Barriers and Openings for Transforming Swedish Planning Practice – Examples of Landscape and Health Policy Integration

ABSTRACT

This paper examines how key actors think and act in everyday planning practice when new policies are introduced. Drawing on frame theory, an analytical lens is developed for explaining mechanisms that restrain and promote policy-driven transformation in practice. The analysis focuses on current practice and Swedish planning practitioners’ experience of the integration of recently introduced policies on landscape and health. A key finding is that well-established perceptions of responsibility can hamper policy integration – even in cases where practitioners see benefits to planning outcomes of acting differently. Another key finding is that policies reframing landscape and health as holistic and relational can make individual practitioners question current practice, thereby opening the way for transformation.

KEYWORDS:

• Policy implementation
• practitioners
• landscape
• health
• frame theory

Introduction

Society is facing constant demands for flexibility and change in order to meet current and future challenges, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity and improved human health and wellbeing. Crucial environmental and social challenges frequently involve an introduction of new policies, reformulation of existing policies, or proposals for new policy measures that can bring transformative change to planning practice (Watson, 2016).

However, policy integration in practice is a complex task involving many actors at different practitioner and policy levels (Stead & Meijers, 2009). It is also a very delicate task, often loaded with uncertainty and conflicts (Gains & Clarke, 2007; Markus & Savini, 2016). This often leads to a substantial gap between how policy is defined on paper and how it is implemented in practice (Crabbé & Leroy, 2008). Various general explanations for this policy implementation gap have been suggested, including overly optimistic expectations among policymakers, a dispersed governance process, inadequate collaborative processes and the vagaries of the political cycle (Hudson, Hunter, & Peckham, 2019). Various factors supporting policy implementation have also been suggested, e.g. promotion of synergies between sectors, reduced duplication in the policy-making process both horizontally and vertically, and better consistency between policies in different sectors and at different policy levels (Stead & Meijers, 2009). A supporting factor at a micro level is to target key actors, such as individual practitioners, with discretion and influence (inside activism) (Olsson & Hysing, 2012). These practices are becoming increasingly relevant for improving the understanding of policy changes.

To enhance implementation, the introduction of new policies also often involves handbooks, guidelines and checklists. These documents generally aim to clarify roles and responsibilities, i.e. how practitioners are expected to act (Cashmore, Richardson, Rozema, & Lyhne, 2015). However, it is also well-known, although under-researched, that how practitioners act, and thus how situated practices develop, is strongly influenced by their values, power relations and organisational and cultural context (Forester, 1989, 2012; Healey & Underwood, 1978; Laws & Forester, 2015; Sehested, 2009). This means that in order for a policy to transform practice, it has to be navigated through a complex and delicate web of relations, objects, ideals, norms and routines, and to prove itself preferable to current ways of thinking and acting.

The present study builds on the expectation in contemporary Western society that spatial planning should function as an arena for policy integration and the well-known struggles to achieve this (Stead & Meijers, 2009). The analysis draws on current practice and Swedish planning practitioners’ experience of implementation of recently introduced policies on landscape (Council of Europe [CoE], 2000, 2008) and health (Government bill, 2002). Both policies signal a paradigm shift in understanding and action on the respective topics.

The purpose of the paper is to investigate what mechanisms that influence policy integration and whether and how introduction of new policies can bring transformative change to planning practice. In the paper, the complexity of policy integration is examined by focusing on the work of the planning practitioners in translating policy into their everyday practice. This is done through the lens of framing processes and their influence for maintaining or transforming practice.

Aim and Focus of the Study

The aims of the study were to explore how practitioners’ framing of appropriate action can be approached analytically, and whether such analysis can reveal important mechanisms in policy implementation in planning practice.

The following three research questions were investigated:

• Where do practitioners obtain guidance on navigating implementation of landscape and health polices in spatial planning?

• What interplays are there between practitioners’ framing of a policy topic and their associated responsibility?

• What opportunities are there for transforming practice?

The analytical framework was developed by combining conceptualisations from the field of collaborative planning and frame theory (see ‘Theory’ section), and supported by interim empirical findings.

The analysis was based on two separate research projects examining policy integration in Swedish spatial planning. One examined how the concepts of landscape have been interpreted and reformulated in comprehensive planning through the introduction of the European Landscape Convention (ELC). The other examined integration of health in Environmental Assessment (EA) through the introduction of the Swedish Public Health Objectives (PHO).

The policies are introduced below. This is followed by a presentation of the theoretical basis for the study, the method used, and the three analytical themes developed. In the empirical results section, the data are organised within the three themes. The results are then discussed and some conclusions are drawn on the usability of the framework for explaining mechanisms for policy implementation.

Investigated Polices

The ELC and PHO policies were introduced in the early 2000s, and both represent a paradigm shift, signalling a change in how to understand the respective policy topic and how to act on it.

Landscape

Landscape as a concept and planning entity has differing interpretations and status in different parts of Europe. By tradition, landscape commonly refers to a visual entity in rural areas, often identified by experts (Butler & Åkerskog, 2014). In 2000, the European Commission introduced the ELC (CoE, 2000). Against a background of accelerating transformation of the European landscape, the ELC focuses on the importance of landscapes for European identity, people’s quality of life (where landscape is a key element of individual and social well-being) and achievement of sustainable development. It aims to provide a new instrument devoted exclusively to the protection, management and planning of all landscapes in Europe. According to the ELC, landscape includes urban and rural areas, and is defined as:

“ … an area perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (CoE, 2000, p. 2).

In the spirit of the ELC, valuing landscape is thus not only a question for experts, but also for people in general.

Integration of landscape into regional and town planning policy and into any other policies, with possible direct or indirect impacts on landscape, is central in ELC implementation strategy (CoE, 2000). Sweden signed the ELC in 2001 and it was ratified in Sweden in May 2011. Multiple Swedish national authorities are responsible for ELC implementation, monitoring and evaluation within their respective fields and areas of work (Swedish National Heritage Board, 2011). The Swedish Planning and Building Act states that every municipality must have an up-to-date comprehensive plan for its territory (Swedish parliament, 2010). Accordingly, it makes municipalities important players in ELC implementation.

Health

In 2003, the Swedish Parliament adopted Government bill (2002) /03:35 outlining 11 national Public Health Objectives (PHO), with the overarching aim of creating social conditions that ensure good health on equal terms for the population. This represented a paradigm shift in the understanding of health at policy level, shifting from a focus on disease and health problems to objectives based on health determinants (Knutsson & Linell, 2010). Health determinants are factors important for health, such as a person’s individual behaviours, physical and social environment and democratic rights, meaning that the new policy has shifted the responsibility from the health sector to a broader range of actors, such as the planning and transport sectors (Knutsson & Linell, 2010).

In conjunction with the introduction of the PHO, health impact assessment (HIA) was identified as an important implementation arena, although not required by law. A related implementation arena that is more important in practice is environmental assessment (EA), a tool that supports planning for sustainable development, and includes a requirement to integrate health, as stated under EU Directive 2001/42/EC, and in national legislation through the Environmental Code (Swedish parliament, 1998).

The Environmental Code states that a main responsibility for EA lies within authorities on different levels which are in charge of reviewing and approving EAs. Added to these are non-government organisations and citizens who must be consulted during the process. A practitioner category, not listed in the Environmental Code is ‘Consultants’, who are generally contracted by planners to advise on and undertake case-specific EA work in Sweden (Kågström, 2016). Consultants are thus a key actor for PHO implementation.

Common Features

When reviewing the policy areas, some common traits appear. Both topics have been given a broader, more complex meaning in the new policies, and the wellbeing of people is a common goal. Furthermore, the responsibility for implementation is shared among various stakeholders within and between policy levels (national, regional and local) and between public authorities and other relevant actors. In addition, democratic aspects are represented in both policies, which state the importance of citizen participation.

Theoretical Approach

The core of the theoretical framework developed in this study is meaning-making. Meaning can be explained as the way in which people talk about a phenomenon or situation, or how they, individually and collectively, experience and understand it, i.e. how they frame it (Perri 6, 2005; Healey, 2007b). Meaning-making is also central to what is called the collaborative/communicative ‘turn’ in planning theory. This is a broad umbrella encompassing numerous approaches (Healey, 2007a). However, what is commonly emphasised within the ‘turn’ is that reality is continually constructed through social processes of meaning-making and future-creating. The planner is positioned within emerging realities and is continually involved in the flow of practice, with complex dilemmas with regard to understanding and ethical conduct (Healey, 2007b).

Ideas and concepts within the ‘turn’ have been developed since the 1980s, but there is still a need for further conceptualisation, in particular regarding the dynamics between structure and human agency, where dynamics are understood to be the interplay between the constraining force of structure on human agency and, over time, the transforming force of agency on structure (Healey, 2003, 2007a, 2007b; Innes & Booher, 2014). In particular, it is important to determine how this interplay shapes assumptions, perceptions and routines concerning appropriate ways to think and act (Healey, 2003), aiming at affecting “people’s sense of themselves (their identity)” (Healey, 2003, p. 107), which can in turn challenge and subsequently transform “the way things go on” (Healey, 2003, p. 109).

To develop a deeper understanding of these forces, we applied three premises within frame theory:

First, frames organise experience (Perri 6, 2005) and produce a meaningful whole from fragmentary information (Van Gorp, 2007), which helps focus people’s attention on certain aspects, making the world more selective and manageable. Frames also bias for action (Perri 6, 2005), i.e. help people understand a situation and what can be done about it. According to Gray (2003), framing a situation is not only about understanding the content, but also people’s position within it, e.g. who should be blamed in the case of a dispute. However, defining some aspects as relevant and appropriate means marginalising or ruling out other aspects (Perri 6, 2005). Thus, frames define relevance and set boundaries for what are perceived as appropriate ways to behave. Framing processes could thus be said to ascribe meaning and shape perceptions on policy topics such as health and landscape, as well as defining the responsibilities of the practitioners involved, hence biasing for what they perceive as appropriate action. This implies that there is some interconnectedness between a policy topic and practitioner responsibility, and thereby that they can affect each other. For example, practitioners may consciously and subconsciously balance these aspects when making choices on appropriate ways to act.

Second; context, purpose, values and power relations always shape framing processes. As a consequence, framing processes are formed within social contexts and practices, not independently of them (Healey, 2007b). When individuals make meaning of a policy implementation situation, they do this by relating to frames present at different levels of generalisation (Schön & Rein, 1994). These levels are emphasised differently by frame theorists. Goffman (1981) and Van Gorp (2007) emphasise the importance of culture, which is referred to by Van Gorp (2007, p. 62) as

“an organized set of beliefs, codes, myths, stereotypes, values, norms, frames, and so forth that are shared in the collective memory of a group or society”.

Schön and Rein (1994, p. xiii) recognise something similar in their meta-cultural frames, defined as

“the broadly shared beliefs, values and perspectives familiar to the members of a societal culture and likely to endure in that culture over long periods of time”.

They also emphasise frames present in actors’ institutional contexts, which in turn are rooted in their meta-cultural frames (Schön & Rein, 1994). In contrast, when examining the origins of planners’ ideas and conceptualisations, Healey and Underwood (1978) focus on ideas present in education, the literature with which planners engage and their organisational context. They also show that experience acquired in the course of planning work is highly important for providing planners with different norms. Healey and Underwood point out that individual planners’ ideas can influence these norms, thereby indicating a reciprocal relationship between individual planners’ ideas and ideas present in contexts of relevance.

Third, the notion of how frames change, named ‘reframing’ (Schön & Rein, 1994), is recognised in different ways in frame literature. However, there is a connection to the level of abstraction; the more rooted frames are at higher levels of abstraction (such as culture), the more stable they are, and vice versa. For example, Van Gorp (2007, p. 63) argues that, because frames are part of culture, they become so natural that they go unnoticed and thereby “their impact is by stealth.” Laws and Rein (2003, p. 202) illustrate frame resistance by emphasising what happens when frames are challenged:

“conventions of belief are continuously challenged by personal experience and organized groups, but that these processes, in turn, promote ad hoc adjustments that try to abate the challenges in order to maintain the continuity of beliefs”.

A dividing line in theorisation of reframing is whether scholars view frames as stable structures that place constraints on action, or as dynamic constructs, shaped, negotiated and reframed in interactions. In the latter, the focus is on the process, (re)framing, rather than on frames (Dewulf et al., 2009). Laws and Rein (2003) argue that reframing is generally more common in situations of doubt and uncertainty, which are more common when new frames are introduced. Gray (2003, p. 32) suggests that

“Reframing depends on the ability to entertain a perspective other than one’s own, to weigh the relative merits of each perspective and to select the most preferable one”.

To sum up, framing is an important mechanism for shaping perceptions around appropriate ways to act, and frames can function both as a constraining and a transforming force. Frames can thus be viewed as more or less stable structures, rooted in culture and institutions, which help people focus attention and also restrict them by setting boundaries for their thoughts and actions, hence maintaining practice. Frames can also be viewed as dynamic constructs held by individuals that are continuously shaped and reshaped in interactions, with the potential to induce change and alter structure over time. By combining these elements, we developed three themes to structure our analysis of the research questions.

Frames Guiding Thinking and Acting

Frames, on different levels of generalisation, found in legislation and policy documents and in social, institutional and organisational context or culture (Healey & Underwood, 1978; Schön & Rein, 1994; Van Gorp, 2007; Yanow, 2003), guide practitioners’ thinking and acting (Perri 6, 2005).

Interplay between Topic and Responsibility

When framing a situation, practitioners balance their understanding of appropriate action between what they perceive the situation to be about and their position and that of others within it (Gray, 2003). Hence, there is an interconnection between how practitioners perceive the policy topic and their associated responsibilities, which means they can affect each other (Healey, 2007b). Well-established norms of appropriate action act to maintain practice (Schön & Rein, 1994; Van Gorp, 2007).

Opportunities for Transformation

Frames are dynamic constructs held by individuals that can induce change and alter structure over time (Benford & Snow, 2000; Dewulf et al., 2009; Gray, 2003; Laws & Rein, 2003; Schön & Rein, 1994; Van Gorp, 2007). Individuals can be more or less attached to frames on different levels (Schön & Rein, 1994), meaning that frames have stronger or weaker positions for guiding practitioners’ actions.

Research Strategy and Methods

The research was based on four empirical studies (Table 1). Data were collected through document reviews and semi-structured interviews (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009). The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Table 1. Details of interviewees in the four studies (1–4) on which the present analysis was based.

Study	Practitioner category	No. of interviewees	Date
1. Landscape	National agencies, County Administration Boards (CAB)	9	Dec. 2012-June 2013
2. Landscape	Municipalities	18	Sept. 2013-Dec. 2013
3. Health	Developer County Administration Boards (CAB) Municipality Consultant	7	Feb-Mar. 2010, June-Sept. 2011
4. Health	Consultants	19	Nov. 2012 -June 2013

Landscape

Study 1 examined ELC implementation at national and regional level in Sweden by reviewing documents on official Swedish publications on endorsement, ratification and implementation of the ELC and by 50–70 minute-long interviews with nine officials (informants a-i) from national agencies and County Administrative Boards (CAB).

Study 2 examined 14 municipalities, selected because they were located in six Swedish counties that had carried out some ELC-inspired planning. In total, 18 (20–60 min) interviews were conducted with officials from these municipalities (informants j-ä).

The themes explored in both studies were formal and informal organisational issues, the content and meaning of the ELC and implementation activities and strategies, including relations between implementation actors.

Health

Study 3 focused on how health was handled in a specific EA process and the role of different practitioners, by reviewing EA documents and written statements from public authorities connected to the case and legislation and policies within the field and by hour-long interviews with seven participants (informants 1–7) in the EA process (consultants and officials).

