Participatory Planning and Strategic Urban Planning in Rural Denmark.

Abstract

This report consists of a written reflection on my experience as an intern with NORRØN architects from 01/08/2022 to 31/12/2022. During these five months, I have been involved in the design and execution of a citizen-involvement based development plan for Thorupstrand, a fishing village located along Denmark’s north-west coast belonging to Jammerbrugt Kommune.

NORRØN is an architecture and planning office based in Copenhagen, founded in 2014 by architects Poul Høilund and Marco Berentz. Since then, they have specialized in the field of destination development within the experience economy around three main themes: Nature, Coast and Culture.

Most of their work is located in the Danish countryside, with several projects realized in Greenland. Each project is characterized by a strong sensibility towards the place. In the words of their founders themselves: ‘Every destination has a unique composition of place-bound stories and potentials. It is therefore in the ability to identify, refine and further develop the positions of strength that the market for creating strong destinations with an international outlook is found. Destination development is therefore at the same time a local, regional and national matter.’ (NORRØN, 2015). As it will be further described in this paper, this approach towards working with the rural environment by locating and enhancing locally based potentials is crucial to the current agenda.

The development of Thorupstrand is a state-of-the-art example of the challenges that planners are facing today in the rural environment, and it shows the importance of citizen-involvement for creating place-based solutions. However, it is also important to reflect upon the level of participation that is being achieved under the circumstances of a rurally declined environment.

1. Introduction Thorupstrand is a small coastal village located in northern Jutland and it is home to one of the few remaining small-scale fishing communities surviving in Denmark. The strong winds and heavy currents here make it impossible to build a port, as the sea bed is constantly reshaped. As a result, the boats must be pulled in and out of the sea every morning and “parked” along the shore when not in use, a spectacle that hundreds of visitors come to visit on a daily basis.

Fig 1. Site Map of Thorup Strand (Self produced).

This traditional industry has been running here for centuries, up until 2006 when the fishing quotas were privatized, severely damaging Denmark’s small-scale fishing industry and concentrating access to marine resources on a few hands (Slow foods, 2010). The fishermen united and created The Thorupstrand Coastal Fishermen’s Guild (Thorupstrand Kystfiskerlaug in Danish). The fishermen who join own and manage the catch quotas as a community, redistributing them to each member. The Thorupstrand fishermen use traditional and sustainable fishing techniques that are respectful to the fish species and the marine environment. The nets, for example, could legally have a smaller mesh, but their larger holes mean the fishers avoid catching undersized fish. However, the community has been seriously struggling over the last years to make a living and their traditional way of life is at serious risk of disappearing.

This is a typical example of a rurally declined environment in Europe: an area whose economy has been traditionally linked to a certain industry but is now struggling to adapt to the new shifts in the global economy, therefore suffering population loss due to immigration and ageing. At the same time, however, these places often possess great potential for new development. These potentials, often referred to in literature as ‘locally based potentials’, are mainly grouped in four themes: Landscape, community, cultural heritage and lastly, tourism (AAU, 2019).

Throupstrand is a special case as it has strong potential in all four of the aforementioned themes: -

A typical inspiring Danish west-coast landscape with protected dunes, beautiful beaches and forests close-by.

A strong local community of different groups that range from fishermen to business owners and other locals.

A special cultural heritage around the traditional fishing industry.

Tourism experiences related to gastronomy, nature and culture.

With this scenario, a rurally declined context, a deeply rooted and engaged community, a place that is attracting several thousands of visitors due to its high-quality fish and picturesque boats laying on the beach, a municipal initiative together with a philanthropic organization is set to develop the area in order to enhance the tourist’s experience. By doing so, the fishing community is expected to be able to keep their way of living.

Fig 2.Ortophoto of the area to be developed (Skråfoto).

1.1. Problem Statement and Research Questions Thorupstrand faces tourism's most classic, but perhaps also most complex balancing act. An exercise that consists in maintaining a living and authentic cultural heritage in the form of the local community's special and identity-creating coastal fishing industry at the landing site, while at the same time taking care of the now growing visitor pressure. This creates a need for a plan that can both gather and intertwine new tourism facilities with the existing industry.

These situations need to be handled strategically, containing the latest knowledge within sustainable tourism development. Strategic investments in experience economy and new ideas can bring positive synergy between the fishing industry and tourism, creating value for both, based on the local culture, which is in the end the core of the experience. If the problem is not handled accordingly, the increased attention experienced by Thorupstrand in these years could be the start of a chaotic and unorganized mess of tourists and workers. This is the reason why NORRON was hired by the municipality to design a development plan for the area, together with a group of local stakeholders through a citizen-involvement process.

When it comes to rural development these days, it is particularly relevant to facilitate a concrete and targeted involvement process that will support locally rooted sustainable development in the area (OECD, 2006). However, when the development of an area is already framed by the institutional agenda (in the case of Thorupstrand is to develop tourism), it is also relevant to ask to what extent these processes are an example of citizen participation. As described earlier, a simple examination of Thorupstrand shows that a range of different themes connected to development potentials is present in the area. An examination of similar development projects around Denmark shows that, although each theme can exist by itself, tourism is almost always the base for development.

The aim of this paper is to gain further knowledge on the challenges of citizen-involvement within rural development projects in Denmark and to reflect upon the level of participation that it is behind a citizen-involvement process in this scenario.

Main Research Question How is a citizen-involvement-based development elaborated in a Danish rural context and to what extent is it an example of a bottom-up approach?

The first part of the question is aimed at exploring the process behind the design and management of the citizen-involvement process elaborated for the development of Thorupstrand. Meanwhile, the second part is a reflection on whether these processes are truly an example of participatory democracy or are they just a tool for the authorities to carry out their agenda with citizen approval.

Here, the planner’s role is a crucial one, acting as a mediator between the citizens’ needs and the public and private stakeholders’ agenda.

Sub research questions 1. From what context does the participatory approach emerge?

In order to understand the elaboration of such a plan, there is a need to contextualize the situation from which the participatory approach emerges. Therefore, this paper will examine the current rural paradigm both in national and international policy, the current strategic plans for the area of study and the actors/stakeholders involved in the development plan.

2. What are the key elements to designing an effective involvement process?

By using information provided by personal interviews, the design for the involvement process will be studied with a focus on how key elements such as transparency and

fairness in the process, are handled. Furthermore, online literature on the topic will be used to contrast and assess the approach taken by NORRØN. 3. How are the inputs from the involvement process managed in order to reach the desired goals?

This last sub-question aims at understanding how the inputs gathered from the involvement process are used. Whether it’s the planners combining their expertise with the local knowledge in order to create innovative solutions, or external institutions using these inputs to target their investments accordingly, a citizen-involvement approach should give back to citizens something in which they see themselves and they can say ‘I made this happen’.

1.2. Research Structure The paper started with an introduction to NORRØN’s work with destination development in Denmark to then move on to a more specific Problem Formulation chapter in which the relevance of the research topic has been described, leading to the main Research Question and sub questions that will guide the rest of the report. A Theory chapter will introduce key concepts that are needed to frame this research’s topic and analyze the information gathered. They way in which this information has been obtained will be explained in the Method chapter. In the Analysis chapter, my experience working with the case study at Thorupstrand will be described, with a focus on answering the research questions that have guided this report.

Finally, the discussion chapter will zoom out and offer a space for debate, in which several issues will be raised concerning other ways to use these involvement processes to develop long-term strategies other than tourism, which is, in the end, a more vulnerable development solution. The conclusion chapter will wrap up with final remarks about my own experience and reflections about the process.

Fig 3. Analysis design (Self produced).

2. Method This chapter explains the different methods that have been used throughout the research process.

Furthermore, the choice of a case study approach is justified and the type of case study method that will be applied is described. As part of the case study, interviews with different experts from NORRØN have been carried out in order to get more in-depth knowledge. These will also be explained in this chapter.

2.1. Literature Review Throughout the project, literature and other documents belonging to NORRØN’s library have been used as primary sources for studying the state of the art of the research topic, and to find relevant theory for conducting further analysis.

The literature search has been aimed at both reviewing current rural policy and citizeninvolvement in Europe, with a specific focus on the Danish state. The main online resources have been Aalborg University Library (AUB), Google Scholar and other specific sites that have been recommended by NORRØN’s members, such as, the Kenneth Balfelt team’s website.

2.2. Research Strategy In order to plan a suitable research strategy, the focus must be on determining the questions that are most relevant to the research topic (Yin, 2003). For this purpose, a literature review was carried out as explained above, as well as consulting with different experts from NORRON. This way, the research question explained in 1.1 came about and the following research strategy was designed: The main research question of this project is exploratory, the goal of it being to develop a pertinent hypothesis and propositions for further inquiry (Yin, 2003). Therefore, the aim of this project is to gain further insight into designing citizen-involvement processes in rural-development projects, with a specific focus on the early stages of the process (as these are the ones that overlap with my time as an intern). Taking advantage of my position as an intern inside NORRON, the case study approach seemed the most appropriate, as I have been directly involved in the process which I want to study.

2.3. Embedded Case study As explained, the most suitable research strategy for this project is a case-study approach. In this section, the type of case study that is going to be applied will be described. In distinction to ‘holistic’ case studies, I will make use of ‘embedded’ case studies (Yin, 2003, p. 41).

While a holistic design would be most suitable when studying the global nature of a specific unit of study, an embedded case study design is most suitable when the research project requires the unit of a study to be divided into sub-units. The theme of this investigation is citizeninvolvement processes in rural-development projects in Denmark. The analysis will focus on one single case in a rural municipality in Jutland. The case study will be divided into sub-units of study: The context of the project, the Involvement process and finally, the Management of the Results.

2.4. Interview Semi-structured interviews are conducted to gain deeper insight into how the experts have designed the involvement process, taking special consideration on what elements have made the process effective. An interview guide is used to set the overall framework for the interview. The

guide contains a list of topics that are to be discussed as well as potential questions (Doing interviews – scripting the interviews). The questions are asked in an open-ended way to allow the interviewee to talk more freely and get into new unprepared topics. Finally, the interviews are transcribed for later processing.

All the interviews are conducted online over teams or zoom to prevent using time on traveling.

Spoken interviews are preferred over written correspondence such as email because it allows more in-depth descriptions and more information. The interviews were conducted at the beginning of the project and were therefore very general and touched on other topics that have no direct relevance. Consequently, some parts of the interviews were left out of the transcription to save time.

3. Theory This chapter is intended to contextualize the political/economic scenario surrounding rural development in Europe and Denmark as well as providing a theoretical framework regarding involvement processes in urban development projects. By doing so, the analysis of the information gathered during my internship will be better targeted and in line with the current trends on the topic.

3.1. The new Rural Paradigm: OECD and the EU’s LEADER program Recently, a shift in European rural policy has occurred (Bryden and Hart, 2004). The “new rural paradigm” involves a move away from financial redistribution and agricultural subsidies towards strategic investments which exploit local strengths and opportunities (OECD, 2006). Agriculture has been slowly becoming less influential in the rural economy, reaching only 2% of the total GDP in OECD countries (OECD, 2006). Although it still has great importance in shaping the rural landscape, a new approach based on investments targeted to locally-bound potentials was needed.

The several problems rural areas have been experiencing in the past decades, ageing population, immigration of the youth to urbanized areas, lack of services among many others, pose great challenges to their development. However, ‘rural areas often count with largely unused economic potentials that could be better exploited and thus contribute to the well-being of rural citizens and to overall national development’ (OECD, 2006). Traditional development methods for these areas are no longer useful as they are not able to capture and enhance the potential of rural areas.

Rural regions are diverse, each of them with their specific assets concerning cultural heritage, nature or social capital. These amenities are highly valued by today’s society thus the new development approach should focus on these. For this approach to be successful, actions need to be taken and coordinated across different sectors, between public and private actors, to locate specific strengths and target investments rather than offering subsidies (OECD, 2006).

This new approach by the OECD is thus setting new objectives based on the competitiveness of rural areas, focusing on the value of local assets and exploiting unused resources rather than places as a general concept. Instead of targeting only the agriculture sector, it is aimed at various sectors like rural tourism, combined with manufacturing or ICT industries. Finally, as key actors, it is across all levels of governance (supra-national, national, regional and local) and combining various stakeholders (public, private, NGOs). Top-down management is no longer as relevant, whereas a more locally based governance with a citizen-involvement approach is the emerging way of action in order to promote the local anchoring of rural development. This aspect has been specially promoted by the EU LEADER program and the so called ‘Local Action Groups (LAG)’.

The LEADER program, standing for ‘Link between actions of rural development’, was introduced in 1991 as a ‘Community initiative’ financed by EU Structural Funds. It has since been implemented by around 2800 LAGs, covering 61% of the rural population in the EU and bringing together public, private and civil-society stakeholders in a particular area (LEADER, 2018). Its main goal is to engage local actors in the design and delivery of strategies, decision-making and resource allocation for the development of rural areas.

LEADER is based a specific method for mobilizing actors to develop the rural environment engaging stakeholders who want to be part of it, rather than delivering a set of measures to be applied (LEADER APPROACH, 2006). It is about focusing on ‘how’ instead of ‘what’. For this purpose, LEADER provides a toolkit that consists on seven key features: -

Area based local development strategy

-

Bottom-up approach A public-private partnership (LAG) Facilitating Innovation Multi-sectoral actions Networking Cooperation

I find particularly relevant the first two principles, area-based and bottom-up approach, as being the ones that support citizen-involvement processes. Though a bottom-up approach should not be regarded as contrary to the top-down, these two should work together, combining local knowledge with professional expertise. Local knowledge is key to identifying local potentials and locally rooted development. Countless examples can prove that LEADER with its principles ‘can play an important role in encouraging innovative responses to old and new rural problems, and become a sort of ‘laboratory’ for building local capabilities for testing out new ways of meeting the needs of rural communities’ (LEADER GUIDANCE, 2017). The following two examples offer a brief insight into the LEADER principles: The ViciGAL project – Gesves, Belgium This project focused on a mobility issue that the municipality of Gesves in Belgium was facing in 2014. A study carried out by a local group of 35 people identified a lack of cycling paths linking the town centers with railway stations. The application for funds was successful and the same group managed to solve the problem by using the old local railway line and restoring it into a green cycling path (European Network for Rural Development, 2017a).

The project needed a strong social collaboration in order to be carried out, as all the landowners whose land needed to be used for making the cycling path had to be identified and contacted. In order to contact and negotiate with them, a partnership between public and private authorities was reached. Furthermore, to complete the research and develop the project, the Local Action Group (LAG) had to collaborate with different departments in the municipality, making this a multi-sectoral approach.

Fig 4. Vicigal Project, Belgium (European Network for Rural Development).

Nature Connects, Austria This nation-wide project is focused around the topic of social inclusion and economic development. Its aim is to increase nature-protection awareness, involving farmers into a greater community of people protecting the natural resources.

The projects developed an online maintenance platform in which agricultural land can be registered and cooperation between stakeholders and the authorities can take place. Since its creation, over 52 million square meters of land has been registered, more than 50 small-scale projects have been implemented and other 10 areas have been awarded (The European Network for Rural Development, 2018). LEADER provided the project with theoretical and monetary support.

Thanks to this project, different locally bound potentials were discovered depending on the flora and fauna of each place. The innovation of the approach resulted in a better engagement of the farmers with the project.

The projects that have been realized through the LEADER program have been executed around the different EU countries. Therefore, the paper will now continue to present the work that REALDANIA has done in rural Denmark over the past decades, in line with this new rural paradigm.

Fig 5. Nature Connects, LEADER program (LEAEDER).

3.2. Realdania and locally-based projects in rural Denmark After the 2006 Landsplanredegørelsen (Country Plan Report), Miljøministeriet (the Ministry of Environment) set up a committee of civil servants with the aim of drawing up new ideas for the development of rural municipalities (Realdania, 2018). Around that time, Realdania was already collaborating with Thisted, Sydthy and Hanstholm Municipalities on a pilot project with the aim

of uncovering issues and clarifying the focus of a physical and plan-oriented effort in relation to the development of rural municipalities. The result of this project was a report and a collection of articles with different perspectives on the matter.

