Criticism of participatory planning processes

(The following statements are concluded from a case study conducted as part of the Interreg IIIB project MECIBS (Medium Sized Cities in Dialogue Around the Baltic Sea) )

In Finland, the Land Use and Construction Act from 2000, making participatory processes obligatory in a range of planning activities, has been criticized from the land use planners’ point of view. As these critical points are common among the Baltic Sea states, a review of criticism by Finnish planners is also valuable outside Finland.

Although the criticism may largely be based on recent changes in the planning profession, planners in the MECIBS cities seem somewhat puzzled by this new legal obligation.

Hidden agenda?

According to the Finnish interviewees, the new Act offers good opportunities for residents and other stakeholders to appeal against plans. However, appeals are not necessarily direct and honest, but have a hidden agenda.

Now, environmental issues can serve as potentially useful arguments that have strong backing and acceptance from the EU. The hidden agenda behind the apparent environmental argument might be solely economic, protecting only private objectives.

The Finnish interviewees in the MECIBS project observed that the Finnish law might provide a tool for unjustifiably slowing down the processes. It is also suspected that it might be difficult to get people interested in planning and plans. Fears of potential negative effects of planning will often trigger responses (appeals) to plans. This reactive way of responding is not a constructive mode of participation.

How to increase participation?

It is possible that residents regard participation as political action, or at least political in terms of its substance, which may lessen their enthusiasm.

Residents seem reluctant to participate until they have a problem or a personal interest arising from land ownership, for example. In addition, the weakest residents do not generally take part in participatory processes, yet planning should somehow incorporate their point of view.

Herein lays a very important question:

• how to get residents to participate?
  
• How to make residents see that it is to their advantage to participate, even though their personal (economic) interest might not be strong?
  
• Another question is, is it necessary to attract more participation?
• Where participatory processes are truly needed, where can they only make the process more difficult?
  

One interviewee saw a connection between the lack of trust in the political system and the lack of interest in participation. Many interviewees emphasized the need to find ways to promote constructive participation.

However, residents cannot always be constructive in their participation, because plans or alternatives are presented that are more or less decided beforehand. When residents are not provided with ways to be constructive from the outset, responses tend to be reactions to already decided alternatives.

A reactive response pattern seems to be more "natural", because they are not used to civic responsibility. Experiences like the Viitannummi case show that, provided with the right tools, a constructive participatory process can be created. An alternative suggested by one interviewee would be people chosen by city representatives meeting with representatives of a local residents’ organisation. Large mass meetings were considered good at the beginning of a clear (planning, development) project, but subsequently the participation should be more organised according to some interviewees.

As opposed to a broad field of residents, an organised residents’ association would help city officials to attract actors. Representative action by way of associations has not been very popular historically at least in Kokkola and Salo. According to the interviewees, everyone just wants to represent themselves. Distrust of decision makers and city officials is widespread. The interviewees seemed in general to regard the problem of creating wider collaboration and participation as a task for the future. They also thought it was one potential way to gather useful ideas to make better decisions.

Strategy-making

Criticism towards collaboration in strategymaking has usually been caused by a kind of "abstraction gap" between the concrete interests of local residents and the sometimes abstract (as perceived by residents) objectives of various strategy papers. There is a perceived difficulty in attracting interest in ideas at the strategic level. The operationalisation of strategy objectives would be one way of rendering strategy-making more concrete for residents.