mapping public participation in sweden
TRANSCRIPT
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
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.