Community Development and Empowerment through Collaborative

Planning in diverse community of Saupstad-Kolstad

Submitted by:

Tryambakesh Kumar Shukla

Msc. Urban Ecological Planning

Candidate No: 10002

Subject: FP4350 (Planning Theory and Urban Theory)

Table of Content

1. Introduction and Research Question 1-2

2. Theoretical Perspective.. 2-4

Collaborative Planning
Communicative Planning Theory
Public Participation

3. Case Study: Saupstad-Kolstad.. 5-7

Major Challenges in Saupstad-Kolstad
Omrdelft (Area Lift) Saupstad-Kolstad, Program Plan 2014-15

4. Analysis and Discussion. 8-12

Participation as an objective of the Omrdelft Plan 2014-15
Participation as a process of the Omrdelft Plan 2014-15

5. Suggestions.. 13-17
The Design of the Community Participation Process
Method of Community Participation Charrette
Consensus among Stakeholders through Nominal Group Tenchnique

References
1. Introduction

This paper looks deeper into the community development and empowerment through a
collaborative planning process in a diverse community of Saupsatd-Kolstad in Trondheim,
Norway. In the paper, I have tried to analyze participatory planning as an objective and a
process of implementation of Omrdelft (Area Lift) Plan 2014-15 using collaborative and
communicative planning theory and provided suggestions for better community participation
for sustainable development. The paper takes references from the participatory process of
regeneration of residential suburban area of Groruddalen in Oslo to provide suggestions for
participatory planning for Saupstad-Kolstad.

The planning process in Scandinavian countries is a formal process guided by the Planning
and Building Act (PBA, 1985) that describes a process of procedural treatment of public
interests (Plger, 2000). The Norwegian Planning and Building Act, 1985 prescribes public
participation as a right to be heard on matters that affect people, is organized as part of formal
procedure. When political authorities have produced the first planning draft, they circulate it
for public comment and it is in this phase that public participation is allowed (Plger, 2000).
This act gives directions on the institutional hierarchy of decision making power how to
plan, legal rights of planning, rights to participation and thereby regulates the societal form
and collaborative practice of planning. The important changes in the Norwegian Planning
System came with a change in the governing structure in the 1980s with a strong demand of
state agencies for increased local autonomy and increased flexibility. This change was
brought about to strengthen the local economy and to make the governing process more
flexible and more decentralized (Christensen & Lgreid, 2001).

Many public service and infrastructure development in Norway followed a Neoliberal policy
and it influenced the planning system. Private actors in Norway are entitled to propose draft
development plans and submit them for political approval by local government. Eighty
percent of all adopted development plans were submitted as private plan proposals and alone
in Oslo, 82 percent of the development plans were private plan proposals (Falleth & Hanse,
2011). A new Planning and Building Act was adopted in Norway in the year 2008, which
focused on better horizontal and vertical coordination, open processes and public participation
for sustainable development. The new act ensures a more open planning process involving all
stakeholders. The municipality works as a main planning authority responsible for ensuring
participation of all different groups like children, youth, disabled and minority groups.

1
Though the new law says, all planning proposals should be made available on internet so
wider group of people can have access to them but it does not define what active
participation or involvement really means (Schmidt, Guttu & Knudtzon, 2011).

In 2013, the city council of Trondheim adopted an Area Program Saupstad-Kolstad 2013-
2020 with a major objective of improving the living condition, physical condition and socio-
economic condition in Saupstad-Kolstad. This area plan had a collaborative objective where
planners role was to integrate communities and the socio-physical conditions by providing
comprehensive planning solution and this area plans reflects the new planning act of 2008.

Research Question

The main idea of the paper is to look into the how public participation is used in re-planning
of a community with focus on diverse and disadvantageous communities which have social,
economic and cultural problems. In the paper, I have tried to analyze to what extent the
diverse of people in Sauptad-Kolstad are engaged in through use of communicative tools in
the Omrdelft (Area Lift) Plan 2014-15. The question designed to answer this quest is:

How is the participation process designed for the Omrdelft (Area Lift) Plan of Saupstad-
Kolstad and how has the community been engaged in the planning process?

2. Theoretical Perspective: Collaborative Participation in Planning

There was a shift from government to governance throughout Europe at the end of the 20 th
century. Planning as network governance implies that participants holds a shared
understanding of a problem and then through dialogue or collaboration, come up with the
solution that can benefit the public. But, in a diverse and changing society, dialogue and
collaboration seems to be a challenging task as there is lack of common values and interests
among the stakeholders (Booher & Innes, 2002). The traditional planning discourse was top-
down planning structure and it was replaced by the less hierarchical planning discourse
through network governance. But, in reality this led to unequal power relations in society as
the stakeholders were not democratically elected and partnership formations were not based
on inclusive process (Healey, 1997).

To resolve the problems of network governance with regards to planning, a new

communicative theory appeared in 1990s. As defined by Innes (Innes, Booher 2003a),
Communicative Planning is an a new idea that highlights the importance of a collaborative

2
planning process in order to reach consensus over a specific problem or topic by including all
the important stakeholders in the network and initiating a dialogue among them.

Collaborative Planning

Collaborative Planning is not a new approach. The only new thing found in this theory is the
use of this method in a greater scale and involving various stakeholders (Innes & Booher,
2003a). The collaborative planning approach was a shift towards a more democratic and
participatory process of planning in response to the top-down and hegemonic decision making
by the technical experts. The collaborative planning is based on the belief that, all those with
a stake in a place should have some kind of role in shaping policy making and that this should
be done through discussion and deliberation and not only through technical analysis (Healey,
1997).

It is very necessary to understand the needs of the community before any planning process is
initiated. By involving the community in the planning process, the decision made is more
sustainable and also helps in mobilizing the community. What that is required is to focus on a
common task of the community or the common interest and this can help creating new power
relations and resolving the conflicts among the community.

Communicative Planning Theory

The communicative planning theory is based on the model of communicative rationality by

Habermas. According to Habermas, a decision can only be communicative rational if it
reaches consensus through deliberation and by inclusion of all stakeholders in the plan
making process. There are four main conditions for a perfect dialogue; each person included
must represent a concern for which he raises a claim, everybody should be given a chance to
speak, the arguments have to comprehensible for others and each statement should be correct
and precise (Innes, 1996).

In order to ensure the participation of all interested participants in the network through a
collaborative process, three preconditions have to be in place (Booher & Innes, 2002). These
are:

Diversity: The collaborative planning process involves the diversity of interests to ensure
better solution. The society these days is more diverse in nature with different groups of

3
people with varying interests. With a dialogue process and involvement diverse groups of
people, the collaborative process can lead to a common goal.

Interdependence: The participants should be aware that they share a common problem and
that individual interests cannot be achieved without collaboration among participants through
a combination of self-interests and reciprocity (Innes & Booher, 2003b).

Authentic Dialogue and community empowerment: The collaborative planning process should
be designed in such a way that it ensures all participants are listening and taken seriously by
the others and all actors are given an equal opportunity to speak openly.

The communicative rational decisions are those that are made because of common interests
rather than being influenced by the economic or political power. In the planning process, there
is a trained facilitator who brings together different stakeholders with varying interests to
discuss and come to a consensus. The facilitator responsibility is to make sure that each and
everybodys is well informed and everyone participates. The decision is the consensus that
everybody agrees upon which can either be a plan or a policy or a concept (Innes, 1996). To
reach the consensus which is not influenced by power, the participation process should be
based on sincerity, trust and mutual understanding (Forester, 1999).

Public Participation
Public participation is a deliberative process in which
the interested groups are involved into the planning or
policy making process towards final decision. Public
Participation requires involvement of the members of
the public to implement agenda setting, decision-
making and policy forming activities for the
organizations responsible for policy development
(Rowe & Frewer, 2005; pp. 253). In 1969, Sherry
Arnstein published The Ladder of Citizen
Participation, which includes various levels of citizen Fig 1: Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein, 1969)
participation corresponding to the extent of citizens power based on their possibility to be
involved and influence the result of the policy making process. The ladder constitutes of the
hierarchical distribution of power from those who have little or no power at the bottom of the
ladder to those who have greater power on the top of the ladder.

