Communicative and participatory paradigm in the European territorial policies. A discourse analysis

Damurski, Łukasz; Oleksy, Marcin

doi:10.1080/09654313.2018.1462302

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…. those people feel that their needs weren't heard out, so then they turn to the other side, which can reflect negatively on to the next phase of planning," so it is important to communicate with citizens [13]; experts must thus be able to negotiate [43]. However, even denied applications are valuable, as the issues at hand may be properly discussed during the preparation of the land-use plan, consequently avoiding later protests of citizens dissatisfied with the planned intentions of their local government [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Land-use planning is a necessary instrument for the deliberate management of land and the sustainability of territorial policy [12], and participation currently has a solid tradition and is regarded as one of the core pillars of territorial policy, so much so that the term "communicative planning" is used [13]. Participation of the public is essential for obtaining local knowledge [5], which can be harnessed to improve the planning process [11,14], as it helps predict and identify areas of potential conflict in future land use [15].…”

Section: Civic Participation and Land-use Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?

Kopáček

2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Civic participation has an irreplaceable role in the land-use planning process because it contributes a practical perspective to expert knowledge. This article discusses whether there is actually a level of civic participation that can be considered optimal, which would allow experts to effectively obtain information from everyday users of the territory, who have the best practical knowledge of it; experts may also gain sufficient feedback on intended developments, based on knowledge about civic participation from representatives of individual municipalities. The article also proposes measures that can promote an optimal degree of participation in the land-use planning process. The fieldwork was conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews with the mayors of municipalities with a population of up to 2000 inhabitants in selected districts of the Ústí Region (Czech Republic). The results suggest that the optimal degree of civic participation in land-use planning should have a representative extent, so it should not merely be a matter of individuals, but also one of groups of dozens of people, and such groups should encompass a balanced variety of characteristics; an optimal level of civic participation should also provide the maximum number of relevant impulses. Measures that may secure and foster an optimal degree of civic participation in land-use planning include (1) striving to avoid preferring purely voluntary participation; (2) simultaneously utilizing various tools to engage inhabitants; (3) educating inhabitants on a regular basis; and (4) consistently communicating and providing feedback, while also searching for informal means of communication and discussion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Civic Participation and Land-use Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?

Kopáček

2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodology is inspired by critical discourse analysis. As previous research has shown, this approach is valuable in providing knowledge of how the concept of solidarity is mobilised in different ways in different textual sources (for a similar approach with different empirical material see Prokkola, 2020; Zappettini, 2019; for an analysis of similar EU textual material on different concepts, see Damurski and Oleksy, 2018). Elissalde et al.…”

Section: Analytical Framework and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The concept of solidarity in cohesion policies of the European Union and Hungary

Czirfusz

2020

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses cohesion policies of the EU and Hungary from the conceptual perspective of solidarity. Continuing recent debates positioned at the intersection of solidarity, welfare state and Europeanization, a multi-scalar approach of solidarity is explored. Although the notion of solidarity – i.e. overcoming inequalities across member states and their regions – was an important conceptual building block at the foundation of the EU, the usage of the term has decreased steadily in recent decades’ EU cohesion policies, and more significantly after the 2008 economic crisis. As a parallel trend, the concept’s meaning has shifted from a more general to a reduced one in narrow policy areas. Based on a document analysis, the paper reviews cohesion policy changes of recent EU programming periods and finds that solidarity has lost importance in main planning and legislative documents, a recent shift being the growth policy relaunch of past years. Contrasting these trends with the national scale, a case study of Hungary found that the concept of solidarity was mobilized according to EU-level cohesion policy ideas during the 1990s and early 2000s, but the current right-wing government put forward a new discourse of solidarity which they related with the refugee crisis.

show abstract

“…In an article that appeared in 2018, “Communicative and participatory paradigm in the European territorial policies: A discourse analysis,” the abstract states that “by extracting eight core principles (governance, sustainability, communication, participation, resilience, innovation, co-operation and co-ordination), we measure the importance of the communicative and participatory paradigm in the current planning discourse in Europe” (Damurski and Oleksy 2018, 1).…”

Section: Innovation In Planning Theory Texts 2000–2018mentioning

confidence: 99%

Calculate, Communicate, and Innovate: Do We Need “Innovate” as a Third Position?

Hagen

Higdem

2019

Journal of Planning Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Innovation” has become a pertinent and frequently used term in relation to public-sector administration and planning. This article is a review of the planning theory debate from the 1960s until today focusing on the definitions, understandings, and uses of the innovation. We seek to answer the following three questions regarding the use of the overlapping terms “innovate,” “innovative,” and “innovation” in planning theory texts: (i) To what extent have they been used? (ii) In what sense and to what purpose? and (iii) Are we heading for a third position (“innovate”) in planning theory, such that “communicate,” “calculate,” and “innovate” are three interplaying approaches?

show abstract

Communicative and participatory paradigm in the European territorial policies. A discourse analysis

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?

Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?

The concept of solidarity in cohesion policies of the European Union and Hungary

Calculate, Communicate, and Innovate: Do We Need “Innovate” as a Third Position?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About