The Challenge of the Digital Public Sphere: Finnish Experiences of the Role of Social Media in Participatory Planning

References

• Afzalan, N., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2015). Planning and social media: Facebook for planning at the neighbourhood scale. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonio, R. J., & Kellner, D. (1992). Communication, democratization, and modernity: Critical reflections on Habermas and Dewey. Habermas, pragmatism, and critical theory. Symbolic Interaction, 15(3), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1992.15.3.277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2006). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1), 0–0. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2007a). The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.3.1.47_1
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2007b). The internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agonistic public sphere theory. In L. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.), Radical democracy and the internet (pp. 128–147). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. J. Holt.
   Google Scholar
• Donders, M., Hartmann, T., & Kokx, A. (2014). E-participation in urban planning: Getting and keeping citizens involved. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(2), 54–69.
   Google Scholar
• Finnish Ministry of Finances. (2019). Digituen alueellinen koordinointi laajenee. https://vm.fi/-/digituen-alueellinen-koordinointi-laajenee.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice. State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fredericks, J., & Foth, M. (2013). Augmenting public participation: Enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0. Australian Planner, 50(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2012.748083
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, R. S. (2009). Does Habermas understand the internet? The algorithmic construction of the blogo/public sphere. Gnovis. A Journal of Communication, Culture, and Technology, 10(1), 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/019145370102700402
   Google Scholar
• Government of Finland. (2019). Osallistava ja osaava Suomi: Sosiaalisesti, taloudellisesti ja ekologisesti kestävä yhteiskunta. Pääministeri Sanna Marinin hallituksen ohjelma 2019. https://valtioneuvosto.fi/marinin-hallitus/hallitusohjelma.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Transl.). Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Transl.). Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere. An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Transl.). The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Transl.). The MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker, K. L. (1996). Missing links in the evolution of electronic democratization. Media, Culture & Society, 18(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344396018002003
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate. Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2009). The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08325175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heng, M. S. H., & de Moor, A. (2003). From Habermas’s communicative theory to practice on the internet. Information Systems Journal, 13(4), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00144.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heponiemi, T., Gluschkoff, K., Leemann, L., Manderbacka, K., Aalto, A.-M., & Hyppönen, H. (2021). Digital inequality in Finland: Access, skills and attitudes as social impact mediators. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211023007
   Google Scholar
• Hilbert, M. (2011). The end justifies the definition: The manifold outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making. Telecommunications Policy, 35(8), 715–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.06.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2003). “Agon”izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be “real”? Planning Theory, 2(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005
   Google Scholar
• Hindman, M. (2008). What is the online public sphere good for. In J. Turow & T. Lokman (Eds.), The hyperlinked society (pp. 268–288). University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirvola, A., & Mäntysalo, R. (2019). Professional lobbying in urban planning: Depoliticisation or REpoliticisation? In M. Raco & F. Savini (Eds.), Planning and knowledge. How new forms of technocracy are shaping contemporary cities (pp. 141–155). Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. J. (1984a). Doing good and being right: The pragmatic connection in planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(3), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368408976600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. J. (1984b). Pragmatism, planning, and power. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 4(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X8400400203
   Google Scholar
• Huxley, M. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808975956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2018). Planning with complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kahila-Tani, M., Kyttä, M., & Geertman, S. (2019). Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 186, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangasoja, J., & Mattila, H. (2018). Facing up to Finnish planning pathologies. A contextual interpretation of planner capabilities and a call for a change. In T. Tasan-Kok & M. Oranje (Eds.), From student to urban planner. Young practitioners’ reflections on contemporary ethical challenges (pp. 182–197). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lapintie, K. (2017). Tarinoita takapihalta 2.0: Vuorovaikutus digitaalisen median aikakaudella. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu, 55(4), 11–28.
   Google Scholar
• Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation. ePart 2009. Lecture notes in computer science, 5694. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., Thompson, D. F., & Warren, M. E. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems. Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mattila, H. (2020). Habermas revisited: Resurrecting the contested roots of communicative planning theory. Progress in Planning, 141, 100431–100429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2019.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila, H., Mynttinen, E., & Mäntysalo, R. (2012). Managing planning pathologies: An educational challenge of the new apprenticeship programme in Finland. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(3), 484–488.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzoleni, G. (2015). Towards an inclusive digital public sphere. In S. Coleman, G. Moss, & K. Parry (Eds.), Can the media serve democracy? (pp. 174–183). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. J., Nakano, T., Enomoto, A., & Suda, T. (2012). Anonymity and roles associated with aggressive posts in an online forum. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 861–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelimarkka, M., Laaksonen, S., Semaan, B. (2018). Social media is polarized, social media is polarized: Towards a new design agenda for mitigating polarization [Paper presentation]. DIS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, June 2018, Hong Kong (pp. 957–970).
   Google Scholar
• Nummi, P. (2018a). Sähköinen osallistuminen alueidenkäytön suunnittelussa. Yhteenveto kyselyn tuloksista. https://www.ym.fi/download/noname/%7BA2F6C385-9D0A-4C15-B7E7-C10E0A6E4D05%7D/140108.
   Google Scholar
• Nummi, P. (2018b). Crowdsourcing local knowledge with PPGIS and social media for urban planning to reveal intangible cultural heritage. Urban Planning, 3(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i1.1266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nummi, P. (2019). “Ei kaupunkisuunnittelu ole mikään tykkäämisjuttu” – Sosiaalisen median mahdollisuudet ja esteet kaupunkisuunnittelussa. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu-lehti, 57(2), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.33357/ys.83676
   Google Scholar
• Official Statistics of Finland. (2018). Use of information and communications technology by individuals. Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/2018/sutivi_2018_2018-12-04_tie_001_en.html.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2008). The virtual sphere 2.0: The Internet, the public sphere, and beyond. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 230–245). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Parnes, J. (2016). Internet media as the digital public sphere: Possibilities and problems. Central European Journal of Communication, 9(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.9.1(16).6
   Google Scholar
• Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318
   Google Scholar
• Porwol, L., Ojo, A., Breslin, J. (2014). A semantic model for e-Participation – detailed conceptualization and ontology. In Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on digital government research (dg.o '14) (pp. 263–272). Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S., Mäntysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2017). The varying interpretations of public interest: Making sense of Finnish urban planners’ conceptions. Current Urban Studies, 05(01), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2017.51006
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Saukkonen, P. (2012). Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan poliittinen kulttuuri. In K. Paakkunainen (Ed.), Suomalaisen politiikan muutoksia ja murroksia (pp. 27–51). Helsingin yliopisto.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, T. M. (2015). Digital public sphere. In G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 322–328). Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, L. (2014). Planning and social media: A case study of public transit and stigma on twitter. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(3), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.980439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöblom, J., & Niitamo, A. (2020). The intermediating role of municipal urban planners in online discussions with citizens. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(5), 710–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1844282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa, H., Pinto, M., & Silva, E. C. e. (2013). Digital public sphere: Weaknesses and challenges. Comunicação e Sociedade, 23, 9–12. https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.23(2013).1610
   Google Scholar
• Staffans, A., Kahila-Tani, M., & Kyttä, M. (2020). Participatory urban planning in the digital era. In S. Geertman & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Handbook of planning support science (pp. 307–322). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., & Wichowski, A. (2011). Political discussion online. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The handbook of internet studies (pp. 168–187). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2020). United Nations e-government survey 2020. Digital government in the decade of action for sustainable development. With addendum on COVID-19 response. United Nations. https://publicadministration.un.org/en/Research/UN-e-Government-Surveys.
   Google Scholar
• Whipple, M. (2005). The Dewey-Lippmann debate today: Communication distortions, reflective agency, and participatory democracy. Sociological Theory, 23(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2005.00248.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, W., & Ruming, K. (2020). Can social media support large scale public participation in urban planning? The case of the #MySydney digital engagement campaign. International Planning Studies, 25(4), 355–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar