A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning

Land Use Policy

Volumn 34, Issue , 2013, Pages 332-341

  Faehnle, Maija ^a   Tyrväinen, Liisa ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAPLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Green space; Local knowledge; Participatory planning; Public participation; Urban planning

Indexed keywords

GREENSPACE; HOLISTIC APPROACH; LAND USE PLANNING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; METROPOLITAN AREA; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PLANNING PROCESS; TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE; URBAN PLANNING;

FINLAND;

EID: 84878126348     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.006     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Abelson, J., Gauvin, F.-P., 2006. Assessing the impacts of public participation: concepts, evidence and policy implications. CPRN Public Involvement Network, Research Report P|06.
2. Bailey K., Grossardt T. Toward structured public involvement: justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2010, 100:57-86.
3. Bamberg, J., 2012. Shaping places online. Exploring the potential of the Internet for public engagement in spatial local governance. Dissertation. University of Tampere, School of Management. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1717.
4. Beierle T.C., Cayford J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions 2002, Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC.
5. Bengston D.N., Fletcher J.O., Nelson K.C. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:271-286.
6. Bickerstaff K., Walker G. Shared visions, unholy alliances: power, governance and deliberative processes in local transport planning. Urban Studies 2005, 42:2123-2144.
7. Brabham D.C. Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. Planning Theory 2009, 8:242-262.
8. Buchy M., Hoverman S. Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy and Economics 2000, 1:15-25.
9. Carp J. Wit, Style, and Substance: How Planners Shape Public Participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2004, 23:242-254.
10. Chess C. Evaluating environmental public participation: methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2000, 43:769-784.
11. Cleaver F. Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. Participation: The New Tyranny? 2001, 36-55. Zed Books, New York. B. Cooke, U. Kothari (Eds.).
12. Connelly S. Looking inside public involvement: how is it made so ineffective and can we change this?. Community Development Journal 2006, 41:13-24.
13. Participation: The New Tyranny? 2001, Zed Books, New York, 207 pp. B. Cooke, U. Kothari (Eds.).
14. Crawford P., Kotval Z., Rauhe W., Kotval Z. Social capital development in participatory community planning and design. Town Planning Review 2008, 79:533-554.
15. Dekker, K., 2011. Participation, social cohesion and the neighbourhood. Keynote presentation in The Final Seminar of the Neighborhood Programme. Helsinki, Savoy-teatteri, November 29, 2011.
16. Demszky A., Nassehi A. Perpetual loss and gain: translation, estrangement and cyclical recurrence of experience based knowledges in public action. Policy and Society 2012, 31:169-181.
17. Ernstson H., Barthel S., Andersson E., Borgström S.T. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society 2010, 15:28.
18. Faehnle M., Bäcklund P., Tyrväinen L. Looking for the role of nature experiences in urban planning and decision-making: a perspective from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 2011, 7:45-55.
19. Fischer F. Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment. American Review of Public Administration 2006, 36:19-40.
20. Grönholm S. Governing national parks in Finland: the illusion of public involvement. Local Environment 2009, 14:233-243.
21. Halvorsen K.E. Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review 2003, 63:535-543.
22. Hanna K.S. The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information: a case study. Journal of the American Planning Association 2000, 66:398-410.
23. Harvey M. Drama, talk, and emotion: omitted aspects of public participation. science. Technology and Human Values 2009, 34:139-161.
24. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K., 2012. "Maps have an air of authority": potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosystem Services, available online 21 December 2012.
25. Healey P. Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies 1997, MacMillan Press, Houndsmill and London, 338 pp.
26. Healey P. Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory 2003, 2:101-123.
27. Human B.A., Davies A. Stakeholder consultation during the planning phase of scientific programs. Marine Policy 2010, 34:645-654.
28. IAP2, 2007. IAP2 spectrum of public participation. (accessed 2.07.12). http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf.
29. IBM, 2012. IBM's smart cities challenge: Helsinki report. (accessed 10.05.12). http://www-05.ibm.com/fi/ibm/wdc2012/pdf/IBM_SCC_Helsinki__English.pdf.
30. Innes J.E. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 1998, 64:52-63.
31. Innes J.E., Booher D.E. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of American Planning Association 1999, 65:414-423.
32. Irvin R.A., Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?. Public Administration Review 2004, 64:55-65.
33. Janse G., Konijnendijk C. Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry: experiences from the Neighbourhoods project. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2007, 6:23-40.
