![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Notes
John Pløger, Norwegian Institute for Urban & Regional Research, P.O. Box 44 Blindern, N‐0313 Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]
The study did not concern ‘the ethic of the profession’ on, for instance, how to negotiate and communicate with the public, how to be an honest and fair planner, loyalty towards the political system, duties, or the ethic of procedural planning.
The study contains six qualitative interviews with leading planners (directors and chief planners) in Oslo, conducted in spring 2002. All in all the study contains interviews with 15 people including planners, politicians, entrepreneurs and citizens. Although the study focuses on planners' ethical schemes of signification, other actors partake in urban planning, and citizens, entrepreneurs and politicians were interviewed in order to grasp the ethical schemes in play within public planning in Oslo. Only the part of planners is discussed here.
Campbell and Marshall also have ‘technocratic rationalism’ and ‘professionalism/procedural planning’ in their figure. ‘Technocratic rationalism’ is certainly still favoured by many planners and planning offices, and ‘professional/procedural’ planning is now a major agenda in Norwegian planning politics (CitationNorges Offentlige Utredninger (NOU), 2001). However, they are still not part of the hegemonic planning discourses planners themselves favour.
The Planning Law Commission was formed in 1998, and its mandate is to look at “how the [planning] can be improved as a planning tool in order to take care of important societal interests … [One important issues is] to value how the law take care of and balance different values, considerations, and interests” (CitationNOU, 2001, p. 11).
The research is funded by the Norwegian Research Council (project number: 149553/510).
A ‘consequence report’ should now be made on every project of a certain (specified) size, including the display of realistic alternatives to the project proposed concerning, for instance, costs, environmental consequences and public benefits. The idea is that the planning process thereby becomes a ‘knowledge objective’ and scientifically grounded.