Abstract
Over the last 20 years there has been an increasing emphasis on the use of ‘knowledge’ in urban regeneration to inform the design and implementation of policies/initiatives and to understand ‘what worked’/‘what did not work’ and why. This has been part of what in English is termed developing the evidence base. However, urban regeneration is a controversial field – in some sense it may be seen as an arena of conflict constituted by numerous actors/stakeholders: local authorities, professionals (like architects and planners), NGOs, market actors and lay people. In this arena conflicts can occur due to different interests and positions (cf. Stewart and Stoker 1995). Disagreements can be about the use and development of space, for instance between those in favour of protecting distinctive features of a city/neighbourhood, versus those who prefer new (modern) development, about the height of buildings, protection of public spaces versus commercialization of central urban areas, etc. Fundamentally it is a question of what constitutes an attractive and liveable city for residents, those who visit the city and for business and industry. It is therefore relevant to analyse how the knowledge of different actors are weighted and included in decision making processes and who occupies positions to define what should be counted as relevant, legitimate and authoritative knowledge. Powerful individuals and sectoral interests (e.g. from business and finance, local industry) often have better access than the general public to local authorities through their competence in lobbying and possession of officially recognised and codified forms of knowledge and understanding of how the political system works. They are able to “speak the same language” as those in political system who take decisions; in this sense they share a cultural and social understanding of what needs to be done, when and by whom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
At a more general level it may be argued that an increased level of participation is a good thing in itself as it enhances democracy and encourages greater levels of ‘civility’. Such arguments are also relevant to wider conceptions of, and normative assumptions about, the ‘good city’ and ‘living with diversity’ (Amin 2002, 2006) and the city as a place of social justice in which people, both friends and strangers, can interact freely.
- 2.
- 3.
Narvik is located in the Northern part of Norway. The number of inhabitants is about 18,000. Odda is located in the south-western part of Norway. The number of inhabitants is about 7,500.
- 4.
The LKAB mining company employs the port of Narvik for overseas export of iron ore from the mines of the Swedish inland town of Kiruna. Until the end of the 1980s, the iron ore was stored temporarily in large heaps in the centrally located industry site of Narvik, before being shipped overseas. As the iron ore is now is directly loaded from the railway to ships, the previous storing area, about 1,400 ha, is available for other activities.
- 5.
The Directorate for Cultural Heritage in Norway (Riksantikvaren) is the decision making authority in such matters.
- 6.
This is primarily based on discussions in local and regional papers.
- 7.
In terms of what constitutes an “explicit” urban policy we broadly follow the definition offered by van den Berg et al. (2007, p. 1) as “…policies that affect the cities knowingly and directly.”
- 8.
Additional information on a ‘theories of change’ approach to evaluation can be found on the Aspen Institute web site (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/Programt1.asp?i=83&bid=0); more detail can also be found on one of the Aspen Institute’s linked sites specifically on Theories of Change (http://www.theoryofchange.org/).
References
Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34, 959–980.
Amin, A. (2006). The good city. Urban Studies, 43(5–6), 1009–1023.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 36(1), 59–72.
Atkinson, R. (2003). Addressing social exclusion through community involvement in urban regeneration. In R. Imrie & M. Raco (Eds.), Urban renaissance: Urban policy, community, citizenship and rights (pp. 101–120). Bristol: Policy Press.
Atkinson, R., & Moon, G. (1994). Urban policy in Britain: The city, the state and the market. London: Macmillan.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, A., & Finn, D. (2008). Les « problèmes persistants » des villes britanniques: comment le New Labour a cherché à développer une approche nouvelle fondée sur l’engagement conjoint’. In J. Donzelot (Ed.), Ville, violence et dependence sociale: les politiques en Europe (pp. 25–76). Paris: Centre d’Etude, de Documentation et d’Observation sur les Villes.
Atkinson, R., Terizakis, G., & Zimmerman, K. (Eds.). (2010). Sustainability in European environmental policy: Challenges of governance and knowledge. London: Routledge.
Burton, P., Goodlad, R., & Croft, J. (2006). How would we know what works? Context and complexity in the evaluation of community involvement. Evaluation, 12(3), 294–312.
Cele, S. (2006). Communicating place: Methods for understanding children’s experience of place. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Chanan, G. (1999). Local community involvement: A handbook for good practice. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
DETR (Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions). (1995). Involving communities in urban and rural regeneration. London: DETR.
DETR. (1997). Involving communities in urban and rural regeneration. London: DETR.
Department of Land Economy. (1999). Evaluation of the single regeneration budget challenge fund: An examination of baseline issues. University of Cambridge. http://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/baseline.htm. Accessed 18 June 2012.
Dinham, A. (2005). Empowered or over-powered? The real experiences of local participation in the UK’s new deal for communities. Community Development Journal, 40(3), 301–312.
Evans, G. (2007). Measure and measure: Evaluation the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. In R. Paddison & S. Miles (Eds.), Culture-led urban regeneration (pp. 116–140). London: Routledge.
Falleth, E. I., & Hanssen, G. S. (2007). Utfordringer for byplanlegging. Aftenposten Aften, debattkronikk 30 January, p. 18. http://eavis.aftenposten.no/aftenposten/82312/archive/demo/?page=18
Falleth, E. I., Hanssen, G. S., & Saglie, I. L. (2008). Medvirkning i byplanlegging i Norge (Report 37). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Foucault, M. (1989). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Fremeaux, I. (2005). New labour’s appropriation of the concept of community: A critique. Community Development Journal, 40(3), 265–274.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Hannigan, J. (2003). Symposium on branding, the entertainment economy and urban place building: Introduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 352–360.
Hanssen, G. S., & Klausen, J. E. (2007). Oslo inner city districts: Network failure in the face of policy success. In M. Marcussen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Democratic network governance in Europe (pp. 47–65). London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Healey, P. (1997a). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Healey, P. (1997b). Social exclusion, neighbourhood life and governance capacity. In H. Vestergaard (Ed.), Housing in Europe (pp. 88–110). Horsholm: Danish Building Research Institute.
Imrie, R., & Raco, M. (Eds.). (2003). Urban renaissance: Urban policy, community, citizenship and rights. Bristol: Policy Press.
Johnstone, C., & Whitehead, M. (Eds.). (2004). New horizons in British urban policy. Perspectives on new labour’s urban renaissance. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kjørholt, A. T. (2002). Small is powerful: Discourses on “children and participation in Norway”. Childhood, 9(1), 63–82.
Kubisch, A. C., Connell, J. P., & Fulbright-Anderson, K. (2001). Evaluating complex comprehensive community initiatives: Theory, measurement and analysis. In J. Pierson & J. Smith (Eds.), Rebuilding community: Policy and practice in urban regeneration (pp. 83–98). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Michels, A., & de Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477–491.
Miles, S., & Paddison, R. (2007). Introduction: The rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration. In R. Paddison & S. Miles (Eds.), Culture-led urban regeneration (pp. ix–xv). London: Routledge.
Nordahl, B., Harvold, K., & Skogheim, R. (2009). Forhandlingsbasert byutvikling (Report 20). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schluster Paperback.
Robinson, F., Shaw, K., & Davidson, G. (2005). ‘On the side of the angels’: Community involvement in the governance of neighbourhood renewal. Local Economy, 20(1), 13–26.
Schmidt, L., Guttu, J., & Knudtzon, L. (2011). Medvirkning i planprosesser i Oslo kommune (Report 2011:1). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.
Sehested, K. (Ed.). (2003). Bypolitik: mellem hierarki og netværk. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag.
Skogheim, R., & Røe, P. G. (2010). Mye mer enn arkitektur. Aftenposten Aften debattkronikk, 6 May, p. 20. http://eavis.aftenposten.no/aftenposten/82312/archive/demo/?page=18
Statsbygg. (2005). Kryss: veileder i kulturplanlegging. Oslo: Statsbygg. www.kryss.no
Stewart, J., & Stoker, G. (Eds.). (1995). Local government in 1990s: Government beyond the centre. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Sullivan, H., & Stewart, M. (2006). Who owns the theory of change? Evaluation, 12(2), 179–199.
Tallon, A. (2010). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Routledge.
Van den Berg, L., Braun, E., & van der Meer, J. (Eds.). (2007). National policy responses to urban challenges in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Vestby, G. M., & Skogheim, R. (2010). Florø i fokus: sosio-kulturell stedsanalyse for byutvikling og profilering (Report 6). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.
Wates, N. (2000). The community planning handbook. London: Earthscan.
Watson, T. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and arguments in organizational sense making: A reflective tale. Organizational Studies, 16(3), 805–821.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Skogheim, R., Atkinson, R. (2013). Urban Regeneration and the Use of “Urban Knowledge” in English and Norwegian Cities: Knowledge Producers, Interests and Inclusion/Exclusion of Knowledge. In: Andersen, H., Atkinson, R. (eds) Production and Use of Urban Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8936-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8936-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8935-9
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8936-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)