I investigate the field of tension between the national and the local level in spatial planning from a decision-making perspective. In doing so, I analyse the legal regulation for a large-scale 3G mobile infrastructure development in Sweden with a focus on how participation is expressed both in terms of the ‘law in books' as well as empirically, ‘in action’. Theoretically, a model of decision making is elaborated, based on two axes: one concerning the decision level on a central or national to local scale, and one concerning what type of knowledge is regarded as the most legitimate in terms of a calculating approach versus a communicative approach. These two issues or approaches to decision making—who decides and based on what knowledge—are of direct importance for understanding the frameworks as well as the practical outcomes of public participation. The case of 3G in Sweden demonstrates how different types of knowledge are perceived as legitimate at different levels in the planning system. For example, appeals against building permits rarely change the outcome of permits issued, and appeals based on fear of electromagnetic radiation are always rejected. The juridification of a given mast conflict meant a development from a deliberative approach, where any concern is heard, to a calculating and expert-based one, where the general stance on a particular topic (such as whether or not the electromagnetic radiation from mobile masts is hazardous) is applied. This means that what knowledge is legitimate depends on where in the permit process it is presented.
AllmendingerP., 2002, “Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory”Planning Theory177–99.
2.
AllmendingerP., 2007, “Mobile phone mast development: The rise of third party governance in English planning?”Planning, Practice and Research22177–196.
3.
AllmendingerP., 2009Planning Theory (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants).
4.
AmdamJ.VeggelandN., 1998Teorier om samfunnsplanlegging. Lokalt, regionalt, nasjonalt, internasjonalt (Universitetsförlaget, Oslo).
5.
AnderssonP.HulthénS.ValienteP., 2005, “Beauty contest licensing lessons from the 3G process in Sweden”Telecommunications Policy29577–593.
6.
ArnsteinS R, 1969, “A ladder of citizen participation”Journal of the American Planning Association35216–224.
7.
BaumH S, 1998, “Ethical behavior is extraordinary behavior; it's the same as all other behavior: A case study in community planning”Journal of the American Planning Association64411–423.
8.
BernsteinR J, 1983Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA).
BjörkdahlJ.BohlinE., 2003, “3G network investments in Sweden”, PTS-ER-2003:9 by IMIT and Chalmers conducted for Post- och Telestyrelsen, http://www.pts.se.
11.
BrabhamD C, 2008, “Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases”Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies1475–90.
12.
BrabhamD C, 2009, “Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects”Planning Theory8242–262.
13.
BrabhamD C, 2010, “Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: Leveraging the collective intelligence of online communities for public good”, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, The University of Utah, Utah.
14.
BurgessA., 2002, “Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts”Health, Risk and Society4175–188.
15.
BurgessA., 2004Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
16.
BurnsD.HambletonR.HoggettP., 1994The Politics of Decentralisation (Macmillan, London).
17.
ConradE.CassarL FChristieM.FazeyI., 2011, “Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29761–782.
18.
ConroyM MEvans-CowleyJ., 2006, “E-participation in planning: An analysis of cities adopting online citizen participation tools”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24371–384.
19.
CorryD.StokerG., 2002New Localism Refashioning the Centre–Local RelationshipNew Local Government Network, London.
20.
DavidoffP., 1965, “Advocacy and pluralism in planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners3103–115.
21.
DaviesB BBlackstockK.RauschmayerF., 2005, “‘Recruitment’, ‘composition’, and ‘mandate’ issues in deliberative processes: Should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy23599–615.
22.
DoornbosM., 2003, “‘Good governance’: The metamorphosis of a policy metaphor”Journal of International Affairs52–17.
23.
DrakeF., 2006, “Mobile phone masts: Protesting the scientific evidence”Public Understanding of Science15387.
24.
DrakeF., 2010, “Protesting mobile phone masts: Risk, neoliberalism, and governmentality”Science Technology and Human Values127.
25.
DrobakJ N, 2006Norms and the Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
26.
DryzekJ S, 1996, “Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument”, in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Eds FischerF.ForesterJ. (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 213–232.
27.
EllicksonR C, 1991Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
28.
EllicksonR C, 1998, “Law and economics discovers social norms”The Journal of Legal Studies27537–552.
29.
EllicksonR C, 2001, “The evolution of social norms: A perspective from the legal academy”, in Social Norms Eds HechterM.OppK-D, (Russell Sage Foundation, New York) pp 35–75.
30.
EmmelinL.KlevenT., 1999, “A paradigm of environmental bureaucracy? Attitudes, thought styles, and world views in the Norwegian environmental administration”, Norsk Institutt for by- og regionforstning Pluss Series, pages 5–99.
