Search

Municipalities have large costs for their work with detailed development plans and area regulations. These planning costs are funded in different ways. Legislation permits municipalities to charge property owners for the planning costs of a certain plan, if the properties benefit from the plan by receiving building permits. Municipalities can charge a fee of planning when the building permits are processed. However, the fee can also be charged in advance. Many municipalities use this opportunity to form agreements with the property developers, in which they state terms for the division of work and payment of the plan. The aim of this master thesis has been to find out how municipalities can fund their planning costs according to current legislation, how they fund them today and how their practice with cost agreements relate to the legislation. To find what boundaries the current legislation gives, we have examined law, preceding bills and investigations as well as court decisions in the matter. By asking municipalities if and why they use agreements to regulate their planning costs, we got an idea of how common the procedure is. We also retrieved contracts from 54 different municipal archives, which we reviewed to find how they actually regulate the costs of planning. By interviewing both municipality representatives and property developers, we were given an even wider idea of what motivates the use of these agreements, how they state the terms and what problems they might cause. Our first conclusion is that the same rules apply for the municipalities’ funding of their planning costs, regardless if they charge them as a fee in connection to the building permits or if they regulate them in agreements in advance. It is always considered a fee of planning and the agreements must therefore follow the rules stated in the law. All costs related to necessary work with development plans and area regulations can be charged. The fee can however only be charged if the above-me, Kommuner har stora kostnader för sitt planarbete, vilka idag täcks på olika sätt. Lagstiftningen ger kommuner rätt att ta ut planavgift från de fastighetsägare vars fastigheter får nytta av planarbetet genom att bygglov ges i enlighet med planen. Planavgift kan tas ut i förskott, vilket har gett en kommunal praxis där så kallade plankostnadsavtal tecknas med den som ansöker om planläggning. Examensarbetets syfte har varit att ta reda på vilka rättsliga ramar kommuner har för att täcka sina plankostnader, hur kommunerna faktiskt täcker sina plankostnader och hur kommunernas praxis förhåller sig till de rättsliga ramarna. Det har även undersökts om reglerna kring plankostnadsuttaget är ändamålsenliga. En rättsdogmatisk studie har genomförts för att finna vilka begränsningar gällande rätt sätter för kommuners möjligheter att få ersättning för sitt planarbete. Vidare har tre olika rättsociologiska studier drivits, för att ge en bild av hur kommuner täcker plankostnader i praktiken. I en enkätundersökning har vi fått svar från 102 kommuner på hur de vill använda och använder plankostnadsavtal. I enkäter tillsammans med intervjuer besvaras även vilka motiv kommuner har till att välja avtalsregleringar framför att ta ut planavgift vid bygglov. Vår undersökning av faktiska avtal från 54 kommuner visar hur ersättningsregleringarna ser ut i avtalen. Från intervjuer ges även branschens syn på rådande regler och kommunernas praxis kring plankostnadsuttag. En slutsats är att kommuner får täcka sina plankostnader med stöd i vad lagstiftningen om planavgift medger i PBL 12:9-11. Reglerna är tvingande, men det finns inget hinder att avtala om plankostnaderna så länge reglerna om planavgift följs. Reglerna om planavgift medger att alla kostnader som kan hänföras till upprättandet av en detaljplan eller områdesbestämmelser får ersättas med planavgift. Planavgift får dock bara tas ut om en fastighet har nytta av planen och om det beviljas bygglov för någon åtgärd. Nödvändigt är att er

This study analyzed examples of sustainable ecosystem-based agriculture where management methods supported livelihoods of smallholders while at the same time local ecosystem services were enhanced in Ethiopia, Brazil, and the Philippines. Participation by farmers and collective actions were found to be a crucial driving force, as local specific knowledge and learning by doing were main components of the development. Social cohesion, particularly through associations and cooperatives, and improved marketing opportunities were also important drivers. Furthermore, recognition by authorities at all levels was perceived as crucial. Effects of climate change, insecure property rights, and political instability were potential threats. The possibilities of such systems to be scaled up beyond self-sufficiency raised further questions., AuthorCount:7

Human action has transformed the major part of the Earth’s ecosystems. A growing human population puts further pressure on dynamic landscapes and resources. Crucially, for the first time in history, most people live in cities and environmental change has become truly global. Developed as part of the sub-global assessments of The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, this thesis examines anthropogenic effects on our life-support systems, and their altered capacity to generate goods and services of socio-economic value. It incorporates humans into the analysis of ecosystem dynamics and explores new ways to restore, create, and enhance ecosystem services in urban and other fragmented landscapes. The concept of mobile link organisms, i.e. key species that connect habitats and uphold their capacity to generate ecosystem services, is elaborated in relation to ecosystem dynamics and functioning. They are classified into resource, genetic and process linkers (Paper I). One such species, the Eurasian Jay (Garralus glandarius) and its role in oak tree regeneration across habitats, is empirically studied in a park of Stockholm (Paper II). The Jay is found to be pivotal in safeguarding the desired oak dominated landscape but its seed dispersal function requires active management, including of surrounding non-protected habitats. Potentially, a process oriented management approach could reduce costs and vulnerability to disturbances as well as preserve gene flow and diversity on a landscape level. Critical functions for ecosystem resilience performed by mobile links are likely to grow in importance as human impacts increase. The next focus is on ecosystems that are seldom considered in biological conservation and urban green space management. Ecosystem functions and services are identified in three types of culturally maintained land areas: golf courses, residential gardens, and allotments (Paper III). By GIS-assessment, it is established that they amount to 18% of the studied land ar

This study addresses social-ecological dynamics in the greater metropolitan area of Stockholm County, Sweden, with special focus on the National Urban Park (NUP). It is part of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and has the following specific objectives: (1) to provide scientific information on biodiversity patterns, ecosystem dynamics, and ecosystem services generated; (2) to map interplay between actors and institutions involved in management of ecosystem services; and (3) to identify strategies for strengthening social-ecological resilience. The green areas in Stockholm County deliver numerous ecosystem services, for example, air filtration, regulation of microclimate, noise reduction, surface water drainage, recreational and cultural values, nutrient retention, and pollination and seed dispersal. Recreation is among the most important services and NUP, for example, has more than 15 million visitors per year. More than 65 organizations representing 175,000 members are involved in management of ecosystem services. However, because of population increase and urban growth during the last three decades, the region displays a quite dramatic loss of green areas and biodiversity. An important future focus is how management may reduce increasing isolation of urban green areas and enhance connectivity. Comanagement should be considered where locally managed green space may function as buffer zones and for management of weak links that connect larger green areas; for example, there are three such areas around NUP identified. Preliminary results indicate that areas of informal management represent centers on which to base adaptive comanagement, with the potential to strengthen biodiversity management and resilience in the landscape., QC 20140923

Part of urn:nbn:se:su:diva-1235

Part of urn:nbn:se:su:diva-1235

Part of urn:nbn:se:su:diva-1235

Part of urn:nbn:se:su:diva-309

Part of urn:nbn:se:su:diva-309