Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12 www.elsevier.de/ufug

Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland Maija Sipila¨, Liisa Tyrva¨inen Department of Forest Ecology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland

Abstract In Helsinki, Finland, a participatory approach has been used in strategic planning of municipally owned urban forests since 1995. This paper presents the main results of a survey carried out among the residents and authorities participating in collaborative planning groups between 1995 and 2002. The aim of the study was to evaluate the experiences of residents and authorities related to the planning process. The study provided information for the upcoming reform of the participatory planning system at the Green Area Division of Helsinki. The participants felt that the participatory approach prevented conflicts in planning and increased residents’ awareness of matters concerning green areas. Most respondents were satisfied with this system. The green area planning authorities found a participatory approach in urban forest planning to be useful, although they believed themselves to be capable of making effective plans even without involving local residents. They did, however, believe that the process had been too demanding and time-consuming for group members. Moreover, the majority of respondents felt that participants had been given an over-optimistic idea of how much they could influence the plans. Setting goals for the green areas, particularly, at the local level, was considered to be the most important stage for involving residents in the planning process, while their participation in choosing actual management methods was thought to be less valuable. The residents placed a greater importance on early involvement of residents than did the planning authorities, who more often felt that allowing residents to comment on a draft of the plan was sufficient. In urban forest planning, cost-effective participation systems need to be developed. Conventional participation methods, such as public meetings, field trips and surveys, are important and should not be replaced by methods based on modern technology. In the future, several different participation methods should be used during a single planning process to encourage all stakeholders, including children, youth and other special groups, to take part in the planning. r 2005 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. Keywords: Public involvement; Participatory planning; Urban forests; Urban planning

Introduction The participatory planning approach is a relatively well-established method for integrating residents’ views into forest management (e.g., ILO, 2000). It offers local residents an opportunity to affect how urban forests in their immediate surroundings are managed. Today, a Corresponding author.

E-mail address: liisa.tyrvainen@helsinki.fi (L. Tyrva¨inen). 1618-8667/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2005.06.002

growing number of people are interested in influencing the decision-making processes and forestry practices (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000). Urban forest professionals are therefore expected to have a wide array of skills and effective tools to communicate with these individuals. They should have information on peoples’ needs, feel empathy for their wishes, and solve conflicts instead of creating them (Rydberg and Aronsson, 2004). Buchy and Hoverman (2000) presented four key principles that define good participatory planning

ARTICLE IN PRESS 2

M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

practices. The first deals with commitment and clarity. The planning organization must be clear in its objectives. It must decide whether its aim is to inform people, seek opinions or share control of the project. Second, sufficient time should be devoted to group dynamics. A long-lasting process is needed because the benefits of interaction can only be seen after several group meetings (Ma¨ntysalo and Nyman, 2002). The third principle entails representativeness of the people involved (see also Wallenius, 2001; Arola, 2002; Van Herzele et al., 2005). The fourth principle concerns sharing of skills. The knowledge and skills of lay people, as well as the expertise of professionals, should be benefited from in the planning process. Although support for the participatory approach has increased, some drawbacks remain. Participatory planning demands more time and resources than conventional planning by professionals alone (Wallenius, 2001). In addition, it is often unclear how well the group involved represents all users. The planning process tends to attract certain types of people, but the total number of participants is often low (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003). Furthermore, some active members may dominate the planning discussions at the meetings. While participation can be used to prevent conflicts (Wallenius, 2001), it may also lead to increased conflicts by providing a channel for opposition to develop (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003). Moreover, participation may raise exaggerated expectations if the essence of the planning is not understood or if the principles of decision-making are unclear. In practice, participatory planning often leads to a compromise in which individual expectations are not completely fulfilled (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003). The aim should not be to achieve unanimity but instead to find a balanced solution that is at least acceptable to all parties concerned (Appelstrand, 2002). In Finland, as in Sweden and Norway, cities have typically been built ‘‘into’’ the surrounding forest. This means that the majority of green areas are established by preserving existing forest vegetation. Helsinki belongs to the hemiboreal forest vegetation zone. Urban forests in the city consist mainly of natural or transformed forest vegetation, and typically, with these areas generally ranging from half a hectare to tens of hectares in a residential area, but larger recreation areas have also been preserved. The total area of woodlands within city limits is around 3600 ha, which is two-thirds of the total green area. The population of Helsinki is approximately 0.6 million inhabitants. The archipelago in the Baltic Sea is an important recreation zone for residents. According to the Finnish Land Use and Building Act (1999), a participatory approach is obligatory in prominent projects, such as city planning, but not in smaller projects, such as planning of urban forests. Nevertheless, the Green Area Division of Helsinki and

its predecessor have, at their own initiative, applied participatory methods in strategic planning of urban forests since 1995. This collaborative planning approach put widely into practice is one of only a few such examples in Europe (Konijnendijk, 1999). The main rationales underlying this approach are to improve residents’ possibilities of influencing forest management, to guide the inflow of feedback related to use and management of forests and to increase the quality and acceptability of plans. As regards green area planning, the municipal region is divided into 50 subunits. Strategic green area plans contain objectives and management strategies for forests and other green areas over a 10-year period. The plans are drawn up for a small number of subunits at a time. Participation methods can be broken down into three categories: open meetings, group methods and individual methods (Loikkanen et al., 1997). Open meetings are efficient in disseminating information widely to the public. Conditions for profound discussion and understanding are, however, better in group methods. According to Van Herzele et al. (2005), group discussions are one of the most remarkable innovations in learning theory of the 20th century. In urban forest planning, organized walks out in the forest are of great importance. Direct experiences of the woodland areas can make people more interested in forests, often at a low cost (ILO, 2003). Individual methods, such as surveys, interviews and participation based on modern technology, are typically cost-effective tools in data collection (Loikkanen et al., 1997). Their strength lies in the relatively strong representativeness of the information collected. Possibilities for feedback are, however, limited, and interaction between stakeholders seldom occurs (Loikkanen et al., 1997). All three methods have been in use in urban forest planning in Helsinki (Fig. 1). Between 1995 and 2002, each

Time (months) 1

General public informing about beginning of planning

Planning group assembling the group

survey 14

draft of plan finished

informing about draft of plan

6-10 meetings indoors/outdoors

open meeting

18 plan finished

delivering plan to group members plan available at local library follow-up field trip

Fig. 1. Information and participation activities in an urban forest planning process, Helsinki, Finland.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

planning process was initiated by assembling a collaborative planning group, which was composed mainly of representatives of local non-governmental organizations and associations. Individual residents were also accepted as members of these groups. In addition, these collaborative planning groups contained representatives from different city departments, including city planning, social services, youth and environment departments. Besides some 6–10 planning group meetings and walks in the planning area, each planning process included at least one meeting open to the public-at-large. A survey was carried out in almost every planning process. Different questionnaires, e.g. semi-structured and totally structured forms as well as questionnaires with open questions, were applied. At the end of the process, each group member received a copy of the final plan. A copy of the plan was also made available in a local library. In most cases, the planning group reassembled 1–2 years after the plan was ready for a follow-up field trip. In 2002, plans prepared using the participatory process were finished in almost all of the Helsinki subunits. One of the most critical problems with the approach was the numerous meetings needed, which made the process costly and time-consuming. In autumn 2002, after a considerable decrease in planning resources, the Green Area Division initiated a project to develop the planning system. The project aimed at developing guidelines for green area planning, including guidelines for collaboration. This necessitated a study on the experiences of the collaborative planning methods used to date. This paper reports survey results of experiences related to collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki in 1995–2002. The main aim of the study was to assess the benefits and drawbacks of the collaborative planning methods as experienced by stakeholders and planning authorities. Specific aims were to collect information on the usefulness and functionality of collaborative planning groups and to assess how important participation is at different stages of planning. Moreover, opinions were gathered on how participation in green area planning might be organized in the future. This study, conducted as a sub-project of the larger research project ‘Neighbourwoods’ (Advancing the quality of life and the environment of European cities through socially inclusive planning, design and management of urban woodlands, QLK5-CT-2001-00165), was funded by the City of Helsinki Green Area Division and the European Commission and carried out at the Department of Forest Ecology, University of Helsinki.

Materials and methods A mail survey was sent in autumn 2002 to all those who had participated in the planning groups during

