Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Locality of Boundary Practices

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urban Planning as a Trading Zone

Part of the book series: Urban and Landscape Perspectives ((URBANLAND,volume 13))

Abstract

The increasing amount of multiple actors and interests has increased the unpredictability, volatility and uncertainty of participatory planning processes. This chapter discusses the potentiality and usability of the concepts of boundary interaction boundary organisation and trading zones in the context of planning. In addition, two participatory planning cases from Finland, Tampere, are examined from the perspective of emerging situational boundary practices. Looking at the interaction of multiple actors from this angle emphasises the role of local knowledge and the social relationships that affect land-use management and planning. The chapter offers some support for the notion that these concepts have the potential to facilitate linkages between different actor groups and divergent social worlds. The temporal and situational arrangements are highlighted, as it is in the particular context in which issues are opened up to the public and possibilities to boundary interaction outside traditional municipal institutional settings either appear or don’t.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ă…kerman M, Kilpiö A, Peltola T (2010) Institutional change from the margins of natural resource use: the emergence of small-scale bioenergy production within industrial forestry in Finland. Forest Policy Econ 12(3):181–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asikainen E, Jokinen A (2009) Future natures in the making: implementing biodiversity in suburban land-use planning. Plann Theor Pract 10(3):351–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr A, Wilkinson R (2005) Beyond participation: boundary organisations as a new space for farmers and scientists to interact. Soc Nat Res 18(3):255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller B (2008) Trading zones: cooperating and still disagreeing on what really matters. LKY School of Public Policy, Working paper, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison P (1999) Trading zone: coordinating action and belief. In: Biagioli M (ed) The science studies reader. Routledge, New York, pp 137–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison P (2010) Trading with the enemy. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT press, Cambridge, pp 25–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunder M (2005) The production of desirous space: mere fantasies of the Utopian City? Plann Theor 4(2):173–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston D (1999) Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organisation. Soc Stud Sci 29(1):87–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston D (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Val 26(4):399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Stud 14(3):575–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey P, De Magalhaes C, Madanipour A, Pendlebury J (2003) Place, identity and local politics: analysing initiatives in deliberative governance. In: Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 60–87

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huitema D, Turnhout E (2009) Working at the science-policy interface: a discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environ Polit 18(4):576–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes J, Booher D (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokinen A (2006) Standardization and entrainment in forest management. In: Haila Y, Dyke C (eds) How nature speaks. The dynamics of the human ecological condition. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 198–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M, Walls J, Horlick-Jones T (2006) Separated at birth? Consensus and contention in the UK agriculture and human biotechnology commissions. Sci Public Policy 33(10):729–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (2007) Turning around politics. A note on Gerard de Vries’ paper. Soc Stud Sci 37(5):811–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leino H (2005) Spaces of possibility: the participatory agenda in the Vuores planning case. Case study of public participation in territorial planning. Nordisk Samhällsgeografisk Tidskrift 39:59–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Leino H (2008) Kansalaisosallistuminen kaupunkisuunnittelussa: rajaorganisaatioita vai hybridien hallintaa? Alue ja ympäristö 37(2):41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Leino H (2012) Boundary interaction in emerging scienes: two participatory planning cases from Finland. Plann Theory Pract 13(3):383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leino H, Laine M (2012) Do matters of concern matter? Bringing issues back to participation. Plann Theor 11(1):89–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysalo R, Balducci A, Kangasoja J (2011) Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. Plann Theor 10(3):257–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2001) Hybrid management: boundary organisations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci Technol Hum Val 26(4):478–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyseth T, Pløger J, Holm T (2010) Planning beyond horizon: the Tromsö experiment. Plann Theor 9(3):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony S, Bechky BA (2008) Boundary organizations: enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Adm Sci Q 53(3):422–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partanen J, Pylvänen R (2009) Pispalan kehityskuva. Loppuraportti. Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto, arkkitehtuurin laitos, Tampere

    Google Scholar 

  • Pispala visio (2008) Pispalan asemakaavan muutosta pohjustavan Rakennusoikeus-työryhmän loppuraportti. Tampere Pispala Rakennusoikeus–ryhmä, Tampere

    Google Scholar 

  • Pløger J (2004) Strife: urban planning and agonism. Plann Theor 3(1):71–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frever L (2004) Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci Technol Hum Val 29(4):512–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisaari J (2009) Maankäytön suunnittelun konfliktin ratkaiseminen neuvottelemalla - Kokemuksia Särkijärven eritasoliittymän suunnittelusta. Master’s thesis, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (2003) Communities of practice and social learning systems. In: Nicolini D, Gerhardi S, Yanow D (eds) Knowing in organizations. A practice-based approach. M.E. Sharpe, New York, pp 76–99

    Google Scholar 

  • White DE, Corley E, White MS (2008) Water managers’ perceptions of the science-policy interface in Phoenix, Arizona: implications for an emerging boundary organisation. Soc Nat Res 21(3):230–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White D, Wutich A, Larson K, Goeber P, Lant T, Senneville C (2010) Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci Public Policy 37(3):219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, 33014, Finland

    Helena Leino

Authors
  1. Helena Leino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena Leino .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Architecture and Urban Stu, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, Milan, 20133, Italy

    Alessandro Balducci

  2. , Department of Real Estate, Planning and, Aalto University, Lämpömiehenkuja 2, Espoo, 00076, Finland

    Raine Mäntysalo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leino, H. (2013). The Locality of Boundary Practices. In: Balducci, A., Mäntysalo, R. (eds) Urban Planning as a Trading Zone. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5853-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5854-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation