How can residents' experiences inform planning of urban green infrastructure? Case Finland

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 130, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 171-183

  Faehnle, Maija ^a   Bäcklund, Pia ^b   Tyrväinen, Liisa ^c   Niemelä, Jari ^a   Yli Pelkonen, Vesa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^c FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Collaborative planning; Ecosystem services; Experiential knowledge; Local development; Urban planning

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; URBAN PLANNING;

COLLABORATIVE PLANNING; COLLABORATIVE PROCESS; COLLABORATIVE URBAN PLANNING; ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE; LOCAL DEVELOPMENT; METROPOLITAN REGIONS;

DECISION MAKING;

DATA SET; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GREENSPACE; INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT; LOCAL PLANNING; URBAN PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; INTEGRATED APPROACH; LANDOWNER; METROPOLITAN AREA; STAKEHOLDER;

FINLAND; HELSINKI; VARSINAIS-SUOMI;

EID: 84906098541     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.012     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. In V. Novotny,& P. Brown (Eds.), Cities of the future - Towards integrated sustainable water andlandscape management (pp. 267-283). London: IWA Publishing.
2. Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services inadaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation.Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 254-259.
3. Asikainen, E., & Jokinen, A. (2009). Future natures in the making: Implementing biodiversity in suburban land-use planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(3),351-368.
4. Bäcklund, P. (2007). (Politics of knowing. Experimental knowledge in municipal governance) Tietämisen politiikka. Kokemuksellinen tieto kunnan hallinnassa (Doctoraldissertation). Helsinki: City of Helsinki Urban Facts (in Finnish).
5. Bäcklund, P., Kallio, K. P., & Häkli, J. (2014). Residents, customers or citizens? Tracing the idea of youthful participation in the context of administrativere forms in Finnish public administration. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(3)http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.929726
6. Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theoryand practice-The case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9(4), 333-350.
7. Bamberg, J. (2013). Engaging the public with online discussion and spatial annotations: The generation and transformation of public knowledge. Planning Theory& Practice, 14(1), 39-56.
8. Bastian, O., Haase, D., & Grunewald, K. (2012). Ecosystem properties, potentials and services - The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example.Ecological Indicators, 21, 7-16.
9. Brown, G., & Raymond, C. M. (2014). Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 196-208.
10. Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179-1196.
11. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
12. Couvet, D., Jiguet, F., Julliard, R., Levrel, H., & Teyssedre, A. (2008). Enhancing citizen contributions to biodiversity science and public policy. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(1), 95-103.
13. Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O'Farrel, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., et al.(2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28), 9483-9488.
14. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., et al.(2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,109(23), 8812-8819.
15. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., Costanza, R., et al.(2012). Reply to Kirchhoff: Cultural values and ecosystem services. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(46), E3147.
16. Davoudi, S. (2012). The legacy of positivism and the emergence of interpretive tradition in spatial planning. Regional Studies, 46(4), 429-441.
17. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges inintegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260-272.
18. Delvaux, B., & Schoenaers, F. (2012). Knowledge, local actors and public action. Policy and Society, 31(2), 105-117.
19. Demszky, A., & Nassehi, A. (2012). Perpetual loss and gain: Translation, estrangement and cyclical recurrence of experience based knowledges in public action. Policyand Society, 31(2), 169-181.
20. Dinnie, E., Brown, K. M., & Morris, S. (2013). Community, cooperation and conflict: Negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences.Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 1-9.
21. Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7-17.
22. Ernstson, H., & Sörlin, S. (2013). Ecosystem services as technology of globalization:On articulating values in urban nature. Ecological Economics, 86, 274-284.
23. Evans, J. P. (2007). Wildlife corridors: An urban political ecology. Local Environment,12(2), 129-152.
24. Faehnle, M., Bäcklund, P., & Tyrväinen, L. (2011). Looking for the role of nature experiences in urban planning and decision-making: A perspective from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 7(1), 45-55.
25. Faehnle, M., & Tyrväinen, L. (2013). A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy, 34, 332-341.
26. Fazey, I., Fazey, J. A., Salisbury, J. G., Lindenmayer, D. B., & Dovers, S. (2006). Thenature and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environmental Conservation, 33(1), 1-10.
27. Fisher, B., Turner, K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643-653.
28. Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283-306.
29. Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), 23-31.
30. Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5-22.
31. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.
32. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22,959-972.
33. Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2010). Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory: Toward multigrounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,9, 187-205.
34. Haas, P. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569-592.
35. Hajer, M. A. (2005). Rebuilding ground zero. the politics of performance. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(4), 445-464.
36. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., & Jax, K. (2013). Benefits and limita-tions of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 25,13-21.
37. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. shaping places in fragmented societies.Houndsmill, London: MacMillan Press.
38. Healey, P. (2010). In search of the "strategic" in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 439-457.
39. Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be real.Planning Theory, 2(1), 37-59.
40. Holden, M. (2012). Is integrated planning any more than the sum of its parts? Considerations for planning sustainable cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(3), 305-318.
41. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge.
42. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2013). Communicative planning theory and the critiques over-coming dividing discourses. In Paper presented in 'AESOP/ACSP 5th Joint Congress- Planning for Resilient Cities and Regions', July 15-19, 2013. Ireland: UniversityCollege Dublin.
