Access and Influence in Planning

References

• Albrechts, L. (2003): Public involvement: The challenges of difference. disP – The Planning Review, 39 (4), pp. 18–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2003.10556860
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, Ph.; Haughton, G. (2012): Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 37, pp. 89–103.
   Google Scholar
• Angelini, R. (2014): Il Campo Disciplinare della Partecipazione nella Pianificazione e Progettazione Territoriale. In Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (eds.), pp. 23–34.
   Google Scholar
• Angelini, R. (2016): Strumenti Urbanistici e Progetti Urbani: I Processi Partecipativi alla Prova. In Venti, D.; Angelini, R.; Agostini, A. (eds.), pp. 172–174.
   Google Scholar
• Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (2014a): Introduzione. In Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (eds.), pp. 13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (2014b): I Casi di Milano, Jesi, Roma, Ravenna, Santarcangelo di Romagna. In Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (eds.), pp. 142–148.
   Google Scholar
• Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (eds.) (2014c): Comunicazione e Partecipazione per il Governo del Territorio. Milan: Franco Angeli.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969): A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, pp. 216–224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacqué, M. H. ; Gauthier, M. (2011): Participation, urbanisme et études urbaines. Quatre décennies de débats et d’expériences depuis «A ladder of citizen participation» de S. R. Arnstein. Participations, 1, pp. 36–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.001.0036
   Google Scholar
• Beyers, J. (2004): Voice and access. Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics, 5, pp. 211–240. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116504042442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyers, J. (2020): Influence. In Harris, P. et al. (eds.), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13895-0_43-1.
   Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, A. S.; Pedersen, H. H. (2017): What is access? A Discussion of the Definition and Measurement of Interest Group Access. European Political Science, 16, pp. 306–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, A. S.; Pedersen, H. H. (2020): Interest Groups Access. In Harris, P. et al. (eds.), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13895-0_30-2.
   Google Scholar
• Blowers, A. (1980): The Limits of Power. The Politics of Local Planning Policy. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonfantini, B. (2014): Una Visione Strategica per Jesi: Verso un Nuovo Territorio Urbano. In Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (eds.), pp. 172–184.
   Google Scholar
• Bouwen, P. (2002): Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9, pp. 365–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760210138796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunea, A. (2020): Stakeholder Consultations. In Harris, P. et al. (eds.), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03013895-0_59-1.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, A. M. (1968): Citizen participation strategies. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34, pp. 287–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366808977547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carreira, V.; Reis Machado, J.; Vasconcelos, L. (2017): Citizen Involvement in the DecisionMaking Processes of Environmental and Spatial Planning, and its Influence on Public Participation: A Case Study of Lisbon. International Journal of Political Science, 3, pp. 23–29.
   Google Scholar
• Ciesielski, M. M. (2020): Public participation in planning processes under the confinement regime. disP – The Planning Review, 56 (4), pp. 34–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2020.1906049
   Google Scholar
• Cullingworth, J. B. (1984): Canadian planning and public participation. Research paper No. 148, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff, P. (1965): Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, pp. 331–338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denolle, A. S.; Duval, E. (2016): Urbanisme et participation. Cahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentaux, 14, pp. 31–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/crdf.585
   Google Scholar
• D’Onofrio, R. (2014a): L’evoluzione dei processi partecipativi in Italia. In Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (eds.), pp. 46–62.
   Google Scholar
• D’Onofrio, R. (2014b): I dilemmi e l’utilità dei processi partecipativi applicati all’urbanistica. In Angelini, R.; D’Onofrio, R. (eds.), pp. 63–78.
   Google Scholar
• Donzelot, J. (2009): La ville à trois vitesses et autres essais. Paris: Éditions de la Villette.
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A. (2008): Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics, 9, pp. 559–576. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116508095151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, A.W. (1963): The measure of association in a 2×2 table. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society [Series A], 126, pp. 108–114.
   Google Scholar
• Eising, R. (2007): The access of business interests to EU institutions: Towards élite pluralism? Journal of European Public Policy, 14, pp. 384–403. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701243772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESPON (2018): COMPASS – Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe. Final Report. Luxembourg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat (2020): Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group – EU-SILC survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_lvho02/default/ table?lang=en.
   Google Scholar
• Fagence, M. (1977): Citizen Participation in Planning. Oxford. Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fortini, D. (2016): Piano di governo del territorio e progetto pilota partecipato ad Albino e Villa d’Adda. In Venti, D.; Angelini, R; Agostini, A. (eds.), p. 178.
   Google Scholar
• Fox-Rogers, L.; Murphy, E. (2013): Informal strategies of power in the local planning system. Planning Theory, 13, pp. 244–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213492512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gourgues, G. (2015): La participation métropolitaine contre la démocratie? Le ‘Scot participatif’ grenoblois. In Lefeuvre, M.-P. (ed.), Faire métropole: de nouvelles règles du jeu? Paris, Le Moniteur, pp. 99–122.
   Google Scholar
• Gunder, M. (2010): Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory, 9, pp. 298–314. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, P.; Bitonti, A.; Fleisher, C. S.; Skorkjær Binderkrantz, A. (eds.) (2020): The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Interest Groups, Lobbying and Public Affairs. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997): Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Hampshire: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Helboe Pedersen, H. (2013): Is measuring interest group influence a mission impossible? The case of interest group influence in the Danish parliament. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2, pp. 27–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2012.19
   Google Scholar
• Inch, A. (2012): Creating ‘a generation of NIMBYs’? Interpreting the role of the state in managing the politics of urban development. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, pp. 520–535. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/c11156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. (2004): Reframing public participation strategies for the twentyfirst century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5, pp. 419–436. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
   Google Scholar
• Judge, A.; Thomson, R. (2019): The responsiveness of legislative actors to stakeholders’ demands in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 26, pp. 676–695. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1489878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasperson, R. E.; Breitbart, M. (1974): Participation, decentralization and advocacy planning. Association of American Geographers, Resource Paper, 25.
   Google Scholar
• Klun, M.; Okršlar, G.; Weisseisen, M. (2015): Centralisation and optimisation of decisionmaking process: Revision of spatial planning in Republic of Slovenia. E-Government & Spatial Planning Decision-Making, ECTP-CEU Young planners workshop, Dublin, pp. 30–51.
   Google Scholar
• Kozová, M. et al. (2016): Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities. Forest Policy and Economics, 89, pp. 31–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H. (2019): Conclusion: A Critical Juncture for the Structuration of Party Systems? In Hutter, S.; Kriesi, H. (eds.), European Party Politics in Times of Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 355–382.
   Google Scholar
• López-Rodríguez, M. D. et al. (2020): Delineating participation in conservation governance: Insights from the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park (Spain). Environmental Science and Policy, 114, pp. 486–496. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovrić, N.; Lovrić, M.; Konold, W. (2018): A Grounded Theory approach for deconstructing the role of participation in spatial planning: Insights from Nature Park Medvednica, Croatia. Forest Policy and Economics, 87, pp. 20–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, K. (2001): Citizen Participation in Planning: Climbing a Ladder? European Planning Studies, 9, pp. 707–719. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120073775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maričić, T.; Cvetinović, M.; Bolay, J. C. (2018): Participatory Planning in the Urban Development of Post-Socialist Serbia. In Bolay, J. C.; Maričić, T.; Zeković, S. (eds.), A Support to Urban Development Process. Belgrade: EPFL & IAUS, pp. 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D.; Attoh, K.; Staeheli, L. (2015): Whose city? What politics? Contentious and non-contentious spaces on Colorado’s Front Range. Urban Studies, 52, pp. 2633–2648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014550460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitsios, C. (2018): Citizen Participation and SelfOrganization in Urban Regeneration in Greece. An analysis of the inclusion and implementation of participatory and self-organization practices in urban regeneration in Greece, Master’s Thesis for the Spatial Planning (Planologie) programme, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University.
   Google Scholar
• Murdoch, J.; Abram, S. (2017): Rationalities of Planning: Development Versus Environment in Planning for Housing. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nyseth, T.; Ringholm, T.; Agger, A. (2019): Innovative Forms of Citizen Participation at the Fringe of the Formal Planning System. Urban Planning, 4, pp. 7–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i1.1680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD (2017): Land-use Planning Systems in the OECD: Country Fact Sheets. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pinto, A. J. (2011): Citizen participation in the municipal planning process in Portugal. On the W@terfront, 18, pp. 17–46.
   Google Scholar
• Pløger, J. (2021): Politics, planning, and ruling: the art of taming public participation. International Planning Studies, 26, pp. 426–440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2021.1883422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. (2009): Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8, pp. 140–165. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rando Burgos, E. (2020): Participación ciudadana y urbanismo: de los principios a la implementación. Revista Española de la Transparencia, 10, pp. 65–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.51915/ret.89
   Google Scholar
• Savino, M.; Bobbio, R. (2018): La costruzione di una partecipazione sostantiva. In Caudo, G.; De Leo, D. (eds.), Urbanistica e Azione Pubblica. Rome: Donzelli, pp. 107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Scarrow, S. E. (2002): Parties Without Members? Party Organization in a Changing Electoral Environment. In Dalton, R.; Wattenberg, M. P. (eds.), Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–101.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, M.; Russell, P.; Redmond, D. (2007): Active citizenship, civil society and managing spatial change in the rural-urban fringe. Policy & Politics, 35, pp. 163–190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/030557307779657702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senecah, S. L. (2004): The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In Depoe, S. P.; Delicath, J.W.; Aepli Elsenbeer, M.-F. (eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 13–33.
   Google Scholar
• Simonofski, A.; Fink, J.; Burnay, C. (2021): Supporting policy-making with social media and eparticipation platforms data: A policy analytics framework. Government Information Quarterly, 38, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101590.
   Google Scholar
• Sparks, L. (2001): The chair and chief officer: A many sided relationship. Planning Theory & Practice, 2, pp. 86–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350121807
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J.; Lithgow, S. (2015): Problems and prospects in community engagement in urban planning and decision-making: Three case studies from the Australian Capital Territory. Policy Studies, 36, pp. 18–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2014.981061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svirčić Gotovac, A.; Zlatar Gamberožić, J.; Nikšič, M. (2021): Public Participation in Post-Communist Cities Between Stagnation and Progress: The Examples of Zagreb and Ljubljana. Urbani Izziv, 32, pp. 75–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2021-32-01-001
   Google Scholar
• Thornley, A. (1977): Theoretical perspectives on planning participation. Progress in Planning, 7 (Part 1), pp. 1–57. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Truman, D. (1951): The Governmental Process, Political Interests and Public Opinion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Vannoni, M. (2017): Studying preference attainment using spatial models. European Political Science, 16, pp. 369–382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venti, D. (2016): Percorsi e nuove prospettive per una governance partecipata: dalla cura dei beni comuni alla carta della partecipazione. In Venti, D.; Angelini, R.; Agostini, A. (eds.), pp. 8–10.
   Google Scholar
• Venti, D.; Angelini, R.; Agostini, A. (eds.) (2016): Percorsi Partecipativi nella Progettazione e nella Pianificazione: Strumenti, Metodi, Esperienze. Rome. INU Edizioni.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, K.; Pandey, S. K. (2011): Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71, pp. 880–892. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zetlaoui-Léger, J. (2013): Urbanisme participatif. In Casillo, I. et al. (eds.), Dictionnaire critique et interdisciplinaire de la participation, www.dicopart.fr/fr/dico/urbanisme-participatif.
   Google Scholar
• Zetti, I. (2021): Power relationships, citizens participation and persistence of rational paradigm in spatial planning: the Tuscan experience. Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 11, pp. 1–23.
   Google Scholar