedure see Box 2 this issue.

Everybody may participate in consultation, if the process is enhanced, even other activities. Written comments mandatory, oral possible (meetings). Participation report (summarizes comments and answers them).General right of appeal against procedural deficits in strategic planning. Right of appeal for affected stakeholders against binding operational-level plans.

Decisions by politicians: adaptation of procedure and scope, adoption of plans, certain permits.Planning experts involved in plan design, making recommendations, management of participation process.Administration and executive political bodies involved in control and implementation.

Scope: variable topics and territory (cross-municipal).Multilevel integration.Multilateral.Multiple resource use.Integration of local, nonscientific knowledge possible, if participation process is open.



municipal politicians adopt the plans. Participation can be broadened to include potentially important actors within the municipal territory. Planners can have multiple roles as ex-perts, process facilitators and conflict managers, but tend to pay most attention to the first. Participation models 3 and 4 build on legislation from the late 20th century; their broad scope is a response to recent debates and demands for increased public involvement in authorities’ decisions. All procedural models are used both onshore and offshore, but most regulation occurs onshore. Stakeholder involvement can be enhanced in all statutory models of participation. Involvement in decision-making, however, is limited by law. Most procedures include a pos-sibility of appeal for stakeholders directly affected by a deci-sion. The older models 1 and 2 imply exclusive negotiations between small groups of stakeholders with specific resource interests and the authorities, whereas the more recent models 3 and 4 aim at including all potentially relevant interests of a broad range of stakeholders. Court procedures are highly formalized, with little room for non-experts, except during hearings and court sessions. The other three procedures (sec-tor negotiations, cadastral procedures, planning) are easier to open at other than the statutory stages of participation.

The procedural models 1 and 2 tend to isolate and solve parts of problems. In models 3, and especially 4, the prob-lem-solving process is broader and can be adapted to the characteristics of the wider problem and the actors involved. In most administrative sectors using models 1 and 2, the in-struments of implementation are directly accessible, whereas the authorities practicing 3 and 4 partially have to rely on the instruments of other authorities. The efficiency-oriented strategy of isolating problems and restricting stakeholders in models 1 and 2 can lead to problems or actors being ne-glected. The ambition to include large groups in models 3 and 4 can complicate the process for individual participants, for the collecting of information and finding of solutions. In the two former, more traditional models, experts with “sec-tor-specific competence” play a central role. They design the process of participation and decide the outcome, but are only indirectly responsible to political bodies. The juridical and issue specific experts in environmental court procedures are also prominent, but not connected with the administration. In planning, the experts still have considerable influence; they are, however, subject to direct and regular guidance from po-

litical institutions (municipal executive, parliament, commit-tee). In Table 2, the procedural models for participation are arranged according to two important challenges in coastal management: the complexity of management problems and the number (and diversity) of involved stakeholders. Depending on the character of the problem, certain proce-dures work under “normal” circumstances and on small scales (local circle of stakeholders, minor resource problem). The

Table 2. Classification of participation models according to problem complexity and stakeholder diversity.

Problem complexity

Relatively low High

Number and diversity of stakeholders

Relatively low 1a) Sector negotia-tions with stakehold-ers directly (local scope, e.g. conservation)

2) Negotiations in cadastral procedures (local scope)

High 1b) Sector negotia-tions via representa-tives (mostly non-local scope, partially international, e.g. fisheries, marine transport, agriculture, conservation)

3) Public hearings in environmental court procedures (specific project scope, usually local, high diversity of stakeholders)4) Participation in physical planning (territorially comprehensive scope: local or cross-municipal, high diversity of stakeholders)

Box 2Statutory planning instruments and requirements of participationPlanning InstrumentsRegional planning instruments: regional plans, elabo-rated by regional planning associations of municipalities can be used to coordinate across municipal boundaries (not binding Planning and Building Act; (PBA) Chapter 7) and to formulate regional priorities (agreement between municipalities on public priorities).Municipal planning instrumentsMunicipal Comprehensive Plans (strategic plan, not binding, PBA, Chapter 4) can establish public priorities that can over-ride individual ownerʼs rights. In-depth comprehensive planning on specific topics or part of territory (as part of overall strategic plan, not binding, PBA, Chapter 4) can establish public priorities that may override individual ownerʼs rightsDetailed Development Plans (operational plan, binding; PBA, Chapter 5) give the right to develop, if rules in the plan are followed.Special Area Regulations regulate specific topics (opera-tional instrument, binding; PBA, Chapter 5) and imply no right to develop an area.

Participation in PlanningThere are two to three statutory occasions for participation, depending on the type of plan. The presentations of plan drafts have to be announced publicly. Consultation is required for Municipal Comprehensive Plans (Chapter 4), Detailed Development Plans, and Special Area Regulations (Chapter 5). This includes administrative actors on different levels and local key groups and organizations. Participation of further stake-holders is encouraged. For Detailed Development Plans there are three phases of participation, including two for consultation: The first consultation takes place during formulation of the program for the planning process. Pro-gram-consultation and consultation are usually for the af-fected stakeholders only. In comprehensive planning, the consultation phase is open to all. Public exhibition is required for all three types of instru-ments: Municipal Comprehensive Plans (Chapter 4), De-tailed Development Plans, and Special Area Regulations (Chapter 5). This is the last public presentation of a pro-posal before its final revision and the political adoption in the municipal parliament. After public exhibition no more fundamental changes should be made (otherwise the plan has to be exhibited anew).Appeal against an operational planʼs content is possible mainly for affected stakeholders who at earlier stages of the process have reacted against the plan without being heard. Appeal against political decisions about plans or the procedure is possible for all kinds of plans and for all residents or landowners in a municipality (Chapter 13 PBA SFS 1987:10 and Chapters 1 and 10 Municipal Act SFS 1991:900).Source: Adapted from (26) using Planning and Building Act SFS 1987:10.



Table 3. Characterization of the conflict cases (regarding planning, participation, natural resource conflicts).

Conflict Case Koster Archipelago in Strömstad Hälle in Strömstad Coastal dwelling in Kungälv

Coastal energy sources in Kungälv

Process- and Outcome-Characteristics

Nature conservation vs. develop-ment for residence or tourism, including water resource problems

Tourist facility by the shore vs. conservation and residence

Permanent residence in leisure houses vs. access to shoes, including water resource problems

Establishment of wind power plants in coastal locations vs. conservation and residence

Type of planning procedures and instruments used

Local level strategic planning (mainly)Operational planning case by case (houses, infrastructure)

Municipal level strategic planning (mainly)Operational planning for facility

Municipal level strategic planningLocal level strategic planning, programmatic cadastral procedureOperational planning case by case

Municipal strategic planning, topical strategic planningOperational planning: case by case requests for aggregates

Active involvement of different types of stakeholders

LandownersEnterprisesWater usersLocal NGOs for various interests (users, entrants, owners)Authorities partially representing “entrant” interests

LandownersEnterprisesAuthoritiesLocal NGOs represent-ing entrants

LandownersAuthorities representing entrants (public interest)Local NGOs representing entrant- and owner interests

LandownersEnterprises (arguing for themselves or entrants)AuthoritiesLocal and regional NGOs for tourism- (“entrant”) and environmental interests

Facilitation of a local debate

Involving local actors more than usual planning processes (study circles over several years). Process driven by committed individuals and local organizations.

To some extent local debate: After protests a local level vision process was initiated but soon discontinued. Disproportionate involvement of some individuals and local organizations.

Whole municipality: little debate at first, until conflicts became notorious.Enhanced local debate in specific places with local strategic planning. Local organizations as driving force in some areas.

To some extent, but no more than for other comprehensive planning issues.Intensive involvement of some individuals and local organizations.

Local definition of planning agenda

Initially top down management, then agenda to a large extent defined locally. Finally increasing municipal influence again.

Municipality selected from local suggestions for defining the planning agenda.

Agenda influenced by local and higher levels (first higher-level dominated, then more local-level).

Agenda influenced by local and higher levels (initiated by pro-wind power interests, slowed down by contra-interests).

Sustainability-problems raised-> Debate mainly-> Proposals to some extent

Environmental aspects were central and combined with local livelihood (including social and economic aspects).

Environmental and economic aspects were central in conflict.

Environmental aspects were central for authorities, economic- and property aspects central for local stakeholders.

Environmental aspects (biodiversity, esthetical) central regarding effects of new energy source. Environmental dilemma.

Resources debatedin order of importance (first in list is highest)

Land (space, uses)LandscapeGroundwaterShore (access)Water surfaceLiving resources, i.e. fish, mussels (consumption, effects on biodiversity)

LandscapeLand (use, space)Shore (access)GroundwaterWater surfaceLiving resources (fish, biodiversity, etc.)

Land (space, uses)LandscapeShore (access)GroundwaterLiving resources (effects on biodiversity)

Coastal landscape (location)Wind energyLand (uses)Water surface (one case)Living resources (effects on biodiversity)

Outcomes of the process regarding regulation of coastal resource-use

Specifying existing rulesRedefining & interpretation of lawNew rules after changed public prioritiesSpecifying further procedures to elaborate detailed regulation

Redefining, new interpretation of higher level public prioritiesSpecifying existing rulesNew rules for new useSpecifying further procedures to elaborate detailed regulation

Redefining of rulesSpecifying existing rulesNew rules in relation to changed prioritiesSpecifying further procedures to elaborate detailed regulationCompromise across resources

Specifying existing rulesNew rules for new use, especially in relation to application proceduresDefining further procedures

Outcomes in relation to participation: a) Debate about participationb) consecutive adapta-tion of proceduresc) New local forums

a) Intensive debate especially in the beginningb) Permanent adaptation of procedures, broadly accepted new forumsc) Several new local organizations with broader scope than lobbying

a) Challenging debate during whole processb) Transitory adapta-tions of proceduresc) New local lobby organization

a) Debated during process in some areas b) Transitory and permanent adaptations of proceduresc) New local lobby organizations and new organizations for common facilities

a) Raised during process and for some specific sites b) Transitory adaptations (testing of procedures)c) New local and regional lobby organizations

Outcomes until autumn 2004 regarding conflict solution

More or less accepted strategic-level solution, implemented regarding some problems in specific areas. Local, highly specific conflicts possible.

So far largely unsolved. Strategic-level priorities are conflictive.

More or less accepted solution on strategic level, some operational level solution. Local and highly specific conflicts possible.

Merely strategic level solution so far. No practical implementation of wind power yet.

Sources: Adapted from (26)



lower right compartment of Table 2 describes the situations presenting the main challenges in coastal resource manage-ment: With high problem complexity and diversity of stake-holders, resource management can at times face insuperable difficulties. For such situations it is necessary to find and test new approaches, although answers may only be partial, temporary or highly situation-specific. An important obstacle may be that both the instruments of resource administration (such as plans, ordinances, permits), and participation proce-dures are tied to specific legislation. Participation procedures can be restricted in other ways too, for example to specific projects (model 3) or to the municipal level (model 4), which may not be satisfactory for coastal management purposes. For certain problems, a combination or “hybridization” of procedures can be more appropriate. There are, for instance, strong links between physical planning and cadastral proce-dures, the latter based on land-use decisions made in the for-mer and sometimes vice versa. However, until recently these participation processes were held apart. Cadastral- and planning procedures can be combined to establish formal responsibilities locally when implementing the EU Water Directive. Cadastral procedures could be used to manage water quality with farmers or other stakeholders by forming small local units with formalized responsibili-ties (24). Planning methods can be applied to connect local and regional units for managing water quality and coastal re-sources, although there are no adequate mechanisms to deal with problems on a higher than cross-municipal scale, both regarding participation and coordination (coastal region- or watershed area). After this structural analysis, below empiri-cal results from the case studies are discussed, concerning the role of participation in coastal management through physical planning today.

Physical Planning and Participation in Swedish Coastal Management

The Planning and Building Act (PBA 1987) defines planning instruments and minimum requirements for public partici-

pation (Box 2). Further involvement beyond two (or three) formalized consultations of stakeholders, even during other phases of a planning process, are optional for the municipali-ties and encouraged by higher level planning authorities (9, 25). Table 3 presents the four conflict cases from several per-spectives: planning instruments, degree of local mobilization and local definition of the agenda, natural resources con-cerned, and outcomes of the processes (for details see (27)). The statutory minimum for participation in planning con-sists in the public announcement of exhibitions and access to the plan draft, the possibility to submit a written opinion, and a participation report by planning authorities summariz-ing statements and changes. Many municipalities use similar basic methods. The “standard package” includes exhibitions, plan presentations at public meetings, and the possibility to react by letter or e-mail. For exhibition purposes, web-sites, accessible round-the-clock, and local meeting points such as libraries are used. The most common methods do not eas-ily facilitate a permanent dialogue and in-depth discussions about problems—possibilities of exchange are limited and participation occurs at a relatively late stage of planning. A frequent complement is to collect problems, views, and ideas from local actors early in the process, before designing a pro-posal. In more elaborate processes, methods such as study circles (14, 28, 29) (Koster) or local field offices (Kungälv) were used. Mobilization varies with the topics and the degree of ab-straction of a plan. Public attention and involvement tends to be short-term; it requires permanent dialogue (30) or concrete problems and solutions (9), to be maintained over long time. In the municipalities studied, the more elaborate processes with easily accessible and diverse forms of participation re-sulted in increased mobilization of residents. As supported by other studies (11), it was easier to mobilize people for lo-cal-scope planning. In-depth comprehensive planning with a local scope led to more participation, with higher numbers of stakeholders and improved quality of contributions. Howev-er, in the public debates observed, other planning topics than

Table 4. Participation in strategic and operational physical planning compared with codified rights.

Activities of managementActor groups Information Common

VisionPlan- & Rule

DesignConsult Debate

NegotiationDecide Appeal Implement Monitor

Entrants* with non-consumptive resource use

§SPOP

§(SP)(OP)

(SP) (SP)**

Resource users consuming resources

§SPOP

SP(OP)

(SP)(OP)

§SPOP

SPOP

(SP)** (SP)(OP)

(SP)

Land- and water owners §SPOP

(SP)OP

(SP)(OP)

§SPOP

SPOP

§(SP)**

OPSPOP

(SP)(OP

NGOs §SPOP

(SP) (SP)(OP)

§SPOP

SP(OP)

(§)(SP)**(OP)

(SP)(OP)

(SP)(OP)

Politicians §SPOP

SPOP

§SPOP

§SPOP

§SPOP

§SPOP

§(SP)**(OP)

§SPOP

Administrative expertsIncl. consultants

§SPOP

SP(OP)

§SPOP

§SPOP

§SPOP

(§)(SP)(OP)

(§) §SPOP

§SPOP

Sources: Adapted from (26).* The public as entrant has merely statutory rights to be informed and consulted in strategic planning and once during operational planning. The inclusion of entrants can be difficult (these are often not residing permanently in the place a plan is presented).** A strategic plan can only be appealed against in procedure.

Legend:§: Codified rights (mainly Planning and Building Act SFS 1987:10)SP: Possibility of participation in strategic (comprehensive) planningOP: Possibility of participation in operational planning() Parenthesis: under certain conditions (§) or in certain cases (SP&OP)



coastal problems and water-bound resources, often dominat-ed. Most frequent reactions from stakeholders regarded land use, groundwater (drinking water or sewage treatment) and infrastructure costs. Other water-based issues like marinas and coastal fisheries were raised mostly when the scope of planning was local; e.g. Koster, and Kungälv’s recent local coastal plans. Although there are successful examples of local involve-ment in both municipalities, the expectations about partici-pation did not always match the outcomes (31). Participa-tion does not necessarily imply influence on decisions or outcomes, which has led to disappointment among partici-pants. This indicates an apparently widespread problem in public planning processes: unclear roles of actors and dif-fuse purposes of participation. Unclear roles of participants created expectations about influence that were not met. Par-ticipants’ possible degree of influence and the intentions of participation were often not specified at first. Neither the mu-nicipalities nor the participants formulated their expectations clearly. This “openness” was unproblematic as long as there was consensus about procedures and issues. However, when a controversial issue arose and participants reacted because they felt neglected the municipalities were forced to specify the scope of participation (32).Stakeholders’ possibilities to influence plans vary depend-ing on their formal role, their cooperation, and the type of procedure. The final decisions about the content of the plans are made by political institutions, in close collaboration with the administration. This gives experts, leading politicians, and the committee working with the plan considerable influ-ence. Statutory participation is consultative and broad only late in the process, when the content of plans is less adapt-able. A representative mode of participation is widespread, especially for stakeholder involvement at an early stage of a planning process. The municipality contacts known organi-

zations, parties, interest groups (29, 33). Unorganized inter-ests have difficulties in entering the planning process at this stage. Influence varies with actors’ involvement in specific activities and with the enlargement of purposes of partici-pation beyond information and consultation about exhibited plans. The observed processes offered, to a varying degree, possibilities for participation in the following activities: spreading and collecting information, consultation about opinions or problems, creating a guiding vision for establish-ing priorities, plan- and rule design, debate and negotiation, decision-making about procedure and regulation, appeal against procedures and decisions, implementation of policy, and monitoring. Table 4 provides an overview of actors’ pos-sibilities to contribute to these management activities, in the comprehensive planning of the two municipalities and in the four conflicts analyzed. The classification of actors, derived from natural resource management literature (34), is adapted to the planning context. Of interest here is how far manage-ment rights such as designing regulation, negotiation, and decisions about rules were located with resource users in-stead of experts and politicians. Both municipalities included the public beyond the statutory minimum requirements in further management activities, not merely by consultation. Local influence on regulation was most perceptible for land use and groundwater management. In two cases, the regulation of the water surface was debated more intensively. One of them showed increased local influence (Koster); here, spatial priorities for the use of water-bound re-sources were established. Individuals and local organizations contributed their lo-cal knowledge, some seeking further specialist competence outside. Temporary residents without land ownership and other recreational users could not be readily mobilized. They had less influence, unless higher level authorities or interest organizations picked up their arguments (e.g. tourism entre-preneurs, conservation NGOs, boat-clubs). Scenarios and vi-sions, widespread in planning, are often discussed in public before they become part of a plan. Contributions to visions as a starting point for further coastal planning were mostly asked from local organizations and rarely from individual residents - with few exceptions (Koster, topic plans).The public has no formal right to participate directly in the design of rules and plans; this is considered a task for ex-perts and politicians. However, on Koster local residents had a chance to formulate rules and discuss their content. Respon-sibilities for decision making were in all cases only delegated under highly controlled conditions (Box 3). Planning procedures were not the only fora for participa-tion used, although the debate was initiated and terminated there. Debates about problems and negotiations about how to change regulation also took place outside of the planning in political fora, in local newspapers, at organization meetings, within projects. This was often necessary, as the formal pro-cedure limited the possibilities for direct interaction and ex-change about a topic. Thus, problems or aspects the authorities had left aside found a forum outside planning. Implementation of strategic plans often implies operational planning or further procedures in other administrative sectors with differing forms of public involvement. Local participation improved planning best in those places where a close contact between municipal-ity and local actors had been established through earlier partici-pation or long-term collaboration. The influence of local stakeholders on the content of plans is rarely direct, but is controlled and balanced with other interests through public negotiations and political decision making. Planning processes with intensive public involve-

Box 3Examples of delegation of responsibilities (case studies)– In one case study the agenda was to a large extent defined by local stakeholders, including proposals for a vision and for solutions (Koster). The process was open at an early stage for local stakeholders to ex-ert influence. Towards the end municipal authorities steered increasingly. A compromise was achieved between local and non-local interests, where local interests (permanent residency, primary production, small-scale development) had more importance than in earlier plans.– For a special infrastructure problem the municipality used a consultative referendum to find out whether there was a majority in favor of a connection between the main islands of Koster. Then, residents could de-fine the exact features of the solution, financed by the municipality and higher level authorities (became a cable ferry). – The municipalities used cadastral procedures to del-egate responsibility for maintenance of decentralized infrastructure. This implied specific decision-making and other management rights over the specific re-source or structure for the actors that are part in the arrangement (e.g. Kungälv, for sewage and drinking water in peripheral areas).



ment at an early stage, departing from local problems and including possibilities to affect both agenda and course of the process are possible within the existing planning system. They provide some possibilities to exert rights of manage-ment over natural resources even for those who are not land-owners or politicians. Forums and processes outside plan-ning play an important complementary role for participation. The studies indicate that local organizations and active indi-viduals are crucial for providing local knowledge, building consent, and driving participation beyond formal consulta-tion. Important factors affecting municipalities’ readiness to broaden participation beyond minimal requirements were municipal finances, the urgency of problems, the desirability of project proposals, and the expectance of controversies that cannot be solved by planning or administrative procedures.

Potentials and Pitfalls Using Planning and Participation for Swedish CZM

The following potentials and problems related to the use of participation in physical planning for coastal management were found from case studies and complementary analyses of regional and national level documents and reports on plan-ning, participation or coastal management (27).Potentials:– Planning can help to integrate differing interests and can strengthen local perspectives in resource management. Tech-nical and participation procedures can be adapted to the scope of the problem (e.g. resources concerned, geographical scale, stakeholders). Through its cross-sectoral approach, planning is open to natural resource problems in various combinations and can help to coordinate problem-solving activities and decisions (across resources and the land-water boundary). Local stakeholders can be mobilized and local knowledge can be integrated in problem-oriented planning with a local scope.– Planning has a double role for participation of politicians and the public:i) The statutory direct involvement of municipal politicians in planning decisions (not only of professional experts as in most other sectors) makes a local integration of decisions possible, regarding all dimensions of sustainability—eco-logical, economic, and sociocultural. The process involves checks and balances reaching across administrative sectors, public, and individual interests, local and higher levels, and it is sensitive to local conditions and societal priorities that cannot be enacted.ii) Planning does not limit the circle of participants and can help to mobilize new or silent stakeholders. Consultative participation can be enhanced through the opening of plan-ning processes at an early stage for problem-definition and negotiations. According to the case studies, public involve-ment improves information about local conditions. It can to some extent create local agreement and support for improved solutions when time and facilitation of the participation pro-cess allow a deeper discussion. At a first glance, physical planning with its statutory possi-bilities for broad participation and integration across sectors appears to be suitable as a tool for coastal zone management. There are, however, important shortcomings. Some of these result from the structure of Swedish resource administration, others from deficits in the practice and use of planning in-struments, or from limited time and finances for participation and planning. It is well known that some problems in coastal planning increase with the requirement to mobilize and com-municate with many different actors.

Difficulties and shortcomings:– Shortcomings in the coordination of resource policy be-

tween local and national level: Statutory participation may not suffice, when national policy is implemented us-ing non-binding strategic plans, which become guiding for municipal decisions but do not offer a possibility for ap-peal in content. For instance, the introduction of new areas of national priority in the Environmental Code (e.g. con-servation, wind power, marine transport) can have con-siderable impact on individual landowners or other local resource users. The potential effects have to be specified in municipal comprehensive plans, which however, can-not be appealed against. The implementation of the EU-Water Directive causes similar problems. Decisions about environmental quality norms and -objectives are made at higher levels and can (through the action-programs) have a binding quality for local stakeholders who never have had a possibility to react or even appeal against their in-troduction (35).

– Insufficiencies of formal participation: Participation ac-cording to the minimum-requirements (letters, reports) does not facilitate a dialog and communication between resource users and authorities in both ways. The proce-dure is not open when ideas show up in the “wrong” phase of planning. Early consultations in operational planning are not open to the public (procedural paradox, 11, 25). There is a tendency to filter away local concerns. Mobiliz-ing people for strategic plans on the municipal level is dif-ficult. Traditional procedures of participation do not suf-ficiently mobilize the existing local creativity and capacity for problem solving.

– Dependence upon active individuals and organizations to drive local development: In rural and archipelago areas in-dividuals are important for networking among actors, for implementation of plans and programs, and for facilitating planning processes. Local organizations create important forums for debate and action as well. Due to their limited resources rural municipalities have to rely on local forces, but cannot “plan” for their initiative beyond providing en-couragement.

– Insufficient management of local conflicts in small com-munities: The traditional methods to communicate with the public (public meetings and exchange of letters) pro-vide no appropriate forum for conflict management and negotiations between actors. They tend to either wash over differences, ride over those remaining silent, or lead to polarization, when actors feel that they need to keep a defensive position. Constructive management of disagree-ments is important in small, rural communities where mu-tual dependency of the actors requires that good relations are maintained.

– Planners’ roles are changing; their skills need enhance-ment in several areas: i) According to the interviews in the case studies many planners still think that they do not have skills and practical experience to plan for water ar-eas. There is need for further education, for promoting "on the job" development of such skills, and for involving interdisciplinary marine capacities in planning. ii) Plan-ners need training in interpersonal conflict management. Many leading planners graduated two to three decades ago and have no education in interpersonal conflict and pro-cess management, unless they have developed such skills through during their professional practices.

– Lack of resources for coastal planning and participation and low political interest for marine resource management during the 1990s. Politicians’ interest in coastal planning



processes is of importance for three reasons: i) because plans are adopted politically; ii) because resources for coastal planning and participation procedures that enhance mobilization and creativity are dispatched by budgetary decisions; and iii) because knowledge and ideas from lo-cal processes can be included in further decisions.

