Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T23:14:37.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMMENTARY: Transparency in Road Planning Documents: A Case Study of Two Swedish Projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2006

Kajsa Hylmö  and
Erik Skärbäck
Kajsa Hylmö
Affiliation:
Department of Landscape Planning, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
Erik Skärbäck
Affiliation:
Department of Landscape Planning, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

Public opinion, expressed through written comments, developed very differently throughout the planning phases of two road projects in southern Sweden. Each project's Prefeasibility Study, Feasibility Study, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were studied to analyze the changes between five evaluation phases: background and inventory of base data, replenishment with additional information, consequence analysis, conflict analysis, and priorities. For one of the road projects, rich and early descriptions of impact estimates, along with appraisals of the effects on the landscape, paved the way for more effective dialogue. Better disclosure of its reports' established facts and evaluations might explain the more solid acceptance for that road project. The other project did not clearly show the reasoning behind its priorities, which may explain the many public and agency comments on the EIR; consequently, people constructed and submitted their own viewpoints regarding impact. This article discusses how transparent documentation and presentation of priorities ultimately can contribute to the success of similar projects.

Type
FEATURES & REVIEWS
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 49 - 57
Copyright
© 2006 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Coppola, N. W. 1997. Rhetorical Analysis of Stakeholders in Environmental Communication: A Model. Technical Communication Quarterly 6(1):9–24.Google Scholar
Depenbrock, F. H., and K. Schiefler. 1991. Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure, HOAI [Regulation for Remuneration for Architects and Engineers]. Bundesanzeiger Verlages, Köln, 138 pp.
Enserink, B., and R. A. H. Monnikhof. 2002. Information Management for Public Participation in Co-design Processes: Evaluation of a Dutch Example. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(3):315–344.Google Scholar
Hylmö, K. 2005. Improving the Road Planning Process: A Case Study of Stakeholder Comments on Two Swedish Road Projects. Environmental Practice 7(1):44–53.Google Scholar
McClintock, D., R. Ison, and R. Armson. 2003. Metaphors for Reflecting on Research Practice: Researching with People. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(5):715–731.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 332 pp.
Naturvårdsverket [The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency]. 2003. Lokal Förankring av Naturvård genom Deltagande och Dialog [Local Bounding to Nature Conservation through Participation and Dialogue]. Report No. 5264-0. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm, 49 pp.
Palm, L., and S. Windahl. 1989. Kommunikation—Teorin i Praktiken [Communication in Theory and Practice]. Konsult Förlaget i Uppsala AB, Uppsala, 98 pp.
Roberts, J. A. 1973. Just What Is an Environmental Impact Statement? Urban Land: News and Trends in Land Development 32:9–15.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. A. 1991. Just What Is an EIR? Global Environmental Management Services, Sacramento, CA, 208 pp.
Skärbäck, E. 1981. Landskapsinformation och Planering [Landscape Information and Planning]. Konsulentavdelningen, Landskap 60, Alnarp, Sweden, 109 pp.
Statens Naturvårdsverk [The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency]. 1978. Öresundsförbindelser Landskapsanalys, Delutredning Utförd för den Svenska Öresundsdelegationens Expertgrupp för Plan- och Miljöfrågor [Landscape Analysis of the Öresund Sound Connections, Partial Investigation Made for the Swedish Öresund Sound Delegation's Expert Group of Planning and Environmental Issues]. Statens Naturvårdsverk, Stockholm, 192 pp.
Vägverket [The Swedish Road Administration]. 2002. Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning inom Vägsektorn, Sammanfattande del [Environmental Impact Reports within the Road Sector, Summary]. Report No. 2002-40. Vägverket Publikation, Borlänge, Sweden, 27 pp.
Vägverket Region Skåne [The Swedish Road Administration, Scania]. 1997. Väg 17 Förbifart Marieholm Väg 108 Marieholm-Bialitt, Förstudie Skåne Län [Road 17 Bypass Marieholm Road 108 Marieholm-Bialitt, Prefeasibility Study, Scania County]. Malmö, Sweden, 58 pp.
Vägverket Region Skåne [The Swedish Road Administration, Scania]. 1998. Väg E22 Osbyholm—Vä Förstudie [Road E22 Osbyholm—Prefeasibility Study]. Kristianstad, Sweden, 28 pp.
Vägverket Region Skåne [The Swedish Road Administration, Scania]. 2001a. Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning, Väg 17, Förbifart Marieholm [EIR, Road 17, Bypass Marieholm]. Malmö, Sweden, 102 pp.
Vägverket Region Skåne [The Swedish Road Administration, Scania]. 2001b. Vägutredning med Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning, Väg E22 delen Hörby Norra—Vä [Feasibility Study and EIR, Road E22 Hörby North—Vä]. Kristianstad, Sweden, 131 pp.
Vägverket Region Skåne [The Swedish Road Administration, Scania]. 2002. Vägutredning Väg 17, Förbifart Marieholm Skåne Län [Feasibility Study, Road 17, Bypass Marieholm, Scania County]. Malmö, Sweden, 81 pp.