Communication-Oriented and Process-Sensitive Planning Support

The﻿complexity﻿of﻿the﻿planning﻿context﻿has﻿raised﻿criticism﻿against﻿public﻿participation﻿for﻿being﻿a﻿ rigid﻿top-down﻿endeavour﻿which﻿does﻿not﻿recognize﻿the﻿different﻿communicative﻿needs﻿and﻿necessary﻿ working﻿modes﻿in﻿the﻿engagement﻿of﻿broad﻿publics﻿and﻿collaborative﻿small﻿groups.﻿Consequently,﻿ the﻿problem﻿is﻿how﻿to﻿improve﻿public﻿participation﻿so﻿that﻿it﻿becomes﻿more﻿sensitive﻿to﻿the﻿variety﻿of﻿ communicative﻿activities﻿and﻿knowledge﻿needs﻿involved﻿in﻿the﻿design﻿of﻿urban﻿planning﻿processes.﻿ The﻿aim﻿of﻿the﻿article﻿is﻿to﻿present﻿and﻿discuss,﻿on﻿the﻿basis﻿of﻿two﻿small﻿case﻿studies﻿in﻿the﻿Finnish﻿ context,﻿a﻿revised﻿model﻿for﻿a﻿process-sensitive﻿planning﻿support﻿system﻿(PSS),﻿with﻿examples﻿of﻿ several﻿digital﻿tools.﻿The﻿authors﻿argue﻿that﻿besides﻿broad﻿public﻿participation,﻿more﻿collaboration﻿is﻿ needed﻿to﻿converge﻿the﻿diverse﻿knowledge﻿of﻿planning﻿in﻿two-way﻿communication﻿and﻿co-working﻿ settings﻿which﻿enable﻿the﻿analysis﻿and﻿design﻿of﻿living﻿environments.

Next, we will describe the theoretical framework including the original model after which the methodology for the empirical cases, their analysis and comparison will be presented with consequencesfortherevisionofthemodel.Theauthorsconcludebydiscussingtheanswerstothe researchquestions.

4
Currently, broad public participation is enhanced by cell phones (text messages) and social media,whichmanygovernmentshavechosentoapply.Thenewtechnologytendstomultiplyvoices inplanningbutcomplicatestheexaminationofdifferenttypesofknowledge.Toarrangeparticipatory foraandplatformsforalargenumberofpeopleisrelativelysimplecomparedtothechallengeof organising,analysingandinterpretingtheinformationproducedinthesearenas.Consequently,claim testing in the sense of converging planning knowledge still rests on the planner's interpretations ofthebestsolutions.Therefore,weassertthatthereisaneedformorecollaborativeworkingand interpersonalcommunicationtoclosedowntheknowledgecreationprocessofplanning.Although collaboration and working in task-oriented groups are widely acknowledged in planning theory, collaborativegroupworkishardtoapplyinbroadpublicparticipation.
To solve the above described dilemmas, we have drafted a communication-oriented model comprisingatthisstage1.aconceptualschemaonknowledgecreationandcivicengagement,and 2.aprocessschema.

TheresultsfromthecasesonpublicparticipationinOtaniemiandcollaborativeactivitiesinthe
Otaniemi OK-project, enabled us to compare the cases concerning knowledge needs and civic engagementinthedifferentphasesofurbanplanning,aswellastheconsequencesforaviablePSS.

Separate Communicative Processes, Scattered Knowledge Creation
The147participatoryactivitiesinOtaniemitookplaceataspecificstageofacertainplanningprocess. Stakeholderswerewidelyinvitedtoparticipateandtoproduceinformationabouttheneedsforland use,transportationandserviceinOtaniemi.However,theseparticipatoryarrangementsweremostly characterised by one-way communication. Either the planner informed the public of the coming changesintheenvironmentors/hegatheredinformationasbroadlyaspossiblefromtheresidents. Theseactivitiesopenedtheplanningprocessesandservedthedivergenceofknowledgeproduction.

From the resident's perspective, it looks like a piece of plan appears suddenly from somewhere and you cannot know what kind of plans exist next to that spot and nobody has been interested in informing about these plans. Therefore, a comprehensive illustration of the area would be needed. … It doesn't make sense that now the area is built in small pieces. (a resident of Otaniemi)
ThecollaborativeOtaniemiOK-processwasanattempttoconvergethediversegroupinterestsand knowledgetowardsasharedvisionofOtaniemi.Thecity"expectedaprocesswhereallparticipants canequallypresenttheirvisions"andpromised"totakeadvantageoftheoutcomesinthefuture planning"(Chiefplanningofficial,CityofEspoo). TheresearchersaskedthekeystakeholdersinthefirstmeetingoftheOtanimeiOKtopresent theirownvisionsofOtaniemibyusingtheABEpresentationformat.Theresearchersalsogatheredall availableOtaniemirelatedplanningmaterialandpoliticaldecisions,analysedandpreparedvisualised presentationstobediscussedtogether.Basedontheinterviews,researcherssupportedthepreparation oftheresidents´presentationforthefirstmeeting,whichempoweredtheresidentrepresentatives andbalancedthecommunicationinthemeeting.However,theresearchers'roleinthefirstmeeting wasnottoadvocatetheresidents´vision,buttogiveequalspacetotheparticipantsandtofacilitate theoveralldiscussion.Fivedifferentvisionswerepresentedanddiscussedinthefirstmeetingbythe residents,thestudents,theuniversityandthelandowners.Oneofthecityofficialsacknowledgedthe needforthemeetinginthefollowing: Usually these matters are discussed in small groups. This kind of an event, where everyone is able to hear others' thoughts simultaneously, increases the understanding of the goals between different 13 actors. I believe that in the decision-making phase we are able to proceed things quicker because of these events. Although we cannot make here any decisions, we can bring forth different views equally.

We have to remember what kind of decision-making process we have. In planning we have a board that takes the decisions. City officials, landowners, residents etc. can talk what they want but at the end we have a very systematic decision-making process. We need to understand different viewpoints because this is a huge process but at the end, when we need to proceed, the decisions are made in clear steps. (City councilor, City of Espoo)
Inspiteofthisstatement,afterthreeyearsofthelastmeetingOtaniemiisstilllackingthemaster planandmanyprojectsarewaiting.Thecityseemstobeunableorreluctanttoopenlycommunicate andworkwiththedifferentviewpoints,the"clearsteps"ofdecision-makingareafterallnotsoclear andthechallengeofhowtoconvergethe"hugeprocess"isenormous. ThefindingsfromthecommunicativeactionsinOtaniemiindicatedthatimprovementinthe handlingofdataandprocessingofinformationinplanningareneeded.Morecollaborativesettingsare required,whereknowledgefromvariousprofessionalgroupscanintertwinewiththelayknowledge andproducesharedunderstandingaswellasjointproposals.Moreover,whencommunicativeactions taketheformofworkingtogetherinsteadofjustinforming,theeventscanalsobeusedasclaim testingoccurrencesinwhichdifferentactorsusetheavailableinformationtocreatenewknowledge. Tomaketheplanningprocessmorecommunication-orientedandmoreefficientthedifferentways ofcommunicationshouldbebetterlinkedtooneanother.
Therefore,successinfuturearrangementscallsforaskinghow,when,why,withwhomandwith whatkindofPSSpublicparticipationandcollaborationshouldbeorganisedinaspecificprojectand inaspecificphase.Thisisinlinewithwhatseveralotherstudieshaveconcluded,namelythatthe challengesstakeholdershaveduringparticipatoryprojectsnarrowdowntohavingamoreeffective processdesigninwhichtheoutcomesoftheendeavourarecarefullydefined (Venteetal.,2016;Newigetal.,2012 Maarit Kahila-Tani has her background in planning geography and urban planning. Her research focused on new methods for public participation. In her dissertation she studied the opportunities for urban planners to take advantage of PPGIS tools like Maptionnaire. Currently she is the CEO and co-founder of Mapita Ltd., the company behind Maptionnaire. Maptionnaire is a powerful community engagement tool that helps urban planners and city developers create map-based tools to get ideas and insights from residents -thus enabling and encouraging public participation.

Stan Geertman is Professor of Planning Support Science and Chair of Spatial Planning at Utrecht University. He has published widely in both national and international peer-reviewed journals and has published a range of (editorial) books. He is editor of the international peer-reviewed journal Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy (ASAP) and member of the editorial board of several other scientific journals, including Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems (CEUS). He has been member of several international conference organizations (EGIS; JECC; AGILE; DDSS; CUPUM). Since 2013 he is elected chair of the international Board of Directors of the CUPUM organization (Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management). His current research interests include Planning Support Science; Planning and Decision Support Systems (PSS / DSS) in planning practice; Smart Governance; Sustainable urbanization, notably in Chinese and Western contexts.
Pihla Sillanpää is an urban planner and a master student in the landscape architecture programme at Aalto University. Her research interest is in analysing public participation in urban planning processes. Liisa Horelli is an environmental psychologist and adjunct professor who has conducted action research on participatory urban planning and community development with children, young people and women. For the past five years, she has specialized on participatory e-planning in the neighbourhoods of Helsinki and in the issues around smart city. She has published widely in scientific and popular journals. https://wiki.aalto.fi/display/Palco/Liisa+Horelli. TheDataTrust.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://thedatatrust.com/ Timulak,L.(2009).Meta-analysisofqualitativestudies:Atoolforreviewingqualitativeresearchfindingsin psychotherapy.Psychotherapy Research,, 591-600.doi:10.1080/10503300802477989PMID:19034804 Vonk,G., Geertman,S.,&Schot,P.(2005).Bottlenecksblockingwidespreadusageofplanningsupportsystems. Environment & Planning A,37(5),909-924.doi:10.1068/a3712 Wallin,S.(2019).Managing Urban Complexity -participatory planning, self-organization and co-production of space [Doctoraldissertation].Espoo:AaltoUniversity. Civicengagementisusedhereasagenerictermcoveringdifferentkindsofurbanactivitiesfrompublic participationviaself-organisationtopracticesofeverydaylife(seeWallin,inpress).