– Lack of monitoring and evaluation of participation and spreading of results: The lack of financial and other re-sources makes a systematic evaluation of participation initiatives unlikely. Thus, the advantages of participation often remain invisible. For the same reason the lessons learned remain local and limited as the practical knowl-edge of many individuals does not spread further.

– Short-term and “egoistic” environmental perspective: The observed municipal decisions influenced by politi-cal priorities and public reactions to plans tended to have a short-term perspective and neglected long-term and "slow" environmental changes (diffuse and incremental effects of human activities). This finding is supported by a study of operational planning (11), where the public’s re-actions tend to focus on those environmental concerns that were nearest to home and readily perceptible. For certain problems, checks and balances such as enforceable priori-ties on a higher level appear to be necessary.

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOKManagement rights for coastal resources are distributed among numerous stakeholders. Physical planning and its par-ticipation procedures may add to the complexity of manage-ment and have weaknesses, but—on the municipal and sub-municipal level—they build useful connections and create feedback possibilities across sectors and user groups. Some of the instruments of the Swedish public planning system can help in realizing integrated coastal management. Though, there is still a lot to learn to and improve, both regarding participation and the overall institutional structure. There are limits to the use of today’s physical planning instruments, especially for managing mobile resources. These limits are mainly due to the design of instruments for resource manage-ment and their embedding in the overall-management system (27, 36). Natural resource administration in Sweden is at the experimental stage, as numerous special initiatives, assess-ments and projects suggest (37). So far, these have led to few institutional adaptations for coastal management, unless changes were mandatory due to the EU-membership. In the short run further experiments and comparative re-search can help in assessing the possibilities and pitfalls of i) intensified participation, its procedures and purposes; ii) the delegation of management responsibilities to lower levels; and iii) crossing borders between procedures and administra-tive sectors. Two examples can illustrate the possibilities of participation:– A combination of cadastral procedures and participation

in planning for strategic parts of operational planning was tested in Kungälv: As a consequence, in the future respon-sibilities for common resources (green areas or beaches) are to be regulated formally, before specific operational plans are elaborated.

– The formalization of responsibilities to manage water quality when introducing the new EU- Water Directive (24) requires opportunities for further local participation. Measures on the local level need to be combined with the action programs and management plans at higher levels according to the Directive (§11 and §14)(38). So far, this

was mainly explored through planning without participa-tion (39), or outside of physical planning with relatively homogeneous groups such as farmers (40), or in experi-mental games (41).

Formalized cooperation and the use of physical planning as a coordination instrument between local and higher levels could be tested with more heterogeneous groups of water ac-tors. Cadastral procedures as a tool to formalize responsi-bilities in local contexts, where a resource can be physically located, should be tested further for use in coastal manage-ment. Budgets need to be created for such experimenting. To train planners and sector managers in interpersonal con-flict management and process facilitation is a prerequisite for processes to develop local institutions for coastal zone management. One of a few successful Swedish examples of local in-volvement in coastal planning is the Koster-process (14, 27–28). Other successful and less successful examples from the Swedish East Coast are analyzed in Skoglund (15). To devel-op the possibilities of local participation in coastal manage-ment, experiences with local involvement from fields other than coastal management and from abroad can be helpful, such as participation in resource management in developing countries (42, 43), participatory appraisal techniques adapt-ed to a coastal context (44), or experiences with methods for environmental decision making and conflict management (45–48). Finally, knowledge and experience of the social mobilization of stakeholders in rural areas of Sweden (8, 49, 50) need to be connected to municipal planning and coastal management. In the long run, planning with a systems-perspective needs to be developed further in all administrative sectors. Furthermore, it may be appropriate to improve the legal ba-sis for cross-sectoral coordination and appropriate methods in coastal or environmental management instead of develop-ing tools that can be applied in single administrative sectors only. Procedures and instruments can be combined to reduce the rigidity of sector specific participation procedures (36). Prerequisites for such adaptation of management and plan-ning instruments are: political priority for coastal and marine problems; sufficient budgets for further studies; and an open-ness to international experiences and to the thematic field of coastal management (51).

References and Notes

1. Kay, R. and Alder, J. 1999. Coastal Planning and Management. SPON Press, Lon-don, 375 pp.

2. French, P. 1997. Coastal and Estuarine Management. Routledge Environmental Management Series. Routledge, London and New York, 251 pp.

3. Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R.W. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Manage-ment: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, Washington, Covelo, 517 pp.

4. European Commission 2002. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Recommendation Concerning the Implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe. COM 2000 545 final, 2000/0227 (COD).

5. Physical planning (“fysisk planering” in Swedish) or spatial planning can in the Swedish planning system be used on land and water. It offers a cross-sectoral perspective and possibilities for broad participation – two basic requirements for integrated coastal management.

6. Marine Resource Commission DSH, Stockholm. 1989. Comprehensive Coastal Water Planning. Experiences from the Municipalities of Örnsköldvik, Gävle and Lysekil. Report No. 1989:4. (In Swedish).

7. Miller, Th. 1988. Consulting Citizens in Sweden: Planning Participation in Con-text. Council for Building Research. D 10: 1988. Doctoral Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

8. Ronnby, A. 1995. The Local Force. People in Development Work. Liber Utbild-ning, Stockholm. (In Swedish).

9. Swedish National Board of Housing and Planning and Council for Building Re-search. 1998. Who Decides? Citizen Participation in Municipal Planning - Experi-ences from the Southern County Project. Karlskrona. (In Swedish).

10. Malbert, B. 1998. Urban Planning Participation: Linking Practice and Theory. Dissertation in Urban Design and Planning. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.

11. Johansson, M. 2001. Citizens in Planning Consultation – Theory and Reality. In: Arena for Sustainable Development – Actors and Processes. Asplund E. and Hild-ing-Rydevik T. (eds). Royal Institute of Technology, Regional Planning Section,



Andrea Morf is a PhD student and teacher at the De-partment of Human Ecology, Göteborg University. After a MSc degree in environmental sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich and practical work in regional spatial planning and environmental consultancy in Switzerland, she is at present studying participation in coastal manage-ment in Sweden. Her research interests are related to environmental planning and management, environ-mental education, management of resource conflicts, with special focus on local participation in natural re-source management for coastal and rural areas. Her address: Göteborg University, Human Ecology Sec-tion, Box 700, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden.E-mail: [email protected]

Stockholm, pp. 61-77. (In Swedish).12. Bjur, H., Göransson, J. and Werne, F. 1985. Plans and Reality. Liber Förlag, Stock-

holm. (In Swedish).13. Abrahamson, K. V. and Weissglas, G. 1990. The Coast – A Place/Reason for Plan-

ning. Council of Building Research. Report 100/1990, Stockholm. (In Swedish).14. Arén, H. 1994. Everything Is Possible: Planning Based on Local Potentials. Coun-

cil for Building Research, Stockholm. (In Swedish).15. Skoglund, K. 1997. Planning From a Local Perspective. A Study of a Pilot-Project

in the Stockholm Archipelago. Report. Glesbyggdsverket, Stockholm and Öster-sund. (In Swedish)

16. SOU (Statens Offentliga Utredningar) 1996. Sustainable Development in the Ar-chipelago of Sweden. Report SOU 1996:153 Communication of the Environmental Advisory Council, Stockholm. (In Swedish).

17. Glesbygdsverket 1997. Strategic Action Programme for Archipelago Areas. Öster-sund. (In Swedish).

18. SOU 2000. Living Archipelago – Evaluation of the Regional Environment- and Resource Management Programs. Report SOU 2000: 67. Communication of the Environmental Advisory Council. Stockholm. (In Swedish).

19. SOU 2003. The Sea – Time for a New Strategy. Report SOU 2000:72 Commission of the Marine Environment. Stockholm. (In Swedish, English summary).

20. NORCOAST 1999. Review of National and Regional Planning Processes and In-struments in The North Sea Regions. Interreg IIC, North Sea Region, NORCOAST Project Secretariat, County of North Jutland, Aalborg.

21. Píriz, L., 2004. Hauling Home the Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries: A Study on Institutional Barriers to Fishermen´s Involvement in the Management of Coast-al Fisheries on the West Coast of Sweden. Doctoral Thesis, Human Ecology Sec-tion, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. SEPA. 2003. Creating Local Level Consent about Nature Conservation through Participation and Dialogue. Report 5264-0. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm. (In Swedish).

23. Larsson, G. 2000. The Cadastral Procedure as Means of Implementation and Col-laboration. Communications 4:79 TRITA-FAT 82. Department of Real Estate Sci-ence, Institution of Real Estate and Building. Royal Technical University. Stock-holm. (In Swedish).

24. SOU 2002. Clear as Water Report SOU 2002:105. Department of the Environ-ment. Stockholm. (In Swedish, English summary).

25. With the 1995 adaptations of planning legislation (Prop. 1994/95:230: Municipal Comprehensive Planning according to the Planning and Building Act. Proposition of the Swedish Government. Stockholm), public influence should be increased through program-consultation in operational planning – however with moderate success regarding a broadened strategic discussion. However, according to (11), there is a “paradox of program consultation” insofar as the broad public usually is not involved in the strategic program phase, when most changes are possible.

26. Morf, A. 2003. Public Participation in Planning – A Forum for Interpreting and Modifying Rights to Coastal Resources: Case Studies in Swedish West Coast Mu-nicipalities. Paper presented at the conference Rights and Duties in the Coastal Zone, Beijer Institute and SUCOZOMA project, Stockholm 12-14 June 2003.

27. Morf, A. 2005. Local Participation in Coastal Management: Managing Coastal Resource Use Conflicts Through Municipal Planning. Case Studies in West Swe-den. Doctoral Thesis, Human Ecology Section, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.

28. Arén, H., Follér, M., Sundström, B. and Swalander, C. 1996. Koster - Suburb or Place with Own Sustainability? Human Ecology Section, Göteborg University, Koster and Göteborg. (In Swedish).

29. Morf, A. 1999. Planning and participation along the Bohuslän coast. In: Human Ecology Research Series – SUCOZOMA-Report 1999:3, Human Ecology Section, Göteborg University, Göteborg.

30. Linder, W. and Vatter, A. 1996. Criteria for the evaluation of participation proce-dures. In: Planning and Communication. Design of Planning Processes in Blocks, Town, and Countryside. Fundamentals, Methods, Practical Experiences. Selle. W. (ed.) Bauverlag, Wiesbaden and Berlin, pp. 181-188. (In German).