3

1995–2002. The questionnaire was designed with the help of planning authorities in Helsinki and tested with a group of authorities and residents involved in the planning. Altogether 732 questionnaires were distributed to planning authorities, other authorities and participating residents. Responses were received from 33 planning authorities, 43 other authorities and 354 residents; thus, the overall response rate was 62.5%. In the cover letter of the questionnaire, participatory planning was defined. This definition, based on comparable definitions of different authors (Wiio, 1989; Loikkanen et al., 1997; Wallenius, 2001; Arola, 2002), included three pre-requisites for participatory planning. First, different parties of the planning process must be able to communicate with each other face-to-face, or at least by e-mail, web or phone. The parties must give and receive feedback on each others’ messages. Second, all essential information on the planning area must be included in the planning. Third, the final decisions should be made with awareness of all opinions. The questionnaire consisted of four parts (Fig. 2). The first part dealt with the need for and usefulness of the participatory approach in green area planning in general. Residents and planning authorities were asked how important they thought the possibilities were for participation at different stages of land-use or green area planning. Respondents were asked to consider participation from their own point of view only. In the second part, respondents were asked about their experiences with the participatory planning system, and to indicate how satisfied they were with use of collaborative planning groups. Respondents also evaluated to what extent residents and authorities were able to influence the final plans as well as how useful different working methods, i.e. field visits, team work or individual work conducted at home, had been. Moreover, the usefulness of participatory planning was considered from different viewpoints, such as in prevention of conflicts or in increasing residents’ awareness of matters concerning green areas and authorities’ awareness of local conditions of planning areas, was assessed. The third part dealt with suggestions for organizing participation in the future. Respondents were asked to choose the best method or combination of methods in collaborative planning from the alternatives of open meetings, group methods and individual methods. Their opinion was also sought about the best ways to collect feedback and optimal timing for communication. The first three parts together consisted of 14 questions and 78 subquestions. In the fourth part, the respondents were asked to provide such personal data as age, sex and how long they had lived in their present housing area. All questions were pre-coded and often were in multiplechoice form. At the end of the second and third parts, respondents also had an opportunity to write their own comments.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 4

M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

IV III II I Benefits of participatory approach

Experiences with collaborative planning system

Importance of collaborative planning in general

Evaluation of different participation methods

Opinions related to functionality of planning system

Influence of stakeholders on final plans

Importance of participation in different stages of landuse and green area planning

Future collaborative planning Combination of participation methods Optimal time for communication within the planning process

Personal data Age, sex, education Housing type Residence time in current housing district and in Helsinki Metropolitan Area

Benefits and drawbacks of planning groups

Fig. 2. Structure of questionnaire used to evaluate collaborative green area planning in Helsinki, Finland.

The answers were analysed using the statistical software package SPSS 9.0. Conclusions drawn from the answers were based on mean values and percentage distributions of the respondent groups. The questionnaire worked well since there were few unanswered questions. Missing answers were excluded from the analysis.

Results Respondents The typical respondent was middle-aged or elderly. The most common age class was 51–60 years in all respondent groups: 34% of residents, 37% of the planning authorities and 50% of other authorities belonged to this age class. In this sample, 91% of residents were over 40 years old. In the overall population of Helsinki, the proportion of over 40year-old people is only 49% (Helsinki by District, 2003). The residents represented men and women equally. Women comprised 45% of planning authorities group, but 60% of the other authorities group. Respondents, regardless of group, tended to be highly educated and living in one-family or row houses. Of the participating residents, 43% held an academic degree. In the overall population of Helsinki, the proportion of residents holding an academic degree is 21% (Helsinki by District, 2003). The majority of residents (75%) had lived in their present housing area for more than 10 years. Most residents (92%) had lived in the Helsinki metropolitan area for more than 20 years.

Perceived need for a participatory approach in green area planning Resident involvement in green area planning was generally considered important, with more than 80% of residents and more than half of planning authorities describing residents’ participation as very important (Fig. 3). Possibilities to participate were stressed more by residents than by planning authorities. The majority of residents (84%) considered participation to be very important as opposed to 53% of planning authorities. Moreover, 80% of residents stated that the quality of plans is inadequate without residents’ participation (Fig. 3). In contrast, almost two-thirds of planning authorities felt that planning conducted by professionals alone is good enough for implementation. Most respondents (87% of residents and 70% of planning authorities) were satisfied with the current participatory planning system (Fig. 3). Respondents claimed that that the participatory approach had been useful in compiling the green area plans: 94% of residents and 81% of planning authorities agreed fully or partially with this statement. More than four-fifths of residents and almost two-thirds of the planning authorities thought that the plans had become better from the standpoint of their own objectives.

Experiences with the participatory planning system The majority of respondents (72% of residents and 76% of planning authorities) agreed that participation had prevented conflicts in green area planning (Fig. 4). Moreover, they agreed (92% of residents and 88% of planning authorities) that participation had increased

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

How important is the participatory approach in planning of urban green areas?

residents (n=346)

very important somewhat important somewhat unimportant totally unimportant

planning authorities (n=32)

0%

Statement: Professional planners are capable of making effective green area plans without residents´ participation.

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

fully agree

residents (n=310)

mainly agree can´t say mainly disagree

planning authorities (n=30)

fully disagree

0%

How satisfied are you with the participatory planning system?