4
3. Case Study: Saupstad-Kolstad

City Center

Saupstad-Kolstad

Fig 2: Map showing the location (left) and an aerial picture (right) of Saupstad-Kolstad

The residential area of Saupstad Kolstad is located in the south of the city in Heimdal district
of Trondheim Municipality about 10 kilometers from the city center. It has a population of
about 20,000 people and most of them are immigrants from Asia, Africa and East Europe.
Saupstad Kolstad is the first suburb of Trondheim city and was based on the general plan of
1967 and 1968. During 1960s and 70s, there had been a lot of construction of new residential
areas around the city and in the neighboring municipality. Saupstad-Kolstad is an example of
it. The main aim of the plan was to build a respite center in south of Trondheim, the so called
Heimdal plateau.

The area was planned for square yard principle with a good outdoor space, a safe
neighborhood, children play areas during 1960s. The housing area was modern and the area
was provided all kinds of amenities like library, posts, library, sports center and swimming
pool and parks for physical and social activities. But, due to recession in the housing market
and other social and market processes made Sauptad Kolstad a less attractive place for
dwelling. Other reasons that made Saupstad unfavorable for a residence were the lack of
investment in the public sector in this area and people preferred houses in the city rather than
apartments in the suburban areas. This was followed by rise in the social problems and unrest
during the late nineties. The image of the Saupstad Kolstad was ruined by the weakening of
the living condition which was revealed in the survey done in 2000 where the media portrayed
the district as one of the worst in the country in terms on living condition.

A lot of measures were taken during the 1990s and 2000s in both public and private sector to
improve the living condition and the results can be seen in the area. There are active and
creative associations and organizations with great dedication utilized for local community

5
work. Centre for Research on civil society and voluntary sector confirms this in report
Participation in voluntary organizations (2012: 4):
Saupstad has on several occasions been promoted as a good example of communities that
have managed to reverse a negative trend where a fear culture gained a foothold at the start
of the 2000s. The reason was an accumulation of youth gangs with subsequent vandalism and
crime in the borough. The striking turnaround is the cooperation which has developed
between different actors. examples of such actors is frvilligheten with Kolstad sports in the
lead, church , public actors library , leisure club, volunteer center as well as schools ,
kindergartens and SFO. "

A pilot project of Area Lift Saupstad Kolstad was carried out by the Trondheim municipality
which reflects that people in the area feel that the area has many qualities like good housing,
active co-operatives, safe neighborhood with lesser crime, good public transport etc. and this
has given them a feel of belonging and sense of neighborhood. But the district is struggling
with large living related and demographic challenges which have contributed to the social
problem in the area.

Major Challenges in Saupstad-Kolstad

As per the Living Condition Survey 2011, done in Saupstad Kolstad, it reveals there are
basically four major problems in the area. These challenges were basically related to the
demographic state, the living condition of the people, the social problems and the problems
related to the physical space. The survey reveals that there is a decrease in the young
population living in this area especially in age group of 0 19 and 20 30 years of age in
comparison to the population in Trondheim. Even the number of families living in this area
has significantly reduced whereas the number of families in whole Trondheim has increased.
The number of immigrant family in this areas has increased almost by 29 % since 1994 where
as it has just increase by 6% in when compared with the whole of Trondheim. It clearly shows
there is high tendency of immigrant people moving to Saupstadk-Kolstad and decline in the
Norwegian population.

The living condition in these areas is poor characterized by low income (19% lower than
average in Trondheim) and low level of education (22%) when compared to Trondheim
(11%). The unemployment rate is 5.5% and about 10% of people get disablement benefits.
Another challenge is the social condition of the people in the area. The immigrants are absent
in the institutional cooperation in the area and it was also observed that the Norwegian
6
children withdraw themselves from football club or athletics (the reverse integration
challenge). The major problem lies in integration of migrant community with the Norwegian
community and involvement of people in the institutional cooperation. Another issue is the
physical challenge that prohibits the interaction of people since the pedestrian roads are
poorly located. The local road acts as a barrier separating the west and the north of Saupstad-
Kolstad. The houses in this area are homogenous with a very few detached houses. The local
center is not adapted to the needs of the community. Despite three schools and the old
peoples home in the immediate vicinity, many youngsters and old people expressed the
feeling of that the center has become uninviting (Jones, 2007).