31. Politicians and public servants expected from a broadened and deepened public discussion better knowledge about the local situation, with the consequences of better quality of plans and better acceptance of their content and thus easier imple-mentation. In the cases with enhanced participation, with processes allowing time for creating a common base of both knowledge and consensus, such expectations were largely met, although acceptance can never be expected to include all stake-holders or to last for very long time.

32. In highly controversial cases it was considered best to choose the basic require-ments according to planning legislation as backup (e.g. by announcing that par-ticipation was merely consultative and that politicians made the final decisions in connection with the conflict about the tourist facility in Strömstad).

33. Alfredsson, B. and Wiman, J. 1997. Planning in Sweden. In: Swedish Planning: Towards Sustainable Development. Guinchard, C.G. (ed.). PLAN, Special Issue, Swedish Society of Town and Country Planning, pp. 11-18.

34. Ostrom, E. and Schlager, E 1996. The formation of property rights. In: Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment, Hanna, S., Folke, C. and Mäler, C.G. (eds). Island Press. Washington, Covelo, pp. 127-156.

35. Gipperth, L. and Elmgren, R. 2005. Adaptive coastal planning and the European Union’s Water framework directive: A Swedish perspective. Ambio 35, 154-159

36. The potentials and shortcomings of physical planning instruments for coastal man-agement beyond participation procedures are no subject here (see 27 for detailed analysis). There are limitations to cross-sector management through present phys-ical planning, due to a) the distribution of responsibilities in the overall natural resource management system and b) to characteristics of available planning instru-ments. a) Especially local level (sub-municipal) physical planning has little feed-back to nationally managed marine activities (higher level and sector management responsibility with few links). Feedback with municipal-level plans is better. b) The planning instruments on operational-level are limited to a territorial and rela-tively static perspective and may thus not be suitable for managing all types of resources. Non-territory bounded resources and use problems may require a differ-ent type of cross-sector approach - across territorial boundaries and with faster changing regulation.

37. E.g. the NORCOAST, and EU-initiative for exchange of experience across the North Sea (20), and the ICZM-demonstration program and the resulting recom-mendations within the EU (4), or national level archipelago related initiatives (16, 18) and the activities of the Commission of the Marine Environment in Sweden (19).

38. European Community 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000. Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 22.12.2000. L 327 p. 1-72.

39. County Administrative Board West Götaland 1998. EU-Water Directive – An Ap-

plication For The Gullmarn Catchment Area. Draft for a Watershed Management Plan. Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland, Miljöanalysenheten, Anneli Harlén, Göte-borg.

40. Blomqvist, A. 2003. Can Watercourse Groups Reduce Nutrient Losses? – An Ex-ploratory Study with Reference to the River Emå Catchment, Sweden. Vastra Re-port 4. Department of Thematic Studies Linköping University, Linköping. Swed-ish Water Management Research Program, 38 pp.

http://www.vastra.org/publikationer/rapporter/rapport4.pdf41. Wittgren, H.B., Westerlund, S. and Castensson, R. (eds). 2000. The Genevad river

study – An actor game about the implementation of environmental quality norms for nitrogen in a drainage basin. VASTRA Report 1. Topic Water, Linköping Uni-versity, Linköping, Sweden. (In Swedish, English summary).

42. Pretty, J. 1995. Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Develop-ment 23, 1247-1263.

43. Pretty, J. 2002. Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land, and Nature. Earthscan: London.

44. Pido, M.D. and Chua, T.E. 1992. A framework for rapid appraisal of coastal envi-ronments. In: Integrative Framework and Methods for Coastal Area Management. Chua, T.E. and Scura, L.F. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 37. Manila, pp. 133-148.

45. Dietz, Th. 2003. What is a good decision? Criteria for environmental decision making. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 10, 1, 3-39.

46. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds). 1995. Fair and Competent Citizen Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

47. Creighton, J.L, Delli Priscoli, J. and Dunning, C.M., (eds). 1998. Public involve-ment techniques: A reader of ten years experience at the Institute of Water Re-sources. IWR Research Report 82-R-1. Institute for Water Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alexandria, VA.

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/pifirst.pdf48. Creighton, J.L, Delli Priscoli, J., Dunning, C.M. and Ayres, D. (eds). 1998. Public

involvement and dispute resolution: A reader on the second decade of experience at the Institute of Water Resources. IWR Research Report 82-R-5. Institute for Water Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alexandria, VA. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/pisecond.pdf

49. Alexandersson, U and Rönnlund, J.E. 1995. New Tracks: Experiences and Plan-ning Ideas from Local Development Work in Villages and Rural Areas. Council for Building Research, Stockholm. (In Swedish).

50. Sundh, K. and Turunen, P. (eds). 1995. Social Mobilization: Socio-cultural Work in Sweden. Publica, Falköping. (In Swedish).

51. This research was financed by MISTRA, within the research program SUCO-ZOMA. Special thanks to the members of project 1.1 and 1.3 in SUCOZOMA, Hans Egnéus, Andrew Yiu, and two reviewers.

Documents

Public Participation in Municipal Planning as a Tool for Coastal Management: Case Studies from Western Sweden