Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: Experiences from Finland

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 328-337

  Peltonen, Lasse ^a   Sairinen, Rauno ^b  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Finland; Land use conflict; Mediation; Public participation; Social impact assessment; Urban planning

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; CONFLICT SITUATION; FINLAND; FINNISH; IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; INFILL DEVELOPMENT; INTERLINKAGES; KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION; LAND USE PLANNING; LAND-USE PLAN; PLANNING SYSTEMS; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION;

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; LAND USE; SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE MANUFACTURE; URBAN PLANNING;

PLANNING;

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; INFILL; LAND USE PLANNING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER; URBAN PLANNING;

FINLAND;

EID: 77955268784     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.006     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arnstein S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc 1969, 35:216-224.
2. Barrow C.J. How is environmental conflict addresssed by SIA. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2010, 30:293-301.
3. Bartos O., Wehr P. Using conflict theory 2002, Cambridge University Press, New York.
4. Bass R., Herson A. Environmental impact assessment of land use plans: experience under the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. Handbook of Environmental Assessment 1999, 273-299. Blackwell, Oxford. J. Petts (Ed.).
5. Bingham G. Resolving environmental disputes: a decade of experience 1986, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
6. Brown B. Public organizations and policies in conflict: notes on theory and practice. Conflict resolution theory and practice: Integration and application 1993, 158-175. Manchester University Press, Manchester. D.J. Sandole, H. van der Merwe (Eds.).
7. Coenen F.H., Huitema D., O'Toole L.J. Participation and the quality of environmental decision making 1998, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
8. Crowfoot J.E., Wondelleck J.M. Environmental disputes: community involvement in conflict resolution 1990, Island Press, Washington, DC.
9. Cullingworth J.B., Nadin V. Town and country planning in the UK 2002, Routledge, London.
10. Edelman H. Urban design management. Using integrative negotiation to create value at the intersection of urban planning, city design, and real estate development. Helsinki University of Technology Publications in Architecture 2007/27 2007, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki.
11. Ehrmann J.R., Stinson B.L. Joint fact-finding and the use of technical experts. Consensus building handbook. A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement 1999, 375-399. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.).
12. Ervasti K. Käräjäoikeuksien sovintomenettely. Empiirinen tutkimus sovinnon edistämisestä riitaprosessissa. (Settlements in district courts. An empirical study of promoting settlements in civil proceedings) Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen julkaisuja 207 2004, Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos (The National Research Institute of Legal Policy), Helsinki.
13. Flyvbjerg B. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice 1998, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
14. Forester J. Planning in the Face of Power 1989, University of California Press, Berkeley.
15. Forester J. Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes 2009, Oxford University Press, New York.
16. Jones C., Baker M., Carter J., Jay S., Short M., Wood C. Introduction. Strategic environmental assessment and land use planning. An international evaluation 2005, 1-13. Earthscan, London. C. Jones, M. Baker, J. Carter, S. Jay, M. Short, C. Wood (Eds.).
17. Kaavoitusprosessi (The planning process). Kaavoitustoimisto 30.1.2001 2001, Jyväskylän kaupunki (City of Jyväskylä), Jyväskylän kaupunki, Jyväskylä.
18. Leknes E. The role of EIA in the decision-making process. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2001, 21:309-334.
19. Mäkäräinen J. Askel kohti ihmistä. Jyväskylän sosiaali- ja terveyspalvelukeskuksen julkaisuja 1 2003, Jyväskylän kaupunki, Jyväskylä.
20. Mäkäräinen J. Sosiaalinen eheys yhdyskuntasuunnittelussa. Kokemuksia Jyväskylän kaupunkiseudulta. [Social integration in urban planning. Experiences from the Jyväskylä city region] Suomen ympäristö 798, Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö [Ministry of Environment]; 2005.
21. McKearnan S. Conflict assessment. Preliminary step that enhances chances of success. How to get everyone playing the same rules. Consensus Newsletter 1997, The MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, Cambridge, MA.
