Do matters of concern matter? bringing issues back to participation

Planning Theory

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 89-103

  Leino, Helena ^a   Laine, Markus ^b  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^b City of Helsinki   (Finland)

Author keywords

issue politics; public participation; trigger event; urban planning

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PLANNING PROCESS; POLICY MAKING; POLITICS; URBAN PLANNING;

EID: 84856281552     PISSN: 14730952     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1473095211417595     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allmendinger PPlanning in Postmodern Times. London: Routledge; 2001:.
2. Arnstein S.A ladder of citizen participation.Journal of the American Planning Association. 1969;35 (4): 216-24.
3. Bäcklund P,Mäntysalo R.Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice - the case of Finland.Planning Theory. 2010;:1-18.
4. Bedford T,Clark J,Harrison C.Limits to new public participation practices in local land use planning.Town Planning Review. 2002;73 (3): 311-31.
5. Bickerstaff K,Walker G.participatory local governance and transport planning.Environment and Planning A, 2001. 2001;33:431-51.
6. Brody S.Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management.Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2003;22:407-19.
7. Dahl RWho Governs?. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1961:.
8. Dewey JThe Public and It's Problems. London: Allen & Unwin; 1927:.
9. Fagence MCitizen Participation in Planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1979:.
10. Fischer FCitizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press; 2000:.
11. Fischer FForester J. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Fischer FForester J., ed. Durham: Duke University Press; 1993:.
12. Flyvbjerg BRationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1998:.
13. Forester JPlanning in the Face of Power. Berkley, CA: University of California Press; 1989:.
14. Gomart E,Hajer M (2003) Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In: Joerges B and Nowotny H (eds), Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back Ahead. Joerges BNowotny H, ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003:33-61.
15. Hajer M.Policy without polity?.Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences. 2003;36:175-95.
16. Hajer M,Wagenaar HDeliberative Policy Analyses: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:.
17. Healey P.Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning.Environment and Planning A. 1998;30 (9): 1531-46.
18. Healey P.The pragmatic tradition in planning thought.Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2009;28:277-92.
19. Healey P,de Magalhaes C,Madanipour A,Pendlebury JDeliberative Policy Analyses: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Hajer MaartenHendrik Wagenaar, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:.
20. Hillier JStretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2007:.
21. Hoch C. J.Evaluating plans pragmatically.Planning Theory. 2002;1:53-75.
22. Häikiö L.Expertise, representation and the common good: grounds for legitimacy in the urban governance network.Urban Studies. 2007;44 (11): 2147-62.
23. Innes J.E,Booher D.E.Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning.American Planning Association Journal. 1999;65 (4): 412-23.
24. Innes J,Booher DPublic Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century. Berkley: University of California; 2000:.
25. Irwin A.The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance.Social Studies of Science. 2006;36 (2): 299-320.
26. Jones P.S.Urban regeneration's poisoned chalice: is there an impasse in (community) participation-based policy?.Urban Studies. 2003;40 (3): 581-610.
27. Laine M Fight over the face of Tampere: a sneaking transformation of a local political field. In: Yrjö Haila and Chuck Dyke (eds) How Nature Speaks: The Dynamics of the Human Ecological Condition. Haila YrjöDyke Chuck, ed. Durham and London: Duke University Press; 2006:.
28. Latour B From realpolitik to dingpolitik - or how to make things public. In: Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (eds) Making Things Public - Atmospheres of Democracy. Latour BrunoWeibel Peter, ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005:.
29. Latour B.Turning around politics: a note on Gerard de Vries' paper.Social Studies of Science. 2007;37 (5): 811-20.
30. Leino H.Spaces of possibility: the participatory agenda in the Vuores planning case. Case study of public participation in territorial planning.Nordisk Samhällsgeografisk Tidskrift. 2005;39:59-86.
31. Leino H,Peltomaa J,Santaoja M.For the sake of the lake: multi-signification and improvisation in the practices of two lake restoration projects in Finland.Local Environment. 2010;15 (9): 793-802.
32. Lippman WThe Phantom Public. London: Transaction Publishers; 2002[1927]:.
33. LoeberAHajerMvan Tatenhove (2005) Investigating new participatory practices of the 'politics of life' in a European context. Final report - theory and method. Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation. Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505971.
34. MacCallum D.Participatory planning and means-ends rationality: a translation problem.Planning Theory and Practice. 2008;9 (3): 325-43.
35. McKay K,Buzacott J,Charness N,Safayeni F (1992) The scheduler's predictive expertise: an interdisciplinary perspective. In: Doukidis G and Paul R (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Operational Research. Doukidis GPaul R, ed. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 1992:139-50.
36. Marres N.Tracing the trajectories of issues, and their democratic deficits, on the Web: the case of the Development Gateway and its doubles.Information, Technology and People. 2004;17 (2): 124-49.
37. Marres N.The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy.Social Studies of Science. 2007;37:759-80.
38. Mouffe CThe Democratic Paradox. London: Verso; 2000:.
39. Nyseth T,Pløger J,Holm T.Planning beyond horizon: the Tromsö experiment.Planning Theory. 2010;:1-25.
40. Pløger J.Public participation and the art of governance.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2001;28:219-41.
41. Pløger J.Strife - urban planning and agonism.Planning Theory. 2004;3 (1): 71-92.
42. Ramsay MCommunity, Culture and Economic Development. The Social Roots of Local Action. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1996:.
43. Rowe G,Frewer L.Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2004;29 (4): 512-57.
44. Sager T.Deliberative planning and decision making: an impossibility result.Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2002;21:367-78.
45. StaffansA (2004) Vaikuttavat asukkaat. Vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupunkisuunnittelun haasteina. Teknillinen korkeakoulu, Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus - ja koulutuskeskus, Helsinki.
46. Stone CRegime Politics. Governing Atlanta 1946-1988. Kansas: University Press of Kansas; 1989:.
47. Tang Z,Brody S.Linking planning theories with factors influencing local environmental-plan quality.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2009;36:522-37.
48. Wagenaar H.Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: how citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline.The American Review of Public Administration. 2006;37:17-50.
49. Weick K.ESensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995:.