Abstract
AbstractThis paper critically examines the evolution of integration as a concept in coastal zone planning through an analysis of Norwegian municipal coastal zone plans spanning a 35-year period. By drawing on the framework of governmentality, we show how the coastal zone and the activities taking place there are being subject to problematizations, rationalizations and technologies for promoting integration. This illustrates how previous spatial dispositions themselves become problematized at later points, giving rise to new rationalizations and new technologies of governing, revealing a dynamic redefinition of integration in response to complex coastal governance challenges. What integration entails is not a given. Instead, it’s a fluid concept, evolving over time in meaning and intent. The paper also shows how ambitions for integrated or comprehensive planning can obscure the purpose of planning and increase complexity. With integration being framed as an undisputed answer to conflicts in the coastal zone, the difficulty of managing the multitude of coastal activities does not lead to a critical discussion on whether ‘integration’ is a fruitful ambition. Instead, it becomes an argument for yet more integrative efforts.
Funder
Nofima the food research institute
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference66 articles.
1. Anon. 2015. Nasjonale forventninger til regional og kommunal planlegging [National expectations regarding regional and municipal planning].
2. Anon. 2011. Nasjonale forventninger til regional og kommunal planlegging [National expectations regarding regional and municipal planning].
3. Anon. 2019. Nasjonale forventninger til regional og kommunal planlegging 2019–2023 [National expectations regarding regional and municipal planning 2019–2023].
4. Asdal, K., and H. Reinertsen. 2020. Hvordan gjøre dokumentanalyse? En praksisorientert metode. 1 ed. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
5. Axtmann, R. 2004. The state of the state: The model of the Modern State and its Contemporary Transformation. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de Science Politique 25(3): 259–279. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601667.