Negotiations Between Developers and Planning Authorities in Urban Development Projects

References

• Albrechts, L. (2006): Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planning to Strategic Projects. European Planning Studies, 14 (10), pp.1487–1500. doi: 10.1080/09654310600852464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, D. C. et al. (2006): Performance-Based Planning. Perspectives from the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, pp. 369–409. doi: 10.1177/0739456X05283450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlindhaug, R. et al. (2014): Boligbygging i storbyene – virkemidler og handlingsrom. NIBR-rapport 2014:8. Oslo: NIBR.
   Google Scholar
• Buitelaar, E.; Sorel, N. (2010): Between the rule of law and the quest for control: Legal certainty in the Dutch planning system. Land Use Policy, 27 (3), pp. 983–989. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1999): Trust Expectations, Information Sharing, Climate of Trust, and Negotiation Effectiveness and Efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24 (2), pp. 217–238. doi: 10.1177/1059601199242005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Børrud, E. (2018): Områderegulering – forventning om helhet og sammenheng. In Hanssen, G. S.; Aarsæther, N. (eds.), Planog bygningsloven – fungerer loven etter intensjonene? Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, L. C. et al. (1989): The Limits of Regulation. Evidence from Local Plan Implementation in California. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55 (2), pp. 151–168. doi: 10.1080/01944368908976015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vibe, E. (2015): Hvor går vi fremover? Oslomodellen for bruk av planog bygningsloven. Plan, 46 (1), pp. 32–35.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. et al. (1991): Getting to yes. Negotiating an agreement without giving in. 2nd edition. London: Century Business.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, S. P. (2009): Yes in My Backyard: Developers, Government and Communities Working Together Through Development Agreements and Community Benefit Agreements. Indiana Law Review, 42, pp. 227–255.
   Google Scholar
• Green, S. D. (2004): Development Agreements: Bargained-for Zoning That Is Neither Illegal Contract Nor Conditional Zoning. Capital University Law Review, 33, pp. 383–497.
   Google Scholar
• Hals, H. (1929): Fra Christiania til Stor-Oslo. Oslo: Aschehoug.
   Google Scholar
• Hanssen, G. S.; Aarsæther, N. (2018): Behov for en bro mellom kommuneplanens samfunnsdel og arealdel. In Hanssen, G. S.; Aarsæther, N. (eds.), Planog bygningsloven – en lov for vår tid? Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, T.; Spit, T. (2014): Dilemmas of involvement in land management – Comparing an active (Dutch) and a passive (German) approach. Land Use Policy, 42, pp.729–737. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirt, S. (2013): Form Follows Function? How America Zones. Planning Practice & Research, 28 (2), pp. 204–230. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.692982
   Google Scholar
• Holsen T. (2019): A path dependent systems perspective on participation in municipal land-use planning in Norway. Paper delivered to the AESOP annual conference, Venice 9–13 July.
   Google Scholar
• Holsen, T. (2020): Forhandlinger ved private for-slag til reguleringsplaner. In Sky, P. K.; Elvestad, H. E., Eiendom og juss, vol. 1. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Kalbro, T.; Røsnes, A. E. (2013): Public Planning Monopoly – or Not? The Right to Initiate Development Plans in Norway and Sweden. In Hepperle, E. et al. (eds.), Land Management: Potential Problems and Stumbling Blocks. Zurich: VDF Hochschulverlag AG, pp. 49–65.
   Google Scholar
• Kayden, J. S. (1992): Market-Based Regulatory Approaches A Comparative Discussion of Environmental and Land Use Techniques in the United States. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 19, pp. 565–580.
   Google Scholar
• Kind, A. M. O.; Lozancic, V. (2017): Hvordan påvirker Veiledende plan for det offentlige rom (VPOR) planprosessen? Masteroppgave, NMBU: Ås.
   Google Scholar
• KMD (Kommunalog moderniseringsdepartementet) [Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation] (2018): Reguleringsplanveileder [Zoning Plan Guidelines]. Oslo: KMD.
   Google Scholar
• Kong, D. T. et al. (2014): Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Metaanalytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5), pp. 1235–1255. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, L.W. C. (1994): The economics of land-use zoning. A literature review and analysis of the work of Coase. Town Planning Review, 65 (1), pp. 77–98. doi: 10.3828/tpr.65.1.j15rh7037v511127
   Google Scholar
• Lewicki, J. R.; Polin, B. (2013): The role of trust in negotiation processes. In Bachmann, R.; Zaheer, A. (eds.), Handbook of Advances in Trust Research. 2nd revised edition. Edward Elgar Pub, pp. 161–190.
   Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. (1964). American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics, 16 (4), pp. 677–715. doi: 10.2307/2009452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. et al. (1995): An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), pp.709–734. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, A.; Hay, S. (2015): Advanced Negotiation Techniques. Berkley: Apress.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz-Gielen, D.; Tasan-Kok, T. (2010): Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 18 (7), pp. 1097–1131. doi: 10.1080/09654311003744191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. et al. (2011): Between Input Legitimacy and Output Efficiency: Defensive Routines and Agonistic Reflectivity in Nordic Land-Use Planning. European Planning Studies, 19 (12), pp. 2109–2126. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.632906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. et al. (2015): Legitimacy of Informal Strategic Urban Planning – Observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. European Planning Studies, 23 (2), pp. 349–366. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.861808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NOU [Official Norwegian Report] (2003): Bedre kommunal og regional planlegging etter planog bygningsloven [Better municipal and regional planning under the Planning and Building Act]. NOU 2001: 7.
   Google Scholar
• Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste. Proposition to the Storting 32 B (2008): Om lov om planlegging og byggesaksbehandling (planog bygningsloven) (plandelen) [About the Planning and Building Procedures Act (Planning and Building Act) (the planning section)]. Oslo: Miljøverndepartementet.
   Google Scholar
• Rognes, J. (2015): Forhandlinger. 4. Utgave. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Røsnes, A. E. (2002): Regulatory Systems and the Enabling of Plans. Paper delivered to FIG XXII International Congress, Washington D.C., April 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Røsnes, A. E. (2005): Regulatory Power, Network Tools and Market Behaviour: Transforming Practices in Norwegian Urban Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 6 (1), pp. 35–51. doi: 10.1080/1464935042000334958
   Google Scholar
• Selmi, D. P. (2011): The Contract Transformation in Land Use Regulation. Stanford Law Review, 63, pp. 591–645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valtonen, E.; Falkenbach, H; Viitanen, K. (2017): Development-led planning practices in a planled planning system: empirical evidence from Finland, European Planning Studies, 25 (6), pp. 1053–1075. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1301885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Krabben, E.; Jacobs, H. (2013): Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. Land Use Policy, 30 (1), pp.774–783. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2018): Case study research and applications. Design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar