The Rhetoric and Reality of Public Participation in Planning

• Autorzy: Michael Pacione
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

While the principle of public participation is an acknowledged requirement of planning in most Western countries there is continuing debate, and insufficient empirical evidence, on the effectiveness of public participation in practice. This research examines the power of public participation in local planning in Scotland. The paper first identifies the principal actors in the development planning process. The institutional framework for planning in Scotland is then explained to establish the legislative and procedural context for a case study analysis of conflict between developers and the local community in a village in the metropolitan green belt. Thirdly, using a combination of analysis of planning documents, interviews with local planners and developers, and a survey of village residents the empirical study provides detailed insight on the principles, practice, and problems for public participation in local planning. This is followed by a critique of recent government initiatives to enhance public engagement in planning. Finally, a number of conclusions are presented on the prospects for more effective public participation in plan- ning. While the empirical focus of the research is on Scotland, the findings are of general relevance for the debate over the rhetoric and reality of public participation in Western society. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Social participation; Spatial planning; Town spatial planning

PL

Partycypacja społeczna; Planowanie przestrzenne; Planowanie przestrzenne miasta

• Czasopismo: Problemy Rozwoju Miast
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 63
• Strony: 5--15

Twórcy

autor

Michael Pacione

• University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, United Kingdom

Bibliografia

• Abbott, L. (1999) Political Barriers to Housebuilding in Britain, Industry Systems Research, Manchester.
• Aitken, M. (2010) A three dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land use planning, Planning Theory, 9(3), 248-264.
• Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
• Barlow, J. (1995) Public Participation in Urban Development: the European Experience, Policy Studies Institute, London.
• Bell, D., Grays, T. & Haggett, C. (2005) The social gap in wing farm siting decisions, Environmental Politics, 14(4), 460-477.
• Beveridge, C., Biberbach, P. & Hamilton, J. (2016) Empowering Planning to Deliver Great Places - An Independent Review of the Scottish Planning System, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Caves, R. (1992) Land Use Planning: The Ballot Box Revolution, Sage, Newbury Park CA.
• Conrad, E., Cossar, L., Christie, M. & Fazey, I. (2011) Hearing but not listening?, Environment & Planning C, 29, 761-82.
• Cooke, B. & Kathari, U. (2001) The case for participation as tyranny, [in:] B. Cooke & U. Kathari, eds., Participation: the new tyranny, Zed Books, London, 1-15.
• Curry, N. (2012) Community participation in spatial planning, Local Government Studies, 38(3), 345-366.
• Department of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019) National Planning Policy Framework, HMSO, London.
• East Dunbartonshire District Council (2012) Development Plan Scheme 2012: East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan, EDC, Bishopbriggs.
• Home Builders Federation (2007) Submission by the HBF on the Calcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery, HBF, London.
• Pacione, M. (2013) Private profit, public interest and land use planning - a conflict interpretation of residential development pressure in Glasgow's rural-urban fringe, Land Use Policy, 32, 61-77.
• Pawlowska, K. (2018) The idea of public participation in spatial management in Poland: state of the art and practical skills, Urban Development Issues, 60, 23-29.
• Rydin, Y. (1986) Housing Land Policy, Gower, Aldershot.
• Scottish Government (2006) Planning etc (Scotland) Act, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Scottish Government (2009a) Development Management Procedures, Planning Circular 4, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Scottish Government (2009b) National Planning Framework 2, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Scottish Government (2010a) Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Scottish Government (2010b) Community engagement PAN 3, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Scottish Green Belts Alliance (2005) The Future of Green Belts, SGBA, Helensburgh.
• Scottish Government (2017a) Places, People & Planning: A Consultation on the Future of the Scottish Planning System, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Scottish Government (2017b) Barriers to Community Engagement in Planning, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
• Scottish Parliament (2019) Planning (Scotland) Bill, Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.
• Yin, R. (1984) Case Study Research, Sage, Beverley Hills.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/udi-2019-0012