The proj ect was initiated in 1 9 9 5 , when a group of social workers and students of social work evaluated the town plan for a new housing proj ect. The social workers had reason to expect that the area would not turn out the way it was originally planned - as a "Manhattan" of Jyvaskyla - a symbol of modern city life , which city planners said was lacking in jyvaskyla. The group approached the plan from the viewpoints of different population groups.
Because at that particular point there were no residents yet living in the area, social workers began to imagine and write fictional stories about future residents in the area in order to create some future visions about the quality of the living environment from the social workers' point of view. The fic
tional stories were set in the year 2006, by which time it was assumed that the area would be completed and all the planned buildings constructed. The stories told about the lives of a single , unemployed man, a family with two children, an elderly lady and a single mother with two children. The stories represented the standpoints of ordinary people and their lives in the housing area; the threats facing and the opportunities available to different stages of life . The stories were based on the experiences and knowledge social work
ers had acquired in similar residential areas .
Although the stories were fictional, some important factors came up from the social workers' point of view, which should have been taken into consid
eration when establishing the town plan. The social workers drew up a list of important points , which was presented to the landowner, the city planners and the constructors . The social workers' opinion was that in order to secure the diversity of the population structure , the rent level should be reasonable and a variety of apartments should be included. In order to ensure the "abil
ity to cope in everyday life and access to activities," public services like schools and day-care centres should be made available to all residents right from the start. Future residents should also have the opportunity to influence the plan
ning of their own apartments and public spaces . Furthermore , the social workers considered the community centre that was planned for the area to be of great importance to the residents . The community centre represents a local meeting point , which is why they thought it should be ready by the time the first residents moved into the area. Also, the old buildings that were already in use (a disco for young people and a community centre for the unemployed) should be preserved. In order to secure the diversity of the living environment, the social workers felt there should also be a park large enough to reduce harmful noise and pollution caused by possible heavy traffic passing through the area. The social workers were also concerned that
the 1 2 story buildings to be built near the lakeshore would not be popular among area residents . (Hotanen et al. 1 9 9 7 . )
Since the time the first inhabitants moved into the area i n the summer o f 1 9 9 6 social workers and students of social work conducted three inquiries in which they asked residents about their views and experiences of living in the area. The assessment of social impacts necessarily requires that the views of the people affected by a given plan be heard. The inquiries were consid
ered to form the basis of discussions surrounding the plans for the area, to provide a tool the inhabitants could use in assessing the plan , and to provide the social workers with background information on the basis of which they could initiate more concrete cooperation with area residents .
The residents' views and evaluations about whether the area was a good living environment did not change much over the course of the period ( 1 996-98) during which the inquiries were conducted . The residents feared that the area would be too densely built , and they were also afraid that the build
ings would be too high. They wanted more green areas, larger parks and more efficiently organised traffic lights and signs in the area. They felt that they were lacking basic services like a corner shop, a post office , bank serv
ices , and a day-care centre . The service-users of social work expressed also similar concerns and experiences. In addition to conducting inquiries and interviews with the residents, the social workers also began interviewing their own service-users about the quality of their living environment. Their goal was to simultaneously apply and develop social impact assessment at the casework level.
When looking back at the first assessment made by the social workers regarding the town plan it can be stated that the social workers were quite right in their evaluations regarding the types of social impacts that the con
struction of the area would have on the lives of the local people (see also Koj o et al. 2000) :
1 . Residents' opportunities to influence the planning of the area have been minimal. This is partly due to the fact that the permitted building volume had already been decided when making the contract agreement with the landowners.
2 . The old buildings, a disco for young people and the community centre for the unemployed, are to be demolished even though some parts of the old factory have been renovated.
3 . Paths on the lakeshore, parks and green areas have constantly been decreased during the planning and construction.
4. There will be heavy traffic through the area, which especially concerns the families with children living in the area.
5 . Most of the residents are positive about the congress centre situated in the area, although residents do not have any opportunity to use the centre for their own needs.
6 . The original idea of the community centre has not been realised as planned in terms of scale, schedule or location.
7 . There are no services in the area at the moment, but there is a possibility that commercial services will arrive once the population in the area increases . One would be justified in asking how good a tool social impact assessment has actually been in this case in the development of a residential area or, rather, how has the existing knowledge about a sustainable living area been used when making decisions about city plans . Information and assessments about the social impacts of plans and constructions were available from the beginning of the process but were barely used at all in the development of the residential area. The short-term interest of economic profits is still given priority over the long-term interests of a sustainable living environment.
Because the most significant decisions concerning the city plans in the area had already been made , the question becomes how to minimise the negative effects .
One solution could be the block association meetings , which have been arranged twice a year and which have evolved into meetings in which resi
dents and authorities (city planners , land owners, constructors, social work
ers etc.) have had a chance to discuss matters , issue complaints and request and pass on information to one another. One can say that the proj ect of fictional residents has evolved into a "round table" proj ect (see Beck 1 994) , which promotes discussion between different stakeholders . Still, there are difficulties in making the discussion equal . One resident put it like this :
"Since the meeting in autumn, I have not noticed any action or event, and already in the block association meeting, city planners had clear conceptions about the superiority of their ideas compared to ours" . According to Healey ( 1 997) , residents in planning processes often lack any chance to influence the issues that are important to them. Instead, the authorities of municipali
ties limit the possibilities of residents to influence their own local environ
ments. Afterwards , authorities then tend to wonder why residents did not want to participate in the decision-making process of issues advanced by the authorities and subsequently label them as "passive actors" .
SIA was seen in this proj ect as aiming to promote multi-professional co
operation between, for example , city planners, landowners and other local actors . The main aim was to give residents a voice , inform them and under
take discussions with them about the latest development plans , and help their voices to be heard by others. The aim of SIA was also to highlight and
utilise the practical knowledge gained by the social workers in their previous experiences with "good" and "bad" planning solutions . This meant reflecting on one's own work and knowledge . Fictional stories and questions in the inquiries were based on the SIA criteria developed in the proj ect. (see Ap
pendix 1 ) . The evaluation of social impacts experienced by residents was seen as a learning process in which a better understanding of the qualities characteristic of a good living environment according to different stakeholders in the Lutakko area would be reached through inquiries, interviews and dis
cussions carried out with residents .