Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Including prospective tenants and homeowners in the urban development process in Finland

  • Policy and Practice
  • Published:
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The twofold purpose of this paper is to establish the prospective inhabitants as a part of the development process, and to provide an overview of participatory planning in the context of Finnish urban residential public–private partnerships (PPPs). This overview examines how the future inhabitants of new residential developments can contribute to informed decision-making within a PPP framework. Communicative planning theory serves as a framework to compare the urban development process from the point of view of future inhabitants. Finnish case studies are used to compare the traditional public-led processes with processes based on PPPs. This comparison is discussed within the context of PPPs and how they may evolve further and develop into a public–private-people partnership (4P) model. The examination of the case studies suggests that involving future inhabitants as stakeholders in the urban planning development process would lead to and require new methods of participation. These methods potentially impact the PPP process as a whole and on several levels. In the Finnish examples discussed here, these range from elements of general planning to individual house design. The research, whilst drawing on the broad field of PPP research, is based on Finnish case studies only. However, this research suggests that the 4P approach is a practical model which may fill the gap between international PPP theory and local, practical solutions for the planning of urban development, both in Finland and elsewhere. Future research can look at this model in other PPP jurisdictions and contexts. The 4P model can be used to establish new methods to plan and develop local infrastructure which meets the needs of future inhabitants. The findings of this paper emphasise the crucial role of future inhabitants in the PPP process. The conclusions points out the possibilities for broad and open participation in urban planning and development processes. The 4P model is found to be a potentially valuable theoretical and practical concept for use in PPP urban developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Also Kotler and Lee (2007) refer to four Ps but in an altogether different context. Their Ps are product, place, price and promotion, which are used in marketing theory.

References

  • Ærø, T. (2006). Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective. Housing, Theory and Society, 23(2), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aulich, C., Halligan, J., & Nutley, S. (2001). Public sector management. In C. Aulich, J. Halligan, & S. Nutley (Eds.), Australian handbook of public sector management (pp. 11–19). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, M. (2004). Co-operation with the community in property-led urban regeneration. Journal of Property Research, 21(2), 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, M., & Maginn, P. J. (2005). Urban change and conflict: Evaluating the role of partnerships in urban regeneration in the UK. Housing Studies, 20(1), 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society—the information age: Economy, society and culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Helsinki Urban Facts. (2010). Helsingin väestöennuste 2011–2050. City of Helsinki. Published by City of Helsinki Urban Facts in Helsinki, Finland [In English: The population projection of Helsinki 2011–2050].

  • Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny?. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, P., & Joyce, P. (1997). Reconstructing public management: A new responsibility for the public and a case study of local government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(6), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Gohary, N. M., Osman, H., & El-Diraby, T. E. (2006). Stakeholder management for public private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 595–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvjberg, B. (1998). Rationality and power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (2005). Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Progress in Planning, 64, 183–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Finland. (1999). Land use and building act 1999/132. In Finnish ‘Maankäyttö ja rakennuslaki’, issued by the Parlament of Finland in 1999. Available at http://www.finlex.fi, also in English.

  • Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2002). Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, A. (1996). Unravelling the process of ‘partnership’ in urban regeneration policy. Urban Studies, 33(2), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Planning Review, 69(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kensinger, J. W., & Martin, J. D. (1988). Project finance: Raising money the old-fashioned way. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1(3), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostiainen, J. (2002). Urban economic development policy in the network society. Helsinki: Academic Engineers and Architects in Finland—TEK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Lee, T. (2007). Marketing in the public sector: The final frontier. The Public Manager, 36(1), 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., & Haider, D. (1999). Marketing places Europe, attracting investments, industries, residents and visitors to European cities, communities, regions and nations. London: Pearson Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuronen, M. & Majamaa, W. (2006). The problem of future inhabitants—Finnish context. In Proceedings of “CIRM 2006 contemporary issues in retail marketing—destinations and locations: Exploring the multiple identities of place” (pp. 97–103). Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University.

