Swedish municipalities and public participation in the traffic planning process - Where do we stand?

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 50, Issue , 2013, Pages 105-112

  Wahl, Charlotte ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Municipality; Public participation; Traffic planning process; User involvement

Indexed keywords

PUBLIC POLICY; TRANSPORTATION;

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE; MUNICIPALITY; PARTICIPATION METHODS; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; SWEDISHS; TRAFFIC PLANNING; USER INVOLVEMENT;

PLANNING;

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PLANNING PROCESS; PUBLIC TRANSPORT; TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

SWEDEN;

EID: 84874399708     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.012     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Arnstein S.R. 'A ladder of citizen participation'. Journal of the American Planning Association 1969, 35(4):216-224.
2. Brabham D.C. Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving an introduction and cases. Convergence 2008, 14(1):75-90.
3. Burby R.J. Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association 2003, 69(1):33-49.
4. de Laval S. Samråd & dialog: en idébok för den som ska arrangera någon form av dialog 1999, Vägverket, Solna.
5. Conroy M.M. Influences on public participation in watershed planning: why is it still a struggle?. Planning Practice and Research 2011, 26(4):467-479.
6. Evans-Cowley J., Hollander J. The new generation of public participation: internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice and Research 2010, 25(3):397-408.
7. Flick U. An introduction to Qualitative Research 2002, SAGE, London.
8. Grisez Kweit M., Kweit Robert W. Participation, perception of participation, and citizen support. American Politics Research 2007, 35(3):407-425.
9. Gubrium J.F., Holstein J.A. The New Language of Qualitative Method 1997, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
10. Hanzl M. Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies 2007, 28(3):289-307.
11. Innes J.E. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 1998, 65(1):52-63.
12. Irvin R.A., Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?. Public Administration Review 2004, 64(1):55-65.
13. Jones P. Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement in accessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged groups. Research in Transportation Business & Management 2011, 2:29-41.
14. Jupp E. The feeling of participation: everyday spaces and urban change. Geoforum 2008, 39(1):331-343.
15. Kujala S. Effective user involvement in product development by improving the analysis of user needs. Behaviour & Information Technology 2008, 27(6):457-473.
16. Kvale S., Torhell S.-E. Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun 1997, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
17. Listerborn C. Who speaks? And who listens? The relationship between planners and women's participation in local planning in a multi-cultural urban environment. GeoJournal 2007, 70(1):61-74.
18. Magnusson G. Supporting Understanding of Human Needs and Anticipating Human Expectations - In the Field of Town Planning through A Study of Different Existing Approaches 2011, School of Planning and Media Design, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, (translated).
19. Mumpower J.L. Selecting and evaluating tools and methods for public participation. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 2001, 1(1):66-77.
20. Nilsson A. PLUME (PLanning and Urban Mobility in Europe). Synthesis Report: Public Participation 2004, European Commission, Brussels.
21. Rahl G.M. Risk reduction through public-participation in environmental decisions. Naval Engineers Journal 1996, 108(4):53-57.
22. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science Technology Human Values 2000, 25(1):3-29.
23. Rubin H.J., Rubin I.S. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data 2005, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
24. SALAR, SNRA, Boverket, Banverket, 2007. Trafik för en attraktiv stad, TRAST. Underlag, Utgåva 2. (In Swedish) [Traffic for an attractive city]. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR), Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA), Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket), and Swedish Rail Administration (Banverket). http://www.vv.se/vgu-trast.
25. SFS, 2010:900. Plan-och bygglagen. Miljödepartementet [Ministry of the Environment], Stockholm.
26. Svensson Å. Arterial Streets for People: Guidance for Planners and Decision Makers When Constructing Arterial Streets 2004, Lund University, Department of Technology and Society, Lund.
27. Taylor D., Tight M. Public attitudes and consultation in traffic calming schemes. Transport Policy 1997, 4(3):171-182.
28. TRANSPLUS, 2003. Achieving Sustainable Transport and Land Use with Integrated Policies'. European Commission.
29. Tritter J.Q., McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 2006, 76(2):156-168.
30. Wilcox D. The Guide to Effective Participation 1994, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, London.
31. Wu H., He Z., Gong J. A virtual globe-based 3D visualization and interactive framework for public participation in urban planning processes. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 2010, 34(4):291-298.
32. Vägverket, 2005. [Swedish Road Administration] 'Storstad - Samtal om problem och lösningar' (in Swedish).