Study 4 focused on how health is handled in EA, potential for improvement and the role of consultants in this work. Hour-long interviews were held with 19 Swedish EA consultants from six different firms (informants 1–19), as consultants can play a key role in the micro work of EA. However, consultants within EA with an educational background in health were scarce, so this issue often became the task of those leading the EA work. The consultants interviewed were selected for their long experience of EA coordination and their interest in health.

Analysis

Data analysis involved scrutinising the interview transcripts and looking for patterns. Each of the two authors did this individually and then discussed their results and together created labels. The interviewees’ responses were typically narratives of daily routines and well-established norms of appropriateness, uncertainty, struggles and notions of willingness to change practice. These elements and findings were developed into three themes (A-C) that guided the analysis (Table 2). In frame literature, it is common to search for boundaries and delimitations. Researchers also suggest focusing on expressions of interests, values, perceptions and beliefs (Schön & Rein, 1994; Perri 6, 2005), and on justifications and criticisms of one’s own and others’ actions (Healey & Underwood, 1978). In the present analysis, this meant that the reading focused on: identifying the limits for what was perceived as appropriate or inappropriate; explanations and justifications for how and why these boundaries were drawn; and reflections and criticisms of respondents’ own actions and those of others (Table 2).

Table 2. Analytical framework applied to the empirical material, organised into themes A-C, their connecting elements of collaborative and frame theories that served as a basis for analysis, and the analytical keys sought in the empirical material. Footnotes refer to the key source(s) on which the argument is based.

A. Frames guiding thinking and acting
Highlighted theory elements	Analytical keys
- Frames guide practitioners’ thinking and acting.^a - Frames are present on different levels of generalisation,^b e.g. in legislation and policy documents and in social, institutional and organisational context or culture.^c	Frames and ‘levels of generalisation’ commonly referred to by practitioners when explaining and justifying their thinking and action in policy implementation. Particular focus on delimitations and boundaries.
B. Interplay between topic and responsibility
Highlighted theory elements	Analytical keys
- Framing appropriate actions involves balancing between what practitioners perceive the situation to be about and their and others’ position within it.^d - Interrelations between topic and responsibility mean they can affect each other.^e - Well-established norms of appropriate action function to maintain practice.^f	Practitioners’ explanations and justifications for their practice. Focus on linkages between responsibilities and policy topics, e.g. arguments on how understanding one’s responsibility might limit or expand how they act on their understanding of the topic.
C. Opportunities for transformation
Highlighted theory elements	Analytical keys
- Individuals can be more or less attached to frames on different levels,^g meaning that frames have stronger or weaker positions for guiding practitioners’ action. - Frames are dynamic constructs held by individuals, with the potential to induce change and alter structure over time.^h	Openings for transformation focusing on the interplay between what practitioners perceive as appropriate action and what they say they would like to do. Explanations and justifications for how and why boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate action are drawn, including reflections and critique of their own actions and those of others.

^a(Perri 6, 2005).

^b(Schön & Rein, 1994)

^c(Healey & Underwood, 1978; Schön & Rein, 1994; Van Gorp, 2007; Yanow, 2003)

^d(Gray, 2003)

^e(Healey, 2007b)

^f(Schön & Rein, 1994; Van Gorp, 2007)

^g(Schön & Rein, 1994)

^h(Benford & Snow, 2000; Dewulf et al., 2009; Gray, 2003; Laws & Rein, 2003; Schön & Rein, 1994; Van Gorp, 2007).

Empirical Findings

This section presents the results from the four studies (1–4) outlined in Table 1, organised according to the three analytical themes (A-C).

A. Frames Guiding Thinking and Acting

Landscape

The majority of practitioners at all levels (national, regional and local) commonly referred to landscape as defined in the ELC, i.e. from a holistic and cross-sectoral perspective, with the focus on democratisation and inclusion of a wide range of landscape values. Landscape was interpreted as inclusive, covering both urban and rural landscapes, and their interactions. The perceived landscape was at the core, while emotional landscape values were mentioned as important dimensions.

The perceived landscape is central to the ELC, in contrast to the measured landscape that government agencies conventionally use. (Informant a, Study 1)

Landscape as described in the ELC means that the humanistic perspective is strengthened. (Informant g, Study 1)

Thus, one can say that landscape concerns everything and everyone, it is a more holistic perspective, but the authorities are sectorised. (Informant b, Study 1)

Many of the practitioners interviewed also recognised that multidisciplinary work and collaboration between sectors and policy levels are fundamental for ELC implementation. Implementation was seen as a question of knowledge-sharing and networking, for example on how to merge top-down and bottom-up perspectives.

Expert monopoly should be opened up for new actors and citizens should have greater influence on landscape issues. (Informant a, Study 1)

Landscape can only be achieved through cooperation and how do you achieve cooperation? Well, by talking, and how do you do that? It’s not that easy, it’s a very hard task. (Informant f, Study 1)

The practitioners thus commonly had a broad awareness of landscape in line with the ELC. They viewed the ELC conceptualisation of landscape as a potential opening for new collaborative approaches that they were willing to perform. However, some practitioners viewed implementation simply as an in-house exercise for experts.

The distribution of responsibilities and roles at national, regional and local policy level seemed, in principle, to be clear to the practitioners. There was also an understanding of how these levels were interconnected. At the same time, there were expectations that guidelines and concrete instructions on how to act should be communicated in a top-down manner, preferably in the form of a letter of regulation or similar instructions. Practitioners at all policy levels often stressed the lack of substantive directives from leading politicians and managers, which in turn meant that practitioners still had unclear roles and responsibilities for interpreting and acting on landscape in accordance with the ELC. At the local (municipal) level, the practitioners were sometimes freer to act.

Health

Practitioners commonly started to explain how they included health in EA by talking about noise and air pollution and how to mitigate these kinds of disturbances. This meant that when talking about what they did, they mainly referred to ill-health. However, when talking about health more generally or about the meaning of health, they immediately emphasised the importance of people’s wellbeing and health promotion, and factors such as recreation, physical activity, social relations, segregation, health (in)equity and public anxiety.

I didn’t understand it before last summer – this difference between keeping the population healthy and making sure they don’t become ill. (Informant 1, Study 3)

These dimensions were seldom included in their practice, but their responses indicated that they had a broad understanding of health, well in line with how health is described in the PHO. However, very few practitioners were aware of the existence of these objectives (which, at the time of the interviews, had been in place for 7–10 years). Instead, they explained their broadened understanding of health as something that had ‘popped up’, e.g. an increasing focus on social sustainability in society in media reports of challenges such as segregation and increased injustice, and increased awareness of the health benefits of physical activity.

I perceive it to be more and more important to include both social aspects such as integration and safety, and public heath aspects, such as people being able to be physically active (…). I perceive (…) that the understanding of what planning should include is changing. (Informant 8, Study 4)

Perceptions of allocation of responsibilities within EA were generally strong and practitioners seemed to share an understanding of each other’s responsibilities. However, when they were asked to explain why they acted in a certain way, they referred to different sources. Representatives from the national authorities mentioned top-down guidance, representatives from municipalities referred to political will and representatives from CABs cited government directives.

If something more radical is going to happen, then there needs to be some sort of authority initiative (…) where several authorities join forces and do something more concrete (…) or a directive from the government that stresses this. (Informant 7, Study 3)

In contrast, consultants stressed that how implementation can be achieved was learnt in discussions among colleagues and with their clients (developers) in actual planning projects.

B. Interplay between Topic and Responsibility

Landscape

Despite their willingness to approach landscape in the spirit of the ELC, the practitioners reported that they restrict their responsibilities and actions relative to other stakeholders’ views and expectations, and previous experience of their own professional role. They also reported limiting their responsibility to fit their organisation and the sector they represent. This means that the practitioners seldom act in accordance with their broad understanding of landscape and willingness to implement these ideas. The national practitioners interviewed stressed, for example, that regional and local authorities had a key role in ELC implementation, indicating that practitioners at national authorities do not have similar responsibility. The CAB practitioners seemed to limit their actions to avoiding conflicts with local government responsibility and territory. A major concern seemed to be that when deciding on how to act, they balanced perceptions of landscape with their role in relation to local governments and their responsibility for comprehensive planning.

Regarding the ideas and intentions of the Landscape Convention, it is primarily in the area of regional planning and in the municipalities where the practical action is to be taken – the new planning that aims to translate the ideas about the human perspective on its surroundings to planning practice and new ideas such as a sustainable living environment. (Informant h, Study 1).

However, the opposite also emerged, with the ELC perceived as an ineffective instrument because it lacks both political and legal anchoring. Several practitioners claimed that practical use of the ELC would increase if it were introduced into Swedish legislation, for example in the Planning and Building Act or in the Environmental Code. The practitioners also stressed that the ELC is ineffective since legal requirements on developers are lacking.

It isn’t formulated so that I and my colleagues at the urban planning office can understand what we should do. It is not just about throwing a convention at someone, but it is necessary to interpret what it is and how it can be used within our business. … It is important to create your own understanding of it (ELC) with those you work with, about what it means in concrete terms. (Informant r, Study 2)

I didn’t really see how I would use it (ELC). At the same time, we are working with change issues in the landscape, so I have probably had difficulties with the convention. Like when I read, I see values in it, but what do they mean? Difficult to know how to translate it into one’s everyday work. (Informant p, Study 2)

The consequence is that most practitioners take a wait-and-see approach. Practitioners at national agencies and in CABs wait for a mandate in the form of national government letters of regulation, while local government practitioners wait for instructions and assignments from CABs and local politicians.

We distinguished three different approaches/strategies that the practitioners use to handle the dilemma. (1) ‘Wait and see’ what national authorities do and how they interpret the ELC. This approach is commonly used and seems to be based on earlier experience of policy implementation and a previous tradition of top-down implementation efforts. (2) A ‘clarification strategy’, where the practitioners take the initiative and ask for guidance from politicians and managers on how to interpret the ELC in their organisation. (3) A concretising approach, not commonly used, where the practitioners explore and identify interest in the ELC and ELC ‘competencies’ within the organisation, aiming at implementation of the ELC where there are opportunities.

An obstacle to taking responsibility in accordance with the wider views on ELC implementation was reported to be the existing sector organisation. The interviewees called for a drive for both horizontal and vertical integration, which was mentioned as both problematic and risky. It was seen as stepping into another’s territory (field of expertise), potentially creating conflict. The ELC emphasis on landscape as perceived by people, also appeared to create tensions with conventional decision making, existing sector division and expert roles. Practitioners commonly chose to limit their responsibility to the sector and policy level they represented, acting pragmatically to avoid conflicts of interests. However, there were examples of CABs working with ELC-inspired strategies and planning for the whole of their territory and municipalities, integrating landscape in their comprehensive planning.