  • Kuronen, M., Junnila, S., Majamaa, W., & Niiranen, I. (2010). Public–private-people partnership as a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residential development. International Journal of Strategic Property Development, 14(3), 200–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuronen, M., Heinonen, J., Heywood, C., Junnila, S., Luoma-Halkola, J., & Majamaa, W. (2011). Customerships in urban housing development—a case study on retrofitting a suburb. In Proceedings of PRRES 2011. Gold Coast, QLD: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society.

  • Kurunmäki, K. (2005). Partnerships in urban planning. “Development area”. In National and local contexts in Finland, Germany and Britain. Tampere: Tampere University.

  • Leiringer, R. (2006). Technological innovation in PPP’s: Incentives, opportunities and actions. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majamaa, W. (2008). The 4th P—people—in urban development based on public–private-people partnership. Espoo: TKK Structural Engineering and Building Technology Dissertations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majamaa, W., Kuronen, M., Kostiainen, J., & Heywood, C. (2008). A consumer-oriented technique for planned residential developments. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 1(3), 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysalo, R. (2000). Land-use planning as inter-organisational learning. Oulu: University of Oulu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysalo, R. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. Town Planning Review, 73(4), 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinus, P. A., Stephen, O., & Ogunlana, I. (2006). Good project governance for proper risk allocation in public–private partnerships in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 623–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattar, M. H., & Cheah, C. Y. J. (2006). Valuing large engineering projects under uncertainty: Private risk effects and real options. Construction Management and Economics, 24, 847–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosse, D. (2001). People’s knowledge, participation and patronage: Operations and representations in rural development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny?. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisar, T. (2007). Risk management in public-private partnership contracts. Public Organization Review, 7(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D. E., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public service. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltonen, L., Hirvonen, J., Manninen, R., Linjama, H., & Savikko, R. (2006). Land use conflicts and their resolution in planning: Mapping the situation in Finland. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, N. A., Parsons, N., Ballas, D., & Dowling, A. (2006). Post-suburban Europe: Planning and politics at the margins of Europe’s capital cities. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisbeck, P., & Doloi, H. (2007). Quantification and modelling of retained risk in public-private partnership (PPP) projects. In Proceedings of 4th international structural engineering and construction conference, Melbourne.

  • Rinkinen, K. (2007). Asemakaavoituksen kestoon voi vaikuttaa (Available in Finnish only). Helsinki: Suomen kuntaliitto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudlin, D., & Falk, N. (2009). Sustainable urban neighbourhood. Building the 21st century home (2nd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner, J., & Kasper, B. (2003). Lifestyles, choice of housing location and daily mobility: The lifestyle approach in the context of spatial mobility and planning. International Social Science Journal, 55(176), 319–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staffans, A., Rantanen, H., & Nummi, P. (2010). Local internet forums: Interactive land use planning and urban development in neighbourhoods. In C. Nunes Silva (Ed.), Handbook of research on E-planning: ICTs for urban development and monitoring (pp. 80–102). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thobani, M. (1998). Private infrastructure, public risk. Finance and Development, 36(1), 50–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trentmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2), 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Population Division. (2007). Urban population, development and the environment 2007. Published by UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_PopDevt/Urban_2007.pdf.

  • Van Gramberg, B., & Teicher, J. (2000). Managerialism in local government—Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(5), 476–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers of Journal of Housing and the Built Environment for their valuable comments. The corresponding author also acknowledges the courtesy of University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning in providing physical and intellectual atmosphere to enhance the writing task.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Matti Kuronen

    Present address: RAKLI, Annankatu 24, 00100, Helsinki, Finland

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Real Estate Business Research Group, Aalto University, P.O. Box 11200, 00076, Aalto, Finland

    Matti Kuronen

  2. ICECAPITAL Real Estate Management Ltd., Helsinki, Finland

    Wisa Majamaa

  3. Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Peter Raisbeck & Chris Heywood

Authors
  1. Matti Kuronen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wisa Majamaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Raisbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Heywood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matti Kuronen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuronen, M., Majamaa, W., Raisbeck, P. et al. Including prospective tenants and homeowners in the urban development process in Finland. J Hous and the Built Environ 27, 359–372 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9269-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9269-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation