IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eurpls/v29y2021i3p425-445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quiet acceptance vs. the ‘polder model’: stakeholder involvement in strategic urban mobility plans

Author

Listed:
  • L. B. A. van der Linde
  • P. A. Witte
  • T. J. M. Spit

Abstract

Cities in EU-member states increasingly involve governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in developing strategic urban mobility plans to increase the legitimacy of policies. The question is, to what extent urban transport experts and other stakeholders acknowledge the added value of the involvement of stakeholders in a sectoral policy field as urban mobility planning? This article analyses governmental and non-governmental involvement practices of the cities of Malmö (Sweden) and Utrecht (the Netherlands) using the New Institutional Approach. Both countries strive to a large extent for more stakeholder involvement. However, urban transport professionals in both countries also explicitly emphasize the disadvantages of stakeholder involvement in urban mobility planning. According to them, non-governmental stakeholders are not able to think on the needed strategic level, groups are biased, and many other stakeholders do not feel the need to get involved in the policy process. As a consequence, policy processes often result in delays. This study shows that participation of stakeholders in the strategic urban mobility policy process is, according to professionals working in the field, not always the panacea that many scholars expect.

Suggested Citation

  • L. B. A. van der Linde & P. A. Witte & T. J. M. Spit, 2021. "Quiet acceptance vs. the ‘polder model’: stakeholder involvement in strategic urban mobility plans," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 425-445, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:29:y:2021:i:3:p:425-445
    DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2020.1735310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09654313.2020.1735310
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09654313.2020.1735310?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:29:y:2021:i:3:p:425-445. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEPS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.