Norwegian spatial planning is subject to increasingly strict documentation requirements.
Blog post
The blogpost is written by
This blog post is written by master's student Hanne Velund, under the supervision of Daniela Müller-Eie.
Plans must be assessed, analyzed, explained, and described – in detail. In many ways, this is a good thing: the decisions made affect nature, local communities, and future generations. But how much documentation is enough? And when does it become too much – at the expense of clarity, overview, and the ability to make informed choices?
This question has gained growing attention in recent years and is relevant to planners, politicians, and citizens alike. What happens to the basis for decision-making when planning documents become so extensive that it's difficult to decipher what they say? And how does this affect trust in the planning process – when local politicians themselves report voting on major land use changes without feeling adequately informed (Støstad & Tolfsen, 2024)?
In my master’s thesis, I explore the balance between documentation requirements and decision relevance. The research question guiding the work is: How have increasing documentation requirements affected the decision-making basis and process in the Viken Park zoning case? The thesis particularly examines the relationship between the form and content of planning documents, and how this affects the understanding of what is being decided.
One of the key cases studied is Viken Park in Fredrikstad municipality – a major land intervention that has sparked political debate and received significant media attention. The case involved extensive documentation, including environmental impact assessments, a detailed plan description, and multiple technical attachments. Yet, in the aftermath, several local politicians expressed uncertainty about what they had approved (Støstad & Tolfsen, 2024).
Based on the document analysis, the thesis raises questions about whether the documentation, despite its volume, provided sufficient decision support. What may have been lacking was not necessarily more knowledge – but better explanations, clearer assessments, and documents that more effectively supported understanding of the key issues at stake.
There is no simple solution. Still, the analysis points to several important needs:
- Documentation should better highlight what decision-makers need in order to assess the case – not overwhelm them with everything that can be documented.
- It must be clear who the documents are written for. When language and content do not reach the intended audience, critical information is lost.
- Thoroughness in planning is not just about volume, but about making knowledge accessible, relevant, and assessable – so that it can actually be used when important decisions are made.
When the knowledge base in planning becomes so extensive that it overshadows the message, we risk undermining both the quality of decisions and public trust. This thesis emphasizes the need for clearer communication and a sharper focus on what is truly relevant – for the decisions that shape the places we will live in for years to come.
Source: Støstad, M. N., & Tolfsen, C. B. (2024, 8. juni). Bindinger, hogst og politikere som ikke ante hva de stemte på: Historien om inngrepet på Viken Park. NRK. https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/xl/bindinger_-hogst-og-politikere-som-ikke-ante-hva- de-stemte-pa_-historien-om-inngrepet-pa-viken-park-1.16882702