Based on the results of the pilot project and the initiated government measures, it was clear that there was a need to further research and develop alternative sustainable strategies for the rural areas, ones that would be in line with the EU principles of the time.

In collaboration with Lolland Municipality, Thisted Municipality and Bornholm Municipality, Realdania started ‘Mulighedernes Land’ (the Land of Opportunities). The project focused on the special qualities of these rural areas. Rather than aiming unequivocally at economic growth, it started from perserving and improving locally-bound potentials and qualities such as – cultural heritage, nature, open-air space, peace and stillness. The goal was for the rural environment to be perceived as a sustainable alternative with special qualities and development opportunities. In order to get a better view of Realdania’s work with Mulighernes Land, one project from each municipality will be briefly presented: Stier omkring Klemensker, Bornholm Klemensker is a residential small town in inner Bornholm, where citizens commute to the nearest larger towns. If the town is to attract more people to live or just keep its population, it needs to strengthen its sense of pride and identity. However, as many other small towns in Denmark, it is surrounded by agriculture which cuts off access to nature, and tipically only a few citizens are aware of the local historical and landscape treasures.

This project developed, in collaboration with representatives of local citizens, a set of paths that give access to nature, enabling the experience of the scenic and cultural-historical gems around the town.

Paths around Klemensker, makes use of the nearby natural and cultural values to promote outdoor activity, togetherness, pride and identity in the small town of Klemensker. The goal was to support settlement in small communities in rural areas and show how, with relatively small funds and in cooperation with local residents and landowners, it can be made both healthier and more attractive to live in a small town in the countryside.

The challenge of such a project was to get landowner permits and finding a path to design.

However, this also has a good counter-effect which is the creation of new ties between the municipality and local actors (Realdania, 2019).

Fig 6. Stier Omkring Klemensker (Realdania)

Porten til Lolland, Lolland The project Porten til Lolland (the Gate til Lolland) works around creating urban spaces, strengthening connections in and around the villages of Hunseby-Maglemer and Bandholm, which are located on opposite sides of Knuthenborg Safaripark, the main attraction in the area.

Through workshops, the citizens of Hunseby-Maglemer defined new urban spaces which serve both to the visitors and the locals. It has been an important strategy to change the way the visitors to the safari perceive Lolland (Realdania, 2017).

Fig 7. Porten til Lolland (Realdania)

Det Gode Liv ved Kysten, Krik

The project ‘Det Gode Live ved Kysten’, (the good life by the sea) has been realized in partnership with Thisted Municipality. The aim was to contribute to strengthening the framework for both settlement and tourism by improving and rethinking the content, functions and design of the physical interventions.

The surfer’s new look at the sea and the success from Klitmoller is today continued in Vorupor and Krik, where space has been made for surfers, skaters, fishermen and all the many people who come as travelers to experience the lively environment.

In Krik, citizens have been fighting for a community center for many years, and they have now succeeded with the Kulhuset, which is open to summer house owners, surfers, nature schools and other outdoor enthusiasts (Realdania, 2015).

Fig 8. Det Gode Liv ved Kysten, Klitmøller (Realdania)

3.3. Urban Development and Levels of Citizen Participation This chapter will look into user-development theory in urban development projects. On the one hand, Sherry Arnstein’s article ‘A ladder of participation’ will provide insight into the extent to which citizens can participate and what should they participate in, and on the other, an article by a Danish architecture and art collective ‘The Kenneth Balfelt Team’, with a broad experience on the topic, will explain some guidelines on how to carry a successful involvement process.

A ladder of participation In her 1969 article A Ladder of Citizen Participation, S. Arnstein presents a graphic that evaluates the different degrees of citizen participation (S. Arnstein, 1969).

The original staircase has eight steps, although there are other versions. The highest ones represent a greater degree of citizen power. The lower rungs are considered models of "deceptive" participation, "non-participation" or substitutes for true participation. The rungs of the middle zone correspond to a degree of "formulism", which is related to tokenism and does not reach the label of "citizen power".

The usefulness of a classification like this for citizens is that, with this knowledge, it makes it possible to assess what type of participation is offered to them and, perhaps, demand more genuine levels of participation.

Fig 9. Ladder of Citizen Participation (S. Arnstein)

The different participation levels can be described as followed: Non-participation level Steps 1 and 2, Manipulation and Therapy represent the distortion of participation as a tool of those who hold power. It is a question of deceiving the population in a supposed participation process in which they are not informed correctly and they are not adequately consulted either.

Tokenism Steps 3, 4 and 5, Information, Consultation and Placation correspond to a one-way channel that is established, and in which information on their intentions is provided but without giving the option of replying. Informing citizens of their rights, responsibilities and options may be the first and most important step to legitimize their participation. However, if it is a one-way channel, in which there is no room for negotiation, the participation is not complete. It can also result in an environment for the expression of citizenship and attention to it is created, although without the commitment to treat, take into account and incorporate their opinions into final decisions. Or finally, some proposals from the public may serve as a sample of the intentions of those in power are accepted, but without allowing them to be real participants in global decisions.

Citizen Power Steps 6, 7 and 8, Partnership, Delegated Power and Citizen Control Collaboration range from a negotiation process derived from citizen demands but led by a powerful minority in all areas, to citizens’ inputs prevailing over the powerful minority, to lastly, citizens participating without any involvement from the government or authorities.

Each project has a series of circumstances attached to it and those determine greatly the level of participation that can be achieved.

Kenneth Balfelt team and User-involvement processes The Kenneth Balfelt team is a non-profit association that has more than 15 years of experience working with cities and people from an artistic platform, creating projects of all scales and different themes like urban development, architecture, vulnerable people, conflict resolution, empowerment (K. Balfelt, 2015).

Kenneth Balfelt himself is a visual artist who believes citizen involvement will become a professional discipline in the coming years. He believes that most of the involvement processes carried out in Denmark are conducted at the level of Tokenism. He has been very critical about how involvement has been carried out up until now and describes this typical scenario as a caricature of how the process has been realized: ‘Citizens and users are invited for coffee and cake on a Tuesday afternoon and after a long and thorough presentation of an already adopted project, it is otherwise just a matter of filling in yellow post-its with ideas for what the citizens would like. When the evening is over, the advisers are left with 251 proposals for play elements, furniture, planting, etc., which they do not know what to use for - and the proposal that was presented was in fact so thoroughly worked out and fully developed that however, there is no room for major adjustments.’ (K. Balfelt, 2015)

In order to analyze the involvement process carried out by NORRON during my internship, this paper will make use of an article developed by the Kenneth Balfelt team providing a range of principles when doing citizen-involvement work. This document sums up all the years of experience the team has had in a wide range of involvement-based projects and therefore, can serve as a relevant framework from which to analyze other works.

This theoretical and normative paper provides a five-step account of a range of principles, methods and tools to work with user participation. Before starting the process, the paper states how important it is to assign specific roles to those involved in the process, from the ones who are involving the citizens (the ‘involvers’), to designers, to lastly, the citizens themselves. Once this is clear, the process should follow these 5 steps: 1. Establish a Shared Platform Before any work is done by the architects (or any kind of involvers), a shared platform between involvers and citizens needs to be enabled. A context analysis elaborated collaboratively between involvers and citizens can serve this purpose, bringing together the working group, discussing the first issues. A correct context analysis should be comprised by: 1) the citizens’ analyses of the area; 2) the citizens’ needs 3) the involvers observations of the context and 4) the involvers observations and qualifications regarding those inputs.

2. The Usesrs’ Role Step two is about how citizens can be enabled and qualified to take part in urban development projects. The aim is that their inputs have an actual real impact rather than a symbolic one.

3. The Design Phase In this step, the skilled professional has already gathered the inputs from the previous steps and is now in charge of translating them into specific proposals. It is important that the citizens do not feel that they are being left out in this process, however, the professionals need respect to do their job freely, ensuring the citizens that their inputs will be considered.

4. The Construction process This phase can also be very decisive when it comes to social development. It can enable stronger ties between social groups as well as to the project itself.

5. Opening and Actual Use Once the product is ready to use, a special opening event can activate the place by

bringing people together around the result of a collective effort. After that, every-day use sets in and small adjustments almost always must be done.

