Challenges in Public Participation and Collaboration: A Case Study
in Finnish Environmental Decision-making
Annamaija Paunu, Jenni Pansio, Nina Helander and Jonna Käpylä
Information and Knowledge Management, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
Keywords: Multistakeholder Collaboration, Knowledge Sharing, Communication, Public Participation Process, Impact
Assessment Process, Collaborative Governance.
Abstract: This position paper introduces ongoing research efforts that addresses the ability of different kinds of
organizations and multiple individuals to cope together with complex environmental planning and policy-
making problems in the Finnish context. The research question “What kind of challenges are there in the
collaborative processes of environmental decision-making and how can they be tackled?” is approached from
the perspectives of the framework of public participation process and the theory of collaborative governance.
We use these theories as analytical tools to evaluate how the elements and phases of collaboration processes
are conducted in practice and to identify problems that exist in the collaborative processes. This phenomenon
is studied through a single case study of environmental planning case from a medium-sized city located in
Finland.
1 INTRODUCTION
How collaborative processes should be implemented
is widely discussed in the literature (e.g. Irvin &
Stansbury, 2004; Brinkerhoff & Azfar, 2006;
Godenhjelm & Johanson, 2018). For example, the
framework of public participation process (Bryson et
al. 2013) and the theory of collaborative governance
(Ansell & Gash 2008) describe the characteristics of
participative actions and what should be considered
when developing and conducting these kinds of
processes. However, more research is needed about
the actual empirical practice of collaboration
(Sotarauta, 2010).
In this paper, we aim to shed light on the actual
practice of collaboration throuh a case study and
answer the research question: “What kind of
challenges are there in the collaborative processes of
environmental decision-making and how can they be
tackled?” We approach this from the perspectives of
the framework of public participation process and the
theory of collaborative governance. We use these
theories as analytical tools to evaluate how the
elements and phases of collaboration processes are
conducted in practice and to identify problems that
exist in the collaborative processes. We aim to
broaden the current understanding of how to
implement successful collaborative processes by
identifying problems in the processes and by offering
preliminary ideas about the means to avoid these
problems to emerge.
This position paper introduces ongoing research
efforts included in the ambitious research project
CORE: Collaborative remedies for fragmented
societies — Facilitating the collaborative turn in
environmental decision-making (CORE 2018).
2 THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
2.1 Spatial Planning and Participation
In Finland, stakeholder involvement to the master
planning process is required by law. The law
obligates municipalities to involve and hear all who
are affected by the plan during the master planning
process to ensure planning being based on timely
information and knowledge, and that the plans are
serving the needs and aims of the municipality in best
possible manner. The plans are required to be kept
updated and changed when needed, and all changes
require informing those affected by the changes.
Master planning process affects and includes
172
Paunu, A., Pansio, J., Helander, N. and Käpylä, J.
Challenges in Public Participation and Collaboration: A Case Study in Finnish Environmental Decision-making.
DOI: 10.5220/0010128301720179
In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2020) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 172-179
ISBN: 978-989-758-474-9
Copyright
c
2020 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
involving several different stakeholder groups, from
citizens to local public administration, partners,
media, and decision-makers. However, it is not
specified in the law how the stakeholders should be
involved or heard, which leaves room for different
interpretations and implementation. (ELY, 2017).
Traditionally, stakeholders and especially citizens,
are involved in the early stages of the master planning
process, where in the beginning of the process
municipalities make a law-required participation and
assessment scheme (OAS), which describes
stakeholder involvement, interaction and impact
assessment in the process. The stakeholder groups are
expected to comment and suggest changes to the OAS
in case the planned procedures are considered
insufficient, which leads to a requirement of making
supplements to the OAS. Next to commenting the
OAS, the stakeholders can make planning initiatives
and proposals, participate in hearings about
preparation materials of the master plan, and in later
phases make a reminder to the municipality when
disagreeing with the plan or at the end of the process,
appeal to administrative court. (ELY, 2017).
2.2 Public Participation Process
The value of public participation is broadly
recognized for various purposes, however, how to
successfully apply public participation processes to
decision-making is a challenge that should not be
overlooked; at its best, public participation may lead
for example to strengthened democracy, increased
trust, knowledge flows and joint knowledge creation.
On the other hand, unsuccessful public participation
is known to cause resentment, mistrust and conflicts,
that might hinder current and also future collaborative
actions. (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Ansell & Gash,
2008; Gaventa & Barrett, 2012).
Bryson et al (2013) reviewed systematically more
than 250 articles and books related to the phenomena
and designed guidelines for public participation
process combined with their own experiences (Bryson
et al, 2013). The design guidelines are a synthesis for
creating, managing and evaluating public participation
activities in order to accomplish desired outcomes.
They form a process, that I) assesses the context and
problem, and designs the participation process based
on context-specifically identified purposes, II)
manages the resources available and stakeholder
participation throughout the process by utilizing
effective leadership, establishing rules and structures,
analyze-based appropriate stakeholder involvement,
engaging diversity, and managing power dynamics,
and III) evaluates and redesigns the process
continuously to develop by using evaluation measure.
The twelve tasks, or outlines, if one will, are
categorized into above-mentioned three classes
covering the assessment and design, the managing and
resourcing, and the evaluating of the project. These
outlines are not step by step tasks, instead tasks like for
example identifying purpose or managing power
dynamics need to be evaluated and iterated through the
process to be able to achieve the joined target. The
framework balances between design science literature
and evidence-based research findings giving the
outcome that successful public participation requires
designing iteratively, in response to specific purposes
and contexts (Bryson et al, 2013). This process aims
to respond in practical manner to the complexities and
tackle the process design issues acknowledged in
designing public participation processes. (Bryson et al,
2013).
2.3 Collaborative Governance
The concept of collaborative governance is rather
fuzzy, as the current definitions can be considered to
some extent vague and open for interpretations.
Therefore, the understanding of collaborative
governance varies, as do the implementations.
However, in the scholarly discourse the definition of
collaborative governance appears unanimous.
(Batory & Svensson, 2019). Despite of different
emphasizes on the definitions, there can be
recognized some key themes, that give outlines to the
concept of collaborative governance (not in specific
order): 1) distribution of power, 2) balance of roles,
3) communication, and 4) working jointly towards
solutions through learning.
The distribution of power consists of the need of
strong leadership for the process to facilitate and
guide it through and to empower stakeholder groups,
but also, that everyone affected by the decisions made
should be involved to the decision-making process.
With power should also come responsibility, which
engages the stakeholders by creating ownership and
gives the experience of meaningfulness for the
participation to the stakeholder groups and builds up
trust. The power is distributed in practice through
partnerships and/or networking. In the relationships
between different stakeholder groups is important the
balance of the roles, meaning each stakeholder group
being heard equally in the decision-making and
avoiding the dominance of some groups over others.
Networking brings together local tacit knowledge and
science, and by open discussion can be created
knowledge flows and emerge new knowledge. Open
communication, with knowledge flows and
Challenges in Public Participation and Collaboration: A Case Study in Finnish Environmental Decision-making
173
knowledge co-creation, provides opportunities for
finding solutions, that would not have been possible
without collaboration. Collaborative process should
also include reflection to enhance the collaboration
through and during the process, which enables social
learning and increases the capability of solving ever
more complex issues. (Emerson et al, 2012; Hotte,
Kozak & Wyatt 2019; Berkes, 2009; Leino, 2019;
Ansell & Gash, 2008).
However, having a functioning collaborative
governance process is not something to take for
granted, but there lay several challenges. The
distribution of power engages the stakeholders, which
is favorable for trust-building, commitment and
learning, but increased feeling of ownership amongst
several stakeholder groups may lead into conflicts, as
well as to imbalance of roles. Also, only a seeming
process with no impact or power in the stakeholders
aspects brought up, may lead to mistrust and
conflicts. Strong, but empowering leadership is
needed to manage possible conflicts and negotiations
during the process, but especially communication is
in an important role to establish and run the process
successfully. Open communication, especially face to
face, throughout the process and when jointly sharing
expectations, creating aims and internal rules for the
collaboration amongst the stakeholders, can be
increased trust but also engage the stakeholders, and
lower the risk of conflicts. At its best, in the long run
increased trust, mutual contracts and improved
knowledge flows lead to lesser conflicts and higher
legitimacy of the decisions made, but even moreover,
jointly creating solutions that were not possible to be
created without the collaboration. (Emerson et al,
2012; Hotte, Kozak & Wyatt 2019; Berkes, 2009;
Leino, 2019; Ansell & Gash, 2008).
3 RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Case Lahti
In this paper the collaborative process in
environmental decision making is examined by
applying case study methodology. The case is a
medium-sized city in Finland and its municipal
master plan process.
The complexity of spatial planning formulates of
being a strategic tool, which however consists of non-
strategic instruments such as handling property rights,
protecting the environment from change and
displaying legal validity and political authority. This
has led spatial planning being considered heavy and
restrictive. In Lahti the traditionally restrictive master
planning process has been turned innovatively into a
resource and opportunities, by practicing strategic
incrementalism in spatial planning and participative
strategic leadership in managing the city. (Mäntysalo
et al, 2019). The city has planned and performed a
continuous master plan process, which is tightly
connected with the city councils working period of
four years and the city’s own strategy work (Figure
1). In its strategy, Lahti has defined the citizens as the
makers of the city and committed in citizen
participation and involvement in decision-making to
reach the development goals set for the city by 2030,
which includes also the spatial planning of the city
(Tuomisaari, 2019). The case concentrates on the
third ongoing master plan process and especially to
its impact assessment process.
Impact assessment takes place on the third year of
the master planning process, and it has been
previously led by a group of specialists, and
representatives of the city from different fields have
joined the impact assessment process in two
workshops and via an online platform. (Palomäki,
2018). However, on the third ongoing master
planning process next to the specialists and city
representatives, there was invited representatives of
third sector organizations, who were chosen based on
a close interest towards the themes.
(Interviews with
Lahden suunta representatives, 2020; Interviews with
impact assessment participants, 2019).
Figure 1: Process chart of the four-year process of Lahden
suunta (Created based on the text and graph in Lahden
suunta OAS, 2019, p. 4, translated from Finnish).
3.2 Empirical Data
Empirical data (see Table 1) of the case includes
observation data from two impact assessment
seminars, interview data of seven participants; 4
participants representing stakeholders and experts, 2
employees of Lahti (Lahti master planner and Lahti
interaction designer) and former Lahti master
planner. We also study documents provided by city of
Lahti; such as the master plan drafts commentary (15
KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
174
statements and 80 opinions) and responses from city
of Lahti. The data was analyzed using content
analysis. Content analysis can be used to analyze both
qualitative and qualitative data, although it is more
known method in qualitative research. In this case
study we used both qualitative and quantitative data
to gain range and depth to form a holistic
understanding on the case (Fielding and Fielding,
1986). Each data was analyzed deductively (Elo &
Kyngäs, 2008; Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2018) by using the
design guidelines by Bryson et al (2013) and the key
themes of collaborative governance, and summarized
into table in Chapter 4.1.
Table 1: Empirical data.
Data
gathering
method
Gathering
process
Data
Analysis
process
Observation
Two impact
assessment
seminars
06/2019 and
09/2019
Participate
observation
by two
researchers
Field notes
Interpretations
regarding the
situation made
by the
researchers
Content
Analysis
Interviews
7 interviews
09-11/2019
and 04/2020
by three
researcher
Transcribed
interviews
Content
analysis
Triangulatio
n by multiple
researchers
Circulation and
commentary
procedure
regarding
the masterplan
City’s official
commentary
system open
to all citizens
and specially
targeted
requests for
comments
Statement data
and City’s
response data
Content
Analysis
4 RESULTS
4.1 Findings through Design
Guidelines for Public Participation
Process, Case Lahti
We use the twelve tasks by Bryson et al (2013) to
analyze the empirical data from the Lahti case (see
Table 2). We observe through these lenses of public
participation process guidelines how city of Lahti has
designed and implemented the impact assessment
process and the tools thereof. We have used the three
classes I) assesses and design for context and purpose,
II) enlist resources and manage the participation, and
III) evaluate and redesign continuously to approach
the findings below. Based on the three classes the
findings reveal that in I) assessing and designing
context and purpose the process is mandatory, but
Lahti could/should focus on designing the context and
purpose more thoroughly to and with the stakeholders
and experts to reach significant outcome. In II)
enlisting resources and managing the participation the
infrastructure (platforms, data gathering, surveys,
facilitating etc) is on solid foundation but Lahti has
not yet achieved the best balance, solutions and
communication. When viewing III) the evaluations
and redesigning, it is obvious that the debriefing and
feedback must be enhanced.
Table 2: Findings.
Design outlines Case findings
I Design to address contexts
and problems
The public participation
process is needed for example
mandated or not, bottom -up or
perhaps combination
Fits the general and specific
context
Is based on clear understanding
of the challenge or problem
The publication participation
process in impact assessment
of master plan is mandated. It
fits the general and specific
context and the challenge is
that impact assessment of the
master plan needs to be done.
I Identify purposes and design
to achieve them clarify and
regularly revisit the purposes
and desired outcomes of the
participation process and
design and redesign
accordingly
The purpose is clear to the
architect and seems to be
clearer to most of the
participants from Lahti City,
but not clear to stakeholders
and or the experts. The
facilitators role needs to be
clarified. A joint meeting for
the experts, main working
group from the City before the
seminars would be advisable.
The “order” from the city of
Lahti was vague.
II Analyze and appropriately
involve stakeholders
Ensure that the design and
implementation of public
participation processes are
informed by stakeholder
analysis and involve (in a
minimum) key stakeholders in
appropriate ways across the
steps/phases of participation
process. Note that specific
stakeholders may be involved
in different ways at different
steps or phases of the process
Lahti used old participation
data for the impact assessment
and discussed the in some
research group the about the
new participants. The number
of new participants was
restricted and they were
handpicked from a large third
and fourth sector group. It
would have been beneficial to
note that some stakeholders
could have been involved
different way or at least that
they should have received more
background data to be able to
participate more usefully
Challenges in Public Participation and Collaboration: A Case Study in Finnish Environmental Decision-making
175
Table 2: Findings. (cont.)
Design outlines Case findings
II Establish the legitimacy of
the process
Establish with both internal and
external stakeholders the
legitimacy of the process as a
form of engagement and a
source of trusted interaction
among participants
The impact assessment process
was considered as itself a good
thing, but that it needs
developing. The legitimacy
was understood by the
stakeholders, however the
perception of how significant
the impact was, varied among
the stakeholders and experts
involved.
II Foster effective leadership
Ensure that the participation
process leadership roles of
sponsoring, championing and
facilitating are adequately
fulfilled
This seems to be clear for the
main work group, but there
needs more specific
communication to the
participants about the
leadership roles. The different
roles of the organizers could be
clearer to participants, for
example the role of the
facilitator was clear to all, but
the practical realization in the
seminars was in minor part,
merely time management
tasks. Also, the ownership of
the process was not clear to all
the participants
II Seek resources for and
through participation
Secure adequate resources and
design and manage
participation processes so that
they generate additional
resources – in order to produce
a favorable benefit-cost ratio
for the participation process
Yes, the infrastructure for this
process (the Lahden Suunta
Case) exists already and in this
impact assessment the
participants contributed to new
information and also to new
understanding in both sides of
the participants that is the
organizers and the
stakeholders.
II Create appropriate rules and
structures to guide the process
Create rules and a project team
to guide operation decision
making, the overall work to be
done and who gets to be
involved in decision making in
what ways
This was clear in the work
group, but could have been
communicated more openly
and clearly to the participants
II Use inclusive processes to
engage diversity productively
Employ inclusive processes
that invite diverse participation
and engage differences
productively
This was done to some extent.
The initial work group with the
research group discussed and
debated about the participants.
A list of participants was done,
however the attending rate of
the added participants was low.
How to encourage participants
to attend would be something
to consider next time.