22. Päivänen J., Kohl J., Sairinen R., Manninen R., Kyttä M. Sosiaalisten vaikutusten arviointi kaavoituksessa - Avauksia sisältöön ja menetelmiin (Social impact assessment in land use planning - Introduction to contents and methods). Suomen ympäristö 2005, 766. Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Available from: http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=36210&lan=fi.
23. Paldanius J., Tallskog L., Maijala O., Riipinen J., Sairinen R. Vaikutusten arviointi kaavoituksessa (Impact Assessment in Planning). Ympäristöhallinnon ohjeita (Environmental Administration Guidelines) 10/2006 2006, Ympäristöministeriö (Ministry of the Environment), Helsinki.
24. Partidario M.R. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA): current practices, future demands and capacity-building needs. Course Manual 2003, International Association for Impact Assessment IAIA Training Courses, Available from: http://www.iaia.org/Non_Members/EIA/SEA/SEAManual.pdf.
25. Peltonen L., Hirvonen J., Manninen R., Linjama H., Savikko R. Maankäytön konfliktit ja niiden ratkaisumahdollisuudet. Suomalaisen nykytilan kartoitus. (Land use conflicts and their resolution. A review of current status in Finland) Suomen ympäristö 12/2006 2006, Ympäristöministeriö (Ministry of the Environment), Helsinki.
26. Peltonen L, Tuomisaari J, Kanninen V. Muutoksenhaun tarve ja valitusten vähentäminen kaavoituksessa [The need for appeal and the reduction of complaints in urban planning] Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö [Ministry of Environment]; 2010.
27. Puustinen S. Suomalainen kaavoittajaprofessio ja suunnittelun kommunikatiivinen käänne. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 2006, 34. (Finnish planning profession and the communicative turn), Helsinki University of Techology, Espoo.
28. Puustinen S. Konfliktien hallinta ja kaavoittajien uusi valtuutus. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu 2008, 46(3):35-55. (Conflict management as a new jurisdiction for planners).
29. Renn O. The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise. Risk analysis and society. An interdisciplinary characterization of the field 2004, 289-366. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. T.L. McDaniels, M.J. Small (Eds.).
30. Ross H. Environmental mediation. The International handbook of social impact assessment 2003, 296-314. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. H.A. Becker, F. Vanclay (Eds.).
31. Sairinen R. Assessing social impacts of urban land-use plans: from theory to practice. Boreal Environ Res 2004, 9(6):509-517.
32. Susskind L., Field P. Dealing with and angry public. The mutual gains approach to resolving disputes 1996, The Free Press, New York.
33. Susskind L., Ozawa C. Mediated negotiation in the public sector: mediator accountability and the public interest problem. Am Behav Sci 1983, 27:255-279.
34. Susskind L., Ozawa C. Mediated negotiation in the public sector: the planner as mediator. J Plan Educ Res 1984, 4:5-15.
35. Susskind L., Thomas-Larmer J. Conducting a conflict assessment. Consensus building handbook. A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement 1999, 99-136. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.).
36. Susskind L., van der Wansem M., Ciccarelli A. Mediating land use disputes. Pros and cons 2000, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
37. Conducting conflict assessments in the land use context. A manual 2000, The Consensus Building Institute, The Consensus Building Institute & Pace University Land Use Law Center, Available from: http://web.mit.edu/publicdisputes/practice/pacemanual-ls-111500.pdf.
38. Torgerson D. Between knowledge and politics. Three faces of policy analysis. Policy Sci 1986, 19:33-59.
39. Wähä S. Selvitys maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain soveltamisesta hallinto-oikeuksissa ja korkeimmassa hallinto-oikeudessa 2001-2003 2004, (A review on the application of the land use and building act in administrative courts and supreme administrative court), University of Joensuu, Department of law, Joensuu, Available from: http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=14488.
40. Wähä S. Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden asemakaavaratkaisut 2001-2005 valituslupajärjestelmään siirtymisen näkökulmasta. Ympäristöministeriön moniste 2005, 163. (Rulings of the supreme administrative court on detailed plans 2001-2005 from the perspective of a possible appeal by permit system), Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki.
41. Webler T., Kastenholz H., Renn O. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995, 15:443-463.
42. Wehr, P. Conflict Regulation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1979.
43. Wood C.M. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review 2002, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
44. Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain toimivuus. Arvio laista saaduista kokemuksista. Suomen ympäristö 2002, 565. Ympäristöministeriö (Ministry of the Environment), (The functioning of the land use and building act. An evaluation of the experiences of the act), Edita, Helsinki.