Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: empirical evidence from Finland

References

• Alexander, E. R. (1998). Planning and implementation: Coordinative planning in practice. International Planning Studies, 3(3), 303–320. doi:10.1080/13563479808721716
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (2014). Land-property markets and planning: A special case. Land Use Policy, 41, 533–540. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buitelaar, E., Galle, M., & Sorel, N. (2011). Plan-led planning systems in development-led practices: An empirical analysis into the (lack of) institutionalisation of planning law. Environment and Planning A, 43(4), 928–941. doi:10.1068/a43400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buitelaar, E., & Sorel, N. (2010). Between the rule of law and the quest for control: Legal certainty in the Dutch planning system. Land Use Policy, 27(3), 983–989. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caesar, C. (2016). Municipal land allocations: Integrating planning and selection of developers while transferring public land for housing in Sweden. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31 (2), 257–275. doi:10.1007/s10901-015-9457-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., Ellis, H., Henneberry, J., & Gladwell, C. (2000). Planning obligations, planning practice, and land-use outcomes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(5), 759–775. doi:10.1068/b2683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., & Henneberry, J. (2005). Planning obligations, the market orientation of planning and planning professionalism. Journal of Property Research, 22(1), 37–59. doi:10.1080/09599910500411036
   Google Scholar
• Cass, N., Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: The politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(3), 255–275. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2010.509558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinch, J. P. (2006). Third party rights of appeal: Enhancing democracy or hindering progress? Planning Theory & Practice, 7(3), 327–350. doi:10.1080/14649350600841651
   Google Scholar
• Crow, S. (1998). Planning gain: There must be a better way. Planning Perspectives, 13(4), 357–372. doi:10.1080/026654398364383
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, G. (2004). Discourses of objection: Towards an understanding of third-party rights in planning. Environment and Planning A, 36(9), 1549–1570. doi:10.1068/a36176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falleth, E. I., Hanssen, G. S., & Saglie, I. L. (2010). Challenges to democracy in market-oriented urban planning in Norway. European Planning Studies, 18(5), 737–753. doi:10.1080/09654311003607729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1983). Critical rationalism and planning methodology. Urban Studies, 20(3), 265–278. doi:10.1080/00420988320080521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farthing, S. M. (2001). Local land use plans and the implementation of new urban development. European Planning Studies, 9(2), 223–242. doi:10.1080/713666465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiskaa, H. (2005). Past and future for public participation in Norwegian physical planning. European Planning Studies, 13(1), 157–174. doi:10.1080/0965431042000312451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox-Rogers, L., & Murphy, E. (2015). From brown envelopes to community benefits: The co-option of planning gain agreements under deepening neoliberalism. Geoforum, 67, 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haila, A. (2008). From Annankatu to Antinkatu: Contracts, development rights and partnerships in Kamppi, Helsinki. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 804–814. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00824.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanssen, G. S. (2010). Ensuring local community interests in market-oriented urban planning? The role of local politicians. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(4), 714–732. doi:10.1068/c09102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanssen, G. S., & Falleth, E. I. (2014). Market-oriented urban planning – constraining citizen participation. Local Government Studies, 40(3), 403–428. doi:10.1080/03003930.2013.834254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havel, M. B. (2009). Property rights regime in land development–analysis of the influence of institutions on land development in terms of the property rights theory. Espoo: Multiprint.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), 217–234. doi:10.1068/b230217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. (2nd ed.) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C. (2014). Land use planning policies and market forces: Utopian aspirations thwarted? Land Use Policy, 38, 573–579. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klausen, J. E., & Sweeting, D. (2004). Legitimacy and community involvement in local governance. In M. Haus, H. Heinelt, & M. Stewart (Eds.), Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement (pp. 214–233). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van der Krabben, E., & Jacobs, H. M. (2013). Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 774–783. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Land Use and Building Act, 132 Parliament of Finland (1999, amendments up to 569/2016).
   Google Scholar
• Local Government Act, 410 Parliament of Finland (2015, amendments up to 1236/2015).
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., & Saglie, I. L. (2010). Private influence preceding public involvement: Strategies for legitimizing preliminary partnership arrangements in urban housing planning in Norway and Finland. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(3), 317–338. doi:10.1080/14649357.2010.500123
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2007). Planning, liberty and the rule of law. Planning Theory, 6(2), 146–163. doi:10.1177/1473095207077586
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Gielen, D., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2010). Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public-value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 18(7), 1097–1131. doi:10.1080/09654311003744191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP-The Planning Review, 44(172), 35–47. doi:10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001
   Google Scholar
• Needham, B. (1992). A theory of land prices when land is supplied publicly: The case of the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 29(5), 669–686. doi:10.1080/00420989220080621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puustinen, T. L. M., & Viitanen, K. J. (2015). Infill development on collectively owned residential properties: Understanding the decision-making process – Case studies in Helsinki. Housing, Theory and Society, 32(4), 472–498. doi:10.1080/14036096.2015.1053979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2009). Planners’ role: Torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities. European Planning Studies, 17(1), 65–84. doi:10.1080/09654310802513948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitter, P. C. (2002). Participation in governance arrangements: Is there any reason to expect it will achieve ‘Sustainable and innovative policies in a multi-level context’? In J. R. Grote & B. Gbikpi (Eds.), Participatory governance (pp. 51–69). Leverkusen: Leske+Budrich.
   Google Scholar
• Valtonen, E., Falkenbach, H., & van der Krabben, E. (2017). Risk management in public land development projects: Comparative case study in Finland, and the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 62, 246–257. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willey, S. (2006). Planning appeals: Are third party rights legitimate? The case study of Victoria, Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24(3), 369–389. doi:10.1080/08111140600877032
   Google Scholar