Obviously, this paper will not be able to analyze steps 4 and 5 of the case study, as the project has only reached the end of step 3. However, this will cover the making of the user involvement process up until the design phase, providing insight into what are the key elements to designing an involvement process since the very first steps.

4. Analysis The focus of this report is the development plan for the area of Thorup Strand carried out by NORRON architects from the period of August 2023 until December 2023. This section of the report will introduce the context and problems that Thorup Strand is facing today, its position inside wider scale planning strategies for the area and finally how NORRON has been involved in the design of a citizen-involvement-based development plan for the area.

4.1 Relation to existing plans In 2019 and 2020, a physical strategic development plan was drawn up for the resort of Slettestrand and Thorupstrand (Jammebrugt, 2019), as part of the "Udviklingsplan for Vestkysten" (development plan for the west coast) project (Dansk, 2018).

Fig 10. Vestkystplan (Self produced)

In June 2018, the 11 municipalities along the West Coast, the three affected regions, Dansk Kyst og Naturturisme (Danish Coastal and Nature Tourism) and Realdania launched a comprehensive Development Plan for Denmark's West Coast. The purpose of the plan is to identify which areas have potential for further development of tourism and which must be kept open or developed in other ways. The plan states, among other things, that the development will be concentrated on 18 strong holiday resorts, which tie the coast together and at the same time provide the experience of a varied and diverse destination. In addition, the plan proposes that, in the long term, strong

destinations aimed at attracting different target groups. The plan works on the basis of 6 development principles, which must provide guidance for sustainable development and act as a filter for prioritizing future efforts. The six development principles can be seen in the following figure 10.

On a smaller scale, Jammergbrugt Kommune had already designed in 2020 a strategic physical development plan to strengthen the ties between Thorupstrand and its neighbouring village Slettestrand, and combine both into a single tourism destination.

In the strategic development plan for Slettestrand and Thorupstrand, it is described how Thorupstrand is today the experience of noise, clutter and diesel. An active fishing charter that is not just for tourists. Here, traditional sustainable fishing is maintained, and the clinker-built sea boats are pulled ashore when the catch needs to be landed. Therefore, it is also today Northern Europe's largest operational coastal landing site. Especially due to fishing Brandet and not least the TV series 'Gutterne pa Kutterne', Thorupstrand has also become a tourist destination with many visitors not only in high summer but also in low season.

Fig 11. Strategic physical development plan for Thorupstrand-Slettestrand (Jammerbrugt Kommmune)

The efforts in Thorupstrand are therefore aimed at improving the tourist experience without it spoiling or acting as a nuisance for commercial fishing - the place's real attraction, but instead can help to ensure the preservation of fishing and cultural heritage. As a guest, you have to be taken by the hand and helped to get the full experience of the place, including the attractions that are around the area, to a much greater extent than is the case today. In addition, the goal is to get the visitors to stay a little longer and thus spend a little more money than is the case today. Today, as a guest, you can buy fish directly from the cutters when they are pulled up on land, and you can eat simple, high-quality dishes at Thorupstrand Fiskehus, but otherwise there are not many

opportunities for guests to invest money in Thorupstrand, and that it is essential for the city to grow as a resort that the commercial activities are expanded with respect for the original.

Thorupstrand has the potential to develop further as an experience destination. Seen in conjunction with the overall Development Plan for the West Coast, the site can be developed as the destination that conveys the history of traditional coastal fishing and sustainable fishing in Denmark. It involves thinking about a holistic experience that goes beyond 'just' experiencing the cutters on the beach. A new unique tourist experience that, with a focus on fishing and sustainability, makes it possible to 'bring something of Thorupstrand home with you' and which can act as a lever for the entire local community. In other words, Thorupstrand can be thought bigger and scaled as a tourist destination. In terms of physical measures, new facilities can be thought of that can convey the history and narrative of the place and improve the flow, so that the interaction between the profession/coastal fishing and accessibility for tourists are strengthened.

Thorupstrand faces tourism's most classic, but perhaps also most complex balancing act. An exercise that consists in maintaining a living and authentic cultural heritage in the form of the local community's special coastal fishing industry on this rich coastal site, while at the same time taking care of the now growing visitor pressure. This creates a need for a plan that can both gather and intertwine new tourism facilities with the existing industry.

4.2. Plan’s Requirements & Stakeholders The 19th of April 2022, NORRON receives an email from Jammebrugt Kommune in which they are asked to prepare an offer to develop a new strategic development plan for Thorupstrand. The same email is sent to two other architecture and planning offices in a sort of closed competition.

The development plan must contain a business plan, an overall plan, a plan for actor involvement and a process plan. As stated on their email ‘the purpose of the development plan for Thorupstrand is to create a basis for a structural framework that makes it possible for tourism and fishing to coexist, so that it is possible to both develop tourism and fishing at Thorupstrand while preserving the completely unique authenticity of the place’. The aim is to develop Thorupstrand as an attraction that welcomes visitors and create facilities in relation to tourism, with a special focus on conveying the place’s cultural environment and traditional fishing culture.

When the development plan for the area has been drawn up and approved locally and politically, the ambition of the municipality is to continue working on the realization of the proposed features that will contribute to developing tourism at Thorupstrand in interaction with commercial fishing.

The first step in this process is to develop a plan for the entire community (the area is not owned by anyone and cannot be sold or mortgaged) with parking, access roads and buildings on the community. A list of the following buildings should be included in the plan (see fig.2: 1.Spilhuset, 3.Pakhuset, 6.Den gamle redningsstation which functions as a kiosk today and 8.Fungerende redningstation which functions as a workshop and garage. The plan should also include a solution for several sheds and storage spaces behind the current spilhuset as well as expansion of the parking facilities. The new functions proposed should have a strong focus on user experience and sustainability.

Fig 12. The landing site at Thorupstrand (Jammerbrugt Kommmune)

To ensure local anchoring, as many people as possible must be involved in the project. Therefore, it was suggested by the municipality to include the following actors in the process surrounding the preparation of the development plan: -

Representatives from the main businesses or industries in the area such as: The fishermen, the fish warehouse, the spilhus, the kiosk and the fishery shop.

Citizens associations Destinationsforeningen Slettestrand, Svinkløv og Thorupstrand Danmarks Naturfredningsforening (Denmark’s Nature Conservation Association) Other local associations

These actors were chosen on the basis that they are either active in Thorupstrand or have expressed interest, such as Denmark’s Nature Conservation Association which had already worked with some ideas for developing the area.

The municipality also expressed since the beginning their willingness to actively participate in the process, procuring relevant material and facilitating any necessary meetings.

4.3. Design and Execution of the Involvement Process In order to analyze the design and execution of the involvement process elaborated by NORRON, I will make use of the K. Balfelt team theory on user-involvement (see chapter 3.3). First, the involvement process designed by NORRON will be described step by step and secondly, I will assess whether the process matches the K. Balfelt team guidelines. I will refer to NORRON’s experts as ‘the involvers’, as it is the term used in the relevant literature on the topic.

The involvement process designed by NORRON As a starting point, the involvers categorized the involved parties into different target groups in order to better understand and analyze their contributions: -

The local fishing industry: This target group refers to associations and private individuals who are directly associated with the fishing activities in Thorupstrand Locals: This target group refers to local associations, companies and private individuals who have an address in the area or are professionally employed at the landing site, the every-day users of the area.

Visitors: This target group refers to tourists and visiting guests who visit the landing site and the fish-shop for a recreational purpose.

Fig 13. Local groups (Self Produced)

The involvement process has had the character of both broad involvement formats, where open invitations were sent out, so that everyone with an interest in the development plan had the opportunity to contribute to the project, as well as other formats that were purposefully oriented towards the most central players.

The correct interplay between the central actors and the citizens is a major task to be fulfilled by the involvers. NORRON designed a precise timeline where the meetings with central actors and the workshops held with the citizens were intertwined, which provided the involvers with a better view of where the process could be heading to.

Fig 14. Involvement process Thorupstrand timeline (NORRØN)

Three workshops with the local-community groups and local stakeholders were planned in a timelaps of approximately one month between each. The aim was to first gather as much contextual information as possible to then narrow down the information to concretize specific issues in the area. The three workshops were the following: 1. Walk’n’Talk & Interviews.

As an introduction to the project process, the involvers organized a short inspection at the landing site. In this connection, an open invitation was issued, where everyone with an interest in the project had the opportunity to participate and describe their visions for the development of Thorup Strand.

After the inputs gather by the citizens and the insights obtained from the site visit, a context analysis was made, delimiting 5 different action areas to further analyze the strengths and opportunities of each.

As a follow-up to the inspection, seven telephone interviews were held, during August and September 2022, with a number of primary representatives from the fishing industry and the local community. Once all this insight was gathered, the team started working on a catalog of what were the main efforts to be focusing on.

Fig 15. Delimited areas (NORRØN)

2. Inspiration Workshop.

Subsequently, the project group invited a number of key actors to an inspiration workshop in Thorup Strand Fish House. Prior to the workshop, NORRØN had prepared an inspiration catalogue, with suggestions for 5 themes that the future efforts could be included in. These themes were respectively fishing, social community, gastronomy, activities and accommodation.

The workshop was held prior to the preparation of the initiative catalog and had the purpose of encouraging which potentials and challenges the initiatives should release.

During the workshop, 15-20 actors participated, who discussed the themes in groups and commented on the catalogue.

Fig 16. Development paths (NORRØN)

3. Scenario Workshop As the final phase in the involvement process, the involvers invited both central actors and local participants to a scenario workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to record the actors' comments and attitudes to three solution scenarios for the development plan. The workshop was held in Thorup Strand Fiskehus, with 25-30 participants.

Jammerbugt Municipality initially introduced the background of the project followed by an explanation of the three development scenarios proposed by NORRON, each followed a brainstorming session in groups of 20min. The scenarios correspond to three different scales of development, scenario 1 being low-cost low-impact, with minimal interventions in the area mainly directed towards improving the current relation between workers and tourists in the area. Scenario two is an up-grade of scenario 1, with several added interventions that take the area to the next level while keeping the state of the place almost untouched. Finally, scenario 3 is the most ambitious one, proposing new visitor center as an attraction that would put Thorupstrand on the map.

Fig 17. Development Scenarios summary (Self produced)

In order to ensure transparency, all the comments from the workshops were transcribed from physical note sheets into digital formats and included in the appendixes of the documents that the team prepared after every workshop.

Analysis of the process through the K. Balfelt Team’s user involvement theory As explained in chapter 3.3., the K. Balfelt Team proposes a series of 5 steps as a guideline to correct user-involvement in urban development projects. I will now go through the process designed by NORRON focusing on the three first steps proposed by the K. Balfelt Team, as the last two steps refer to the construction and opening phase which are yet to be realized in Throupstrand.

Step number 1 is to Establish a Shared Platform. It is suggested by the K. Balfelt team that a context analysis can serve as this platform if done together with the citizens, bringing together the working group from the very beginning.

Workshop 1 consisted of a walk and talk meeting at the landing site to which NORRON came intentionally unprepared (interview 1, Appendix). This was the first time the involvers involved team and the involved citizens met, and it served to elaborate a collaborative context analysis that had a basis on the citizens' views of the place and further needs. By arriving without prior work or knowledge on the area, the citizens were sure that their views were going to be taken into account.

This step was crucial to create the necessary trust in the citizens to continue on with the process.

Step number 2 is Raise the users’ skills. The K. Balfelt team argues that a one-hour meeting with citizens is not enough to turn citizens into urban planners. Therefore, several meetings in different formats (physical, telephone interviews, online) should be used to educate the citizens about the project which will contribute to them sharing higher quality insights.

Due to the distance factor (the involvers located in Copenhagen and the involved citizens in northern Jutland), this step was achieved by having several telephone interviews. The constant communication with the main local representatives in-between the three physical workshops informed the involved citizens about the path that the project was following as well as receiving further and more targeted input from them. All the knowledge and insights obtained from the different involved groups together with the involvers’ insights was constantly shared and discussed. Therefore, the involved citizens were constantly educated on the thinking-process behind the project.

Step number 3 is The design phase. According to the K. Balfelt team, the involvers should be present or ideally be the same people who translate the citizens' inputs into design actions. They argue that in many cases, the inputs are handed to a third party or filtered by contractors who are outside of the process. However, the professionals who are in charge of the design, need respect to do their job freely. They also state the importance of sharing sketches made through the design process in a non-finished state, so that citizens feel that there is place for further improvement through their collaboration.

In this case, NORRON’s teams is both in charge of gathering the citizens’ inputs and turning them into specific design solutions, becoming present in all stages of the process. Furthermore, before jumping into the design phase, NORRON prepared an ‘inspiration catalog’ which presented the citizens with a number of development options for the area. The next step towards the design phase was a ‘scenario workshop’ in which three different development scenarios were shown, all of which were drawn in very general terms without finished drawings. Finally, once a development scenario was agreed upon, the team started to work on a specific design proposal that was presented to the private stakeholders in charge of funding the project (the contractors). The drawings presented in this step were still open-ended suggestions that could be further developed into a more specific proposal if it was to be carried out.

The understanding achieved during the participatory work and the final development proposal designed by NORRON will be further analyzed in the next chapter.

4.4. Involvement Process’ Outcomes The involvement process ensured that the efforts were based on the local community's visions and dreams for the landing site, supplemented by the advisory team's expert knowledge and recommendations. Subsequently, it resulted in a number of site-specific solutions that are locally rooted and which can contribute to upgrading Thorupstand as an attractive place to live, visit and do business.

The involvement process unfolded in the form of mutually constructive dialogue, which offered favorable knowledge sharing and cooperation. All actors involved were given the opportunity to comment on the project's content with both recommendations and criticism.

In its format, the involvement process has called for discussion of all types of visions and dreams for the landing site's development. There have been both large abstract visions as well as concrete proposed solutions. During the last workshop with the citizens, the so called ‘scenario workshop’ described in 4.3., citizens chose scenario 2 as their ideal way of developing the area, keeping the place almost untouched, only renovating existing buildings. However, this does not rule out the possibility that larger visions can be realized in the longer term.

Fig 18. Scenario 2 (Self produced)

The final proposed solution presented in the development plan is thus not a complete reflection of the stakeholders' statements, but a compromise that, on the basis of the advisory team's expert knowledge and the course for the overall strategy, has sought to respond to the task's problem formulation within the framework of what is practically possible.

The ambitions that result from the proposal of the development for Thorupstrand can be summarized in 4 primary statements: 1.

2.

3.

4.

The development must support the local fishing industry and contribute to its survival.

The development must be locally-based, preserving the existing cultural environment.

Tourism should serve the locals, not vice versa.

The development must support the local community rather than external stakeholders.

Fig 19. Involvement process Thorupstrand outcomes (NORRØN)

The outcomes of the process were presented in a meeting that was held with the local politicians from the Municipality so that they knew the citizens' concerns. There is a big political aspect in planning and NORRØN though it would be benefitial to have political support for the concerns that the citizens expressed.

Finally, it was Realdania’s say on the project the one which will decide the first steps towards development. Following the general guides of Scenario 2 that had been chosen by the citizens, NORRØN’s team of architects designed a series of interventions in the existing buildings. Those were presented to Realdania in a closed meeting at NORRØN’s office in Copenhagen. The interventions consisted in the renovation of existing buildings into the following uses: -

Bath house Community house Smoke house (Røgeri) Sleeping huts Renovated Spilhus

All the different uses proposed were previously agreed with the citizens, therefore, they covered their main needs and concerns. From all the interventions proposed, Realdania decided to fund the renovation of the Spilhus, as such a project will contribute to tell the story of the place, adding value as a tourist attraction while improving the working conditions of the fishermen, who were in need of a new spilhus.

Fig 20. Proposal for renovated Spilhus present to Realdania (Self-produced)

5. Discussion Before moving into the discussion, it needs to be acknowledged that these themes are framed inside a rural context. It is important to take this into account as the circumstances surrounding participatory processes in rural environments are far different from the ones encountered in an urban context (D.Lanng et al, 2021). Usually, in a rural context, the number of people that can be engaged in a citizen involvement process as well as the level of academic and cultural training is lower than in an urban context. This does not mean that the conditions are less favorable but that the challenges encountered will be different and that they may, in fact, create further opportunities.