Omrdelft (Area Lift) Saupstad-Kolstad, Program Plan 2014 2015

The Trondheim municipality started up with a program for dealing with the issues of social
inclusion, integration and participation along with the plan for up gradation of the physical
conditions. This was called the Omrdelft (Area Lift) Plan 2014-15. The main aim of the
plan was to strengthen the skills of children and young people and makes Saupstad an
inclusive district with meeting venues and opportunities for participation. The commune came
up different kinds of programs aiming at promoting the quality of life, health, public spaces
and infrastructure in the area.

The Omrdelft Plan 2014-15 has defined 12 main projects that Trondheim municipality is
planning to implement in this area. These programs deal with physical and socio-economic
development of the area. There is a following message in the program of the Omrdelft Plan
2014-15:

"Together with the town, we want to develop Saupstad Kolstad an attractive and diverse
neighborhood. We will strengthen the living environment and facilitate well-being and quality
of life. Citizens should feel pride in their own neighborhood. On Saupstad Kolstad will be
room to live and room to succeed. "

The Omrdelft Plan focuses on effective communication and information for better
implementation of the projects and programs. It will basically provide a clear communication
and information strategy with specific time for implementation to every stakeholder in the
project. This communication will also facilitate effective participation of the beneficiaries in
the program which will result in greater involvement and getting feedback about the projects
and programs.

7
4. Analysis & Discussion

The analysis is done on the participatory planning as an objective and as a process for
implementation of the projects and plans under Omrdelft Plan 2014-15 in Saupstad-
Kolstad.

Participation as an objective of the Omrdelft Plan 2014-15

The main objective of the plan was integration of diverse communities and participation of
the people in the development process. The plan was entirely based on the Living Conditions
Survey of 2011 which basically focused on the demographic contents and socio-economic
aspects of the area rather than needs assessment of people. They identified the problem of the
area which were basically related the social, physical and economic condition of the area and
prepared the goals and objectives and is in the process of implementation. The Omrade
program for Saupstad-Kolstad does not mention if any public consultation was done to
involve people in the initial process of the plan-making. This clearly shows the top-down
technocratic planning model where the planner is the decision maker and he resolves the
entire problem using his technical knowledge. So, it clearly shows the traces of synoptic
planning in the process.

The image represents the public meeting poster that was

invited for the construction of a new school in that area
(from presentation by Prof. Tor Medalen, 1st Septermber,
2014, NTNU) but the meeting was in Norwegian which
forbids the participation of the immigrant community
since, they are not capable of understanding Norwegian
language. So, it seems the participatory process was not
clearly defined in the Omradeprogram.
Fig 3: Public Meeting Poster for
Building a new school in Heimdal

The method adopted in the process of plan making seems to be rational model of planning.
The basis of program for Saupstad-Kolstad is based on the demographic surveys done in 2000
and 2010. The plan does not inform about the process of survey on what community wants
and feels about the area. So, it clearly imposes a top-down approach towards decision making
without having participation at the initial level

8
If we compare the initial planning process of Omradeprogram for Saupstad-Kolstad with the
rungs of the ladder of citizen participation, it clearly represents non-participation of the public
in the process. It does not even clearly define if there was manipulation or therapy (the first
two rungs from bottom to up) for educating citizens about this plan.

Though the new Building and Planning Act of 2008 asks for public participation and
consultation but does not clearly define what is active participation or involvement and this is
clearly reflected in the Omradeprogram which also lacks clear definition of active public
participation.

The projects to be done in Saupstad-Kolstad are based on four main strategic objectives of
place, partnership, prospects and people. The vision statement of the Omrdelft plan 2014-15
is to make Saupstad-Kolstad an inclusive district for meeting venues and opportunities for
participation. The challenge is in achieving the level of participation which can represent the
affect groups or public in the area. The organizational structure for the Omrdelft plan
consists of Manger, Programme Council, Program Management, Program Groups and
Resource Groups. The resource groups consists of various organizations like schools, library,
church, woman union, football club, the pensioners association etc, which is supposed to work
as an advisory group for this plan. This is how the Omrdelft is seeking public participation
in the plan implementation process but this group is very representative group which might
represent their own interest rather than interest of whole community. The plan doesnt reflect
on how this advisory group was constituted and how representative is this group. This makes
the process closed rather than making the process open for participation of all public. The
communicative planning advocates that each person should get a chance to speak and the
facilitator should ensure that everyone should be well informed and everybody participates so,
that it can lead to consensus.