31.
EmmelinL.LermanP., 2004, “Miljöregler—Hinder för utveckling och god miljö?”, RR 2004:9, Blekinge Institute of Technology.
32.
EmmelinL.LermanP., 2006Styrning av markanvändning och miljönAnsvarskommitténs skriftserie maj, Stockholm.
33.
EmmelinL.SöderblomI., 2002, “Spelet om 3G—en förstudie av mastfrågan”, RR 2002:07, Blekinge Institute of Technology.
34.
EriksenE O, 1993Den offentlige dimension. Verdier og styring i offentlig sektor (Tano, Bergen).
35.
Evans-CowleyJ S, 2011, “Crowdsourcing the curriculum: Public participation in redesigning a planning program”, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1760525.
36.
Evans-CowleyJ.HollanderJ., 2010, “The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools”Planning Practice and Research25397–408.
37.
FaludiA., 1973Planning Theory (Pergamon, Oxford).
38.
FeyerabendP., 1987Farewell to Reason (Tavistock, London).
39.
HabermasJ., 1981The Theory of Communicative Action (Beacon Press, London).
40.
HarrisN., 2002, “Collaborative planning: From theoretical foundations to practice forms”, in Planning Futures, New Directions for Planning Theory Eds AllmendingerP.Tewdwr-JonesM. (Routledge, London) pp 21–43.
41.
HealeyP., 1992, “Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory”Town Planning Review63143–162.
HealeyP., 2003, “Collaborative planning in perspective”Planning Theory2101–123.
44.
HeneckeB.KhanJ., 2002, “Medborgardeltagande i den fysiska planeringen—en demokratiteoretisk analys av lagstiftning, retorik och praktik”, WP 2002:1, Department of Sociology, Lund University.
45.
HibbardM.LurieS., 2000, “Saving land but losing ground: Challenges to community planning in an era of participation”Journal of Planning Education and Research20187–195.
46.
HultkrantzL.NilssonJ-E, 2001Nya bud—En ESO-rapport om auktioner och upphandling Ds 2001:40 Finansdepartementet, Stockholm.
47.
HydénH., 2002NormvetenskapLund University, Lund.
48.
IllsleyB.ColesE., 2009, “Putting communities in control: A Scottish perspective”Planning Practice and Research24363–378.
49.
IllsleyB MLloydM GLynchB., 1997“Local government decentralisation Scotland: An opportunity for planning?”Town and Country Planning66206–208.
50.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 2007, “Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century”Planning Theory and Practice5419–436.
51.
IrwinA., 1995Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (Routledge, London).
52.
KristiansenI SElsteinA SGyrd-HansenD HKildemoesW.NielsenJ B, 2009, “Radiation from mobile phone systems: Is it perceived as a threat to people's health?”Bioelectromagnetics30393–401.
53.
LarssonS., 2008aBetween Daring and Deliberating: 3G as a Sustainability Issue in Swedish Spatial PlanningLicentiate Dissertation Series No. 2008:02, School of Technoculture, Humanities and Planning, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona.
54.
LarssonS., 2008b, “Nonlegal aspects of legally controlled decision-making: The failure of predictability in governing the 3G infrastructure development in Sweden”, in Contributions in Sociology of Law. Remarks from a Swedish Horizon Eds HydénH.WickenbergP. (Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, Lund) pp 177–201.
55.
LarssonS., 2009, “Problematisering av vindkraftens regelverk. En pilotstudie”, Forskningsrapport Nr. 2009:04, Rapport nr 7 från MiSt-programmet, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola.
56.
LarssonS., 2011a, “Vindkraftsutbyggnaden: Vem bestämmer och baserat på vilken kunskap?”, in Buller i blåsväder: Texter om ljud från vindkraftverk Ed. MossbergF. (Skrifter från Ljudmiljöcentrum vid Lunds universitet Rapport nr 11) pp 23–34.
57.
LarssonS., 2011bMetaphors and Norms: Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital SocietyPhD thesis, Sociology of Law, Lund University.
58.
LarssonS., 2013, “On legal complexity: Between law in books and planning in practice”, in Social and Legal Norms: Towards a Socio-legal Understanding of Normativity Ed. BaierM. (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) (forthcoming).
59.
LarssonS.EmmelinL., 2007, “Sustainable development in practice: Infrastructure for the third generation mobile telephone system in Sweden”, paper in Conference Proceedings of IAIA07 Conference, Seoul, Korea, 4–9 June, http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=12683&postid=541276.