The analysis performed for this project has given as a result several themes to be discussed. The issues raised during the analysis will be put forward in order to search for new and relevant findings. These issues have been grouped into two themes: The key elements in the design and management of a citizen involvement process itself, and the degree of participation that is being achieved under such circumstances.

Key elements in the design and management of the citizen involvement process The analysis of the involvement process designed and managed by NORRØN based on the K. Balfelt Team’s guidelines for an effective user-involvement has shown that it complies with the steps proposed by K. Balfelt (see chapter 4.3). However, the circumstances encountered in an area like Thorupstrand give rise to new considerations to take into account.

In the beginning of the process, as an expert from NORRØN states: ‘the process can be conceived as a triangle, so in the base of it, the very beginning, our aim was to gather as much information as possible on the background of the place, make site visits, knowing the place, creating a connection with the people who live there.’ This approach emphasizes the need to create trust from the first moments as well as approaching the project with an open mind and no prejudgment.

An area like Thorupstrand is very special to the local community and they were understandably sceptic about a group of Copenhageners coming in to ‘change their place’. Therefore, it is key that the first encounter is about listening and getting to know each other closely.

Fig 21. Involvement process Thorupstrand walk‘n‘talk (self produced)

As the process moves forward, this trust need to be carefully maintained and built upon. The second workshop focused on specific directions that the development could follow, attending to the feedback that was gathered during the first meeting. Nothing was drawn yet, the ideas were discussed in terms of developing the area into a more gastronomic-oriented experience, a naturesports experience and so on. Keeping everything open to discussion and including the citizens on the debate was key to engaging the citizens and enabling them to express their wishes. Again in the words of the NORRØN expert: ‘the first and second workshops is a chance to enable the people to express what they wish for and if they want to have a place where they can winter bath of go the sauna close to the beach, or maybe a playground area, and I say that many of these things we would have come out as architects anyway, but they would give us the information on where is very windy or where is very cold, how the traffic is flowing around.

And it also feels better for them to ‘come up with the idea’ rather than some architects from Copenhagen placing a sauna wherever they think.’ One of the most important advantages of a citizen-involvement based project is the possibility of counting with ‘super users’, the locals themselves who use the area all year round, know better than anybody else how the place works.

Therefore, in a place like Thorupstrand, the involvement process is more about building the necessary trust and facilitating a process so that the citizens are able to share their relevant knowledge.

On the other hand, in a small traditional community like Thorupstrand it is likely to encounter people with strong issues amongst each other or with the local authorities that date back generations ago. A participatory process that has to do with the development of their place

suddenly becomes an opportunity to take revenge against a long time enemy, confront the local authorities or just fight for their own benefit. In this context, conflict resolution is also a big part of the management of the involvement process. In words of the NORRØN expert: ‘The difficult thing in co-design is that there is always somebody who wants to ‘dominate’ the meeting. And you need to be aware of that. We decided to divide the people in smaller groups during the workshop, and I would encourage people to seat with others who might not have the same positions towards the development. This way you create a dialog within the people involved as it is always the case that there are confronted opinions.’

Another important aspect that makes this process unique, is the fact that it is the development of a whole area that is being done collaboratively, it is not a single space but a complex relation of different spaces with different owners, different stories, different confrontations, all co-existing in the same space and being part of a future transformation. In these scenarios, it is common to have certain individuals who want to stand out and steer the conversation towards their own small issue during the workshops. The way that NORRØN has dealt with this problem has been to organize the citizens in small groups together with neighbors that have little to no relation to each other.

Fairness and transparency are a must in all involvement processes, and it is necessary to ensure that all citizens are heard equally. In this context, NORRØN made sure that the communication with the involved groups only took place at the specifically scheduled times.

Fig 22. Involvement process Thorupstrand scenario workshop (self produced)

A bottom-up approach?

As seen in chapter 3.3., following Sherry Arnstein views on ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, it is fair to consider Citizen Control as the most optimum level of participation. However, such a degree of participation is not always realistic or appropriate. Furthermore, what works for a neighboring community in inner Copenhagen may not be the best strategy for a coastal community in northern Jutland. The circumstances surrounding each project determine whether the conditions can be met for a certain degree of participation.

In the case of Thorupstrand, the project is not only already framed by a number of national strategic plans for the wider area in which it is inscribed but also by an international rural policy.

For this reason, I believe the level of citizen participation that is present in this example corresponds to Step 5 of S. Arnstein’s ladder: ‘Placation’. In Arnstein’s words this step corresponds to the following situation: Some proposals from the public that serve as a sample of the intentions of those in power are accepted, but without allowing them to be real participants in global decisions.

The development of the area into a tourist destination is a central decision that comes from the top and to which the citizens have no other option but to adapt. It can also be argued that this situation is the result of global economic trends that alter the economic activity of the place which was traditionally a small-scale fishing village and can no longer compete with the current fishing industry.

In this context however, the role that planners is to mediate between the citizens needs and the institutional agenda. The outcomes that arise from the involvement process are decisive material that can serve as evidence for making the investors go one way or another. In the case of Thorupstrand, Realdania was the main economic actor and decided to develop the renovation of the Spilhus, a demand that had been present through all of the development process.

6. Conclusion This paper has gained further insight into citizen-involvement-based rural development projects in Denmark by reviewing the current literature on the topic and applying relevant theory on the analysis of a case study: NORRØN’s development plan for Thorupstrand.

The use of involvement processes in such projects is justified by the new rural paradigm which aims at developing the rural environment through locally-rooted initiatives that enhance the specific potentials of each area. The planners’ role when designing and managing citizeninvolvement-based processes under such circumstances is to generate trust in the citizens involved and to facilitate a fair and transparent process where they can be heard and by which their knowledge can be shared in order to contribute to the planners’ expertise. Furthermore, the following guidelines have been identified as essential for the development of a fair involvementprocess: -

-

-

-

Generate a common platform from the first moment the involvers meet the involved, from which to work together in a co-operative way. In this context, it is highly recommended to arrive at the first meeting intentionally uninformed of the place’s context so that the planners are not biased by previous knowledge and the citizens provide the first inputs.

A higher number of meetings with the citizens will enable them to grow in the field of planning and therefore have more relevant inputs. When this is not possible due to distance issues, it is possible to make use of telephone or online interviews with representatives of main local groups.

During the workshops, it is recommended to divide the different citizen groups into smaller groups where they are mixed with people they have no relation to. When working this way, citizens share their concerns and insights together, hence all citizens have an equal weight.

Until the very last moment, the progress and proposals made by the planners and presented to the citizens should have always a general character, without getting into detail. By doing so, there is still room left for further inputs.

On the other hand, the context from which these projects emerge (big scale strategic plans with a common vision for the area) do not enable the level of participation known as ‘citizen control’, which is the highest form of participation according to S. Arnstein. The global path of development for the area is already set by the institutional agenda and therefore the only useful inputs from the involvement process are the ones that align to this purpose. However, the role of planners is decisive when mediating between the citizens needs and the institutional agenda so that the development respects the citizens’ needs.

To sum up this investigation, it is relevant to ask the following question: Is tourism the base for the development of the rural areas? The examination of the development at Thorupstrand, as in many other case studies in Denmark and Europe, shows that most of the time, although a rural area may have several potential paths for development, tourism seems to be the base. Of course, the citizens in the rural environments will accept any initiative that improves their economy; however, tourism is not the most reliable source of income as it depends on many external factors and can have very unpredictable behaviors, apart from putting local traditions at risk if not planned sustainably.

The uncertainty of the rural future makes the involvement of citizens in planning issues a difficult task to accomplish, and therefore, it is worth studying the possible applications that citizen involvement can have shaping the rural future, enabling a sustainable growth that allows for stable settlement in those areas.

References -

AAU, 2019. Capturing Bound potentials in rural Denmark. AAU Project Library.

Bryden, J., & Hart, K. (2004). A new approach to rural development in Europe— Germany,Greece, Scotland and Sweden. Edwin Mellen Press.