5

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

residents (n=334)

very satisfied mainly satisfied can´t say mainly dissatisfied

planning authorities (n=33)

very dissatisfied

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Fig. 3. Importance of residents’ participation in green area planning and satisfaction with the participatory planning system in Helsinki.

residents’ awareness of matters concerning green areas (Fig. 4). After taking part in the planning, the residents felt they appreciated their environment more (Fig. 4). In addition, all respondent groups agreed that the city authorities’ awareness of the local conditions in the planning areas had improved. Most respondents (81% of residents and 94% of planning authorities) agreed with the statement that the participatory approach had made the idea of green area planning more appealing to the public. Nevertheless, drawbacks with the planning approach were also apparent. More than 60% of respondents fully or partially agreed that they had been given an over-

optimistic idea of how much they could influence the plans (Fig. 5). Moreover, the planning authorities stressed the problem of representativeness. A minority (40%) felt that members of the planning groups represented the opinions of different stakeholders well. The residents’ evaluation of the representativeness of the groups was, by contrast, more positive, as 70% felt that it was fairly good. The respondent groups also had discrepant views on whether the participatory system had been too challenging and time-consuming for group members. More than half of the green area planning authorities but less than one-fifth of residents regarded this as a problem (Fig. 5).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 6

M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

Residents' participation has... prevented conflicts in green area planning.

residents (n=344) planning authorities (n=33)

increased residents´ awareness of matters concerning green areas.

residents (n=344) planning authorities (n=33)

residents (n=341)

increased residents´ appreciation for their environment.

planning authorities (n=33) 0%

fully agree

mainly agree

can´t say

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

fully disagree

mainly disagree

Fig. 4. Statements concerning collaborative green area planning in Helsinki.

Participants have been given an over-optimistic idea of how much they can influence plans.

Planning process has been too demanding and timeconsuming for planning group members.

Opportunities of residents to participate in planning have been sufficient.

residents (n=345) planning authorities (n=33)

residents (n=344) planning authorities (n=32)

residents (n=341) planning authorities (n=33) 0%

fully agree

mainly agree

can´t say

20 %

40 %

60 %

mainly disagree

80 %

100 %

fully disagree

Fig. 5. Statements concerning collaborative green area planning in Helsinki.

Most respondents (68% of residents and 79% of planning authorities) thought that the opportunities for residents to participate in the planning had been sufficient (Fig. 5) and that the planning group meetings had been properly prepared. Interestingly, almost twothirds of the planning authorities believed that the language used by the professionals had been too difficult

for the residents, while the majority of residents did not consider the language to be a problem. The results revealed that the planning authorities influenced the plans more so than did the residents. Most respondents agreed that the residents who had participated in the planning groups affected the plans more than those who had only taken part in public

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

meetings or answered surveys. In addition, the residents considered public meetings and surveys to be equally effective planning tools. The planning authorities and other authorities, by contrast, felt that those who had answered a survey had a greater impact on the plans than those who had participated in a public meeting.

Importance of participation at the different planning stages To analyse the green area planning process in more detail, the following stages of involvement were specified: setting goals for the green areas, first, at the city level, and then, at the local level, and choosing the actual management methods for the natural areas and parks. The first stage deals with land-use planning. Setting the goals for green areas, particularly at the local level, was considered to be the most important stage for involving residents in the planning process (Fig. 6). All respondent groups felt that participation was less important at the land-use planning stage and even less

Land use planning: making a local master plan

Land use planning: making a local detailed plan

General-level goal-setting for green areas

Local-level goal-setting for green areas

7

important at the stage of choosing management methods. However, residents believed that involvement in choosing management methods for nature areas was more important than for built-up parks. The involvement of residents in setting goals in green area planning was seen as much more important than in choosing the actual management methods. In both respondent groups, more than 60% of respondents selected this response option (Fig. 7). Only 25% of residents and 6% of planning authorities felt that participation was desirable at both stages. During a single planning project the residents placed greater importance on early involvement of residents than did the planning authorities, which more often felt that allowing residents to comment on a draft of the plan would suffice.

Methods for involving residents in planning Respondents were asked to evaluate the usefulness of different participation methods for the future. Residents

residents (n=339)

planning authorities (n=32)

residents (n=335) planning authorities (n=32)

residents (n=343) planning authorities (n=33)

residents (n=347) planning authorities (n=33)

Choosing management methods for natural areas

Choosing management methods for parks

residents (n=334) planning authorities (n=32)

residents (n=336) planning authorities (n=32) 0%

very important

somewhat important

20 %

some what unimportant

40 %

60 %

80 %

totally unimportant

Fig. 6. Importance of residents’ participation in the different stages of planning in Helsinki.

100 %

ARTICLE IN PRESS 8

M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

was deemed a versatile platform in participatory planning, it should not replace more conventional participating methods, such as meetings, walks and surveys.

