Source: Umeå Municipality, Sara Stenberg

5. Participatory planning for socially inclusive cities and communities

The notion of participatory planning, whereby citizens and key stakeholder are involved in the planning process, is often seen as crucial for strengthening social inclusion, trust and democracy in local communities. This chapter therefore explores how participatory planning approaches are used in Nordic cities to strengthen inclusion in both newly built and existing neighbourhoods.

The text first sheds light on how participation is emphasised in key legislation and guidelines steering spatial planning and the governance of municipalities in the Nordic countries. Having done so, it focuses in on five cities – Tampere (Finland), Copenhagen (Denmark), Sandnes (Norway), Umeå (Sweden) and Reykjavík (Iceland) – in order to shed light on the participatory approaches adopted, and how such processes are organised at the city and neighbourhood level.

More specifically, the chapter posed the following three questions:

What types of participatory planning approaches and processes are used in the Nordic countries and in Nordic cities?
How are these participatory processes organised at the local (city and neighbourhood) level?
What opportunities and challenges do these methods present?

5.1 Finland

This section addresses participatory planning aimed at achieving more socially inclusive cities and neighbourhoods in Finland. Here, two main geographical levels are examined. Firstly, the section examines how participation is emphasised in various national policies and programmes, as well as in key planning legislation and guidelines used to steer spatial planning and local self-government.

Having done so, it hones in on Tampere, where counteracting segregation and strengthening social inclusion are clear political priorities for the city authorities. As such, a wide range of participatory methods and approaches are used to engage residents and other key stakeholders in different stages of policy-making and planning.

5.1.1 Participation in national planning legislation and policies

In Finland, the notion of participation is prominent in various legal and national policy frameworks. While some of the key policies and relevant planning legislation have already been touched on in sections 3.1 and 4.1, the focus below is specifically on how they deal with participation and citizen/stakeholder engagement.

Legal frameworks

Finland’s main planning law, the Land Use and Building Act (132/1999) (Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki/ Markanvändnings- och bygglag), has a strong focus on ensuring everyone can participate in the planning process (Ministry of the Environment, n.d.-b). Specifically, Section 62 states that planning procedures must be organised such that residents, landowners and other stakeholders can participate in preparing the plan, estimate its impacts, and state their opinions on it. It also specifies that when a plan is drawn up, a participation and assessment scheme must be prepared in good time (Land Use and Building Act, 1999).

Another relevant legal framework strongly emphasising participation is the Local Government Act (410/2015) (Kuntalaki/Kommunallag), Section 22 of which states that municipalities must ensure residents have diverse, effective means for participation. While the law does not specify exactly how this should be implemented, several possible ways of organising participation are mentioned, such as organising discussion and consultation meetings; seeking the views of residents before decisions are taken; developing services in cooperation with service users; and enabling participation in the planning of the municipality’s finances (Local Government Act, 2015).

National policies, programmes and strategies

Besides legislation, various national policies, programmes and strategies are important for guiding urban planning and development work, and thus influencing how participatory planning is implemented in Finnish cities. One relevant example is the 2019 Government Programme, in which a key objective was to strengthen democracy, participation, and trust in societal institutions (Finnish Government, 2019).

The programme acknowledged that levels of participation and inclusion vary considerably depending on an individual’s socio-economic status and place of residence, and as such many people feel they lack the power to influence decisions concerning them. Given this, the programme strongly emphasised the need to actively promote versatile opportunities for participation. Concrete approaches mentioned in the 2019 Government Programme include citizens’ juries, youth councils and participatory budgeting, along with finding ways to make political participation easier through, for instance, pop-up events.

Participation is also at the core of Finland’s various urban policy programmes and strategies. For instance, the National Urban Strategy 2020–2030 (Ministry of Finance, 2020) contains a priority area titled ‘wellbeing for everyone’, where civic engagement and resident cooperation were highlighted as crucial to reinforcing local identities and a sense of belonging. Similarly, in the Urban Programme 2018–2022, participation and active citizenship through cooperation between cities and the private, third and fourth sectors was emphasised in relation to social sustainability (Urjankangas & Voutilainen, 2018). Digitalisation was also highlighted as having the potential to enable new types of participation, as was the need to closely consider certain population groups – particularly those most difficult to reach, such as children, young people not in education or training, the unemployed, immigrants and older people – in the planning of neighbourhoods and their services.

Furthermore, the Sustainable City Programme (2019–2023) had a strong emphasis on measures designed to reduce inequality between communities and people, with participation considered central to strengthening residents’ commitment to their neighbourhoods (Sustainable City Programme, n.d.).

Finally, the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (Lähiöohjelma 2020–2022) emphasised the need for new and diverse channels for direct citizen participation, and for such processes to be as equal and transparent as possible (Lähiöohjelma, 2020). Throughout its duration, the programme – which funded numerous regeneration projects in Finnish suburban housing estates – maintained a strong focus on involving residents and local organisations in neighbourhood development, as well as the planning and implementation of local activities.

5.1.2 Participation as a means of strengthening social inclusion in Tampere

In Tampere, the city administration applies a variety of participatory approaches to its planning and urban development projects, and to strengthening social inclusion. With a population of around 250,000 in the city itself and 422,000 in the wider urban region, Tampere is the urban region in Finland (after Helsinki metropolitan region) and the third most populous municipality.

In recent years, there has been a strong emphasis on participation in many of the city’s policies, with various approaches used to engage residents and other key actors and stakeholders. With this in mind, the following sets out the city administration’s key policy frameworks and how it implements relevant participation processes.

Figure 14. Aerial view of Tampere

Source: City of Tampere, Laura Vanzo

City strategies

Over the past decade, social inclusion and participation have become core priorities in the City of Tampere’s strategies. The city strategy – prepared at the beginning of a city council’s period of office every four years – defines the administration’s key strategic goals and specifies which indicators will be used to measure progress towards them.

The current strategy, titled ‘The City of Action’ (Tekemisen kaupunki) – launched in 2021 and updated in 2023 – sets out goals for the city’s development up to 2030 (City of Tampere, 2023a). The strategy has four main thematic focus areas, of which ‘active communities’ is the most closely linked to participation and social inclusion. The city states it will work to bring people together; strengthen the conditions allowing different associations to operate; act as a partner and platform for co-creation; and support engagement with communities and residents in local neighbourhoods.

The two preceding city strategies also emphasised participation as a means of strengthening social inclusion. A key priority in the 2017 strategy concerned ‘working together’, which emphasised increased social participation and activity (City of Tampere, 2017). Similarly, the 2013 strategy highlighted the strengthening of participation in service development and decision-making, and enabling self-determination (City of Tampere, 2013). The latter strategy also raised concerns about segregation, stating that the most important challenges facing the city were unemployment, growing welfare disparities and future demographic changes.

Given that the city strategies are fairly broad in scope, their priorities are further specified in various policies, programmes and action plans. Participation is a core principle embedded in key spatial planning documents, such as the Master Plan for the City Centre (City of Tampere, 2016) – which is updated during each four-year council term – and the Programme for Local Detailed Planning (City of Tampere, 2023b), which presents comprehensive spatial plans for the city’s most important development projects. In addition, the city’s Guidelines for Housing and Land Use Policy 2022–2025 (City of Tampere, 2022c) endorses a resident-centred approach to strengthening participation, and it also includes a separate Annex dedicated to the topic (City of Tampere, 2022b).

Participation and inclusion plans

The more specific goals for participation and how they are to be achieved are laid out in the city’s participation and inclusion plan (osallisuus- ja yhteisöllisyyssuunnitelma). In recent years, these action plans have been drawn up at the start of each city council term in order to concretise how the city intends to deal with inclusion and participation over the coming years (City of Tampere, 2023g).

The first such plan was formulated in 2016 with key focus areas including participation at the city and neighbourhood levels; partnerships with civil society organisations and businesses; and voluntary activities (City of Tampere, 2018),. The priorities set out in the most recent participation plan, published in 2023 (City of Tampere, 2023f), include increasing the impact of participation; creating new ways of supporting communities and people’s autonomy; and enhancing leadership and skills relating to participatory approaches.

Key focus areas

Digital participation has been a particular focus for the City of Tampere in recent years. Here, specific actions include the construction of a digital platform capable of hosting all relevant information about ongoing participation- and citizen engagement-related initiatives (Interview 18, 2023), as well as the recent updating of the Tampere.Finland mobile app (City of Tampere, 2023h) in order to provide residents with a direct route to relevant surveys and participation opportunities. The app can also be used to make suggestions for city improvements, for instance concerning the maintenance of streets and parks, or to report defects in the built environment.

Another of the administration’s focus area has been finding ways to strengthen civic engagement opportunities, such as through financial support, cooperation networks, training and advice. The role of civic engagement is particularly pronounced in the city’s vibrant third and fourth sectors, where civil society organisations play an important role in promoting social inclusion and wellbeing through bringing in external funding (Interview 18, 2023).

Strengthening opportunities for volunteering represents yet another focus area, with such opportunities considered important for promoting the wellbeing of individuals and communities. According to the evaluation of the city’s participation model (City of Tampere, 2018), there remains plenty of untapped potential in relation this.

Key approaches for participation in Tampere

The City of Tampere has adopted several public participation approaches aimed at engaging residents in spatial planning, as well as planning of the city’s activities, services and finances. These actions are implemented at various stages, from preparation of policies and plans, to decision-making and implementation.

As previously discussed, while participation in Finland is often stipulated by law or strongly encouraged by national policies, it is the municipality that ultimately determines which participatory processes are selected and how they are executed.

Councils and interest groups for specific population groups

The Local Government Act states that municipalities must ensure residents have the opportunity to participate and exert influence. Towards this end, the law requires that municipalities establish councils to represent specific population groups, including young people, older people and people with disabilities. The City of Tampere has also established an immigrant council, a Roma working group and a children’s parliament (City of Tampere, n.d.).

The purpose of these councils and interest groups is to ensure the voices of those they represent are considered in the preparation of policies and plans, and in decision-making. Here, there is a strong focus on engaging children and youth. Alongside the Tampere Children’s Parliament, which is a channel for primary school children to have their say in decision-making, the Tampere Youth Council plays an important role in organising events, launching initiatives and preparing statements on matters concerning young people (City of Tampere, n.d.).

Surveys

According to the experts interviewed for this study (Interview 18, 2023), surveys are the most widely used participatory method employed by the City of Tampere, largely due to the fact that they are an effective way of reaching many people and relatively easy to implement. Some surveys are addressed to all Tampere residents, while others are targeted at more specific population groups.

Regularly recurring surveys include those on wellbeing and health, as well as surveys targeting families with children aged four years old, or alternatively those with a six year old (City of Tampere, 2023c). In addition, surveys are also used to further develop forms of participation. For instance, in 2022, the city carried out a survey on the experiences, views and wishes of residents concerning participatory approaches.

GIS-based surveys, where respondents share their perspectives on a specific topic through an online map survey, have also grown in importance. One such example is a large map-based survey on safe and sustainable mobility in the Tampere region, conducted in 2023 (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, 2023). Surveys are also frequently used in land use planning, especially when it comes to the preparation of detailed and comprehensive plans (Interview 18, 2023).

Dialogue-based approaches

The City of Tampere also engages with residents through citizen dialogue and discussion-based methods. This may take place face-to-face, digitally or in hybrid form. Some methods are based on verbal communication, while others are chat-based and so take a written form.

Various projects and initiatives have been launched with the objective of developing new forms of dialogue-based participation. One example is the Digital Citizens’ Panel (Digitaalinen kansalaispaneeli), conducted in Tampere City Region as part of the nationwide Well Said (Hyvin sanottu) initiative, which sought to create safe discussion environments (City of Tampere, 2022a). The panel involved participants sharing their views on a specific issue under the guidance of a trained moderator.

In 2022, a ‘Large Regional Discussion’ (Suuri seutukeskustelu) was organised as part of the project, focusing on mobility issues in the Tampere region (Tampere City Region, 2022). Here, the aim was not to seek consensus or find concrete solutions, but gain a general overview of the topic based on the perspectives of the 400 participants. The event was organised into two phases, the first of which involved groups of 5–10 people sharing their experiences of everyday mobility (walking, cycling, public transport, car) and perspectives on mobility issues. In the second phase, a written discussion was arranged on an online platform, attracting many older participants in particular. According to the event organisers, arranging it digitally enabled new, wider-scale ways of contributing to the development of common issues (Interview 18, 2023).

Participatory budgeting and crowdfunding

The popularity of participatory budgeting has grown in Finland over recent years, with around a third of the country’s municipalities currently making use of it. The increased use of this citizen engagement approach is related to the 2015 reform of the Local Government Act, which placed increased emphasis on municipalities enabling residents to participate in the planning of municipal finances (Ylä-Tuuhonen, 2022). Essentially, participatory budgeting involves the municipality allocating a sum of funding that residents – having engaged in discussions – can allocate to specific actions and interventions, typically related to a pre-defined theme.

Two parallel projects implemented in 2013–2015 with national funding from the Neighbourhood Development Programme sought to move forward participatory budgeting practices in Tampere (ARA, 2016a). Firstly, a University of Tampere-led research project, Participatory Budgeting in Community-Driven Urban Planning (Osallistuva budjetointi asukaslähtöisessä kaupunkisuunnittelussa), explored participatory budgeting as a tool for neighbourhood development and citizen-led urban planning (TaSSu, n.d.). The project aimed to identify well-functioning European experiences of participatory budgeting and then test these practices in the accompanying OmaTesoma project (ARA, 2016b).

Since 2020, two city-wide rounds of participatory budgeting have been carried out in Tampere, each with a specific thematic focus: children and young people’s wellbeing (2020–2021) and safe everyday life (2022–2023). Each cycle saw €450,000 allocated to participatory budgeting, distributed evenly across the city. The City of Tampere coordinated the process, while residents, associations, organisations and other actors proposed projects and decided which ones should be implemented (City of Tampere, 2023d).

In 2020, over 380 initial suggestions were submitted by Tampere residents. These were assessed by the city administration, with those deemed feasible to implement taken forward to a second, workshop phase. Here, participants refined the suggestions down to 120 concrete proposals, following which experts from the city put together a cost estimate for each plan. In the subsequent voting phase, every Tampere resident aged 12 and over was given two votes (City of Tampere, 2023e). This was the first time minors in the city had the opportunity to influence the use of common tax resources on an equal footing with adults at such a scale. Voting was possible online at the Mun Tampere website and at four voting events across the city. Nearly 3,000 people exercised their right to vote, resulting in 12 projects in different parts of the city going ahead. The final, implementation phase started in early 2021, with the chosen projects realised by the City of Tampere, sometimes in collaboration with partners.

Among the projects realised in the 2020–2021 participatory budgeting cycle were the launch of a digital youth centre to provide support for mental wellbeing; the construction of various recreational facilities, including skate parks; and the upgrading of facilities at public beaches and school yards (City of Tampere, 2023e). Many of the projects realised in the 2022–2023 cycle, meanwhile, focused on recreation and sport, as well as on engaging young people (City of Tampere, 2024). In addition to the funding provided by the City of Tampere, parishes in the Tampere region have their own participatory budgeting projects, with a total of €51,000 allocated in 2022 to activities strengthening the wellbeing of children and young people (Tampereen seurakunnat, n.d.).

The city also supports resident- and community-based action in Tampere through crowdfunding. This was first tested in 2019, when €20,000 was reserved for piloting campaigns that would contribute to revitalising the city, promoting a sense of community, supporting residents’ participation, and strengthening the distinctiveness of local neighbourhoods (City of Tampere, 2019). The funding was distributed to the best-performing resident and non-resident organisations that met certain criteria.

Box 7 elaborates on the implementation of participatory planning approaches Tampere’s Hiedanranta district.

Box 7. Participatory approaches in the development of Hiedanranta

The Hiedanranta district in western Tampere is a former industrial area currently undergoing large-scale transformation, which upon completion will see 25,000 new residents and 10,000 jobs brought into the area (Hiedanranta, n.d.-a). While the physical reconstruction process only began in 2024, the transformation of Hiedanranta was initiated a decade earlier and involved various development projects with a strong participatory focus. These included a project started in 2015 whereby the City of Tampere leased buildings at a reduced cost in order to enable community activities. The city’s cultural services played an important role in this, while associations and civic organisations could apply for support from the city to organise free events. The overarching intention was to encourage new forms of citizen participation in the early stages of redevelopment (Tapio, 2019).

Several concrete initiatives were implemented as part of the 2016–2019 Dwellers in Agile Cities research project, which focused on citizen-led urban development and temporary spaces. The project was led by Tampere University in close collaboration with various partners, including the Hiedanranta Development Programme, the City of Tampere, and students from Delft University in the Netherlands (Tampere Universities, n.d.). One representative initiative was the construction of the Hiedanranta sauna, which began as an idea put forward by a group of local sauna activists and was implemented collaboratively by the actors involved. The sauna was completed in 2019, and since then local community members have been centrally involved in its operation and organising various related activities (See Figure 15).

In addition, several other projects have been undertaken in Hiedanranta in collaboration with various actors and organisations. Examples include KIERTO, which had a circular economy focus; Hiedanranta MaaS; which involved experimenting with new kinds of mobility services in the area (Hiedanranta, n.d.-b); the construction of Finland’s largest indoor concrete skate park, carried out by a local skateboarding association; and the establishment of a legal graffiti wall. According to the City of Tampere, Hiedanranta is a meeting place for a wide range of cultural activities. As such, a future challenge is ensuring civic activities and activism remain in the area once construction is completed and the new residents arrive (Hiedanranta, n.d.-a).

Figure 15. The community-based sauna in Hiedanranta

Source: City of Tampere, Laura Vanzo

5.1.3 Organisation and implementation of participatory processes

Tampere’s participation team plays a central role in organising and implementing public participation-related work in the city (Interview 18, 2023). This includes, among other things, guiding preparation of the city’s participation and inclusion plan; supporting various units within the city organisation; steering cooperation with stakeholder groups; providing information about ongoing participation activities to the general public; and coordinating participatory budgeting.

The city administration does not, however, have a hierarchical structure, meaning the team does not lead on all the city’s participation activities. In fact, the participation team is relatively small, and its work relies largely on collaboration with other city administration units, which operate quite independently (Interview 18, 2023). For instance, the city’s urban planning unit has its own experts working to find more coherent, participatory ways of working on urban planning and development projects.

Informants highlighted the importance of identifying which actors and stakeholders should be involved at the different stages of a project (Interview 18, 2023). For instance, engaging with the main residents’ associations and other organisations, as well as businesses and any potential future actors, was highlighted as key to urban development projects. While the involvement of specific actors and stakeholders is considered on a case-by-case basis, the city also has ongoing, more formalised engagement with stakeholders through a variety of networks.

As previously outlined, participation is emphasised in various Finnish legal and national policy frameworks concerning planning and urban development. According to interviewees, these undoubtedly impact the work carried out by the City of Tampere, although they do not typically provide concrete guidance on how participation should be realised.

In relation to spatial planning, the Land Use and Building Act (1999) defines the minimum level of participation. Particularly for larger projects, however, the city goes far beyond what is required by law when engaging with residents and other stakeholders (Interview 18, 2023). Moreover, the Local Government Act (2015) sets out a legal framework in which participation is strongly emphasised. While the act does not specify exactly how participation and engagement should be organised, it has led to participatory budgeting becoming increasingly popular in Finnish municipalities, including Tampere. This exemplifies how national legislation influences the participation work carried out in cities and neighbourhoods.

According to interviewees, national policy also impacts local-level activities through specific programmes that set the parameters of urban policy, including the types of state funding available to city authorities (Interview 18, 2023). For instance, many of the Tampere initiatives discussed in this chapter have relied on funding from national policy programmes. Interviewees noted, however, that the current government programme (Finnish Government, 2023) does not make any concrete mention of measures targeting specific neighbourhoods, which may lead to Finnish cities initiating fewer such projects than has been the case in past years (Interview 18, 2023).

Nevertheless, given the priorities set out in its city strategy, the Tampere administration has decided that area-based regeneration efforts will continue with funding from the city. This demonstrates that while national policies may influence city-level policy and planning measures, it is ultimately the municipalities that set the direction of actions carried out locally.

5.1.4 Key takeaways

When it comes to strengthening inclusion in local communities, Finland’s national policy landscape is characterised by a strong focus on participation. This can be seen in key legislation steering spatial planning and the governance of municipalities, as well as in various urban development-related national policies and programmes. Among other things, the latter have sought to engage local residents (especially difficult-t0-reach groups) in the planning of neighbourhoods and their services, and strengthen cooperation between municipalities and the private, third and fourth sectors. Several of these national programmes have provided funding to urban development projects, thereby concretely contributing to the adoption of new approaches aimed at strengthening social inclusion and counteracting segregation in Finnish cities.

The City of Tampere’s evaluation of its participation model reports that existing participation channels in the city are generally regarded as well-established and effective (City of Tampere, 2018). Even so, new approaches and methods are continually being developed in order to engage with a broader range people. This is driven by concerns that some citizens remain uncertain about the actual impact of their involvement once decisions are made and plans realised.

Another mechanism highlighted in the evaluation are the various district networks, which are regarded as strengthening a neighbourhood’s sense of community. According to interviewees, local residents have appreciated city employees being more frequently on the ground and closer to the population in neighbourhood-level projects (Interview 18, 2023).

On the other hand, both the interviewees and the City of Tampere’s own evaluation call for more effective city-level governance structures, as well as improved internal coordination of citizen participation processes, particularly given that citizen engagement is a core element of the work carried out in both city-wide and neighbourhood-level projects. Better integration of participation into existing activities and functions – a key principle of the city’s current participation and inclusion model – can help contribute to this (City of Tampere, 2023g). Here, interviewees pointed to the need for a cultural shift among city employees on how their everyday work can strengthen participation and inclusion (Interview 18, 2023).

5.2 Denmark

Public participation has been central to Danish spatial planning since the 1970s, when the country’s planning system underwent substantial changes. These changes were linked to extensive reforms of municipal and regional structures and functions; decentralisation of the planning authority; and extensive modifications made to the built environment in the wake of the 1969 Urban Renewal Act, which were frequently met by protests from citizens who felt excluded from the decision-making process (Gottschalk, 1984).

Over the ensuing decades, municipalities have sought to improve not only how planning-related information is given to the public, but the conditions for local-level debates. Thus, despite being a key feature of the national Planning Act, public participation is today mainly managed and regulated at the local level. As noted by (Galland & Enemark, 2015): ‘Together with local plans, planning proposals at the local level must be submitted for public debate, inspection and objection for at least eight weeks before they are finally adopted. Public participation is thus regarded as a significant democratic means through which objectives for economic development and environmental improvement are to be met.’

A 2005 survey conducted by Sørensen et al. (2005) revealed that planning authorities at both the regional and municipal level use public participation to gather ideas from the public and identify potential problems. Thus, there is an important ‘bottom-up’ component – evidenced by the Senior Friendly Copenhagen initiative (explored below) – whereby local- and neighbourhood-level participation can provide a relevant knowledge base for upper-level decision-making processes.

5.2.1 The role of participation in national policies and planning

Legal frameworks

At the national level, public participation is emphasised in various Danish policy and legal frameworks. Of particular importance is the Danish Planning Act, which regulates spatial planning at different territorial levels and sets the minimum requirements for public participation. Denmark, however, is strongly decentralised when it comes to spatial planning, with municipalities assuming primary responsibility for land use, and public participation generally implemented through local-level tools and practices (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2012). For instance, local planning authorities decide how discussion materials should be distributed, how citizens’ meeting are arranged, and which specific tools should be used. While several municipalities have developed community democracy policies, others have experimented with more informal approaches prior to the commencement of formal planning processes (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2012).

As noted by Marzuki (2015), there are two main levels of public participation in Denmark: firstly, submitting ideas and proposals before plans are prepared; and, secondly, expressing opinions and objections through hearings and consultations once a plan has been published. Legislative reforms have meant participation has become increasingly digitalised since 2011. Now, in the interests of ensuring transparency in the planning process, all planning documents – including consultation responses – are published on the online public consultation portal (Høringsportalen, 2024). Furthermore, in 2018, the Danish parliament introduced a new tool for direct democracy called ‘Citizen’s Initiative’, which enables Danish citizens to place an item of interest on the parliamentary agenda if at least 50,000 people support it (Danish Parliament, 2018).

The Act on Urban Renewal and Development of Cities (Byfornyelsesloven), which aims to stimulate development and transformation of Denmark’s most disadvantaged urban areas, is also relevant to public participation. It is a prerequisite for area renewal that local stakeholders are involved in the planning process. Towards this end, the relevant municipality must not only prepare an urban renewal programme setting out the initiatives involved, but establish binding cooperation with the affected citizens and parties (Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, Housing and Elderly, 2003).

Engagement of diverse population groups

Another area pertinent to public participation is the work promoting local sustainable development carried out under Local Agenda 21 (LA21). As Agger (2010) observes, LA21 schemes appear to pursue more bottom-up approaches compared to traditional methods of promoting environmental policies. In Copenhagen especially, LA21 schemes have been shown to promote participatory processes, with local authorities actively involving citizens. Particular attention has been paid to including people with different ethnic backgrounds, as well as generally less active citizens, in sustainable development decisions (Agger, 2010). Within the LA 21 framework, Agger (2010) has identified three main participatory approaches:

The network approach, which aims to connect LA21 activities to existing networks, even those not necessarily involved with environmental issues;
The integrated approach, which aims to expand discussions about sustainable development to different issues and policy areas (travelling, lifestyle, food production, education, health and community empowerment), thereby cross-sectorally involving a broader range of stakeholders; and
The canvassing approach, which aims to increase direct involvement by soliciting target groups typically less engaged in environmental issues.

In Denmark, particular emphasis is placed on the public participation of children and young people. Here, the National Council for Children (Børnerådet) is responsible not only for identifying which aspects of society impact on children’s rights, but ensuring children’s voices are heard. When it comes to involving youth in policy-making, however, the process is consultative rather than legally binding (European Commission, 2022). Even so, youth panels – typically consisting of a group of young people from a specific target group – are widespread at the national level. Meanwhile, at municipal level, the consultation of young people relies on local youth councils.

Finally, three key initiatives have been launched by the national Association of Municipalities (Kommunernes Landsforening) – which represents Denmark’s 98 municipalities – under the umbrella of local welfare and democracy. First, the Adult Assessment Method 2.0, which seeks to improve the quality of social services by involving citizens with disabilities (Social Welfare Agency, 2022). Second, an approach named ‘better citizens’ dialogue’ (bedre borgerdialog), which aims to enhance face-to-face dialogue between citizens and institutions, thereby ensuring citizens feel heard at a time when participation processes are becoming increasingly digitalised (Komponent, n.d.). Third, an approach called ‘co-created governance’ (samskabt styrning), which aims to de-bureaucratise the public sector (Samskabt Styring, n.d.).

5.2.2 Public participation in Copenhagen’s urban development projects

As discussed, municipalities enjoy considerable autonomy when it comes to deciding how public participation in urban development should be implemented. In the case of Copenhagen, there is no strict approach for involving its citizens, and therefore little clear framework or systematic coordination of such work at the municipal level. Instead, the methods employed to realise participation vary according to the particular project and which branch of the city administration is involved.

Figure 16. Superkilen park In Copenhagen’s Nørrebro district of Copenhagen, designed to bring people together and promote unity

Source: CC BY-SA 4.0, Lorie Shaull

One interviewee reported that, having initiated a project in Copenhagen, the municipality tends to commission consultants to develop and concretise the participatory process (Interview 15, 2023). Sometimes the parameters are already outlined by the municipality, while in other cases the consultants have more room to manoeuvre in determining which participation methods to use and how to implement the process.

Local citizens’ committees are also important to public participation in Copenhagen. In 2005, a system of 12 local committees, each with 23 elected members, was introduced in the municipality. These committees provide important support for civil society activities, as well as to citizens applying for community project funding (Engberg, 2018).

Since 2015 especially, the City of Copenhagen has sought to strengthen citizen involvement via better internal collaboration and knowledge sharing across its seven municipal committees (Employment and Integration; Children and Youth; Culture and Leisure; Social; Health and Care; Technical and Environmental; Economic) (City of Copenhagen, 2019). municiThis focus arose from a recognition that common municipal principles on how citizens should be involved in city planning and development were needed (Municipality of Copenhagen, 2016). The process began with the municipal initiative ‘Together for the City’ (Sammen om Byen), which laid out the following five principles/requirements for engaging with residents (City of Copenhagen, n.d.-b):

Dialogue is a core task of urban development;
Early dialogue (occurring in the early stages of the decision-making process);
Clear dialogue (through clear information);
Engaging dialogue (through the creation of opportunities to meet and discuss); and
Diverse dialogue (engaging different population groups).

The principles were drawn up following a dialogue-based consultation approach involving a survey, interviews with citizens, and consultations with local committees with local citizens and committees. Approximately 2,200 citizens participated in the survey, which revealed a number of challenges. These included a need for strengthened cooperation and dialogue with the municipal administration; inadequate opportunities for city involvement and lack of clarity concerning how Copenhagen residents can engage in dialogue with the municipality (City of Copenhagen, 2016).

While relevant as guidelines, the principles are not legally binding and fail to specify how they are to be translated into practice. Thus, at the city level, participation is framed more as a vision than as structured guidelines. On the other hand, the city administration does offer six relevant initiatives that can be pursued with relatively limited financial resources (Borgerrepræsentationens Sekretariat, 2019):

Open meetings at the city hall;
Talks on specific issues between citizens and politicians (four talks annually in the form of morning or evening meetings);
Better information for citizens (online calendar of events, municipal websites);
Open meeting times (open meetings with politicians, e.g. in libraries);
The mobile ‘Copenhagen unit’ (meetings organised in buses, caravans, minivans, cargo bikes), designed to reach busy residents who do usually not participate in other forms of meetings; and
English-language information for international residents.

One important way the City of Copenhagen seeks to facilitate public participation is through its various websites, apps and other digital platforms. These are used by the municipality to engage residents and provide information about ongoing projects, while citizens can use them to provide feedback and access relevant documents. The city website also includes a section that allows citizens to not only comment on existing projects, but directly engage with politicians and propose new projects under the ‘Co-create Copenhagen’ initiative (City of Copenhagen, n.d.-b). In attempting to harness active citizen involvement in the advancement of environmental objectives, the initiative also offers a means of raising awareness around consumption habits. Despite the City of Copenhagen’s assertion that such digital methods are effective in reaching a wide range of people, however, they in practice tend to favour resourceful digital users (Borgerrepræsentationens Sekretariat, 2019).

As the ‘Co-create Copenhagen’ initiative demonstrates, public participation is considered a crucial element in achieving the city’s environmental goals, particularly Copenhagen’s stated aim of becoming the world’s first climate-neutral capital by 2025. Towards this end, various area-based initiatives have been implemented across the city, including several so-called ‘Integrated Urban Renewal’ projects. These involve the preparation of neighbourhood plans for climate adaptation, developed via a bottom-up process of public meetings and citizen working groups before being submitted for approval by the city council (Copenhagen Technical and Environmental Administration, 2012). The crucial role played by citizen involvement in these initiatives has led to stronger feelings of commitment and ownership by residents.

Figure 17. ‘Walks and talks’ carried out within the Senior Friendly Copenhagen project

Source: Lars Haugen Grenaker

Although all the city’s initiatives seek to engage as wide an audience as possible, the difficulties of involving diverse groups in public participation are highlighted as a key challenge both in local participation documents (Borgerrepræsentationens Sekretariat, 2019) and by interviewees (Interview 15, 2023; Interview 16, 2023). Concerted local efforts have therefore been made to actively involve groups that may find it harder to participate in public meetings, and so urban development decisions. One example of this is the participation programme launched under the ‘Senior Friendly Copenhagen’ initiative, which targets the city’s older citizens (see Box 8).

Box 8. Senior Friendly Copenhagen

In 2019, the City of Copenhagen’s Health and Care Administration set in motion the Senior Friendly Copenhagen project by engaging private consultancy company COurban to map the needs of older people across all the city’s neighbourhoods. The project – part of a wider campaign named ‘A City For All’ – aimed to improve the physical accessibility and liveability of Copenhagen’s urban areas by actively involving the seniors living there (Health and Care Department of Copenhagen Municipality, 2022). More specifically, Senior Friendly Copenhagen revolved around eight main themes: 1) benches; 2) accessibility; 3) health and age friendliness; 4) public transport; 5) free time; 6) recreational activities; 7) community; and 8) identity.

The project was conducted as a public–private partnership between COurban and the Health and Care Administration, working in tandem with the Technical and Environment Administration. COurban was mainly responsible for engaging senior citizens through interviews, ‘walks and talks’ (see Figure 17) and focus group meetings, while the municipality set up an online participatory mapping tool allowing seniors to offer their opinions on their neighbourhood via a digital map. Towards this end, the GIS-based citizen engagement platform Maptionnaire was employed. However, the platform does not allow parameters to be imposed in terms of users, meaning that in the case of Senior Friendly Copenhagen only 60 of the 300 inputs received came from the target group (i.e. seniors).

More generally, the project relied on a variety of flexible approaches. For instance, when the COVID-19 pandemic put an end to collective in-person participation activities, the project turned to telephone interviews or one-on-one outdoor meetings. In-depth interviews with older people from across the city focused on local neighbourhoods, including their identity; access to public transport; meeting places; functions; accessibility; community; neighbourhood changes (such as gentrification); and whether the area could be considered senior friendly or not. These interviews –together with information gleaned from focus groups and elderly council meetings – formed the basis of a qualitative study produced for the project (Health and Care Department of Copenhagen Municipality, 2022).

Public participation approaches are often hampered by a lack of diversity among those engaging in such processes. While this is partly due to the methods used by the initiating actors when spreading information about the process, it also relates to the fact that participation works on a voluntary basis. Thus, although engagement for Senior Friendly Copenhagen achieved a diverse spread in terms of gender and age (participants were aged 60–90), as well as degree of functional impairment or disability, the participants were mainly resourceful, active seniors of Danish origin. Nevertheless, according to a COurban employee, one of the most valuable aspects of the participatory process was working with people with disabilities, as this provided entirely different views on how neighbourhoods are experienced and the challenges a lack of physical accessibility can create (Interview 15, 2023).

Inputs gathered from participatory processes were translated into concrete interventions. Most notably, around 500 senior-friendly benches – four different types were designed in order to meet the different needs of senior citizens – were installed across the city (City of Copenhagen, n.d.-a). It is also anticipated that the inputs gathered by the project will feed into development of the City of Copenhagen’s senior strategy (Interview 15, 2023).

5.2.3 Key takeaways

Denmark employs a multifaceted approach to participatory planning that is reflective of its decentralised planning system. This allows municipalities to tailor their approaches to local-level circumstances, with methods ranging from public hearings to digital platforms enabling remote participation. Moreover, urban renewal programmes often seek citizens’ involvement in shaping the future of their neighbourhoods, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility.

Significant emphasis is placed on participation in Denmark’s national strategies and policies, with, for instance, the national Planning Act stipulating minimum requirements for public participation. The introduction of the ‘Citizen’s Initiative’ tool in 2018 has further empowered citizens to actively engage with parliamentary agendas, demonstrating a clear commitment to direct democracy. On top of this, the Act on Urban Renewal and Development of Cities has underscored the perceived importance of involving stakeholders in shaping the future of Denmark’s urban areas.

At the local level, Denmark’s municipalities enjoy considerable autonomy when organising participatory processes, including the flexibility to choose methods suited to their specific projects and objectives. Thus, while some municipalities may opt for consultancy-led projects initiated by the public, others may assume a more direct role in managing participation, particularly in urban renewal programmes. Local citizens’ committees also play a vital role, serving as intermediaries between residents and municipal authorities.

Senior Friendly Copenhagen serves as an example of an initiative that has successfully promoted social inclusion, actively involving seniors – including those with disabilities – in early planning stages. Such initiatives empower citizens to have a say in decisions affecting their daily lives, ultimately leading to more inclusive, accessible urban environments. Nevertheless, challenges persist in ensuring diverse groups are adequately represented in participation endeavours, with ongoing efforts needed to address this issue.

The participatory planning methods and examples explored in this section highlight the numerous opportunities available for increasing citizen engagement, ensuring more informed decision-making, and addressing specific community needs. Through leveraging digital tools and platforms, municipalities can expand their reach and involve a broader audience. On the other hand, ensuring participation is truly inclusive may not always be straightforward, as some citizens face particular barriers, such as limited digital access. Additionally, translating participatory inputs into concrete interventions can be complex, requiring effective communication and follow-through. As Copenhagen’s experiences demonstrate, achieving consistency in participatory methods across different projects remains an ongoing challenge, necessitating the development of systematic guidance.

5.3 Norway

Since the 1990s, public participation has played a key role in spatial planning in Norway (Gohari et al., 2020). This is exemplified by the national Planning and Building Act (Plan- og bygningsloven), which dedicates a full section to the topic and its importance for local democracy (Planning and Building Act, 2008). In particular, the act states that anyone putting forward a planning proposal must ensure participation takes place, with municipalities being the main authorities responsible for ensuring the relevant requirements are met. Moreover, section 5.3 of the act highlights the importance of regional forums – arenas where the regional planning authority is required to map national, regional and municipal interests, coordinating them via regional and municipal plans (PBA §5.3).

Another relevant example is the government’s 2014 national guide on public participation (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2014), which stresses the importance of planning for community development. More specifically, it lays out four areas crucial to flexible, consistent public participation processes:

Transparency, to ensure everyone affected by a plan has equal access to the information necessary to protect their interests.
Efficient management, to facilitate good coordination between the multitude of actors and interests involved, as well as ensure the public is adequately involved and conflicts well facilitated.
Universal design, to ensure more inclusive, democratic communities. Here, there are several national-level initiatives and goals aimed at not only making communities more physically accessible, but enhancing information and communication technology (ICT) access through the digitalisation of various services (Norwegian Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, 2015).
Equality, to ensure all the entities involved and affected by planning processes can participate on equal terms. In particular, equal involvement from the very start of the planning process is highlighted as central to inclusive planning.

The guide(Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2014) also lays out a number of participation methods that municipalities can implement, ranging from the traditional (e.g. public hearings) to more complex approaches, such as collective mapping, workshops and citizen panels. These methods are classified according to four levels of participation, as shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18. Circle of influence in planning showing different levels of participation

Source: Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2014

In Figure 18, the smallest circle (1) represents the lowest level of influence, referring to the distribution of information that can be made available without any further facilitation measures. The second circle encompasses knowledge collection as a broader basis for decision-making, thereby necessitating an open process and greater opportunities to participate. The third circle, which concerns dialogue-based participation, incorporates a multitude of methods (e.g. conferences, workshops, future methods) aimed at expanding opportunities to exert influence. Finally, the fourth circle – the highest level of influence – refers to cooperation and council programme, includes concrete negotiations between stakeholders and other actors impacted by the planning process (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2014).

As discussed below, despite the stress placed on equal participation in national strategies, ensuring such participation in a planning process’s early phases has become a hotly contested topic in Norwegian planning debates.

5.3.1 The role of participation in national policies and planning

Legal frameworks

The principles of consultation and public scrutiny are highlighted in both the older 1985 Planning and Building Act and its 2008 replacement. In particular, two requirements are emphasised:

Planning proposals shall be circulated for comments within an agreed time limit to the government, regional and municipal authorities, as well as other public bodies, private organisations and institutions affected by the proposal.
Planning proposals shall be presented for public scrutiny, meaning at least one copy must be easily accessible in order to allow everyone to familiarise themselves with its contents.

As noted in Falleth et al. (2011), these principles constitute the two central pillars of participation in Norwegian planning. Nevertheless, translating them into planning practice is far from straightforward, especially when it comes to detailed local planning. The changes undergone by Norwegian planning over recent decades has shaped how participation actually takes place, as well as how the various obstacles to public participation are regarded. Neoliberal trends have led to the increased presence of private actors in urban development, with powerful developers now responsible for initiating the majority of Norway’s detailed zoning plans (Stjernström et al., 2023).

The initial, informal stage of zoning plan proposals has been subject to particular criticism in national planning debates, with local authorities (i.e. municipalities) and developers coming together in closed meetings to discuss proposals and ideas. In this phase, the statutory requirements for consultation and participation do not formally apply (Stjernström et al., 2023). Instead, the only legal requirement is that beginning of the plan implementation should be announced, although the timing of this is ‘legally unclear and unknown in practice’ (Falleth et al., 2011). As such, actual participation only takes place once plans have been drafted by developers and considered by the local authorities, thereby limiting the scope for public involvement in the planning process.

Implementation of participation

A survey conducted by DOGA (Design and Architecture Norway) on municipalities’ experiences with participation in planning suggests that a lack of participation in the early phase (municipal plan) leads to higher levels of conflict during the zoning plan process (DOGA, 2017). Moreover, the survey showed that there is more public engagement in comprehensive municipal plans than in detailed zoning plans. This may be because traditional participatory methods (such as consultations and public hearings, which are the most widely adopted approaches in Norway) are more widely employed in comprehensive planning than zoning planning. The survey concluded that the type of participation promoted in Norwegian planning is generally geared towards informing, not involving, citizens.

Turning to the case of Sandnes, explored below, it should be noted that Norway’s national guidelines for public participation, as well as the 2008 Planning and Building Act, place great emphasis on involving children and youth in planning matters. While such involvement is not legally binding at the national level, the 2019 revision of the Local Government Act made it mandatory to have formal consultative youth bodies or councils at the municipal and county level. In addition, article 3 of the UN Convention on the Right of Children, as well as the Norwegian constitution, stipulate that children’s perspectives should be reflected in municipal planning strategies (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2020).

5.3.2 Sandnes: Involving children and youth in urban development

While most Norwegian municipalities tend to mainly use more traditional participatory methods (DOGA, 2017), some have tested and gone on to adopt more innovative approaches. The municipality of Sandnes – located in Rogaland County in Southwestern Norway, with a population of approximately 83,000 – represents an interesting case from this perspective. Sandnes is located near the larger city of Stavanger and, together with their surrounding municipalities, the two cities make up the Stavanger-Sandnes urban region. With a total population of approximately 240,000, Stavanger-Sandnes is the country’s third largest urban region (Statistics Norway, 2024).

Figure 19. Aerial view of Sandnes

Source: CCO 1.0, Alexey Topolyanskiy

Sandnes’s municipal authority has a long tradition of participation when it comes to planning and policy-making, and is particularly committed to involving children and youth beyond the minimum requirements set down in law.

More generally, the municipality must consider following key legal frameworks when considering matters of participation:

The Planning and Building Act (2008) states that the municipality is responsible for ensuring any actor responsible for a planning proposal – whether public or private – facilitates a participatory engagement process. In particular, the municipality should ensure active participatory engagement with groups requiring special facilitation or attention, such as children and youth. Those unable to participate directly must be given other ways to participate.
The Local Government Act (Kommuneloven) (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 2018) states that residents of a municipality or county can put forward proposals concerning the activities of the relevant authority. The municipal or county council itself is obliged to respond to a proposal if at least 2% of residents support it.
The White Paper 15 (2022–2023) presenting the National Strategy for Equalising Social Health Conditions (Folkehelsemeldinga — Nasjonal strategi for utjamning av sosiale helseforskjellar) highlights the importance of participation, especially when it comes to children and young people, and public health work (Department of Health and Care, 2023).
Regional planning guidelines and the societal part of municipal plans are developed in collaboration with citizens, civil society, businesses and other public organisations. Politically agreed-upon objectives and strategies are addressed in financial planning and other planning documents.

Sandnes’s current municipal plan (Sandnes Municipality, 2023) includes a strategic focus on ‘strengthening diversity and citizen involvement’. When preparing the plan, the municipality arranged open meetings and open office days at the city hall, to which children and young people were invited. The city also has elderly councils (required by law) and an immigrant council to help ensure the voices of diverse groups are heard during planning processes. In order to ensure equal opportunities to participate, arrangements are made to involve the relevant parties and interests early in planning processes – including private planning proposals.

While digital participation solutions are widely used, groups unable to participate directly or use such digital means are given opportunities to participate in other ways (e.g. information disseminated via mail or local newspapers). Efforts are also made to ensure the Sami population and national minorities are appropriately consulted and given the opportunity to participate in any planning processes affecting them.

In 2020, youth councils became a state requirement for all municipalities in Norway. In Sandnes, however, a youth council has already been in existence since 1997, setting a long tradition and high standards for the participation of young people. The council’s main task is to raise matters and set goals on topics of particular concern to children and young people, such as mental health. Aside from the youth council, the municipality offers a number of other more informal participation opportunities, such as a panel for young people and a youth club (Interview 21, 2023).

Sandnes’s strong focus on child and youth participation can also be seen in the arena of urban development. One relevant example is the Children’s City (Barnas by) project, initiated in 2008 when Sandnes was a European Capital of Culture. Children’s City is an annual event based on three main themes: 1) cultural activities; 2) participation; and 3) urban development (Sandnes Municipality, 2022).

The Barnetråkk (Childrens’ Track) approach is an important element of how Children’s City is run. Essentially, Barnetråkk is a digital participation method that utilises an interactive web map to collect children’s and young people’s perspectives on how they use their local environment, which is then used to support municipal planning (Norsk Form, 2010). Barnetråkk was originally developed in the 1990s by Vestfold’s county governor, but it was only in 2014 that the method was further refined by DOGA through the Barnetråkk - barn i byen project (DOGA, 2017). The purpose of this project was to increase the use of Barnetråkk in implementation; enhance knowledge about alternative participation measures; and obtain input from children and young people (Pedersen, 2019).

Section 5.1 of the Planning and Building Act specifies that municipalities must ensure active participation from groups in need of special follow-up, ‘including children and young people’ (Planning and Building Act, 2008). However, adopting Barnetråkk as a participation tool goes beyond the minimum requirements of the law – as such, it is voluntary act for municipalities.

The first efforts to implement Barnetråkk were made in 2006 through a collaboration between the Foundation for Design and Architecture in Norway (Norsk Form) and the Norwegian Mapping Authority (Kartverket). In 2009, it became possible to integrate Barnetråkk into the online web map (Map in the School) and since 2014 the tool has been available to use on both computers and mobile devices. Through placing a variety of symbols onto the interactive map, children can indicate their perspectives on their local environment, as well as plot the roads they use (Barnetråkk, n.d.). Gathering the preferences of children and young people in this way provides the basis for better political decision-making and planning. In this respect, interviewees (representatives of Sandnes municipality working on the participation of children and young people) observed that Barnetråkk and its interactive map are a key component of start-up meetings for local plans (Interview 21, 2023).

Figure 20. Schools in Sandnes Municipality adopting Barnetråkk

In Sandnes, considerable attention has been devoted to involving youth in urban development (Sandnes Municipality, 2015, 2023). For example, when Sandnes’s municipal plans were being put together in 2015, the city’s youth council participated in a so-called ‘future workshop’ (fremtidsverksted). This involved attendees – specifically citizens not typically involved in decision-making – expressing their opinions on what contributes to good urban living environments, as well as which areas of the municipality could be improved (DOGA, n.d.-a). More generally, future workshops are organised according to the following four main phases:

Criticism phase: Challenges and negative aspects of a place or initiative are highlighted.
Positive phase: Positive aspects are highlighted.
Dream phase: Participants formulate ideas on how a particular place, local environment or community should look and be.
Specification phase: Participants prioritise tasks/measures for which an action plan is then prepared.

The results of these workshops are reproduced onto maps, with green, yellow and red patches indicating opportunities or challenges of different degrees. The results are also summarised by the local Council for Children and Young People (BUBS) and used in preparatory work for the municipal masterplan. However, as noted by Bringeland (2017), there are challenges in meaningfully integrating the future workshops results into planning practices. For instance, the results are usually reported in the ‘community’ section (samfunnsdel) of the municipal masterplan, which is poorly anchored with the legally binding ‘area’ section (arealdel). Relatedly, it has often proved difficult to translate the workshop results into concrete planning recommendations.

Box 9 looks at two other participation-related initiatives in Norway – Folketråkk and Urban Living Labs – that utilise a variety of methods to engage relevant actors and stakeholder groups in urban development.

Box 9. Folketråkk and Urban Living Labs

Folketråkk is an approach currently being developed to integrate citizens’ needs into planning processes, including both comprehensive municipal planning and detailed planning. It is based on the previously explored Barnetråkk tool, which as a pure mapping tool does not allow for deep involvement in decision-making. It is envisaged that Folketråkk will provide a national digital platform to support municipalities, planners and other actors attempting to involve citizens in community development. The goal is also to reduce conflicts provoked by citizens not feeling involved, particularly in the zoning plan phase. There are currently two pilot versions of Folketråkk available in the municipalities of Drammen and Flesberg. When completed, Folketråkk will consist of four main features (DOGA, 2020):

A toolbox (for planners ) that recommends which methods and tools should be used in different plan types and phases;
A knowledge base (for citizens, municipalities and developers) built up gradually throughout participation processes, including data relevant to specific interventions;
A planning and progress tool (for residents), which provides the population with information about ongoing projects and which priorities are being set in different phases;
A ‘say your opinion’ section (for residents) where citizens can access information, express opinions and get feedback from municipalities.

Urban Living Labs is an experimental platform designed to explore, co-create and implement new ideas, technologies and policies that can help improve the quality of urban life, sustainability and the overall urban environment. Urban Living Labs offers a means of handling multi-dimensional challenges in urban areas, often with a multi-level perspective provided by citizens, academics and actors from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Although no Norwegian city currently uses Urban Living Labs in a systematic, holistic way, several have adopted a number of the methodology’s main points in their work – for instance, in connection to smart city projects.

In Norway, the Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings has developed a variety of pilot projects that function as Living Labs in different cities (e.g. Trondheim, Bergen, Larvik, Oslo). The purpose of these pilot projects is to investigate interactions between different user groups, materials and technologies in CO₂-neutral buildings. The Norwegian Research Council is helping to finance the initiative, while the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the research institute SINTEF are key research partners and developers. Various private companies are also contributing to the projects.

5.3.3 Key takeaways

In Norway, minimum requirements for public participation within spatial planning and building are set at the national level in the Planning and Building Act. Even so, municipalities enjoy considerable freedom when it comes to choosing specific participation tools and methods.

In general terms, the survey conducted by DOGA (2017) points to a situation whereby a lack of participation in the early phases of municipal plans leads to more frequent conflict in the zoning plan phase, which often occurs behind ‘closed doors’. Furthermore, municipalities mostly adopt traditional participation methods geared towards informing rather than involving citizens. One reason for this is that more innovative methods – such as Barnetråkk, workshops or Living Labs – often require vast resources, including in terms of competence, which municipalities do not always have.

Nevertheless, more innovative approaches have been pursued in some contexts. In the municipality of Sandnes, for example, particular attention has been paid to engaging children and youth – a population group that often goes unheard. Here, Barnetråkk and other youth involvement approaches have been adopted by the municipal authorities in order to include, inspire and engage people from a young age.

Such methods hold their own challenges, however. Generally, there appears to be more citizen engagement at the municipal plan level than in detailed zoning planning, which can provoke conflict among actors later in the planning process. Moreover, engaging young people in planning can be a complex task, as their perspectives are often varied and subject to change. From a young people’s point of view, the main challenge is to be heard, which requires involvement at an early stage of the decision-making process, not simply commenting on decisions already taken.