II Manage power dynamics to
provide opportunities for
meaningful participation,
exchange and influence on
decision outcomes
The overall impression from
the interviews was that the
impact assessment seminars
were meaningful and that
participants could express their
opinions and views. The
seminars were characterized as
easy-going, friendly and
confidential.
II Use information,
communication and other
The communication to
participants varied depending
technologies to achieve the
purposes of engagement
Participation processes should
be designed to make use of
information, communication,
and other technologies that fit
with the context and the
purposes of the process
on their interest group (City
employees, stakeholders,
experts). This unequal
preparation was a challenge
and lead to difficulties in the
workshops as some
participants were more
knowledgeable for the
seminars than others. There
were plenty of materials in the
seminars “World café” tables,
but no time and chance to adapt
or even glance the material
through before attending the
discussions. Hence the value of
these materials was low.
Lahti had also planned to use a
web-based “Maptionnaire”
survey for the participants, but
due to internet attack against
Lahti City and the work groups
workload this did not take
place.
III Develop participation
evaluation measures and
evaluation process that
supports the desired outcomes
How to evaluate the public
participation effort
There was no survey for the
participants after the seminars.
The communication after first
seminar was adequate, but the
invitation or reminder for the
second seminar was inadequate
as it arrived in the afternoon of
the day prior to the second
seminar. After the second
seminar the participants
(including experts and
stakeholders) have not received
any communication from the
work group. To summarize it
seems that no evaluation
measures or evaluation process
plans have been made by the
working group in the Lahti city.
III Align participation goals,
purposes, approaches,
promises, methods, techniques,
technologies, steps and
resources
Participation process should
seek alignment across the
elements of the process.
Otherwise the chances of
miscommunication,
misunderstanding and serious
conflict increase
The impact assessment process
is primarily aligning with
goals, purposes etc. It needs
some modifications and
adjustments and
conceptualizing to be even
better.
4.2 The Concept of Collaborative
Governance in the Case Lahti
Considering the impact assessment process through
the lens of collaborative governance is complex, as
impact assessment is a mandatory phase by the law in
the master planning process. However, in the Case
Lahti could be seen several aspects of collaborative
governance, both in common benefits and challenges.
The distribution of power in the case was somewhat
KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
176
clear, the master planning work group ran the process,
picked and invited the participants, and organized the
seminars. The participants experienced the
atmosphere open, friendly and confidential for
discussion, so the leadership could be considered
facilitative and empowering for the stakeholders. As
a downside, all the participants were not handed the
same amount of information beforehand, which put
the participants in unequal position and affected the
balance between the roles, as well as the efficiency
and effectiveness of the process. Whereas the roles
and the process were clear to the master planning
work group, there was some obscurity amongst the
participants of the roles in the process, and of the
process itself. Also, the purpose of the impact
assessment and the aims of the seminars were not
clear to all. Despite the fact, that the communication
was experienced open at the seminars, there would be
needed some improvement in communication by the
leaders regarding the participation process itself,
setting rules for how the process runs and
communicating them to stakeholders. Creating clear
frames for the collaborative actions and sharing
information equally amongst all participants,
improves the equality and balance between different
roles and stakeholders, and prevents experiences of
the process being seeming or injustice.
Table 3: Findings of collaborative governance.
Distribution
of power
Balance of
roles
Communication
Working jointly
towards solutions
by learning
Somewhat
clear, the
leadership is
facilitative
and
empowering,
experiences
of seemingly
process
The roles were
not fully clear
to all, and
sharing
different
amounts of
information
and lacking
communicatio
n set imbalance
between roles
Experienced
open, but was
lacking in term
of informing
about the aims
and purpose,
roles and phases
of the processes
Aims, purposes and
the processes were
not clear to all,
which indicates not
working towards
jointly set goals.
Also, there was so
evaluation,
assessment or
reflection for the
participants
One of the most important tools and at the same
time outcomes of the collaborative governance
process is social learning. Social learning enables
building up the social and economic capacity, where
the stakeholders are increasingly capable to solve
more and more complex issues. However, the
learning process needs to be facilitated by open
communication, sharing information and knowledge
flow, but also by setting joint aims and reflecting the
actions towards them. At the same time, involving the
stakeholders in setting the goals, working jointly
towards them and then reflecting, engages the
stakeholders to the process and creates shared
ownership, which feeds sharing power and taking
responsibility further. Currently, the participants
were not asked feedback of the seminars nor asked to
reflect their participation in the seminars or the
process, which can be seen hindering learning and
developing the collaborative process further, but also
preventing to optimize the impact assessment process
itself.
4.3 Summary of the Findings
We used two perspectives to study the Case Lahti i.e.
Public Participation process framework and
collaborative governance studies to try to understand
and identify the challenges in the collaborative impact
assessment process of Lahti. The findings were very
similar from both angles and we have concluded them
in Table 4.
Table 4: Summary of the findings.
Challenge Manifestation Proposed solution
Knowledge
sharing
Unequal distribution
of materials,
accessibility of
materials,
communication
problems; late,
insufficient or hasty
Increase awareness
and implement a
knowledge sharing
supporting culture
including technical
systems such as map
apps and platforms
Roles,
distribution of
power and
value
(organizers
and
participants)
Roles and
distribution of
power was not clear
to all participants
and lead to some
challenges
Open communication,
clear and well-defined
responsibilities,
authority and impacts
for all
Overview of
the process
Reshuffle in
working group,
what part of the
process is impact
assessment, how it
continues, what is
needed from the
participants
Schemes for
knowledge sharing,
especially tacit
knowledge,
communication and
planning
Learning
lessons
No feedback or
evaluations
Implement a procedure
for debriefing and
feedback and
communicate
5 CONCLUSIONS
Stakeholder engagement through participatory
approaches is claimed to be the remedy when tackling
contemporary complex environmental challenges
(Reed et al, 2018) - when succeeded, the results may
exceed any outcome the actors would have able to
reach alone (Emerson et al, 2012), but on a downside
Challenges in Public Participation and Collaboration: A Case Study in Finnish Environmental Decision-making
177
a failure might have far-reaching consequences.
(Reed et al, 2018; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Ansell &
Gash, 2008). The initiating actor for collaboration
does not always foresee the outcome, and there is no
way to guarantee the collaboration to succeed (Reed
et al, 2018; Gaventa & Barrett, 2012). Therefore, the
participative actions need to be purposeful with well-
defined aims and cautious planning, and rather
involving the stakeholders with a full intention of
meaning and true distribution of power. However, it
is up to the actors within the participation process to
formulate their joint rules, roles and ways of working,
as well as setting goals for collaboration, and through
open communication and reflection adjust the process
to ensure working jointly and purposefully towards
the aims. (Bryson et al 2013; Irvin & Stansbury,
2004).
Communication and knowledge sharing can be
considered critical points in creating a powerful and
functional collaborative participation process.
“Communications usually fails, except by accident”
(Wiio, O, 1978) is a “communication law” created by
the Finnish academic Osmo Wiio on 1970s.
Inequality in communication and information sharing
can easily lead to even severe challenges in the
process, fortunately this can be tackled by
acknowledging the level of difficulties in
communication, increasing awareness of
communication and implementing a knowledge
sharing supporting culture.
Even though the process is iterative and adaptive
by nature, to gain a functional, ongoing and active
collaboration the process needs to be conceptualized.
Open communication, knowledge sharing culture,
constant planning, feedback and debriefing are core
factors that need to be taken account in a
conceptualized process. A conceptualized process
can then be utilized as a template in various contexts
and for different purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the Strategic
Research Council’s Project CORE.
REFERENCES
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance
in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Batory, A. & Svensson, S. (2019). “The Fuzzy Concept of
Collaborative Governance: A Systematic Review of the
State of the Art.” Central European Journal Of Public
Policy 13.2: 28–39. Web.
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of
knowledge generation, bridging organizations and
social learning. Journal of Environmental Management
90, 1692–1702.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Azfar, O. (2006). Decentralization
and community empowerment: Does community
empowerment deepen democracy and improve service
delivery?. Washington, DC: Office of Democracy and
Governance, USAID
Bryson, J., Quick, K., Slotterback, C. & Crosby, B. (2013).
Designing Public Participation Processes. Public
Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.
CORE (2018). Collaborative remedies for fragmented
societies – facilitating the collaborative turn in
environmental decision-making – CORE.
http://www.collaboration.fi/EN/.
Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis
process. (2008). Journal of Advanced Nursing., 62(1),
107–115.
Elinkeino-, Liikenne-, ja Ympäristökeskus ELY. (2017).
Osallistun kaavoitukseen, kuntalaisen opas. Accessed
23.6.2020. Available at:
https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/130881/
Opas%205%202016.pdf?sequence=1
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. & Balogh, S. (2012). An
Integrated Framework for Collaborative Governance.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
22(1):1
Fielding, N., Fielding, J. (1986). Linking data. London:
SAGE.
Gaventa, J. & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the Outcomes of
Citizen Engagement. World Development, 40(12), p.
2399-2410.
Godenhjelm, S., & Johanson, J.-E. (2018). The effect of
stakeholder inclusion on public sector project
innovation. International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 84(1), 42–62.
Holbrook, M. B., 2006. Consumption experience, customer
value, and subjective personal introspection: An
illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business
Research, 59(6), 714-725.
Hotte, N., S. Kozak, R. Wyatt. (2019). How institutions
shape trust during collective action: A case study of
forest governance on Haida Gwaii. Forest Policy and
Economics 10, 1—11.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in
decision making: is it worth the effort? Public
administration review, 64(1), 55-65
Lahti. (2019). Osallistumis- ja arviointisuunnitelma.
Lahden suunta. Accessed 23.6.2020. Available at:
https://www.lahti.fi/paatoksenteko/strategia-ja-
talous/lahden-suunta
Leino, J. (2019). Yhteishallinnan mahdollisuuksista
Suomessa. Ympäristöpolitiikan ja –oikeuden vuosikirja
2019, 346—379.
Mäntysalo, Raine et al. “The Strategic Incrementalism of
Lahti Master Planning: Three Lessons.” Planning
Theory & Practice 20.4 (2019): 555–572. Web.
KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
178
Palomäki, J. (2018) Yleiskaavoituksen uusimpia tuulia
Lahdessa, Oulussa, Tampereella ja Helsingissä vuonna
2017. Teoksessa Hastio, Pia; Korkala, Paula; Laitio,
Matti; Manninen, Rikhard; Paajanen, Paula; Palomäki,
Johanna. Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 2/2018.
Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö: 14-23
Palomäki, Johanna (2013). Lahden yleiskaava. Teoksessa
Koivu, Veli-Pekka, Korkala, Paula, Laitio, Matti,
Manninen, Rikhard, Paajanen, Paula, Palomäki,
Johanna, Rossi, Leena ja Vänskä, Veikko (toim.):
Yleiskaavoituksen uusia tuulia. Ympäristöministeriön
raportteja 10/2013. Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki 9-
16. 5), 640-654.
Paunu, Annamaija, Vuori, Vilma, Helander, Nina,
Collaborative Processes in Environmental Decision-
Making: Fact or Fiction?, 7th biennial International
Symposium on Cross-Sector Social Interactions (CSSI
2020), virtual conference.
Reed, M., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L.,
Hohenwallner-Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R.,
Oughton, E., Sidoli del Ceno, J., & van Delden, H.
(2018). A theory of participation: what makes
stakeholder and public engagement in environmental
management work?: A theory of participation.
Restoration Ecology, 26, S7–S17.
Sotarauta, M. (2010). Regional development and regional
networks: The role of regional development officers in
Finland. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17 (4),
p. 387-400
Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2018). Laadullinen tutkimus ja
sisällönanalyysi (Uudistettu laitos.). Helsinki: Tammi.
Tuomisaari, J. (2019). Epävarmuuden edessä: kuntien
strateginen kaavoitus joustavana käytäntönä.
Tampereen yliopisto
Wiio, Osmo A. (1978) Wiion lait - ja vähän muidenkin.
Espoo, Weilin + Göös.
Challenges in Public Participation and Collaboration: A Case Study in Finnish Environmental Decision-making
179