Using Public–Private Interplay to Climate-Proof Urban Planning? Critical Lessons from Developing a new Housing District in Karlstad, Sweden

Figures & data

Table 1. Interviewees.

	Interviewee	Year
1	HSB, private housing cooperative	2014
2	Riksbyggen, private housing cooperative	2014
3	PEAB, construction and civil engineering company	2014
4	SKANSKA, construction and civil engineering company	2014
5	Kärnhem, project development company	2014
6	KBAB, municipal housing company	2014
8, 10	Municipal coordinator, Land and Development	2012, 2015
9, 11	Municipal coordinator, Urban Planning	2012, 2015

Table 2. Summarizing scope of influence in Grundviken.

Stage of interplay	Scope of influence for public actors	Scope of influence for private actors
Initiating the interaction	Public actors set the vision and level of ambition. Public actors decide which property developers become part of the interaction.	Limited except for the choice to declare interest to partake. By declaring an interest, private actors accept the overall goals.
Designing and starting-up the interaction	Public actors are responsible for designing steering-strategies and leading the process with seminars, trips and discussions.	Private actors engage in the process with their knowledge, ideas and experiences.
Facilitating a constructive dialogue	Public actors experience difficulties with facilitating dialogue. Interactions were time-consuming, complicated and limited the ability to steer the process.	Private actors start meeting on their own, forming a strong “we vs. them”, strengthening the voice of private actors.
Reaching an agreement	Public actors experience difficulties with steering the outcomes to reach the desired end result with a high-profile area. Discussions surface different priorities, results become flat and commitments undistinguished.	Private actors strive to find a compromise of a “good enough solution” financially by negotiating conditions and terms. Private actors steer outcomes by lack of incentives to excel and “deleting items.”