There are 12 projects proposed in the Omrdelft Plan 2014-15 for the Saupstad-Kolstad. I
have tried to see the participation objective and the participation level of people in each
program with reference to the ladder of citizen participation.

The projects concerned with physical development in Saupstad such as New Saupsatad
Center, Multiple Saupstad, Neighborhood cafe, Schools and active Saupstad focuses on
integration of the diverse communities through a physical space. The projects dont give any
idea about the public participation at the design level of these physical spaces. Neither has it
given information if any initial information was given about these public spaces before the

9
plan was initiated. Though, the new school plan in Saupstad Kolstad has signed an agreement
with county to establish an open an dreal participation process that creates local ownership of
the development of new school in the area and ensure dialogue and information flow. This
shows the 8th rung of the citizen participation ladder, the partnership. Partnership is the
negotiation between the citizens and the power holders to agree on sharing planning and
decision making responsibilities through planning committees and mechanism for resolving
impasses. The participation for building a new school focuses on creating a better plan and to
reduce conflict and to understand the different interest in the process. It is given in the
Omrdlft Plan that all parties shall have responsibility in the participatory process but does
not what level of participation will be there.

The other projects that are being implemented in Saupstad are Resident Surveys, Work
Council, Information channel, Bomilj Pot, Young citizen and contribution, Urban Europe
and Co-planning and the District festival. These all projects are intended to create certain
level of participation of people of Saupstad Kolstad in the planning and management of theie
area. The resident survey program focuses on the taking objections and suggestions from the
residents about their experiences about staying in town. This will help in making better plans
for the future. This level of participation can be associated with 4th rung of the ladder of
citizen participation consultation. The consultation basically focuses on attitude surveys of
the people to make better decisions. This kind of survey can help in need assessment of the
people for making better decisions.

The project work council focuses on creation of a committee which will serve as a venue for
exchange of information and ideas and discussion of possible projects. The committee will
also be responsible for giving consultation to the municipality in relation to the planning
activities in the area. This level of participation can be associated with the 5 th rung in the
ladder of citizen participation, placation. This type of citizen participation involves co-
option of hand-picked worthies onto committees which allows citizen to advise to a plan but
not have the decision making power. The plan does not define how this committee will be
constituted and how representative this work council will be.

The project information channel was to help in easy dissemination of information to the
people of Saupstad-Kolstad by making a website or making an application for phones and
tablets. This will help in easy information access and delivery to the people. As the new law
in the Planning and Building Act, 2008 says, all public planning information should be made

10
available on the internet, this project will help in providing information about public hearings
and meetings easily. This level of participation can be related to 1st and 2nd rung of the ladder
of citizen participation, manipulation and therapy. These two rungs define the levels of non-
participation. Their basic objective is to enable people in the active participation process by
providing them information and educating them about the needs of participation for the
project.

The Bomilj pot project is to establish a local government funded community pot (NOK.
300,000) to enable the residence to use it for new environmental initiatives by themselves
easily. There wont be an extensive bureaucratic application and reporting procedure for use
the community pot. The project is very important as it will help in the support of the area and
people can make their own decisions. This level of participation can be referred to the 6th rung
of the ladder of citizen participation where the citizen has power to make decisions,
partnership. There will be a participation of the council and the local district government in
the creation of the pot and this can be used by the residents of the area for making new
environmental initiatives.

The Youth citizen and contribution program was proposed youth in active participation in the
democratic decisions making and democratic process. The young people have skills and can
help in the growth and development of the area. The young people are the active participants
in the area and can help in better decision making. The Planning and Building Act of 2008
highlights the expectation of for young people to be involved in the planning process. This
enablement program can be referred to the 1st and 2nd rung (manipulation and therapy) and 4th
rung (consultation) of the ladder of citizen participation. The Plan focuses on enabling the
youth community through a *Children and Youth Community Laboratoy and seeking their
active participation in the democratic decision making process.

The Urban Europe and Co-planning is a partnership project between the Tromdheim
kommune, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and European Union
funded research project. This project is initiated to develop new methods and forms of public
participation which can be used for designing and development of public spaces in case of
Saupstad-Kolstad. Better public participation includes better plan implementation and more
success hence making development more feasible and sustainable.

