Recreational Use of Developed Norwegian Shorelines: How Ambiguous Regulations Influence User Experiences

Coastal Management

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 57-74

  Skar, Margrete ^a   Vistad, Odd Inge ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

Author keywords

access regulations; Norwegian shoreline; privacy; public access

Indexed keywords

ACCESS REGULATIONS; KEY ELEMENTS; LEGAL RIGHTS; NORWEGIAN SHORELINE; PRIVATE LAND; PROPERTY OWNERS; PUBLIC ACCESS; PUBLIC LANDS; PUBLIC RIGHTS; RULES AND REGULATIONS; USER EXPERIENCE;

DATA PRIVACY; LAND USE;

LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; LEGAL RIGHTS; PERCEPTION; PRIVATE LAND; PUBLIC ACCESS; RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; SHORELINE;

NORWAY;

EID: 84872416215     PISSN: 08920753     EISSN: 15210421     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2012.749752     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Alexander, G. 1997. Commodity and propriety: Competing visions of property in American legal thought, 1776-1970, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Blomley, N., Delaney, D. and Ford, R. 2001. The legal geographies reader; Law, power and space, Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Blomley, N. 2005a. Flowers in the bathtub: Boundary crossings at the public-private divide. Geoforum, 36: 281-296.
4. Blomley, N. 2005b. The borrowed View: Privacy, propriety, and the entanglements of property. Law and Social Inquiry, 30(4): 617-661.
5. Blomley, N. 2007. Making private property: Enclosure, common right and the work of Hedges. Rural History, 18: 11-21.
6. Brain, D. 1997. "From public housing to private communities: The discipline of design and the materialization of the public/private distinction in the built environment". In Public and private in thought and practice: Perspectives on a grand dichotomy, Edited by: Weintraub, J. and Kumar, K. 237-267. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Campion, R. and Stephenson, J. 2010. The "right to roam": Lessons for New Zealand from Sweden's allemansrätt. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 17(1): 18-26.
8. Dalton, T. M. 2006. Exploring participants' views of participatory coastal and marine resource management processes. Coastal Management, 34(4): 351-367.
9. Delaney, D., Ford, R. T. and Blomley, N. 2001. "Prefase: Where is law?". In The legal geographies reader, Edited by: Blomley, N., Delaney, D. and Ford, R. T. xiii-xxii. Oxford: Blackwell.
10. Engel, D. 1995. "Law in the domains of everyday life". In Law in everyday life, Edited by: Sarat, A. and Kearns, T. R. 123-171. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
11. European Commission. 2012. Environment, Coastal Zone Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/home.htm (accessed April 5, 2012)
12. Fletcher, S. and Pike, K. 2007. Coastal management in the Solent: The stakeholder perspective. Marine Policy, 31: 638-644.
13. Garcia, R. E., Baltodano, F. and Mazzarella, E. 2005. Free the beach! Public access, equal justice, and the California coast. Stanford Journal Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 2: 143-208.
14. Giorgi, A. 2009. The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology. A modified Husserlian approach, Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
15. Gray, D. L., Canessa, R. R., Rollins, R. B., Dearden, P. and Keller, C. P. 2010. Understanding recreational boater attitudes to zoning in a proposed marine protected area. Coastal Management, 38(6): 575-597.
16. Hindhamar, A. S. 2005. Stedsanalyse Saltnesområdet, Drammen: Råde kommune. (In Norwegian).
17. Jensen, C. L. and Hole, L. 1958. Friluftsloven av 28. juni 1957, med kommentarer, Oslo: Aschehoug. (In Norwegian)
18. Kline, D. J. and Swallow, S. K. 1998. The demand for local access to coastal recreation in southern New England. Coastal Management, 26: 177-190.
