Urban infill is a topical issue for the growing cities in the Nordic countries. In Finland, many suitable infill sites are owned by resident-owned housing companies, and thus a successful infill process requires reconfiguration of the planning and participation practices. In this paper, we forward a dynamic approach to trust as a fruitful conceptualization of actor relationships. Building on Malcolm Tait’s typology of trust and drawing on Bourdieu’s work, we highlight the need to pay attention to the previous experiences, habitus and person’s or group’s dynamic capabilities of action for building more lasting trust in planning.
BäcklundPiaMäntysaloRaine. 2010. “Agonism and Institutional Ambiguity: Ideas on Democracy and the Role of Participation in the Development of Planning Theory and Practice—The Case of Finland.” Planning Theory9 (4): 333–50.
2.
BishrMohamedMantelasLefteris. 2008. “A Trust and Reputation Model for Filtering and Classifying Knowledge About Urban Growth.” Geo Journal72 (3): 229–37.
3.
BourdieuPierre.1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. NiceR., transl. Volume 16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BourdieuPierre.1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
5.
BourdieuPierre.1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6.
BourdieuPierre.1993. Sociology in Question. London: SAGE Publications.
7.
BourdieuPierreWacquantLois J. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
EiserJ. RichardStaffordTomHenneberryJohnCatneyPhilip. 2007. “Risk Perception and Trust in the Context of Urban Brownfields.” Environmental Hazards7:150–156.
11.
EmirbayerMustafaMischeAnn. 1998. “What is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology23:263–87.
12.
ForesterJohn.1993. Critical Theory: Public Policy, and Planning Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
13.
FrederiksenMorten.2014. “Relational Trust: Outline of a Bourdieusian Theory of Interpersonal Trust.” Journal of Trust Research4 (2): 167–92.
14.
GiddensAnthony.1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Oxford: Polity Press.
15.
Maarten A.HajerWagenaarHendrik (eds). 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HäkliJouni.2009. “Geographies of Trust.” In Social Capital and Urban Networks of Trust, edited by HäkliJ.MincaC., 13–35. London: Routledge.
HendriksCarolyn M.2006. “Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies54 (3): 486–508.
19.
HöppnerCorinna.2009. “Trust: A Monolithic Panacea in Land Use Planning?” Land Use Policy26 (4): 1046–54.
20.
InnesJudith E.BooherDavid E. 2004. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century.” Planning Theory & Practice5 (4): 419–36.
21.
JacobsJane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
22.
KahnemanDaniel.2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
23.
KarensRenéEshuisJasperKlijnErik-HansVoetsJsir. 2016. “The Impact of Public Branding: An Experimental Study on the Effects of Branding Policy on Citizen Trust.” Public Administration Review76 (3): 486–94.
24.
KhodyakovDmitry.2007. “Trust as a Process: A Three-Dimensional Approach.” Sociology41 (1): 115–32.
25.
KorczynskiMarek.2000. “The Political Economy of Trust.” Journal of Management Studies37 (1): 1–21.
26.
LaaksoSenjaBergAnnukkaAnnalaMikko. 2017. “Dynamics of Experimental Governance: A Meta-Study of Functions and Uses of Climate Governance Experiments.” Journal of Cleaner Production169 (15): 8–16.
27.
LaurianLucie.2009. “Trust in Planning: Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Participatory and Deliberative Planning.” Planning Theory & Practice10 (3): 369–91.
28.
LawsDavidHajerMaarten. 2006. “Policy in Practice.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, edited by MoranMichaelReinMartinGoodinRobert E., 409–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
LeinoHelena.2006. Kansalaisosallistuminen ja kaupunkisuunnittelun dynamiikka: Tutkimus Tampereen Vuoreksesta. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
30.
LeinoHelenaSantaojaMinnaLaineMarkus. 2017. “Researchers as Knowledge Brokers. Translating Knowledge or Co-Producing Legitimacy for the Urban Infill in Finland?” International Planning Studies. DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2017.1345301.
31.
LewisPaul G.BaldassareMark. 2010. “The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development: Survey Evidence From Five States.” Journal of the American Planning Association76 (2): 219–37.
32.
LindblomCharles E.1959. “Science of ‘Muddling Through.’” Public Administration Review19 (2): 79–88.
33.
LipskyMichael.1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
34.
LuhmannNiklas.1988. “Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives.” In Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, edited by GambettaD., 94–107. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
35.
MartinRobSunleyPeter. 2003. “Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concepts or Policy Panacea?” Journal of Economic Geography3 (1): 5–35.
36.
MisztalBarbara A.1996. Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
37.
NykänenVeijoLahtiPekkaKnuutiAnttiHasuEijaStaffansAijaKurvinenAnttiNiemiOlliVirtaJari. 2013. Urban Infill and Residential Development. Espoo: VTT Technology.
38.
Official Statistics of Finland [SVT Suomen virallinen tilasto]. 2014. [Official Statistics of Finland (2014) Housing and Living Conditions]. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus.
39.
O’RiordanTimothyWardRosie. 1997. “Building Trust in Shoreline Management: Creating Participatory Consultation in Shoreline Management Plans.” Land Use Policy14 (4): 257–76.
40.
ParryGeraint.1976. “Trust, Distrust, and Consensus.” British Journal of Political Science6 (2): 129–42.
41.
PellizzoniLuigi.2005. “Trust, Responsibility and Environmental Policy.” European Societies7 (4): 567–94.
42.
PutnamRobert D.1993. “What Makes Democracy Work?” National Civic Review82 (2): 101–7.
43.
PuustinenSari.2016. “Täydennysrakentaminen kaupunkisuunnittelun haasteena.” In Strateginen eheyttäminen kaupunkiseuduilla. Näkökulmia kestävän maankäytön ja julkisen talouden kysymyksiin, edited by PuustinenSariMäntysaloRaineKarppiIlari, 74–86. Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja.
44.
PuustinenSariMäntysaloRaineHytönenJonneJarenkoKaroliina. 2017. “The ‘Deliberative Bureaucrat’: Deliberative Democracy and Institutional Trust in the Jurisdiction of the Finnish Planner.” Planning Theory & Practice18 (1): 71–88.
45.
RoweMike.2012. “Going Back to the Street: Revisiting Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy.” Teaching Public Administration30 (1): 10–8.
46.
RuonavaaraHannu.2005. “How Divergent Housing Institutions Evolve: A Comparison of Swedish Tenant Co-operatives and Finnish Shareholders’ Housing Companies.” Housing Theory and Society, 22 (4): 213–36.
47.
SabelCharles F.1993. “Studied Trust: Building New Forms of Cooperation in a Volatile Economy.” Human Relations46 (9): 1133–70.
48.
ScottJames.1999. “Geographies of Trust, Geographies of Hierarchy.” In Democracy and Trust, edited by WarrenM., 273–89. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
49.
StaffansAija.2004. Vaikuttavat asukkaat: Vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupunkisuunnittelun haasteina. Helsinki: University of Technology.
50.
SteinStanley M.HarperThomas L. 2003. “Power, Trust, and Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research23: 125–39.
51.
SwainChristopherTaitMalcolm. 2007. “The Crisis of Trust and Planning.” Planning Theory & Practice8 (2): 229–47.
52.
SztompkaPiotr.1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
TaitMalcolm.2011. “Trust and the Public Interest in the Micropolitics of Planning Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research31 (2): 157–71.
54.
WagenaarHendrik.2011. Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
55.
WeblerThomasKastenholzHansRennOrtwin. 1995. “Public Participation in Impact Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review15: 443–63.