Residents involved only in setting goals

Residents involved only in choosing management methods

Residents involved in both setting goals and choosing management methods

Discussion

Goals set and methods chosen without involving residents 0

20

planning authorities (n=32)

40

60

80 %

residents (n=342)

Fig. 7. Importance of residents’ involvement in setting goals and in choosing management methods for green areas in Helsinki.

considered most of the methods beneficial. They would like to receive information letters about the planning at the beginning of the process, during the process and even when the plan is finished. Moreover, they stated that information about the goals of the participation and how much influence they would have on the plan would be useful. The planning authorities, by contrast, evaluated sending information letters as most useful at an early stage of the planning process, and most of them thought that after the plan was finished, such letters would serve no purpose. Most residents found public meetings to be very beneficial at the different stages of the planning process. The planning authorities, however, stressed that a public meeting was best for presenting a draft of the plan. During the planning process there should be an opportunity for the planners and the participants to go together on a walk in the planning area. The residents agreed with the planning authorities that this walk is most beneficial when organized at the beginning of the planning process. A survey was also considered a useful participation method, although public meetings were assessed to be of much greater importance. Local libraries, community centres or other similar places can serve participatory planning in many ways. Respondents reported that a draft of the plan should be available for viewing at, for example, the local library. Moreover, a box for written comments located next to the draft was considered to be useful. A further suggestion was that the planner meet with residents at the local library. The majority (62%) of residents but only one-third of planning authorities considered a specific collaborative planning group in the future to be necessary. When asked about web-based methods of participation, respondents thought that the internet should be used only if other opportunities for participation are simultaneously available. Although the internet

Residents participating in the planning groups were typically older, higher educated and had lived in their housing area longer than citizens in Helsinki on average (see Ba¨cklund et al., 2002). The subject characteristics here are similar to those in other studies of urban forest planning in Helsinki (e.g., Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003). Estimating the total number of people affected by participatory planning is difficult. Beside the planning group and public meetings, the use of other participatory tools, such as surveys, increases the number of people aware of the planning. Moreover, the participatory process itself may be considered desirable even by persons unable to participate themselves. Advertisements of public planning meetings have a considerable role in informing the public, and consequently, their significance is usually broader than the actual number of people participating. Although most inhabitants of Helsinki feel that city planning can be left to professionals (Ba¨cklund et al., 2002), the majority of the residents involved in the collaborative urban forest planning groups deemed public involvement necessary for producing sufficiently good green area plans. The composition of planning groups may not necessarily, however, reflect the interests of all users of the urban forests. As planning group members, the participants are supposed to pass along information to the other residents who they represent, collect their views and opinions and express this local information at the planning group meetings. Because it is difficult to assess the extent to which the members actually communicate with the groups they represent, representatives’ personal opinions may be over-emphasized. The results here show that membership in a group is the most effective way for a resident to influence plans. However, communication between the planning group and the public is essential to prevent the planning group from turning into an ‘‘inner circle’’. As representatives of residents often take part in several municipal decision-making processes, they may turn into ‘‘professional participants’’, thus diverging from the position of other residents (Staffans, 2002). In our study, the planning authorities assessed the representativeness of groups to be relatively poor, while the residents themselves were more optimistic. There is relatively little research available about representativeness of participants in collaborative planning. Tyrva¨inen

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

et al. (2003) found that at least the landscape preferences related to urban forest management methods did not differ between planning group members and the people participating at large public meetings. One challenge is to reach special user groups; for instance, children, youth, the very elderly and disabled persons are often inadequately involved in planning (Puustinen, 2004). Children and youth have participated in forest planning in Helsinki in several projects, but thus far, their involvement has not been systematic (Staffans and Rantanen, 1999). In Denmark, user councils established in relation to planning and management of urban forests organize a few meetings every year (Boon and Meilby, 2000). The participants (representatives of non-governmental organizations) generally find the system to be positive, but the problem of how to take unorganized interests into account has been raised (Boon and Meilby, 2000). In Helsinki, individual residents have also been welcome to participate in planning groups. Our results indicate that a participatory approach increases the influence of local residents. Almost threequarters of the residents who had participated in the collaborative groups felt that they had affected the plans noticeably. In Denmark, two-thirds of participants of forest user councils believed that their influence had increased (Boon and Meilby, 2000). However, the majority of our participants felt that they had been given an overly optimistic idea about the scope of their role in decision-making. According to Leppa¨la¨ (1998), who interviewed members of a planning group for the southern part of Helsinki Central Park, only half of the participating residents thought that they had influenced the plan. Participation may give rise to exaggerated expectations since decision-making power is often rescinded or decisions are based on otherwise biased information. Proper clarification of the rules and the scope of participation is therefore needed to prevent false ideas of how much residents can influence the plans. Residents in our study felt that their awareness of matters concerning green areas had increased, and planning authorities in turn felt that their awareness of local conditions had improved. Participants of the Danish urban forest user councils also reported that participation had led to a better understanding of others’ interests and views (Boon and Meilby, 2000). In general, it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which the knowledge related to green area urban forest planning or management actually increases. Koljonen (2003) noted that participation in collaborative planning had no effect on residents’ knowledge of forest ecology. Tyrva¨inen et al. (2003) also found that participation in a planning group did not change people’s landscape preferences related to urban forest management practices during a 1-year planning process.

9

Effective public participation can take place during the early stages of a planning process, when all options are open; the later the public gets involved, the more difficult it is to influence the decisions (Appelstrand, 2002). In this study, both the authorities and residents considered residents’ participation more important on a local than on a city level, and more important in setting goals than in choosing management measures. Local participation can enhance residents’ sense of influencing their immediate living environment, and the quality of plans can be improved with residents’ local knowledge. Furthermore, residents felt that their participation was more important in choosing measures for forest areas than for other green areas such as constructed parks. This result highlights the close bonds that Finns have with forest nature, even in an urban environment. This finding is supported by a survey study investigating social values of urban forests in eastern Helsinki (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2004b). The most important attributes describing favourite places local residents in the green areas were peace, sense of a forest and naturalness. Residents in Espoo recorded ‘sense of a forest’ as the second or third most important quality associated with green areas in their living environment (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2005b, 45p. and appendix). As different participation methods complement each other, the best way to integrate diversified interests in planning is to use several methods during a single planning process (Wallenius, 2001; Ba¨cklund et al., 2002). The residents found conventional methods, such as meetings, walks and surveys, useful in the planning. Small group meetings are a favourable platform for creative brainstorming in the initial phases of a project and for in-depth exploration of ideas from a wider forum (Van Herzele et al., 2005). According to Ma¨ntysalo and Nyman (2002), several group meetings are needed to enable a productive interaction and learning and to attain a real sense of involvement. The pre-conditions for learning are at their best when a group is relatively small (Ma¨ntysalo and Nyman 2002), but the smaller the group, the more difficult it is to achieve good representativeness. Consequently, a planning group should not be used as the sole participation method. Although the participatory system used in Helsinki was quite extensive, a considerable portion of residents thought that even more opportunities are needed for participation. Within the limits of resources, an appropriate combination of qualitative and quantitative goals must be sought. The authorities were likely to be more aware of the costs of the methods and may therefore prefer other means of participation, while the residents were eager to continue with the planning group system. Due to increasing budget constraints, new interactive platforms are continually sought. To gain acceptance for decisions in urban settings, which have many different stakeholders and interests, transparency and good com-

ARTICLE IN PRESS 10

M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

munication are necessary (Appelstrand, 2002). One way to enable fertile interaction with lesser resources is to develop group work methods that can be applied in public meetings. With regard to modern technology many citizens are unable or reluctant to use it and thus, only a limited array of information can be obtained for planning this way. However, the huge potential of the Internet and especially solutions based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS), in launching new participation methods should be utilized in diversifying the tools for participation. One of the key factors here is to produce and convey accurate and understandable information in a cost-effective way. Modern technology also offers considerable opportunities for advanced methods such as visualization (Karjalainen and Tyrva¨inen, 2002; Tyrva¨inen and Uusitalo, 2004). Surveys in turn have the potential of gathering large quantities of data on residents’ opinions of urban forests, but their content needs to be professionally designed to elicit the desired information. Our survey results suggest that the planning authorities prefer surveys to public meetings. Systematically collected data yielded by structured questionnaires are easier to use and have better representativeness than data collected freely in public meetings with open questions. However, public meetings may be more effective in increasing residents’ knowledge than surveys. In planning group meetings, in turn, the number of participants is smaller, but stakeholders have better possibilities of discussing matters amongst themselves. This may help participants to more clearly understand each other’s views, thereby preventing conflicts. In all, various participation methods meet goals for participation differently. Because no one single method is suitable across all situations, several participation methods should be used in collaborative planning processes.