43. Jaakkola, M. (2012). Helsinki, Finland: Greenness and urban form. In T. Beatley (Ed.),Green cities of Europe: Global lessons on green urbanism (pp. 109-128). Washing-ton: Island Press.
44. James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., et al. (2009). Towardsan integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 65-75.
45. Jensen, P. E. (2005). A contextual theory of learning and the learning organization.Knowledge and Process Management, 12, 53-64.
46. Jordan, A., & Russell, D. (2014). Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? Theutilization of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 192-207.
47. Juhola, S., Driscoll, P., Mendler de Suarez, J., & Suarez, P. (2013). Social strategy gamesin communicating trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation in cities. Urban Climate, 4, 102-116.
48. Kanninen, V., Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2013). Trading zone and the complexity of planning. In S. Balducci, & R. Mäntysalo (Eds.), Springer urban and landscape perspectives (Vol. 13) Urban planning as a trading zone (pp. 159-177). Dordrecht:Springer.
49. Kelle, U. (1995). Theories as heuristic tools in qualitative research. In I. Maso, P. A.Atkinson, S. Delamont, & J. C. Verhoeven (Eds.), Openness in research: The tension between self and other. (pp. 33-50). Assen: van Gorcum.
50. Kirchhoff, T. (2012). Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(46), E3146.
51. Koschke, L., Fürst, C., Frank, S., & Makeschin, F. (2012). A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision for planning support. Ecological Indicators, 21, 54-66.
52. Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Tzoulas, T., & Snabb, C. (2013). Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: Location-based soft GIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113,30-46.
53. Lafortezza, R., Davies, C., Sanesi, G., & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2013). Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest, 6,102-108.
54. Land Use and Building Act. (1999). Statutes of Finland. 132/1999. Helsinki: Ministryof Justice.
55. Leino, H., & Laine, M. (2012). Do matters of concern matter? Bringing issues back to participation. Planning Theory, 11, 89-103.
56. Mäntysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2012). Strategisen maankäytön suunnittelun legitimaation haaste maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaille. In M. Airaksinen, H.-L. Hentilä, J. S.Jauhiainen, R. Mäntysalo, K. Jarenko, & T. Määttä, et al. (Eds.), Ympäristöminis-teriön raportteja (4/2012) Katsauksia maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain toimivuuteen(Reviews on the functioning of the Land Use and Building Act) (pp. 42-49).Helsinki: Ministry of Environment (in Finnish).
57. McKenzie, E., Posner, S., Tillman, P., Bernhardt, J. R., Howard, K., & Rosenthal, A.(2014). Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: Lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 320-340.
58. Mulgan, G. (2009). The art of public strategy - Mobilizing power and knowledge for the common good. New York: Oxford University Press.
59. Naumann, S., Davis, M., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M., & Rayment, M. (2011). Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projectsFinal report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no.070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1. Ecologic Institute and GHK Consulting.
60. Nygren, N., & Jokinen, A. (2013). Significance of affect and ethics in applying conservation standards: The practices of flying squirrel surveyors. Geoforum, 46,79-90.
61. Olsson, J., & Hysing, E. (2012). Theorizing inside activism: Understanding policy making and policy change from below. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2),257-273.
62. Pataki, D. E., Carreiro, M. M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N. E., Jennigs, V., Pincetl, S., et al.(2011). Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), 2-36.
63. Portugali, J. (2008). Learning from paradoxes about prediction and planning in self organizing cities. Planning Theory, 7(3), 248-261.
64. Raisio, H. (2010). The public as policy expert: Deliberative democracy in the context of Finnish health care reforms and policies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2).Article 6.
65. Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C.(2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766-1777.
66. Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G. S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A. P., & Polasky, S. (2013).Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(5), 268-273.
67. Rounsevell, M. D. A., Dawson, T. P., & Harrison, P. A. (2010). A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(10), 2823-2842.
68. Sager, T. (2009). Planners' role: Torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities. European Planning Studies, 17(1), 65-84.
69. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
70. Schulman, H. (1990). (Realities and Visions: Regional Development and Planning Policyin Helsinki During the 20th Century) Alueelliset Todellisuudet ja Visiot: HelsinginKehitys ja Kehittäminen 1900-luvulla (Doctoral dissertation). Espoo: Urban and Regional Research and Training Centre A, 18 (in Finnish).
71. Schutt, R. K. (2012). Investigating the social world. The process and practice of research(7th ed.). London: Sage.
72. Söderman, T. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment: From components to services (Doctoral dissertation). Helsinki: University of Helsinki,Department of Geosciences and Geography A, 16.
73. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
74. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014).Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance - The Multiple Evidence Base approach. AMBIO, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 (in press)
75. Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243-259.
76. Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., & Schipperijn, J. (2007). Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1),5-19.
77. Van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., De Groot, S., & Hein, L. (2012).Indicators for assessing effects of management on ecosystem services. EcologicalIndicators, 21, 110-122.
78. Vervoort, J. M., Kok, K., Beers, P.-J., Van Lammeren, R., & Janssen, R. (2012). Combining analytic and experiential communication in participatory scenario development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 203-213.
79. Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2008). Ecological information in the political decision making ofurban land-use planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,51(3), 345-362.
80. Yli-Pelkonen, V., & Kohl, J. (2005). The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: Perspectives from Finland. Sustainability: Science, Practice& Policy, 1(1), 1-14.
81. Yli-Pelkonen, V., & Niemelä, J. (2005). Linking ecological and social systems incities: Urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(8),1947-1967.
82. Zurita, G., & Baloian, N. (2012). Mobile, collaborative situated knowledge creation for urban planning. Sensors, 12(5), 6218-6243.