19. Marouf, H Jr. 2001. Vernacular legal discourse: Revisiting the public acceptance of the "right to privacy" in the 1960s. Political Communication, 18: 89-105.
20. Meliadou, A., Santoro, F., Nader, M. R., Dagher, M. A., Indary, S. Al and Salloum, B. A. 2012. Prioritising coastal zone management issues through fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 97: 56-68.
21. Oh, C. and Draper, J. 2009. Assessing tourists' multi-attribute preferences for public beach access. Coastal Management, 37(2): 119-135.
22. Oh, C., Draper, J. and Dixon, A. W. 2010. Comparing resident and tourist preferences for public beach access and related amenities. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53: 245-251.
23. Pike, K., Johnson, D., Fletcher, S., Wright, P. and Barbara, L. 2010. Social value of marine and coastal protected areas in England and Wales. Coastal Management, 38(4): 412-432.
24. Reusch, M. 2012. Allemannsretten. Friluftslivets rettsgrunnlag, Oslo: Flux forlag. (In Norwegian). Ph.D. thesis, Department of Private Law, University of Oslo
25. Reusch, M. 2010. Utmarksbegrepet i friluftsloven-Mot et nytt innhold?. UTMARK, http://www.utmark.org/ (In Norwegian) (accessed December 20, 2012).
26. Roth, L. M. 1999. The right to privacy is political: Power, the boundary between public and private, and sexual harassment. Law and Social Inquiry, 24(1): 45-71.
27. Sack, R. D. 1986. Human territoriality: Its theory and history, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Scott, P. 2006. Coastal access in selected European countries. Prepared for The Countryside Agency, Edinburgh: Peter Scott Planning Services Ltd.
29. Skar, M., Vistad, O. I. and Wold, L. 2011. Om privatlivets fred og allmennhetens ferdsel i strandsona: spenninger og muligheter. UTMARK 1&2 2011: http://www.utmark.org/ (In Norwegian).
30. Tibbets, J., Collins, R., Humbach, J., Marzulla, R., Smith, F. L., Schubel, J. R., Ryman, R. J., Permar, M. and Travis, W. 1995. Private rights versus public interests-Who decides the fate of the coast. Coastal Management, 23(1): 1-17.
31. Tibbets, J., Collins, R.Lyman, R. J. 1996. Striking a fair balance: Issues of public and private interests on the coasts. Coastal Management, 24(3): 217-228.
32. Thompson, R. 2007. Cultural models and shoreline social conflict. Coastal Management, 35(2-3): 211-237.
33. Thompson, R. and Dalton, T. 2010. Measuring public access to the shoreline: The boat-based offset survey method. Coastal Management, 38(4): 378-398.
34. Valentine, G. 2008. Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3): 323-337.
35. Vistad, O. I., Skår, M., Wold, L. C. and Mehmetoglu, M. Submitted. Balancing public access and privacy concerns in developed coastal zones. Factors influencing attitudes towards possible management actions. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism,
36. Waitt, G., Gill, N. and Head, L. 2009. Walking practice and suburban nature-talk. Social and Cultural Geography, 10(1): 41-60.
37. Wolch, J. and Zhang, J. 2004. Beach recreation, cultural diversity and attitudes toward nature. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3): 414-433.
38. Wold, L. C., Vistad, O. I. and Skar, M. 2012. Forholdet mellom allmennhetens tilgang og privatlivets fred i bebygde strandområder.: 36 NINA Report 756 pp. (In Norwegian)
39. Østfold fylkeskommune/Råde kommune. 2009. Rapport om pilotprosjektet Strandsone for alle. Et samarbeid mellom Råde kommune og Østfold fylkeskommune. (In Norwegian)
40. Marine and Coastal Access Act. 2009. www.legislation.gov.uk (accessed May 10, 2012).
41. The Outdoor Recreation Act. 1957. No. 16. Translated to English. www.lovdata.no. (accessed June 20, 2012)
42. Planning and Building Act of 27 June. 2008. www.lovdata.no (accessed June 20, 2012)
43. The Ministry of Environment. 2007. Directive -3/07, About The Outdoor Recreation Act 1957 No. 16.
44. The Furumoa judgment. 1998. [The Furumoa-dommen]. Rt-1998-1164 www.lovdata.no
45. The Hvaler judgment. 2005. [The Hvaler-dommen]. Rt-2005-805 www.lovdata.no