Conclusions Although a high participation rate is of value in itself, efficient communication and information tools are needed to optimize planning processes. While participatory planning requires a greater initial investment involving residents at the planning stage can lead to decreased costs later, as it prevents complaints at the implementation stage. Participatory planning can also improve residents’ quality of life at the planning stage by offering positive experiences of involvement and empowerment, and afterwards when realization of the plan leads to improvements in their living environment. Here, collaborative planning was evaluated in relation to the objectives of preventing conflicts, improving residents’ possibilities of influencing plans and increasing residents’ appreciation of the environment. These

objectives were derived from the theory of collaborative planning (Wallenius, 2001) and from the objectives the planning organization had set for the collaborative planning. To evaluate the planning system thoroughly from the residents’ viewpoints, it would be necessary to determine the objectives that residents had set for their participation. As an extension of the current study, residents could be interviewed about their objectives. These interviews would also provide an opportunity to uncover new ideas about how to organize future participation. Interviewing residents who have not yet participated in planning might be useful as well. It would help to develop collaborative processes, thereby attracting new participants. To minimize the number of meetings, improved collaborative methods are needed. It would, for example, be reasonable to develop group working methods that could also be used at public meetings. In this way, the benefits of small groups could be combined with improved representativeness, larger numbers of residents would be involved in the planning. Rydberg and Aronsson (2004) stated that there must be a constant readiness to change the groups of people involved. The interests of all stakeholders must be safeguarded using methods that enable participation of a wide range of people. One problem in collaborative urban forest planning may be that it largely focuses on management decisions that are difficult for residents to understand. Residents’ interests lie more in the end result, i.e. in appearance, possibilities for use and quality of the green areas. Since local residents evaluate the quality and functionality of green areas according to personal experiences, information on how citizens perceive green areas is also needed in the planning and decision-making processes. Recently, methods to determine the collect social values of urban woodlands and other green areas have been developed. The GIS-linked approach used in mapping of values has been shown to offer a comprehensive basis for understanding perceived values of the green areas, mainly because of the non-technical language and the systematic approach to collecting and analysing data (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2005a). In conclusion, although involving everyone is impossible, people should at least be aware of the different planning phases and the opportunities to influence outcome. A proper flow of information is therefore essential throughout the participatory planning process. As local papers and other media are the most significant sources of information for residents, co-operation with reporters of local papers can effectively disseminate planning information. In addition, participants should see the plan implemented relatively soon after the planning phases. Authorities’ commitment to the goals set with local residents is necessary for successful collaborative planning of urban forests.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

Acknowledgements This research funded by the Helsinki Green Area Division and the European Commission, was undertaken in co-operation with the larger interdisciplinary research project Neighbourwoods (Advancing the quality of life and the environment of European cities through socially inclusive planning, design and management of urban woodlands, QLK5-CT-2001-00165). We thank the team at the City of Helsinki Division of Streets and Parks, with special thanks to Head of the Planning Office Terhi Tikkanen-Lindstro¨m, Development Chief Juha Prittinen and Project Leader Tauno Immonen. All local residents as well as the experts from the City of Helsinki are warmly acknowledged for their contributions.

References Appelstrand, M., 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners. Forest Policy and Economics 4, 281–290. Arola, T., 2002. Vuorovaikutteinen kaavoitus ja kuntalaisten vaikuttaminen (Participatory land use planning and influencing of citizens). The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, Helsinki (in Finnish). Boon, T.E., Meilby, H., 2000. Enhancing public participation in state forest management: a user council survey. Forestry 73 (2), 155–164. Buchy, M., Hoverman, S., 2000. Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 15–25. Ba¨cklund, P., Maury, J., Vuolanto, P., 2002. Helsingin yleiskaava 2002: Tutkimus asukkaiden osallisuudesta kaupungin kehitta¨misessa¨ (The local master plan of Helsinki 2002: A study about the involvement of inhabitants in the city planning). Publications of the City Planning Department of Helsinki 12 (in Finnish). Helsinki by District, 2003. City of Helsinki Urban Facts, Helsinki (in Finnish). Karjalainen, E., Tyrva¨inen, L., 2002. Visualization in landscape preference research: a review of Finnish forest visualization systems. Landscape and Urban Planning 885, 1–16. Koljonen, K., 2003. Vuorovaikutteinen viheraluesuunnittelu Helsingissa¨: asukkaiden metsa¨ekologian tuntemus ja mielipiteet kaupunkimetsien hoidosta (Participatory forest planning in Helsinki: the residents’ awareness of forest ecology and the opinions of the management of urban forests). Unpublihed M.Sc. Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki (in Finnish). Konijnendijk, C.C., 1999. Urban forestry in Europe: a comparative study of concepts, policies and planning for forest conservation, management and development in and around major European cities. Research notes No. 90. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Joensuu, Joensuu.

