Trust-A monolithic panacea in land use planning?

Land Use Policy

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1046-1054

  Höppner, Corina ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Acceptance; Cooperation; Fairness; Participation; Planning; Stakeholder; Switzerland; Trust

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; LAND USE PLANNING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PERCEPTION;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 64049091269     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. ARV, 1999. Landschaftsentwicklung. Baudirektion Kanton Zürich. Amt für Raumordnung und Vermessung des Kanton Zürich, Zürich, 16 pp.
2. Barber B. The Logic and Limits of Trust (1983), Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ 190 pp
3. Baxter J.W., Eyles J., and Elliott S.J. From siting principles to siting practices: a case study of discord among trust, equity and community participation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42 (1999) 501-525
4. Beierle T.C. Public participation in environmental decisions: an evaluation framework using social goals. Discussion paper 99-06. Resources for the Future (1998) 1-31
5. Beierle T.C., and Konisky D.M. Values, conflicts, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19 (2000) 587-602
6. Billgren C., and Holmén H. Approaching reality: comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy 25 (2008) 550-562
7. Bossard A. Vernetzungskonzepte und Landschaftsentwicklungskonzepte (LEK) in der Praxis. Raum und Umwelt (2001) 52-63
8. Butler J.K. Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management 17 (1991) 643-663
9. Carr D.S., and Halvorsen K. An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to citizen participation: surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners. Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001) 107-126
10. Chess C. Evaluating environmental public participation: methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43 (2000) 769-784
11. Clark M.C., and Payne R.L. Character-based determinants of trust in leaders. Risk Analysis 26 (2006) 1161-1173
12. Connick S., and Innes J.E. Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (2003) 177-197
13. Earle T.C., and Cvetkovich G.T. Social Trust. Towards a Cosmopolitan Society (1995), Praeger, London
14. Earle T.C., and Cvetkovich G.T. Culture, cosmopolitanism, and risk management. Risk Analysis 17 (1997) 55-65
15. Guest G., Bunce A., and Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 (2006) 59-82
16. Halvorsen K.E. Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review 63 (2003) 535-543
17. Hardin R. Trusting persons, trusting institutions. In: Zeckhauser R.J. (Ed). Strategy and Choice (1991), MIT Press, Cambridge 185-209
18. Hardin R. Do we want trust in government?. In: Warren M.E. (Ed). Democracy and Trust (1999), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
19. Höppner C., Frick J., and Buchecker M. Assessing psycho-social effects of participatory landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 196-207
20. Höppner C., Frick J., and Buchecker M. What drives people's willingness to discuss local landscape development?. Landscape Research 33 (2008) 605-622
21. Husted B.W. Trust in business relations: directions for empirical research. Business & Professional Ethics Journal 8 (1990) 23-40
22. Illsley B.M. Fair participation-a Canadian perspective. Land Use Policy 20 (2003) 265-273
23. Innes J.E. Planning through consensus building. A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (1996) 460-472
24. Johnson B.B. Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research 2 (1999) 325-354
25. Jongeneel R.A., Polman N.B.P., and Slangen L.H.G. Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional?. Land Use Policy 25 (2008) 81-94
26. Kramer R., and Tyler T. Trust in Organizations (1996), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 440 pp
27. Kumar A., and Paddison R. Trust and collaborative planning theory: the case of the Scottish planning system. International Planning Studies 5 (2000) 205-223
28. Lauber T.B., and Knuth B.A. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: a case study of moose management. Society & Natural Resources 11 (1999) 19-37
29. Leahy J.E., and Anderson D.H. Trust factors in community-water resource management agency relationships. Landscape and Urban Planning 87 (2008) 100-107
30. Luz F. Participatory landscape ecology-a basis for acceptance and implementation. Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 157-166
31. Mayer R.C., Davis J.H., and David S.F. An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review 20 (1995) 709-734
32. Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlangen und Techniken (2000), Deutscher Studie Verlag, Weinheim 135 pp
33. McKnight D.H., and Chervany N.L. The Meanings of Trust. Tech Rep MISRC Working Paper Series (1996), Calson School of Management, University of Minnesota, MN 32 pp
34. O'Riordan T., and Ward R. Building trust in shoreline management: creating participatory consultation in shoreline management plans. Land Use Policy 14 (1997) 257-276
35. Parkins J.R., and Mitchell R.E. Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 18 (2005) 529-540
36. Payton M.A., Fulton D.C., and Anderson D.H. Influence of place attachment and trust on civic action: a study at sherburne national wildlife refuge. Society & Natural Resources 18 (2005) 511-528
37. Petts J. Trust and waste management information expectation versus observation. Journal of Risk Research 1 (1998) 307-320
38. Poortinga W., and Pidgeon N. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 23 (2003) 961-972
39. Poortinga W., and Pidgeon N.F. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?. Risk Analysis 25 (2005) 199-209
40. Raymond L. Cooperation without trust: overcoming collective action barriers to endangered species protection. Policy Studies Journal 34 (2006) 37-57
41. Renn O. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 23 (2006) 34-43
42. Schenk A., Hunziker M., and Kienast F. Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures-a qualitative study in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Management 83 (2007) 66-79
43. Schweer M.K.W., and Thies B. Vertrauen als Organisationsprinzip. Perspektiven für komplexe soziale Systeme (2003), H. Huber, Bern 157 pp
44. Shindler B., and Cramer L.A. Shifting public values for forest management: making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14 (1999) 28-34
45. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G.T., and Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20 (2000) 675-682
46. Smith P.D., and McDonough M. Beyond public participation: fairness in natural resource decision making. Society & Natural Resources 14 (2001) 239-249
47. Solitare L. Prerequisite conditions for meaningful participation in brownfields redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48 (2005) 917-935
48. Stremlow, M., Iselin, G., Kienast, F., Kläy, P., Maibach, M., 2003. Landschaft 2020-Analysen und Trends. Grundlagen zum Leitbild des BUWAL für Natur und Landschaft. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern, 152 pp.
49. Swearingen White S. Public participation and organizational change in Wisconsin land use management. Land Use Policy 18 (2001) 341-350
50. Sydow J. Understanding the constitution of interorganizational trust. In: Lane C., and Bachmann R. (Eds). Trust Within and Between Organizations-Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications (2000), Oxford University Press, Oxford 31-63
51. Tashakkori A., and Teddlie C. Mixed Methodology. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (1998), Sage, Thousand Oakes, CA 200 pp
52. Tress B., and Tress G. Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning-a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 64 (2003) 161-178
53. Webler T., and Tuler S. Unlocking the Puzzle of Public Participation. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 22 (2002) 179-189
54. Weible C.M. A collective interest model approach to explain the benefit cost expectations of participating in a Collaborative Institution. Environment and Behavior 40 (2008) 24-45
55. Wilson Z., Malakoana M., and Dounden T. Trusting consumers: involving communities in municipal water service decision making in Durban, South Africa. Water SA 34 (2008) 141-146