Overall, the participatory approaches examined in this section demonstrate that advances have been made in overcoming barriers to engagement among segments of the population that have often proved difficult to involve. Among the benefits reaped by the municipal authorities in Sandes is that it has become easier to incorporate the needs and perspectives of the city’s diverse population into spatial plans. Such knowledge is invaluable when it comes to implementing interventions that better correspond to the wishes of residents and other relevant actors, and moreover allows for the more efficient use of public funds.

5.4 Sweden

A progressive decentralisation of planning from the late 1980s onwards has seen public participation become a core element of spatial planning in Sweden (Rodela & Norss, 2023). While Swedish municipalities bear primary responsibility for physical planning, various national-level legislative and policy frameworks are in place to steer local-level development of the built environment.

Of particular importance in this context is the Planning and Building Act (PBL) (Plan- och bygglagen) (2010:900), which stipulates that municipalities must consult citizens in planning processes. Towards this end, national authorities are tasked with providing local and regional authorities with guidelines on how to implement appropriate public participation processes. Municipalities are also required to take into account a number of national objectives and international conventions.

Sweden’s key national policies and legislative frameworks concerning spatial planning are laid out below, with particular attention paid to their public participation and citizen engagement elements. Following this, the section focuses in on the Municipality of Umeå, where sustainability is held up as a key principle in all urban development work carried out, extensively supported by citizen dialogue and other public engagement approaches. In addition, the section sheds light on how participatory processes have been used in Uppsala’s disadvantaged Gottsunda district, especially in relation to the challenge of imbalanced power relationships between planners and citizens.

5.4.1 The role of participation in national policies and planning

Legal frameworks and national objectives

Sweden’s Planning and Building Act (PBL) (Boverket, 2023c) states that municipalities are responsible for the planning of land and water areas within their geographical boundaries, and bear sole authority when it comes to adopting relevant plans and pursuing implementation. This is usually referred to as the municipal planning monopoly (Kommunalt Planmonopol, 2023). The law also obliges municipalities to organise formal consultations when new comprehensive plans (översiktsplaner) and detailed development plans (detaljplaner) are being drawn up, or when changes are made to existing plans (Boverket, 2022d; Interview 22, 2023). Sweden’s shift towards a decentralisation of spatial planning began in the late 1980s, driven by a desire to bring decision-making closer to citizens (Interview 22, 2023). Today, considerable weight is placed on citizen involvement in this arena, exemplified by various national objectives emphasising the importance of public participation in spatial planning processes (Interview 22, 2023).

Despite Sweden’s high degree of decentralisation when it comes to planning processes, municipalities are nevertheless bound by a number of national-level objectives and conventions. Particularly relevant for social inclusion is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which highlights the built environment as an important factor in shaping the identity and self-image of children (Boverket, 2020). Since 2020, it has been a legal requirement in Sweden to include children and youth in spatial planning (Rodela & Norss, 2023). Relatedly, Boverket has developed guidelines on how the convention’s principles can be applied to physical planning and urban development. In doing so, Boverket has sought to provide knowledge on how to create more equitable physical living environments and ensure children’s rights throughout the planning process (Boverket, 2022a).

Also important in this context are the UN Agenda 2030’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGSs), especially SDG 11 concerning sustainable cities and communities, and its target 11.3 of enhancing ‘inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacity for participatory … planning’ (Global Goals, 2023). Towards this end, the government established the Swedish Council for Sustainable Cities (Rådet för hållbara städer), a partnership of authorities set up in 2017 to strengthen the capacity of municipalities in relation to SDG 11 (Boverket, 2023d; Hållbar stad, n.d.).

Implementation of participation

Swedish municipalities employ a variety of citizen engagement methods at different planning stages, with some authorities going significantly beyond what is required by law. More generally, Sweden’s 290 municipalities have diverse ways of operating, shaped by their respective resources and opportunities, political leadership and organisational structure (Interview 22, 2023).

Boverket – as the central national authority on issues concerning physical planning, urban development, buildings and housing – offers guidelines and recommendations to the country’s municipalities and regions. One relevant example here is Boverket’s PBL Knowledge Bank, a compilation of approximately 1,800 web pages aimed at supporting those working on physical planning in Sweden (Boverket, n.d.). The PBL Knowledge Bank is divided into subject areas and includes guidelines on, among other things, regional, comprehensive and detailed planning. Boverket also provides guidance on fostering active citizen involvement in urban development, including soliciting participation among a range of actors – from professionals to future users of a place (Boverket, 2022b).

Another relevant governmental authority is the Swedish Agency for Participation (Myndigheten för delaktighet), which also issues guidance on planning-related issues, particularly in terms of making the built environment more physically accessible to all citizens regardless of age or physical capability (Swedish Agency for Participation, n.d.).

As part of its mission, Boverket showcases various examples of participatory planning methods used in Swedish municipalities (Interview 22, 2023). Here, it should be noted that innovative public participation approaches to planning are not limited to large municipalities. For instance, Borlänge municipality, in Dalarna County, has an architecture programme aimed specifically at children and young people (Boverket, 2024b), including camps for children where they can learn about designing their living environment (Interview 22, 2023). Umeå, explored in further detail below, is another medium-sized Swedish city with a strong focus on citizen engagement in physical planning, particularly when it comes to targeting children and young people.

5.4.2 Citizen dialogue and public engagement in Umeå

In Umeå – a municipality in Västerbotten County with a population of approximately 134,000 – citizen dialogue and other participatory approaches are well established within spatial planning and urban development. Moreover, sustainability is a core principle in all urban development work carried out in Umeå, from pursuing social wellbeing to climate neutrality. When it comes to development processes, the municipality utilises various initiatives and activities to gather resident feedback. The resultant data is then used to create roadmaps or plans setting out concrete actions for improving the city (CrAFt, n.d.).

The role of culture in urban sustainability has been strongly emphasised in Umeå, which was designated a European Capital of Culture by the EU in 2014 (North Sweden, n.d.). This focus is reflected in a range of community engagement and empowerment initiatives – one example being the 2016 Frizon project, which involved working collaboratively with young girls from the city to transform a riverside space into a safe, inclusive environment (Umeå Municipality, 2024). Another relevant initiative is the Umecom programme (Umecom, n.d.), which aims to provide new ways of bringing Umeå residents into urban development processes, including through workshops or other gatherings.

Figure 21. Riverfront and Rådhusparken in Umeå

Source: Umeå Municipality, Sara Stenberg

Umeå is also one of 60 European cities participating in the EU-funded CrAFt (Creating Actionable Futures) project (North Sweden, 2022). Initiated in 2022, this three-year project is part of the EU’s New European Bauhaus initiative, created with the intention of encouraging climate-neutral, beautiful and inclusive cities. Key focus areas include engagement with a wide range of stakeholders (e.g. citizens and communities; property owners and tenants; cultural, artistic and creative sectors; universities and schools of arts and design; students and youth communities) and testing collaborative local governance models (CrAFt, 2022).

A particularly noteworthy example of how the Municipality of Umeå has worked to engage residents in recent years can be seen in the neighbourhood dialogue (stadsdelsdialog) approach it carried out in 2019. This involved assorted forms of citizen dialogue across Umeå’s different neighbourhoods, with the objective of better understanding what people appreciate or dislike about their local living environments, as well as what improvements they would like to see going forward (Municipality of Umeå, 2020). Another important aim was to build trust with the population around in urban development issues (Interview 23, 2023).

The initiative relied on various data and methods. First, a preliminary analysis of the socio-economic characteristics of different areas within the municipality was carried out using Statistics Sweden’s Key Code System (NYKO) classification of sub-areas. More specifically, the analysis used demographic and socio-economic indicators on age groups, households, income and education levels, employment, and number of sick days reported (Municipality of Umeå, 2020). This was followed by workshops focused on Umeå’s different city districts, which brought together professionals from a variety of fields, including architects, urban planners, landscape architects and traffic planners, as well as experts on gender equality, crime, culture, leisure, water issues and education. Subsequently, a number of participatory methods were employed, including a large-scale online survey of the population, street interviews (with 700 participants), digital dialogue (with 1,300 participants), and activities in local schools (Municipality of Umeå, 2020).

The street interviews involved municipality officials using a ‘dialogue bicycle’ (dialogcykel) to visit as many of Umeå’s neighbourhoods as possible in order to solicit residents’ perspectives on their local living environments and inspire dialogue on urban development. In total, 12 visits were carried out, resulting in over 700 conversations (Municipality of Umeå, 2020). Special attention was paid to the type and location of the interviews, which were conducted close to local shops in order to reach a broad range of people. The dialogue was initiated with short, simple questions designed to make people feel comfortable and encourage them to expand on their thoughts and wishes regarding urban development (Municipality of Umeå, 2020).

Figure 22. ‘Dialogue bicycle’ used to engage residents in Umeå

Source: Umeå Municipality, Emil Sandström

Further dialogue using the same questions took place on a digital platform, enabling direct interaction in a way that complemented the face-to-face dialogues. Here, participants could mark the places they liked or disliked on an interactive map, before adding comments to elaborate on their answers. Residents were also asked what they hoped for in their neighbourhoods over the coming 20 years, and what they would miss if they moved away. From the municipality’s perspective, these inputs provided valuable knowledge that could then be fed into the future development of the city and its neighbourhoods. In its report evaluating the neighbourhood dialogue approach, the municipality asserted that the combination of face-to-face and digital meetings, along with quantitative analysis, had proven to be a resource-efficient way of working, contributing to broad insights and valuable collaborative learning experiences (Municipality of Umeå, 2020).

Another urban planning initiative carried out by the Municipality of Umeå was a collaboration with Dragonskolan, an upper-secondary school. Launched in 2017, the initiative was premised on the notion that it is often challenging to reach young people through more traditional forms of dialogue and participation. The collaboration, linked to urban planning courses carried out at the school, was therefore designed to better incorporate youth perspectives into the municipality’s urban planning processes. The students conducted interviews and surveys, participated in socio-economic analyses, and contributed neighbourhood descriptions and their own plan ideas. These contributions were then published in two e-book volumes (Municipality of Umeå, 2020).

Ultimately, it is not possible to determine how and to what extent the Municipality of Umeå’s neighbourhood dialogue approach directly contributed to greater social inclusion in the city. Nevertheless, one study interviewee claimed the approach had not only helped bring the municipality and its citizens together, but raised public awareness in Umeå around urban planning and neighbourhood development (Interview 23, 2023).

The municipality’s experiences demonstrate that the neighbourhood dialogue approach offers an effective way of obtaining a socially and geographically diverse array of resident perspectives. At the same time, many within the municipality felt there was scope to engage people on an even wider scale, and reach an even greater diversity of areas across the city. In this respect, one advantage of the approach is that it would be relatively straightforward to complement the information collected thus far using follow-up rounds of data collection and new types of methods (Interview 23, 2023).

Box 10, which spotlights urban redevelopment initiatives in the Uppsala’s suburban district of Gottsunda, provides further insights into the issues discussed above.

Box 10. Urban redevelopment initiatives in the district of Gottsunda, Uppsala

Gottsunda is a suburban district in Uppsala, Sweden’s fourth largest city. The area was developed as part of the so-called ‘Million Homes Programme’ (Miljonprogrammet) – a large public housing programme implemented in 1965–1974 with the aim of constructing a million dwellings (T. Hall & Vidén, 2005). Although in close proximity to nature, Gottsunda features a homogenous built environment consisting mainly of high-rise housing, and has limited connectivity to its surrounding areas (Uppsala Municipal Board, 2019).

Over time, the area has become associated with socio-economic segregation, and is characterised by high levels of exclusion, poverty, overcrowding, crime and a socially vulnerable population. As a consequence, Gottsunda has spent several years on the Swedish Police’s ‘vulnerable areas’ list (utsatta områden) (see section 4.4.1). However, it should be noted that while Gottsunda was classified as an especially ‘vulnerable area’ (särskild utsatt område) in the 2017 list, it was re-classified as a ‘risk area’ (riskområde) in 2023, indicating the district is now less associated with severe socio-economic disadvantage and crime than it was a few years ago. This improvement appears related to the various regeneration initiatives launched to improve the area in recent years (Uppsalahem, 2023).

Uppsala’s 2016 comprehensive plan set out a strategy to develop Gottsunda into a major hub as part of the city’s objective of gaining 340,000 new inhabitants and 70,000 new workplaces by 2050 (Uppsala Municipal Board, 2019). A comprehensive urban development planning programme for Gottsunda was subsequently launched in 2019, featuring plans for at least 5,000 new homes, new workplaces, parks and squares, and a new urban route with a tramway (Uppsala Municipal Board, 2019).

In order to integrate local residents’ needs and perspectives into these redevelopment efforts, the municipality organised a variety of engagement activities. A strong emphasis was placed on participation, especially integrating citizen dialogue into local events as a means of reaching people on the move and including those who might otherwise not engage in urban development dialogue. This resulted in over 200 viewpoints being gathered from Gottsunda residents, including perspectives on the importance of preserving natural areas; concerns about potential rents increases following renovations; and hopes for improved safety, architectural quality and better services in the area. The participants’ ideas were then incorporated into the planning programme (Uppsala Municipal Board, 2019).

Seeking to better understand its own role and power relations in the participatory process, Uppsala municipality’s planning department also engaged in a collaboration with an academic research team. This led to the publication of a study by Westin et al. (2021) drawing attention to the so-called ‘following from the front’ dilemma (referring to the issues arising from the planner’s role in allowing citizens to participate in planning processes) (see Moore, 2012). In Uppsala, city planners were aware of how their power to shape participatory process dialogues could restrict citizens’ equal participation and willingness to address an issue (Westin et al., 2021). This points to the inherent power inequalities in participatory processes that supposedly empower citizens but whose proceedings and outcomes are ultimately controlled by the planners.

5.4.3 Key takeaways

Following significant revisions to planning legislation in 1987, spatial planning became increasingly decentralised in Sweden, with primary responsibility for related activities shifted from the state to the municipalities (Rodela & Norss, 2023). At the same time, greater emphasis was placed on giving citizens a say in decision-making. Public participation is currently a core principle in the country’s spatial planning, as stipulated by the Planning and Building Act (PBL), which requires municipalities to take adopt a participatory approach when consulting local populations. Thus, while municipalities are responsible for planning and can select whichever participatory methods they deem appropriate, national authorities also set broad strategic planning goals and advise regional and local authorities on their implementation.

In Umeå, the citizen dialogue and other public engagement initiatives launched by the municipality have helped provide a better understanding of the local population’s needs regarding urban development. While the effects of the dialogue on social inclusion are difficult to measure, the municipality anticipates that better adapting the physical environment to its citizens’ aspirations will enhance inclusivity across the city’s various neighbourhoods (Interview 23, 2023). Overall, the approach adopted in Umeå appears to provide good opportunities for building trust within the community, although it requires significant efforts to reach a broadly representative sample of the population.

The example of Gottsunda in Uppsala, meanwhile, draws attention to the challenges of participatory planning in areas characterised by social exclusion, where it may be difficult to engage residents in urban planning processes. In the case of Gottsunda, integrating citizen dialogue into other activities, such as local events, appears to have been an effective way of reaching citizens who are typically more difficult to engage. At the same time, Uppsala’s municipal authorities have acknowledged the challenges posed by power imbalances between planners and citizens (Westin et al., 2021), and have sought to address the issue via a collaboration between its city planners and researchers.

Overall, the participatory processes examined in this section can be seen to reinforce social inclusion through taking into consideration the neighbourhood development needs and wishes of residents, as well as actively encouraging participation among marginalised groups.

5.5 Iceland

This section focuses focus first on the role participation has played in Iceland’s national policies and key legislative frameworks, and how these in turn guides local implementation. Having done so, the City of Reykjavík is examined, with a particular focus on the municipality’s Democracy Policy and its diverse strategies on fostering public engagement.

Despite a scarcity of national-level policies addressing neighbourhood-level social segregation, the City of Reykjavík has taken the initiative in developing its own measures. In doing so, it stands as an exception among Iceland’s municipalities. Nevertheless, as the country’s primary administrative authority, Reykjavík has spearheaded discussions and actions pertaining to segregation and social inclusion.
To broaden the perspective on how public participation is implemented and promoted at local levels within Icelandic municipalities, the example of Akureyri is briefly addressed.

5.5.1 The role of participation in national policies and planning

Iceland’s National Planning Strategy (Landsskipulagsstefna) has a substantial focus on cooperation and consultation in relation to planning (Planning agency, 2016a). In addition, several other sectoral laws place specific obligations on authorities regarding public consultation. Along with the national strategy, these provide a broad framework for how to cooperatively engage citizens when developing policies, implementing plans or making decisions. At the same time, they provide little specificity as to how, and to which extent, citizen engagement should be organised.

Legal frameworks

One of the Icelandic Planning Act’s (Skipulagslög) (No. 123/2010) stated objectives is to ensure the public is consulted on and given the opportunity to influence spatial planning decisions. The form of public consultation during different planning phases is determined by the subject and scope of the plan in question. According to the Planning Act, planning work must be publicly announced, with citizens then given the opportunity to observe and participate in the formulation of proposals concerning the arrangement of settlements and shaping of the environment. Similar provisions can also be found in the Act on Environmental Assessment of Projects and Plans (Lög um umhverfismat framkvæmda og áætlana) (No 111/2021), and the Act on the Planning of Ocean and Coastal Areas (Lög um skipulag haf- og strandsvæða) (no 88/2018). Moreover, the Aarhus Convention (1998) stipulates access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to fair procedures in environmental matters.

Meanwhile, the Icelandic Local Government Act (Seitastjórnarlög) (No. 138/2011) mandates that locally elected officials prioritise the general interests and concerns of municipality residents. As well as setting out the governance structure of municipalities, the legislation outlines their authority to involve the public in municipality management and policy preparation. Options for engagement include providing information to residents and consultation via citizen meetings, resident assemblies or elections. The law also allows for the establishment of resident or user councils to facilitate cooperation and support residents wishing to participate directly in municipal activities. While national laws define this framework, municipalities are not obligated to utilise all the available methods of public engagement.

Furthermore, the Act on the Affairs of the Elderly (Lög um málefni aldraðra) (No. 125/1999) includes a provision that each municipality should have a council of elders, while the Municipalities’ Social Services Act (Lög um félagsþjónustu sveitarfélaga) (No. 40/1991) stipulates that users of social services must be actively consulted in a participatory manner. Finally, the Act on the Affairs of Disabled People (Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks) (No. 59/1992) details requirements for extensive consultations with the interest organisation representing disabled people.

National policies and strategies

Although the National Planning Strategy (Landsskipulagsstefna) emphasises consultation and cooperation on the part of local authorities – as well as other authorities and public institutions – it does not explicitly focus on public participation (Planning agency, 2016b). Also relevant in this context are a number of other national plans that help steer planning issues in Iceland, including the Regional Plan (Svæðisskipulag), the Framework Plan for the Protection and Energy Use of National Areas (Rammaáætlun), the Transportation Plan (Samg0nguáætlun), and several other plans that may become relevant in specific circumstances. Again, while some of these plans recommend the use of public consultation, they do not impose any legal requirements to do so.

More recently, however, the National Planning Agency proposed an amendment to the National Planning Strategy containing new guidelines for public participation in planning projects, along with the establishment of a consultation and information portal (Planning agency, 2021b). As a result, a digital tool called the Planning Portal (Skipulagsgátt) was launched in 2023 with the aim of enhancing information dissemination around ongoing plans and promoting planning project consultation (Planning Portal, 2023).

The portal – which provides one-stop access to all planning proposals, environmental assessments and permits being presented in Iceland at any given time – is used by municipalities, government institutions and developers for, among other things, presenting data and environmental assessment consultations. In doing so, the platform streamlines communication between planning authorities and the public, enabling the latter to contribute to issues of interest and fostering transparency through visible comments and reviews (Ísland.is, 2023).

In practice, however, government officials have limited responsibilities, with laws imposing only minimal obligations regarding public consultation. Although the Planning Act stresses early-stage consultation with residents and interested parties, it often employs vague language such as ‘in consultation with the parties concerned’ (No. 123/2010). Consequently, the public’s right to access information and actively participate in plan or policy development is subject to interpretation. Authorities are obligated to provide information, but there are few requirements concerning public consultation beyond that. Moreover, despite Iceland’s laws, policies and strategies offering numerous examples of consultation processes – such as stakeholder analysis and opinion polls – municipalities are not mandated to implement them.

5.5.2 Reykjavík: Increasing citizen participation across municipal sectors

This section delves into the City of Reykjavík’s efforts to increase citizen engagement, a key element of which is the Democracy Policy 2021–2030 (City of Reykjavík, 2021b). While the participatory tools and approaches set out in the policy are not specifically targeted at urban development or social inclusion, they are designed to be used across a wide range of policy areas.

Figure 23. Street view in Reykjavík

Source: Mats Stjernberg

One of the Democracy Policy’s key goals is to empower residents to engage in decision-making processes – towards this end, it stresses the importance of accessible information and diverse public input. The policy is also aligned with the city’s Human Rights and Service Policies (City of Reykjavík, 2016), which translates into a focus on non-discrimination, equal rights and service alignment with resident needs. Ultimately, the aim is to foster broad participation and inclusivity across societal groups in city matters.

The City of Reykjavík has developed various ways of consulting residents and other stakeholders on fundamental issues. More specifically, the Democracy Policy (2021b) outlines several key channels by which residents can engage with the city, including:

The Suggestions Portal, which allows residents to submit comments on various issues via the city’s website;
The Better Reykjavik consultation website, where residents can contribute ideas and express opinions on policy-making and ongoing projects;
The My District (Hverfið mitt) initiative, which allows residents to propose and vote on smaller projects within their neighbourhoods every second year;
Neighbourhood Plans, a relatively new planning approach focused on sustainable, environmentally conscious urban development, based on the Reykjavík Municipal Plan 2010–2030; and
Residents’ Councils, which operate in all city districts as a means of strengthening communication between residents and the city administration.

The Democracy Policy also highlights other, more general, ways of participating in policy development and governance, such as communicating directly with elected city officials via email or making use of the city’s website, which is meant to serve as a hub for participation, consultation and information-sharing by offering live streams, recorded videos of council meetings and social media interaction. In addition, the city’s service centres – which provide welfare services, specialist services for children, day care advice, recreation guidance, and general information on city operations to residents and families – are cited as an essential conduit for direct communication between the city and its residents (City of Reykjavík, 2021c).

Another important means by which the City of Reykjavík engages with different segments of the public, as well as stakeholder groups, is through the numerous advisory councils and committees that operate in the city. The Democracy Policy (2021b) highlights the following channels for consultation on specific issues:

The Accessibility and Consultation Committee for Disabled People: Comprised of nine representatives advising the city council on matters concerning disabled people, with members appointed by different organisations;
The Intercultural Council of Reykjavik: Consisting of five representatives advising on issues concerning residents of foreign origin, with members appointed by various associations;
The Culture, Sport and Leisure Council: Made up of observers from the relevant associations providing insights and proposals on their respective subject areas;
The Violence Prevention Committee: Collaborates with stakeholder associations on behalf of the city council to address community violence;
The Education and Youth Council: Comprised of representatives from student, parent, teacher and school employee associations, offering input on matters concerning education, school-related activities and youth-related issues; and
The Elderly Affairs Council: Stakeholder observers participate in various Reykjavík councils, committees and working groups, advising on matters concerning residents aged 67 or older and contributing to relevant policy-making (City of Reykjavík, 2021c).

To aid implementation of the Democracy Policy, the City of Reykjavík developed an accompanying Action Plan covering the years 2021–2024, which included more specific, measurable targets (City of Reykjavík, 2021a). The Action Plan was overseen by the city’s Human Rights and Democracy Office and contained 21 specific actions, including the creation of a ‘Democracy Compass’ to support consultation processes and guide residents. The compass is essentially as a tool capable of showing the available consultation methods and how they work, thereby helping those involved choose whichever method is best-suited to each decision-making process. Another of the proposed actions was a thorough assessment of the current methods by which the city tries to engage residents, stakeholders and consultation committees in policy and decision-making processes.

In addition, the Action Plan called for more active dissemination of the city’s efforts around social engagement and participation opportunities, including targeting youth and adapting content for non-Icelandic speakers. There were also actions related to arranging annual Citizens’ Assemblies and a Residents’ Panel, with the aim of fostering direct engagement with residents, especially youth. Moreover, the plan sought to strengthen direct dialogue between the city administration and residents through city surveys designed to gather public views on various issues.

Another key focus area was digital participation. Here, the Action Plan stated that platforms such as My Neighbourhood and the Suggestion Portal should be optimised to provide better online interfaces for resident consultation. Alongside this, the plan emphasised open and transparent governance, highlighting initiatives such as the Open Finance Platform and the City Residents’ Dashboard, which displays a range of useful information about city operations.

Yet another focus area was enhancing democratic engagement in the workplace. This included increasing transparency through the use of platforms such as Gagnsjá, and increasing democratic engagement among children and youth via school visits and the strengthening of youth councils. In terms of planning and public participation, commitments involved adopting updated consultation tools and improving information provision on construction and zoning changes. Finally, the Action Plan contained a range of measurable objectives concerning democratic engagement, including voter participation, resident satisfaction, and awareness of democratic tools.

Although the Human Rights and Democracy Office was tasked with overseeing the Action Plan, implementation involved close collaboration with various city departments and offices, including the Office of the City Council; the School and Recreation Department; the Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer; Services and Innovation Sector; Environmental and Planning Sector; the Department of Finance and Risk Management; Services and Innovation; and the Communications and Branding Team. A dedicated democracy advisor managed the daily execution, conducted training, and provided guidance to elected representatives and the administration.

Box 11 spotlights the case of Akureyri municipality in northern Iceland. With a population of 19,847, Akureyri is the largest town outside Reykjavík Capital Region (Statistics Iceland, 2024). Despite its relatively small size compared to Reykjavík, Akureyri has attracted national attention in recent years for its engagement in urban development issues and public participation.

Box 11. Participatory approaches in Akureyri

In Akureyri, the recent adoption of a Resident Participation Policy (2022–2026) has underscored the municipality’s commitment to engaging residents in decision-making, policy formation and service development (Municipality of Akureyri, 2022). The policy emphasises that a variety of methods should be employed to involve communities, including traditionally less engaged population groups.

One key aspect discussed is the role of ‘Hverfisnefndir’, or neighbourhood committees, which have been active in Akureyri since 2002. The committees – the role of which has evolved over time – provide residents with a platform to express their views on local matters, although opinions vary on their effectiveness as a forum for resident engagement. As such, the policy indicates the need for a review of how the committees are structured and function, with alternative methods (e.g. regular neighbourhood meetings) potentially introduced to enhance their effectiveness (Municipality of Akureyri, 2022).

Inspired by the Association of Icelandic Municipalities’ Handbook on Resident Participation in Municipalities (Association of Icelandic Municipalities, 2017), the Resident Participation Policy seeks to introduce a new participation ideology to Akureyri. In practice, this involves the municipality drawing on the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions’ extensive experience in resident participation and going beyond the nationally-mandated legal requirements for participation.

The policy explores opportunities for improvement in both the legal and non-legal aspects of participation, emphasising involvement in the early stages of planning and decision-making, and establishing clear objectives for resident participation. The following specific points are highlighted:

Increasing residents’ influence, strengthening community connections and encouraging active participation, with a focus on amplifying diverse voices across the community;
Enhancing elected officials’ working environment and decision-making processes via informed discussions, increased support, knowledge and closer ties with residents; and
Enhancing resident participation in decision-making processes, strengthening residents’ trust in governance systems, reducing errors and enhancing municipal service efficiency.

With the above in mind, the policy promotes proactive consultation methods, such as establishing a robust online platform as the primary digital forum for sharing ideas, while at the same time pursuing more traditional methods such as focus groups and face-to-face interviews in cases where digital approaches are unsuitable. Inclusivity is also important, especially in terms of ensuring diverse segments of the community – particularly groups with unique needs and characteristics – are considered when planning and executing consultation processes.

In addition, the policy sets out clear guidelines for providing feedback to participants at the start of each consultation project. Personalised feedback should be provided whenever possible via such means as the municipality’s digital platform, emails or phone calls.

Overall, the policy reflects a strong commitment to advancing resident participation in local decision-making. It should be noted, however, that many of these consultation processes are currently pilot programmes, meaning the fate of the data gathered, strategies developed and decisions made as part of these processes is yet to be defined. Thus, elected officials are under no obligation to implement or even consider what these participation processes produce. Even so, the policy demonstrates a willingness to go beyond legal obligations when it comes to ensuring more in-depth resident involvement in policy development and planning (Municipality of Akureyri, 2022).

5.5.3 Key takeaways

In order to understand how participatory planning approaches are implemented in Iceland, especially Reykjavík, it is necessary to delve into the legal frameworks and national policies guiding them. Reykjavík aligns its practices with legislation such as the Local Government Act and National Planning Strategy, along with specific laws addressing consultation in sectors such as education, youth affairs and social services.

Although the Planning Act (no. 123/2010) and Local Government Act oblige authorities to engage the public in planning processes, the language used is often vague, allowing for divergent interpretations and minimal two-way communication. The fact that terms such as ‘consultation,’ ‘public interest’ and ‘participation’ can be defined in different ways raises critical questions concerning the depth and nature of citizen involvement (Sheppard et al., 2019). Of particular concern is that this may lead to a somewhat passive approach being taken to consultation processes, rather than encouraging active participation.

The Icelandic Planning Agency’s study (Gústafsdóttir et al., 2021) on public consultation reveals a significant gap between the perceived importance of citizen input and public knowledge about consultation processes. Despite a strong desire among the public to participate, effective engagement is hindered by limited understanding and awareness. Moreover, there are disparities in knowledge regarding consultation between demographic groups, highlighting the need for targeted training and outreach efforts (Institute of Social Sciences, University of Iceland, 2021). Financially powerful parties exert influence on planning decisions, raising concerns about whether consultation process are equitable.

Despite these challenges, there are positive signs of progress, such as the City of Reykjavík’s Democracy Policy (City of Reykjavík, 2021c), which has introduced participatory tools such as the Citizens Assembly and Democracy Compass. Nevertheless, local authorities continue to wield significant discretion in decision-making, potentially undermining public input. While current initiatives, such as a proposed accessible consultation tool, display recognition of the barriers to public engagement, their effectiveness ultimately depends on local authorities’ willingness to go beyond legal requirements.

In conclusion, although Iceland’s participatory planning landscape faces challenges rooted in legal ambiguity and the historical neglect of local democracy discussions, there is growing recognition of the need for more active citizen participation. This requires re-evaluating legal frameworks; fostering more inclusive, transparent consultation processes; and bridging the knowledge gap among the public. Initiatives such as Reykjavík’s Democracy Policy are a step in the right direction, but sustained efforts are needed to ensure meaningful engagement and democratic practices.