Health

Despite a broad awareness of health, this was not acted on in practice, with health practitioners maintaining a rather narrow ill-health focus. This seemed to be connected to how practitioners perceived their responsibilities and those of others, i.e. responsibility was an important filter in their meaning making of an implementation situation. This follows the distinction made in theme (A) between the stress on more top-down guidance in authorities and the stress on relational factors among consultants.

A large majority of the informants recognised value in broadening the health scope. However, when the representatives from the CABs explained and justified their often narrower approach, they stressed that social aspects of health were not part of their responsibility because this was not stated in the directives for their work. Consultants often expressed a need to broaden the health scope, but also stressed how they need to balance their responsibility for providing good practice on health integration against their relationships with their clients. This means not pushing too hard for inclusion of more health perspectives than commonly needed for official approval. This is illustrated by a consultant reporting that they had done a lot of internal work within their company regarding better inclusion of the social aspects of health in EA, emphasising that it is their responsibility to forward this to their clients. However, it is not their job to decide whether it will be integrated. This approach was also referred to by a consultant from another company.

It is not certain that clients will want it, because, once again, it is they who in the end must decide what they want to order […]. But it is our responsibility to try to raise the issues. (Informant 12, Study 4)

I think that you then need to be prepared to negotiate and drop things, while still fighting for the most important aspects. (Informant 19, Study 4)

Interestingly, in a similar way a local environmental planner official stated that she viewed it as more appropriate to argue for a broader health frame when she (the municipality) was in charge of an EA process than when she was acting as environmental advisor to an external developer. In the latter case, she felt that she had to be more alert to the needs of the developer.

The well-established perceptions of roles and responsibilities mentioned earlier also posed obstacles to cross-sector collaboration with health professionals who commonly act from a broader health frame. Health professionals were rarely part of EA teams and, when included, often entered in a late phase of the planning process. This meant that they mostly responded reactively to EA, rather than proactively broadening the health scope of EA or supporting a more detailed explanation of health consequences.

It’s a pity we weren’t involved in the beginning (…) we were not part of the discussion when it might have looked different, and we would have known how and why the selections and considerations were made. (Informant 6, Study 4)

I can’t remember any case where they came to us and said – ‘we will soon start doing this, now we would like to have your advice on how to do it’. (Informant 5, Study 3)

C. Opportunities for Transformation

Landscape

Practitioners at regional level saw potential to create new forms of cooperation and coordination with municipal authorities. Practitioners at local government level seemed to have a flexible role and took varying responsibility, depending on the situation at hand. Some practitioners took the initiative and asked for guidance within their organisations, while others used the ELC and tried to implement it within their regular work, for example in planning programmes and comprehensive planning:

But in a way, the ELC and what it stands for has permeated much of the thoughts around the process and the new comprehensive plan. We work cross-sectorally and together in the municipality, and try to invite many landscape actors (except the municipality’s employees and politicians) from different places to contribute to the actions. It is something that we feel in some way reflects the ideas of the ELC. (Informant j, Study 2)

However, many practitioners, at all policy levels, hoped that the ELC could create opportunities to develop constructive dialogue between practitioners and other actors at different policy levels and to break silo thinking, contributing to cross-sector cooperation. Step-by-step working was a common approach in ELC implementation, driven by the expectation that the ELC would gradually permeate activities and decision making within the particular field of work and responsibility.

There were also examples of practitioners working actively to implement the ELC, as they perceived that they have a sufficient mandate (a ‘concretising approach’) to do so (see p. 13). These officials interpret and use the ELC within their regular work tasks, for example in planning programmes and comprehensive planning.

Our politicians have also appreciated this, and they look forward to what we come up with … In the consultation meetings we have had, we have worked with three citizen dialogues, there have been many people working on the map. When talking about landscape it has helped us to become more specific, because everyone has a relationship to landscape and understands it. It´s a great tool! (Informant m, Study 2)

The ELC has also inspired some municipalities to carry out extended public consultation processes. The strategy seems to be facilitated by regional planning activities and documents such as the CAB landscape strategies or landscape character analyses. The CAB documents legitimise ELC work and provide concrete examples of how to interpret the ELC in a regional and local context.

The insight that the ELC is in its infancy seems to give the practitioners power to act. When it is clear that implementation of the ELC is only beginning, the practitioners are less worried about doing the ‘wrong’ thing. Instead, the working climate becomes more open, and the practitioners are allowed to investigate and experiment as to how the ELC can best be captured within their own field of work.

Health

As indicated above, practitioners expressed a growing awareness of the concept of health and also a will to improve how health was understood and acted on in practice. Some practitioners were working actively on broadening the health scope. Consultants, an important practitioner group, often reported that they continually suggest better ways to work with health to their clients:

When it comes to social consequences, we know we have to try to influence the market, that is our clients, and show them that they need these kinds of investigations … but it won’t be easy. (Informant 18, Study 4)

There were also indications of a growing interest in improving how health was managed by working together with people from a broader spectrum of disciplinary backgrounds, such as health professionals and cultural and human geographers. A consultant described being enthusiastic about working with a broader health perspective together with others more knowledgeable than her about health:

It will be a challenge for us, and exciting – absolutely! We have collaborated with other consultants who have looked more specifically into these issues. (Informant 13, Study 4)

Other examples were individual practitioners continuously advocating improved health practice and cross-sector collaboration within municipalities, CABs and consulting firms, by pointing to the links between health and a broad range of issues such as recreation, green areas, traffic planning, physical activity, socio-economics and safety.

Discussion

New frames for understanding landscape and health were recently introduced in Sweden through, respectively, the ELC (CoE, 2000, 2008) and PHO (Government bill, 2002). If fully implemented, each policy has the potential to influence planning practice. Our analysis identified both constraining and enabling forces for policy integration into planning.

The interview responses revealed a strong change in how practitioners understand the topics of landscape and health, shifting towards broader, more complex understandings in line with the policy formulations. This was accompanied by a stated desire to change practice, mainly spurred on by a sense among practitioners that landscape and health are currently treated too narrowly in planning and that more dimensions need to be incorporated.

However, there was a difference between the policies regarding their direct impact on these broader understandings (theme A). Practitioners often referred to the ELC when explaining the meaning and intention of the landscape concept, so policy seems to provide a framing of landscape that has been adopted by practitioners.

By contrast, few of the practitioners concerned with health policy were aware that the PHO existed. Practitioners’ explanations and justifications for their broader understanding of health, beyond how it was commonly acted upon in practice, were vague and more scattered than was the case with landscape. This means that those practitioners have adopted a new (broader) health frame without really being able to pinpoint how or where it originated. When faced with a direct question on the subject, several of the practitioners explained that their broadened understanding of health was probably influenced by their stronger awareness of societal challenges such as segregation, social sustainability, inequalities and the need for more active (non-car) transport. Such shifts in attention and discussions in society are often difficult for individuals to articulate (Van Gorp, 2007). The societal challenges mentioned were all at the core of the PHO, indicating that work and discussions on formulation and adoption of the policy have had an indirect influence.

We were unable to identify specifically why this difference has arisen between the two policies. One reason may be that for PHO, responsibility areas for implementing the policy in spatial planning are not as clearly directed to specific actors as they are for ELC, on which several national authorities are collaborating in specific projects.

Nevertheless, our findings indicated that both policies, and work surrounding them, have managed to articulate an alternative perspective, which was considered by practitioners to have strengths and merits that made it superior to the previous perspective. Despite this, few practitioners seem to act on this broader understanding of landscape and health.

Thus, an important result from theme (A) was that the practitioners seemed to have broadened their understanding of landscape or health in a way that aligned with the meaning given to these concepts in the ELC and PHO. Lack of knowledge or understanding of a policy topic among those expected to implement it is often mentioned as a key obstacle to implementation (Innes, 2002). However, our findings suggest that the obstacle to fragmented implementation of the ELC and PHO must be sought elsewhere.

When practitioners explained what was appropriate for them do, it was obvious that they used their understanding of their responsibilities to filter (theme B) alternative understandings of landscape or health. This situation mostly led to business as usual, and consequently there was a gap between what practitioners said was needed in planning and how they acted.

An important explanation for this is where perceptions of responsibilities are shaped (theme A). When deciding how to act following the introduction of new policy, representatives from national and regional authorities often based their decision on how this policy was expressed in different directives. They were also quite occupied with boundaries between different sector responsibilities, e.g. when the responsibility for a certain aspect was perceived to be someone else’s they chose to constrain their own action. This approach was also apparent among local planners, who referred to political will, while the consultants’ approaches were shaped in relation to their clients. However, we also found that local planners and consultants had more diverse strategies for broadening the concepts of landscape and health in planning. This shows that each planning situation is unique, with specific needs and goals and a project-specific set of individuals that must find ways to meet these needs.

Although action and space to influence sometimes shifted in actual planning projects, it rarely caused conflicts regarding areas of responsibility, i.e. practitioners seemed to share an overall understanding of each other’s responsibilities and of difficulties and limitations with their respective positions. The reasons for acting in a specific way often appeared to be based on habits which unconsciously influenced their thoughts and actions. These perceptions could thus be regarded as a well-established part of institutional and organisational culture and daily routines (Healey & Underwood, 1978; Schön & Rein, 1994), thereby having a great impact (Van Gorp, 2007).

The combined findings from themes (A) and (B) demonstrate how well-established perceptions of responsibility can hamper policy implementation and act to maintain existing practice, even in cases when practitioners see benefits of acting differently. In other words, individual practitioners’ re-framed understandings of landscape or health could potentially instigate agency-driven transformations, but transformation is disrupted by established structures regarding responsibility.

However, in a few cases, practitioners’ new understandings of landscape or health meant that they questioned what is appropriate action, including what responsibility they themselves have, or should have, in order to handle a more complex landscape or health concept. In particular, their understanding of landscape and health as holistic and relational concepts, i.e. determined by many different aspects, appears to make them identify a need for more joint responsibility and cross-sectoral collaboration. Collaboration was seen as a way to take joint responsibility and engage in identifying what is needed to integrate this broader understanding into planning.

This quite open or ambiguous situation also seemed to engage practitioners to act and, at least in the case of local public planners and consultants, allowed them to experiment on how their broader understanding of landscape or health could best be captured within their work.