34. Jensen P.E. A contextual theory of learning and the learning organization. Knowledge and Process Management 2005, 12:53-64.
35. Kyttä M., Kahila M., Broberg A. Perceived environmental quality as an input to urban infill policy-making. Urban Design International 2011, 16:19-35.
36. Laurian L., Shaw M.M. Evaluation of public participation: the practices of certified planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2009, 28:293-309.
37. Leino H., Laine M. Do matters of concern matter? Bringing issues back to participation. Planning Theory 2012, 11:89-103.
38. Lockwood M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management 2010, 91:754-766.
39. Maginn P.J. Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: the potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qualitative Research 2007, 7:25-43.
40. Mandarano L.A. Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes: restoring and protecting habitat and the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2008, 27:456-468.
41. McCool S., Guthrie K. Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Society and Natural Resources 2001, 14:309-323.
42. Mickwitz, P., 2006. Environmental policy evaluation: concepts and practice. Dissertation. Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium 66. Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters, Vaajakoski.
43. Muñoz-Erickson T.A., Aquilar-González B., Loeser M.R., Sisk T.D. A framework to evaluate ecological and social outcomes of collaborative management: lessons from implementation with a Northern Arizona collaborative group. Environmental Management 2010, 45:132-144.
44. Nonaka I. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review 1991, 69:96-104.
45. Olsson P., Folke C., Berkes F. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 2004, 34:75-90.
46. Patton M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods 2002, Sage, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi, 688 pp. 3rd edition.
47. Puustinen, S., 2006. Suomalainen kaavoittajaprofessio ja suunnittelun kommunikatiivinen käänne[[nl]]The Finnish planning profession and the communicative turn in planning. Dissertation. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications A 34. Helsinki University of Technology (in Finnish).
48. Quick K.S., Feldman M.S. Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2011, 31:272-290.
49. Rauschmayer F., Berghöfer A., Omann I., Zikos D. Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance 2009, 19:159-173.
50. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice 1971, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 623 pp.
51. Raymond C.M., Fazey I., Reed M.S., Stringer L.C., Robinson G.M., Evely A.C. Intergating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental management 2010, 91:1766-1777.
52. Reed M. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 2008, 141:2417-2431.
53. Rein M., Schön D. Reframing policy discourse. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning 1993, 145-166. UCL Press, London. F. Fischer, J. Forester (Eds.).
54. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values 2004, 29:512-556.
55. Schipperjin J., Pillman W., Tyrväinen L., Mäkinen K., O'Sullivan R. Information for urban forest planning and management. Urban forests and Trees in europe: A Reference Book 2005, 399-417. Springer, Berlin. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
56. Schulman, H., 1990. Alueelliset todellisuudet ja visiot: Helsingin kehitys ja kehittäminen 1900-luvulla[[nl]]Realities and visions: regional development and planning policy in Helsinki during the 20th century. Dissertation. Urban and Regional Research and Training Centre, Espoo (in Finnish).
57. Scott K., Liew T. Social Networking As a Development Tool: A Critical Reflection. Urban Studies 2012, 49:2751-2767.
58. Sipilä M., Tyrväinen L. Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2005, 4:1-12.
59. Stake R.E. The Art of Case Study Research 1995, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 175 pp.
60. Tuler S., Webler T. Recent research in public participation: a focus on learning. Human Ecology Review 2006, 13:148-149.
61. Tyrväinen L., Pauleit S., Seeland K., De Vries S. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. Urban Forests and Trees in Europe: A Reference Book 2005, 81-114. Springer, Berlin. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
62. Tyrväinen L., Mäkinen K., Schipperijn J. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 79:5-19.
63. Van Herzele A., Collins K., Tyrväinen L. Involving people in urban forestry - a discussion of participatory practices throughout Europe. Urban Forests and Trees in Europe: A Reference Book 2005, 207-228. Springer, Berlin. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
64. Van Herzele A., van Woerkum C.M.J. Local knowledge in visually mediated practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2008, 27:444-455.
65. Van Herzele A., van Woerkum C.M.J. On the argumentative work of map-based visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 100:396-399.
66. Webler T., Tuler S., Krueger R. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 2001, 27:435-450.
67. Webler T., Tuler S. Introduction to the special edition. The Policy Studies Journal 2006, 34:599-603.
68. Wesselink A., Paavola J., Fritsch O., Renn O. Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners' perspectives. Environment and Planning A 2011, 43:2688-2704.
69. Wiek A., Walter A.I. A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems. European Journal of Operational Research 2009, 197:360-370.