11

Finnish Land Use and Building Act, 1999. Original title: Maanka¨ytto¨- ja rakennuslaki 132/1999. http://www.finlex.fi/english/laws/index.php. Accessed June 2005. Leppa¨la¨, J., 1998. Haastattelututkimus vuorovaikutteisesta metsa¨suunnittelusta Helsingin Keskuspuiston etela¨osan alueella (Interview study about the collaborative forest planning in the southern part of the Central park of Helsinki). Unpublished Thesis, Kymenlaakso Polytechnic, Kotka (in Finnish). Loikkanen, T., Simojoki, T., Wallenius, P., 1997. Osallistavan suunnittelun opas luonnonvara-ammattilaisille (A Guide to Participatory Planning for Professionals of Natural Resources). Metsa¨hallitus, Kuopio (in Finnish). Ma¨ntysalo, R., Nyman, K., 2002. Osallisuuslaboratorio: kokemuksia vuorovaikutteisen maanka¨yto¨n suunnittelun koulutusprojektista (Laboratory of involvement: experiences of an education project about collaborative land use planning). In: Ba¨cklund, P., Ha¨kli, J., Schulman, H. (Eds.), Stakeholders and Experts—Citizens in City Planning. Gaudeamus & City of Helsinki Urban Facts, Helsinki, pp. 260–279 (in Finnish). ILO, 2000. Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America. Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO Joint Committee team of Specialists on Participation in Forestry. ILO, Geneva. ILO, 2003. Raising awareness of forests and forestry. Building bridges between people, forests and forestry. Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO Team of Specialists on Participation in Forestry and the FAO/ECE Forest Communicators Network. ILO, Geneva. Puustinen, S., 2004. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu ammattina— suomalaiset kaavoittajat ja 2000-luvun haasteet (Land Use Planning as a Profession—Finnish Land Use Planners and Challenges of the 2000s). The Finnish Environment 715. Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki (in Finnish). Rydberg, D., Aronsson, M., 2004. V(ar ta¨tortsna¨ra natur—en bok om fo¨rvaltning och sko¨tsel (Our Urban Nature—A Book of Management and Silviculture). Skogsstyrelsen, Jo¨nko¨ping (in Swedish). Staffans, A., 2002. Kilpailu tiedosta kiristyy: supertyypit eletyn kaupungin tulkkeina (The competition of knowledge is tightening: super people as interpreters of the experienced city). In: Ba¨cklund, P., Ha¨kli, J., Schulman, H. (Eds.), Stakeholders and Experts—Citizens in City Planning). Gaudeamus & City of Helsinki Urban Facts, Helsinki, pp. 180–199 (in Finnish). Staffans, A., Rantanen, H., 1999. Raportti Kotiluontoprojektista: tietoverkot vuorovaikutteisen suunnittelun va¨lineina¨ (Report of the Kotiluonto Project: Data Networks as Tools in Collaborative Planning). The City of Helsinki Public Works Department, Helsinki (in Finnish). Tyrva¨inen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1, 135–149. Tyrva¨inen, L., Uusitalo, J., 2004. Role of landscape simulators in forestry: a Finnish perspective. In: Bishop, I.D., Lange, E. (Eds.), Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning. Spon Press, London, pp. 125–132. Tyrva¨inen, L., Ma¨kinen, K., Schipperijn, J., Silvennoinen, H., 2004. Mapping Social Values and Meanings of Green Areas

ARTICLE IN PRESS 12

M. Sipila¨, L. Tyrva¨inen / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4 (2005) 1–12

in Helsinki, Finland. Department of Forest Ecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki http://www.sl.kvl.dk/euforic/nbw.htm Accessed June 2005. Tyrva¨inen, L., Ma¨kinen, K., Schipperijn, J., 2005a. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning (1/2005), accepted with revisions (6/2005). Tyrva¨inen, L., Nissila¨, T., Silvennoinen, H., 2005b. Kaupunkiviheralueiden sosiaaliset arvot ja merkitykset Espoossa:Espoon keskus ja Kauklahti. (Social values and meaning of urban green areas in Espoo: Espoo centre and Kauklahti) Helsingin yliopisto, metsa¨ekologian laitos (in Finnish).

Van Herzele, A., Collins, K., Tyrva¨inen, L., 2005. Involving people in urban forestry. A discussion of participatory practices throughout Europe. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. A Reference Book. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 207–228. Wallenius, P., 2001. Osallistava strateginen suunnittelu julkisten luonnovarojen hoidossa (Participation in startegic planning of public natural resources). Ph.D. thesis. Forestry Publications of Metsa¨hallitus 41, Metsa¨hallitus, Vantaa (in Finnish). Wiio, O., 1989. Viestinna¨n perusteet (The basics of commucation). Weilin+Go¨o¨s, Espoo (in Finnish).