Dansk Kyst & NaturTurisme. (2018). Udviklingsplan for Vestkysten. Online: https://www.kystognaturturisme.dk/dansk-kyst-ognaturturisme/indsatser/udviklingsplan-vestkysten (Accessed: 20/11/2022) Ditte Bendix Lanng, Lea Holst Laursen & Søren Risdal Borg (2021). Forming issues and publics: Participatory design things and uncertain rural futures. Link online: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1930688 Guidance for implementation of the LEADER co-operation activities in rural development programmes 2014-2020. (2017). Online: https://enrd.ec.europa. eu/sites/enrd/files/leadercooperation_guide_en_update_april-2017.pdf (Accessed 25/12/22) Jammebrugt Kommune. (2019). Planstrategi 19 Sammen mod 2030. Online: https://www.jammerbugt.dk/media/5f4n0ciq/planstrategi_2019.pdf (Accessed: 20.11.2022) Kenneth Balfelt praksis, 2015. Online: https://www.kennethbalfelt.org/praksis LEADER APPROACH: A basic guide. (2006). [ebook] Luxembuourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities, p.10. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/ files/publi/fact/leader/2006_en.pdf LEADER, 2018. Online: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld_en NORRØN, 2014. Online: http://norroen.dk/om-os/ OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm: policies and governance. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264023918-en Realdania, 2018. Stier Omkring Klemensker. Online: https://realdania.dk/projekter/stieromkring-klemensker Realdania, 2019. Porten Til Lolland. Online: https://realdania.dk/projekter/porten-tillolland Realdania, 2017. Det Gode Liv ved Kysten. Online: https://realdania.dk/projekter/detgode-liv-ved-kysten Slow Food Presidia. (2010). Online: https://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/en/slow-foodpresidia/thorup-strand-small-scale-fishing/ (Accessed: 08/12/2022) Sherry Arnstein, 1969. A ladder of citizen participation

List of Figures 1.

2.

3.

4.

Site map of Thorupstrand (Self produced) Ortophoto of the area to be developed (Skråfoto) https://skraafoto.kortforsyningen.dk/ Analysis design (Self produced) Vicigal Project, Belgium (European Network for Rural development) https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/ 5. Nature Connects, LEADER program (LEAEDER). https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leaderclld_en 6. Stier Omkring Klemensker (Realdania). https://realdania.dk/projekter/stier-omkringklemensker 7. Porten til Lolland (Realdania). https://realdania.dk/projekter/porten-til-lolland7 8. Det Gode Liv ved Kysten, Klitmøller (Realdania). https://realdania.dk/projekter/detgode-liv-ved-kysten 9. Ladder of Citizen Participation (S. Arnstein). Sherry Arnstein: A ladder of Citizen participation. 1969.

10. Vestkystplan (Self produced) 11. Strategic physical development plan for Thorupstrand-Slettestrand (Jammerbrugt Kommmune). http://www.jammerbugt.dk/media/t4dorgxo/slettestrandthorupstrand_strategisk-fysisk-udviklingsplan-print.pdf 12. The landing site at Thorupstrand (Jammerbrugt Kommmune). http://www.jammerbugt.dk/media/t4dorgxo/slettestrand-thorupstrand_strategiskfysisk-udviklingsplan-print.pdf 13. Local groups (Self Produced) 14. Involvement process Thorupstrand timeline (NORRØN) 15. Delimited areas (NORRØN) 16. Development paths (NORRØN) 17. Development Scenarios summary (Self produced) 18. Scenario 2 (Self produced) 19. Involvement process Thorupstrand outcomes (NORRØN) 20. Proposal for renovated Spilhus present to Realdania (Self-produced) 21. Involvement process Thorupstrand walk‘n‘talk (self produced) 22. Involvement process Thorupstrand scenario workshop (self produced)

Apendix Interview with Katrine Bærndholt (Arkitekt MAA at NORRØN architects) Part 1: Previous info on the project -

How was NORRØN approached and by who?

We were approached by Jammerbrugt Kommune and Realdania, in april 2022, as they already knew our name, we got an email that asked us to give an offer for a development plan for Thorup Strand. They also asked two other companies to participate in creating an offer, solving several problems in the area. They wanted to see reference works, cvs, motivation letter.

In this first email, they describe the area and the main problem to solve about the fishing community and the growing tourism the place is attracting. How to develop the place on behalf of the local community.

-

So in the very beginning there is the intention of involving the local community in this project?

Yes, very much, specially Realdania is very much concerned about this matter. They try to make sure that the projects they finance create value not only to a small group of people, but also to the wider local community that surrounds these projects.

-

What are the stakeholders involved? Budget? Financing?

So in the beginning there are two main stakeholders: Realdania and Jammerbrugt Kommune?

Yes, but in a way, all the taxpayers are involved as stakeholders. Therefore, both the people from Realdania and Jammerbrugt Kommune are concerned with creating value for those whose money is financing the project. This is the reason the participatory approach is taken, as it is regarded as a process that offers better results to the interest of the community. The big ideas that come from architects and planners designing isolated in their offices are not interesting for these types of projects. It is now becoming a requirement when you do this type of strategic project to involve the community with the design process as well as the economic a political aspect of it.

-

At the moment of this first approach, are you already informed of where the financing will come from?

Yes. Together with the email, they attached several documents with the timeline of the project, the budget and the tasks to resolve. This is important for us as planners when we consider making an offer for a project or not, as we must also consider if we can benefit economically from such a project. This is the reason we reject some of these offers, as these kind of project always require a big amount of working-hours and personnel, regardless of it being a project of 300.000 or 1.000.000 Dkr. -

In relation to current structural planning in the area, where does the project fit in?

Together with the email, there are a series of apendixes that explain the context of the project.

One of these is about a development plan aimed at strengthening the destination of Thorup Strand together with its neighbor Slettestrand, developing this combined area into a single destination. Therefore, this project is about focusing on Throup Strand itself, its scaling up this former project where Thorup Strand appeared just as a dot in the map, to now seeing its configuration and working closely with it. And that is where us as architects/planners step in.

The municipalities have a vision for a wider scale in the area, and it is when they zoom in that they need the architects’ expertise to work.

It is also important to consider if there is a local plan (lokale plan) for the area. It is very common in rural areas like these to not have one. There may be a municipal plan with bigger scale requirements, but some area may lack of a specific local plan regarding how should the area be developed. This means that after we design our proposal for our development in Throup Strand, if the Municipality is happy with it, they might have to adapt or create a local plan for the area that will set the requirements for the new development of the area.

Furthermore, the protected nature areas are coming into play in these types of projects. We have to consider the coastal protection which is very restrictive on any kind of interventions.

Kommune / Private Actors / Local citizen associations present in the area / Investors / Current National development plans / Local plans?

Part 2: The Participatory Approach -

Who came up with the idea of a participatory design approach? Why?

As I said before, this was a requirement from the municipality, to design this development in close collaboration with the local communities.

-

Were they specific on any specific methods of doing so?

No, they leave that open to the preferred methods of us as planners. But we know that Realdania wants to see in the offers proposed that there is a big emphasis on the participatory approach.

They are not so concerned on the precise methods applied, but want to know how we aim to combine the work of politicians, citizens, local associations, other stakeholders, so that this project can be presented as a participatory-based process, showing that the investment in this project is directed towards a whole community, not just to a specific person or small group of people. It is important to justify that it is the locals who are responsible for the decisions that shape the development of the area.

In this context, I designed a process in which I wanted to involve stakeholders.. But the issue with Thorup Strand to me is that, I didn’t want to involve just any stakeholders ‘Mr and Mss Thorup Strand’ who would come in and say ‘Hello, I want a nice bench to sit on during the sunset’. For me it was more important to count local groups that are already organized in some way. This can be the fishermen union, a local sports group, a youth community.. Otherwise we end up having hundreds of singular proposals from people which we can really not do much about.

-

So it is also important to look for people who have a certain influence in the area?

Yes, so as I see it, there are two layers of influence, one is, for example, if we are looking at specific buildings in the area or pieces of land, it would be highly important to have the owners involved. The other layer would be the involvement of the citizens in the community life, in the form of local associations and unions. A good PD process combines these two forces to receive inputs about the area.

The problem in Thorup Strand is that these second layer group, the citizen unions and associations, are conformed by citizens/every-day users of these small area, meaning that their family members would also show up to the meetings we prepared. So we ended up with a lot of singular and isolated demands that had to do with the specific desires of this one citizen.

-

Who are the actors involved in the PD process?

-

How was the timeline for the participatory process of the project designed? Steps?

You could conceive the process as a triangle, so in the base of it, the very beginning, our aim was to gather as much information as possible on the background of the place, make site visits, knowing the place, creating a connection with the people who live there. Giving them a space to present themselves and how they interact with the place. In this point is very important for us to create trust. We want to be careful making this community accept that we are going to develop their area in collaboration with them. Every time that I go to the first encounter in these projects I always make clear that we have not drawn anything or even started thinking about the project, because we need to hear from you since the beginning. It is very important that the first meeting is about listening and only about listening.

The following meetings are about narrowing in. For the next meeting, we prepared a workshop in which we focused on specific directs that the development could follow, attending to the feedback we had received on our first meeting. So now we cant talk about all kinds of things. We are still not drawing or planning anything specific, it is more about exploring how the place can be developed in terms of the local community, in terms of tourism, in terms of the fishing industry. So we set up these guidelines to show the different approaches the development could take, and heard their remarks on them.

Finally the third workshop proposed three different development scenarios: Small, medium, large, where they could see themselves in these scenarios.

So the first and second workshops is a chance to enable the people to express what they wish for and if they want to have a place where they can winter bath of go the sauna close to the beach, or maybe a playground area, and I say that many of these things we would have come out as architects anyway, but they would give us the information on where is very windy or where is very cold, how the traffic is flowing around. And it also feels better for them to ‘come up with the idea’ rather than some architects from Copenhagen placing a sauna wherever they think.

-

How was the involvement of the people through time? Was there a core group and then others coming and going?

The difficult thing in co-design is that there is always somebody who wants to ‘dominate’ the meeting. And you need to be aware of that. We decided to divide the people in smaller groups during the workshop, and I would encourage people to seat with others who might not have the same positions towards the development. This way you create a dialog within the people involved as it is always the case that there are confronted opinions. And it is also easier for people to speak their minds inside smaller groups than to raise their voice in front of a big crowd.

-

How did the attitude of the people changed throughout the process? Was there a keymoment in the process that shifted the development towards one thing or another?

Through time we were able to see how a consensus was being reached, we got the feeling in the last workshop that we were all on the same page when discussing the issues that the place has and how they would like to be resolved. As planners we need to be able to guide the people in a direction, to be open-minded about the suggestions but also be able to see what direction we are going to and guide the people towards it. And in the end, it is also true that not everybody is going to see their wishes being fulfilled and this is a natural part of the process too. They chose scenario nº2, which was believed to benefit the most, but of course there were still some minor aspects that did not conform some of the citizens.

-

Do you know if there was some involvement or processes going on outside the workshops with NORRON?

We know that the community has a very active facebook group where they discuss anything that goes on with the area. And it was also an issue in this case that there were some old conflicts between the villagers, inherited maybe from generations ago, and some of them would try to use this opportunity to their advantage.

-

So, after these 3 workshops with the local communities, has the PD process ended?

After the 3 workshop, we prepared a meeting with the local politicians from the Municipality so that they knew the citizens' concerns. We thought it was important for them to know this as they will be elected by the citizens. So there is also a big political aspect in these kind of processes.

We thought it could be benefitial to have a certain politician be encouraged to take this project as ‘his own’, so that he could find further support for the project while also gaining popularity from it.

-

And in this meeting, how did the politicians react to the issues that were raised during the PD? Was there any confrontation with what they had in mind?

But in terms of citizen issue-formation and instutional or policy goals in the area there was little to no conflict in this project, as it was a pre-requisite for the project to ellaborate the development plan in a collaborative way and the institutions were open since the beginning to hearing the demands of the citizens.

Part 3: Subjective evaluation -

What key issues/concerns raised from the process?

Issue formation / confrontation between citizen and institutional policy-goals for the area?

The main issues agreed upon by almost everybody were the need to organize the flow of tourists so that it did not interfere with the workers’ area, and the need develop the place just enough to make tourists stay for a whole day instead of only an hour or two as they do today. Of course there were people who didn’t want any change at all, there is always people that are afraid of change and want things to stay the same. It is up to the Municipality or the local communities to convince these people that a change can be very beneficial. We saw the case in which certain people did not have any trust in the municipality, so anything that they would propose they would be against it.

-

So that is something very characteristic about these kind of PD, it is not the case in which we are just designing a specific public space, a specific building or object, it is a whole strategic plan for an area, which, as small as it is, it’s a conglomerate of different ownerships, different stories, different confrontations, all co-existing in the same space and being part of a future transformation..

Yes, and in these situation we always have this ‘One guy with a case’ I would call. Its normally a middle-aged person often ‘with a case’ and he really wants to talk about that case, sometimes it has absolutely nothing to do with the project, they just want to take the opportunity of confronting the municipality and fight for their case. And its very helpful to follow the facebook groups of these places to be able to see if there are some of these personalities present and how are the other people reacting, there is always big disparities.

-

Yes, and this is a key challenge of any democratic process, how do you reach consensus

Yes, a very important thing when you are doing PD is to create a fair process, so you don’t listen more to one person to another. For example, they can’t have our phone numbers, I cant have one person calling me and affecting me for one hour while others might not have the chance. It

is very important to have a transparent and fair process, where everybody is aware of what we are doing and what we are responding to. So that everybody in the end can see they had a space to raise their voices and how the process has evolved to reach a common solution, that may not solve all of the problems raised, but that everybody is aware of what has been prioritized, so that everybody has the feeling that the process was fair, and that there were no groups that were having more attention than others.

-

How much have the participants' inputs been influential in the result/final proposal we are handing in?

Well, at this moment, everything we have done so far is still in a diagrammatic state. We have managed to include their inputs the general lines of the plan for the area, with which they are happy with. However, the final plan that will happen depends on the economic factor. We are waiting to see what Realdania has to say about it.

Another part of the process is the actual design of the interventions involved in the plan: whether they want their bathing club to look in such or such way. In this case, we would have to be hired again by the municipality if they wanted us to be leading the design and we would sit with the people to start another process, this time, focusing only on the bathing house itself. But in this level, in the development plan, what we have done is placing functions, and I think when you involve people in these plans, the normal answer is: ‘ well I would like maybe these swings and these playgrounds and I like how they look in the other town’ and maybe that’s not the right thing for this place. So we cannot convert directly what they are saying into interventions in the development plan, because although they are every day users, they are normally not planning experts, we are hired to do this in a smart way. They give us knowledge on how this place works, how people use the area, what kind of functions they want, what kind of places they want. Our tasks as planners to give form to some of this demands and place them in the right places, and many times we get the reaction of ‘Wow I would have never thought this place could turn into that!’ So its not about translating directly what they say but to create value on what they are saying. For example, many people wanter the place to become more friendly for children, and maybe they have experience an urban playground somewhere and said, oh this could be nice in my place, but we as architects step in an ask ourselves if an urban playground would be suitable for this place, maybe it’s a better idea to have s nature-related playground.

It is also important to gather their inputs when you go to a foundation and want to apply for funds and demonstrate where the development plan comes from, you can show the source of the ideas proposed in the plan.

-

So overall, are you satisfied with what the process was set to achieve?

Well, we are not done yet with the project, its still ongoing. But I will be happy if we create value for them. It will be very important to have a wrap-up meeting with all the people involved and be able to show them how their demands have been put into this final plan. As I said before, a development plan is still not defining how things are going to look in the end, that is another phase, but it is showing the interventions that are going to take place, what use and what location.

Side notes What is my paper about?

It’s about the Design / Preparation / Management through Time of a Participatory process for a Development plan.

How can we as planners use this tool (an involvement process) to design a development plan in such a situation?

-

How do we use the citizens inputs?

Not a direct translation of their desires, a combination of local knowledge with professional expertise.

How do we ensure transparency and fairness?

The design of the workshops: small groups, people that may have confronted opinions.

The man with a case. Hearing everybody the same percentage.

How do we use the final results? What are they important for? How do we connect them with the external actors that will fund the project?

The final presentation with Realdania, they want to fund the project that conveys the story of the place to foreign visitors (spillhus) and benefits the local community. Not any commercial projects (fishing restaurant and huts) or only community based projects (playground or community house).