The district festival project aims to exchange and experience of music and culture with a
creation of an identity for Saupstad-Kolstad. This project will help in bringing a sense of

11
community and a feeling of belonging to the people of Saupstad-Kolstad. Since, the area has
immigrant community from different backgrounds, integrating them together would help in
better development of the place. When a person has a sense of belonging and sense of
community feeling, he is more concerned about the development. He will show his interest in
the development of that area.

The entire project proposed in the plan focuses on community integration and development
through physical change and through learning and through some kind of activity. Saupstad
being an immigrant community, it is very necessary to understand the cultural background of
people before making any decisions. Different communities behave in certain ways and there
might be some kind of cultural differences that exist in these communities.

Participation as a process of the Omrdelft Plan 2014-15

The success of a public participation is largely determined by the way the it has been thought
of and has been planned. Successful meetings and events are determined by the degree to
which an agency effectively commits to and prepares for the entire process, especially
creating and providing information needed by the stakeholders and building effective
relationships with the stakeholders (EPA, 2010).

The design of the community participation process has not been clearly defined in the plan
and projects proposed for Saupstad-Kolstad. The plan has an objective to include participation
but it does not give a clear idea about the stakeholders that will be involved in the project.
The plan has an advisory group constituting of the members from that area but their functions
is not defined in the plan. There is no clear methodology to define the community
participation process, the major stakeholders and the how the process of public hearing or
informing the community is not mentioned in the plan.

12
5. Suggestions

The successful community participation is dependent on many factors like the planning
system, the governance, the information flow, the stakeholders participation etc. The
planning should be more flexible allowing the flow of information in both horizontal and
vertical direction. By using collaboration and participation in the network, people are linked
and there is exchange or knowledge and it results in different power relations. The
communicative planning also focuses on the dialogue between different stakeholders in the
network which can lead to a common goal. Collaboration in planning can help in
empowerment of the diverse communities in an area and also integration and social inclusion.
This chapter provides some suggestions which can be useful for better public participation in
case of diverse communities. The chapter takes example from the design of the community
participation process in Oslo to give suggestions for Saupstad-Kolstad.

The Design of the Community Participation Process

To provide solution for the planning of Saupstad Kolstad, I have taken references from the
community participation from the Grorurdalen in Oslo. The plan of regeneration of Oslo
started in the year 2007 and with the goal of developing a new land use plan based on climate
friendly strategies and community participation. The plan process was done by the agency for
planning but the implementation was done by the city district. The project has become a
pioneering model for collaborative
approach to planning with
technical agencies at municipal
level, between the Agency for
planning and the city districts with
a goal to reduce gap between the
public authorities and the residents.
Other than residents, NGOs, local
shop owners and other potential
investors were also involved in the
project (Plan og-bygningsetaten,
Oslo Kommune, 2011).

Fig 4: Phases of Public Participation., A case study of

Regeneration of Grorudalen, Oslo, 2012

13
The community participation began in 2009 by arranging workshops that would provide the
agency with for planning with local information and knowledge regarding the issues and
problems in the area. Eight such workshops were organized for different target groups, six for
the youth, one for the adult and one for the seniors. They are asked to do a mental mapping on
that area based on their experiences and daily life activities. The agency ensured participation
of broad diversity of people. This mapping activity was followed by report writing to include
all the necessary information that was collected through workshops.

The second step was to organize another workshop and invite participants to discuss the plans
and future scenarios that were developed by the agency and to comment on it. This process
was facilitated by a planner who was professional. Furthermore the youth were also invited in
the process of participation where they gave their comments and suggestions for the plan. The
involvement of youth in the plan making process has been advocated in the law and it was
applied in the process of planning in Grorurdalen.

This community participation process was followed by the more official planning process of
drafting a plan for the area. The first draft for the new land use plan was prepared in the 2010
and was public hearing was invited as initiated in the Planning and Building Act, 2008 of
Norway. A small group of people from the area who were constitute as the resource group
participated in the plan and they discussed it with professionals and finally a workshop was
organized and the community participated and the land use plan was finalized and
architectural competition was done. The results of architectural competition were exhibited
and the community participated in the process and finally the area plan was finalized.

The two main agencies in this planning process were the Agency for Planning and the city
districts of Alna. There were differences among them during the planning process. The
planning agency was more focused on physical development whereas the city district of Alna
was more focused on the societal development (A case study of Regeneration of Grorudalen,
Oslo, 2012). Even during the planning of area in Saupstad-Kolstad , there were two different
plans prepared: one was prepared by the Kommune which focused on more green areas and
less density with social integration whereas the other plan prepared by the private sector
focused more on densification and monetary value (Presentation, BYDELEN SAUPSTAD
KOLSTAD, NTNU, 2014). The collaborative planning process was hence followed in the
plan of Grorurdalen. The similar process can be applied be applied in the case of community
participation in the case of Saupstad-Kolstad.

14
The plan process in case of Saupstad-Kolstad should follow a workshop as a process of
manipulation and therapy as mentioned in the ladder of citizen participation. The first step
is to educate people about the plan making process and their role in the process of making the
plan. Through workshops the community can be trained about the plan making process and it
should be always kept in mind that all the communities should be represented in the
workshops. In case of Saupstad, all the different communities should be first educated about
the plan making process and making it sure that they will be present in the workshops and
other processes. Since, many in case of Saupstad dont understand Norwegian language, the
city council should be responsible for imparting knowledge to them and also if necessary it
should be explained in language the people understand. The data shows around 56.8 % people
attend language training at Saupstad and 30.7% of people attend language training at Kolstad
(from presentation by Prof. Tor Medalen, 1st Septermber, 2014, NTNU) More effective means
of imparting Norwegian language education should be identified.

These workshops should make sure that all the different groups of people defined by age
groups, ethnicity or occupation status should participate and these workshops should be
facilitated by an expert planner with a professional knowledge. The facilitator should make
sure that everyone is well-informed about the process and everybody participates.

These workshops should be followed by public hearing where the proposed plans should be
discussed. The agency should make sure that, people are aware about the public hearing and
as given in the law, the public hearing invitation should be made available on internet. The
plan for Saupstad-Kolstad has project information channel for easy dissemination of
information which is really good for inviting people for meetings and suggestions. The
representative group made for the Saupstad-Kolstad who are responsible for hearing public
hearing and attending meetings should be made more diverse including representative from
every immigrant community, youth, senior citizens etc. Even children views and points
should be kept in mind while preparing such a plan.

A very good example of public participation is cited which was done by an architect Hkon
Matre Aaserd in Saupstad-Kolstad in 2006 (Jones, 2007). The architect was from the same
locality and had established an organization called Fantastic Norway in Oslo. He did a public
participation for revitalizing the Saupstad center and its surrounding, He gave information
about the meeting in the local newspaper Adresseavisen and drove with a red caravan. Sitting
in the red caravan with coffee and biscuits, he discussed ideas with residents of the areas and

15
many young people and retired people participated in this process. His ideas were discussed
over newspapers, radio and television and provided in a huge participation of people. The
planning should be a bottom up process involving community participation from initial level,
to design level and to a final plan preparation process. A good public participation can be
summarized in five steps. These are : 1) Organize the participants, 2) Identify and get to know
the stakeholders, 3) Pick an appropriate Level of Public Participation, 4) Integrate public
participation in decision process and 5) have public participation tools throughout the process.
This will help in making a rational decision.

Method of Community Participation Charrette

Charrette is an intensive face to face design process that involves bringing people from
various sub-groups in a community for participation in a short period of time. There are three
phases of charrette system: Pre-charrette planning, charrette and the plan implementation
process. In the beginning the groups are divided into sub groups ad specific task is allocated
to them. Charrette is a collaborative process which involves the technical and on technical
people in the design process. The charrette is a very important tool as it can assemble practical
ideas and concepts from different groups and later on which can be used in design and plan
making procedure. This also helps in facilitating the decision making process. The process of
charrette includes identification of problem, identification of participants, community
relations and public awareness process and finally the charrette workshop.

This process could be very useful in an area like Saupstad-Kolstad which has a diverse
community. The different community could be organized into groups on basis of the age;
ethnicity and they could be given a design task. This would help the decision makers in
making a better plan which could be acceptable to all the residents. According to Sherry
Arnsterinm in her article, the ladder of citizen participation, inviting citizens for opinions or
such a process can be a legitimate step in the planning process. This method results in
sustainable design through integrating different viewpoints of different groups.

Consensus among Stakeholders through Nominal Group Tenchnique

Nominal group technique is a structured variation of small group discussions to reach

consensus. It gathers information by asking individuals to respond to a question asked by a
moderator and asking participants to prioritize the ideas. This method prevents the domination
of a single person and encourages all group members to participate and it results in the

16
recommendations or solutions that represent the groups consensus. This method can be
useful for gaining consensus among the stakeholders in the plan for Saupstad-Kolstad. The
four steps to conduct a Nominal Group Technique are:

1. Generating ideas: The moderator presents the problem and asks everyone to write their
ideas about the resolving the problem.

2. Recording ideas: All the ideas are documented on a flip chart and everybodys response is
noted down.

3. Discussing ideas: The ideas are then discussed for clarity and importance. All the ideas are
discussed and comments are made.

4. Voting: The participants prioritize the ideas and the voting is done to identify ideas that are
given the more priority.

This technique can be used to gain consensus among the stakeholder during the planning
process.

For any collaborative process, the authorities should pay attention to the specific problem in
the area and social aspects should be considered as points for the physical development.
Collaboration with people makes the plan efficient and also helps planner in getting local
knowledge and helping in improving the plans. Participation should be allowed in the
community from the initial stage so that it can help in better integration of people form
beginning. In case of Saupstad-Kolstad, there are Norwegians people and the immigrants
people and they are from different backgrounds. To integrate them and bring them in the
planning process it is very necessary to understand their cultural values and these things
should be contributed to the design process as well.

17
References

Arnstein, S. R. 1969, A ladder of citizen participation, Available at

https://www.planning.org/pas/memo/2007/mar/pdf/JAPA35No4.pdf [21st November, 2014]

Booher, D.E. & Innes, J.E. 2002, Network Power in Collaborative Planning, Journal of
Planning, Education & Research, pp. 221.236. Available at
http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/21/3/221.full.pdf [10th November, 2014]

Bue, L.B., Koch.L & Hanrahan. N, 2012. Bridging Gaps Through Community
Collaboration, A case study from Regeneration of Grorurdalen, Oslo, Urban Planning and
Management, Aalborg University, Aalborg.

Christensen, T. & Lgreid, P. 2001. New Public Management: The effects of contractualism
and devolution on political control, Public Management Review, volume 3, pp. 73-94.
Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14616670010009469 [25th
November, 2014]

EPA. 2010, Public Participation Guide: Process Planning, Available at

http://www2.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide-process-
planning#step4 [27th November, 2014]

Falleth, E.I. & Hanse, G.S. 2011. Participation in planning, a study of urban development in
Norway, European Journal of Spatial Development, pp. 1-19. Available at
http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed42.pdf [10th November,
2014]

Forester, J. 1999, Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice,

International Planning Studies, Available at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13563479908721734 [12th November, 2014]

Forester, J. 1999, Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice,

International Planning Studies, pp. 175-193

Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: shaping places in fragmented societies,

University of British Columbia Press.

Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E. 2003a, Collaborative policy making :governance through
dialouge,Available at

18
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shulockn/Executive%20Fellows%20PDF%20readings/Innes%20
and%20Booher%20Collaborative%20Policymaking.pdf [10th November, 2014]

Innes, J.E. 1996, Planning through consensus building: A new view of comprehensive
planning ideal, Journal of the American Planning Association, pp 460-472.

Jones, M. 2007, The Europen Landscape convention and the question of public
participation, Landscape Research, Available at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01426390701552753 [20th November, 2014]

Omrdelft Plan Saupstad-Kolstad, 2014-15, Trondheim Kommune,

https://www.trondheim.kommune.no/saupstadkolstad/

Plger, J., 2000. Public Participation and the art of Governance, Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 2001, volume 28, pp. 219 -241. Available at
http://www.environment-and-planning.com/epb/fulltext/b28/b2669.pdf [24th November,
2014]

Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. 2005, A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science,
Technology & Human Values, pp. 251-290

Schmidt, L., Guttu, J. & Knudtzon, L.C. 2011, Medvirkning I planprosesser I Oslo Kommune,
NIBR, Oslo, Norway.

Solcum. N. 2005, Participatory Methods Toolkit : A practitioners manual, Available at

http://www.kbs-frb.be/uploadedFiles/KBS-FRB/Files/EN/PUB_1540_Toolkit_2_Charette.pdf
[28th November, 2014]

19