60.
LarssonS.EmmelinL., 2009, “Implementing national policy and local planning. Swedish wind power development and third generation mobile phone system as cases”, paper presented at the International Academic Group On Planning, Law And Property Rights Third Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 11–13 February, http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=12683&postid=1363706.
61.
LarssonS.SvenssonM.De KaminskiM., 2012, “Online piracy, anonymity and social change: Innovation through deviance”Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies1995–114.
62.
LawA.McNeishW., 2007, “Contesting the new irrational actor model: A case study of mobile phone mast protest”Sociology41439–456.
63.
LeeM.AbbotC., 2003, “Legislation: The usual suspects? Public participation under the Aarhus Convention”The Modern Law Review6680–108.
64.
LeeN.WalshF., 1992, “Strategic environmental assessment: An overview”Project Appraisal7126–136.
65.
LidskogR., 2008, “Scientised citizens and democratised science: Re-assessing the expert–lay divide”Journal of Risk Research1169–86.
66.
LiebschutzS F, 1984, “Community development dynamics: National goals and local priorities”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2295–305.
67.
LipskyM., 1980Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (Russell Sage Foundation, New York).
68.
MillerS., 2001“Public understanding of science at the crossroads”Public Understanding of Science10115–120.
69.
MoralesA., 2003Renascent Pragmatism: Studies in Law and Social Science (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
70.
NilssonK., 2003Planning in a Sustainable Direction: The Art of Conscious ChoicesRoyal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
71.
NilssonM.EklundM.TyskengS., 2009, “Environmental integration and policy implementation: Competing governance modes in waste management decision making”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy271–18.
72.
PageE.GoldsmithM J, 1985, “Centralisation and decentralisation: A framework for comparative analysis”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy3175–186.
73.
PratchettL., 2004, “Local autonomy, local democracy and ‘new localism’”Political Studies52358–375.
74.
PressmanJ LWildavskyA., 1973Implementation (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
75.
Prop. 1997/98:45 Miljöbalk.
76.
Prop. 2009/10:162 Ersättning vid expropriation.
77.
RaymondC MFazeyI.ReedM SStringerL CRobinsonG MEvelyA C, 2010, “Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management”Journal of Environmental Management911766–1777.
78.
RoweG.FrewerL J, 2004“Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda”Science, Technology, and Human Values29512–557.
79.
SagerT., 1994Communicative Planning Theory (Avebury Press, Brookfield, VT).
SandersonI., 1999, “Participation and democratic renewal: From ‘instrumental’ to ‘communicative rationality’?”Policy and Politics27325–341.
82.
SOU 1999:85 Bredband för tillväxt i hela landet.
83.
SOU 2008:99 Nya ersättningsbestämmelser i expropriationslagen, m.m.
84.
StilgoeJ., 2007, “The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks”The Public Understanding of Science1645–61.
85.
SvenssonM., 2008Sociala normer och regelefterlevnad: Trafiksäkerhetsfrågor ur ett rättssociologiskt perspektiv [Social norms and the observance of law], PhD thesis, Lund Studies in Sociology of Law 28, Lund University.
86.
SvenssonM.LarssonS., 2012, “Intellectual property law compliance in Europe: Illegal file sharing and the role of social norms”New Media and Society141147–1163.
87.
Tewdwr-JonesM.AllmendingerP., 2002, “Communicative planning, collaborative planning and the post-positivist planning theory landscape”, in Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory Eds AllmendigerP.Tewdwr-JonesM., (Routledge, London) pp 206–216.
88.
VagoS., 2009Law and Society (Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
89.
WelchE WHinnantC CMoonM J, 2004, “Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15371–391.
90.
WiklundH., 2005, “Democratic deliberation. In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: A Habermasian review of environmental assessment”Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal23281–292.
91.
WiklundH.ViklundP., 2006, “Public deliberation in strategic environmental assessment: An experiment with citizen's juries in energy planning”, in Effective Environmental Assessment Tools: Critical Reflections on Concepts and Practice Ed. EmmelinL. (Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona) pp 44–59.
92.
WynneB., 1996, “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide”, in Risk, Environment and Modernity Eds LashS.SzerszynskiB.WynneB. (Sage, London) pp 44–83.
93.
YearleyS., 2006, “Bridging the science–policy divide in urban air-quality management: Evaluating ways to make models more robust through public engagement”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24701–714.
94.
YetanoA.RoyoS.AcereteB., 2010, “What is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28783–802.
95.
YiftachelO., 1989, “Towards a new typology of urban planning theories”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1623–39.