An important result in theme (C) was that re-framing of landscape and health seemed to impart the ability among practitioners to challenge current routines. So far, this had mainly led to practitioners making minor ad hoc adjustments, which is in line with people’s endeavour to maintain continuity of current practice when introduced to a new frame (Laws & Rein, 2003). However, since the adoption of these new frames has made practitioners aware of alternative, possibly better, ways to act, which is an important step towards re-framing, this has created openings for transforming practice.

In summary, we can state that ELC and PHO have not been institutionalised in Swedish planning practice to such a degree that practitioners feel they must change the way in which they act. However, practitioners are beginning to choose dimensions in the policies to integrate into their practice. Overall, there seems to be a lack of clarity as to who has the authority to ensure that implementation takes place. The CABs could play a key role in this regard, since they must be consulted in comprehensive planning and EA, although this does not currently seem to guarantee policy implementation. This indicates that when a new policy involves a distinct shift in how to understand and act on the policy topic in planning practice, it is essential to critically investigate existing understandings and established practices of roles and distribution of responsibilities.

The current situation also means that individuals have great room for manoeuvre and the lack of clear instructions on how landscape or health policy should be integrated seems to have encouraged some practitioners to experiment on possible ways forward. However, the wide scope for practitioners to decide which parts of policy to implement is also a challenge for individual practitioners who are left rather empty-handed and with expectations of achieving transformation towards ELC- or PHO-guided planning, but without clarity on how this should be done.

However, practitioners see a need for and have a desire to change practice. To date, they have mainly embraced holistic and relational meanings and joint responsibility and cross-sectoral collaboration as important. The need for cross-sectoral collaboration in planning is not a novel insight, but in the present study the practitioners themselves reported this need. This is an important step towards change. However, practitioners appear to need more support in achieving collaboration over organisational and disciplinary boundaries, in terms of methods, organisation, leadership etc. It would also be beneficial to start a debate on the division of responsibilities in Swedish planning practice and why so few in this sector feel a responsibility to act strongly to implement the ELC and PHO policy. Such information could affect planning beyond these specific policy topics. It could also be beneficial to explore, together with the policy and practice communities, the kinds of arguments and settings that could support the desired change in practice.

Conclusions

The paper contributes to planning literature by providing a new conceptual framework and empirical insights on how constraining and transforming forces interact to shape and challenge perceptions on appropriate ways to think and act. The framework was based on key elements from frame theory and collaborative theory and applied to Swedish planning practitioners’ thoughts and actions regarding integrating recent policies on landscape or health in their practice. The results support the calls by Healey (2003, 2007a) and Innes and Booher (2014) for more research attention on how dynamics between structure and human agency shape and potentially transform planning practice as well as the growing research interest in individual practitioners’ capacity to generate transformation (e.g. Olsson & Hysing, 2012).

The results revealed that:

• framing involves bias towards a particular behaviour, indicating that perceptions of appropriate action are an important link to action,

• framing involves making meaning of a situation and of people’s position within it, indicating a need for these to be balanced and that a change in how a policy topic is understood (represented) can change perceptions about who has the responsibility to act on this in planning,

• processes of maintaining practice and enabling transformation are present at the same time, together shaping current and future practices.

Application of the framework also provided these novel empirical insights on policy implementation mechanisms:

• well-established perceptions of responsibility can hamper policy implementation and act to maintain existing practice, even when practitioners can see benefits for planning outcomes of acting differently

• practitioners are reframing their perception of policy topics (health and landscape) as holistic, relational and areas of joint responsibilities in need of cross-sector collaboration. This seems to have made some individual practitioners question current practice and start to work differently, thereby opening the way for transformation.

The two last findings clearly show that frames have the power to counteract but also spur on transformation. This reveals that what practitioners genuinely perceive as important and appropriate affects their actions. Introducing a new frame includes inducing uncertainty, since practitioners are deprived of their current understanding of appropriate action. This means that reframing is not an easy task for anyone – however possible and necessary for change. Our results show that in order for policies to transform planning practice, more attention must be given to support practitioners in their work of navigating their responsibilities in relation to the new policy. Of particular interest is empowering those practitioners that find ways to act in line with the new policy frame, and paying close attention to the strategies they develop and how they explain and justify these, e.g. what arguments they use for drawing boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate action. We also encourage researchers, in collaboration with the practice community, to continue to explore which key mechanisms characterize change in planning practice, and how this can be better achieved.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Andrew Butler, the editors and two anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (Formas) under grant number 2010-996 and by a co-operative venture between the Department of Urban and Rural Development at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and the consulting firm Tyréns.

Notes on contributors

Mari Kågström

Mari Kågström is a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Her research focuses on practitioners’ possibilities to make a difference in the environmental assessment (EA) and sustainable planning fields of practice. Mari has over 15 years of experience as EA consultant and strives to bridge the gap between academia and practice, e.g. by working part-time as a senior specialist at the consulting firm Tyréns AB, focusing on process and methodology advice and internal capacity building in her research fields.

Sylvia Dovlén

Sylvia Dovlén is a researcher and lecturer at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Her research interests include sustainable development, planning theory, landscape planning and policy implementation, and planning practice. More recently, she has been focusing on the evolution of policy communities, and how meanings are made and actions shaped among planning and policy professionals. She has also almost 20 years of experience as a planning professional, working within several Swedish municipalities.