The experiences of the project varied very much among the interviewees. As the general comment, it can be said that development of the area was experienced as a positive matter. Many of the interviewees mentioned concrete examples in the area which should be developed. For example, new bridge which helps the visitors enter to the area easier was very welcome idea. Additionally, many wished more space for parking. These two issues were repeated during the interviews several times. One interviewee discussed about the guiding sights in the hiking routes and mentioned that there were sights from three different stakeholders and those should be standardized and moved to the correct places where the guiding is needed. Some participators thought that the facilities are old and need maintenance. For example, there are no free public showers on the beach at the moment. On the other hand, some felt the facilities were in quite good conditions for their own or for their customers’ needs.
During the interviews, most of the participators were emphasizing the importance if the development. Everybody were satisfied that the City of Vantaa had taken the leader role even all were not satisfied with the communication after the workshops. Some interviewees brought up the time schedule which they had experienced very wide. They said that only the development plans have taken years and were concern about the time frame for implementing the plans. One participator felt that the plans should be invested and implemented immediately, not in ten years because tourism business in Finland will be increasing rapidly in next two years. Another participator mentioned that the City if Vantaa has not an image of attractive tourism destination and it may be challenging to get investments in tourism in the managerial level of the City. Third participator brought up the matter that this size of development plans take always time in big public organizations.
Nine of the eleven interviewees were participated to one of both workshop which were arranged during the summer and fall 2015. Two interviewees mentioned that they were not able to participate to workshops. In general, all interviewees thought that the meetings were good source for sharing the information and that all the different stakeholders could discuss about their opinions and that everybody’s voice were heard.
One interview highlighted the importance of the Communication Expert who was attending to both workshops. According to the interviewee, the Communication Expert was in the main role of in the discussions and was able to keep the conversation appropriate between all stakeholders. The Communication Expert was representing the City of Vantaa’s city planning department.
“…but what took the workshop forward as the resident’s meeting was that the City of Vantaa arranged Pia-Elina Tasanko, a Communication Expert, to this meetings, and it is totally different atmosphere when there is a neutral facet between the public servants and residents, whether they are locals, entrepreneurs, or land owners. That there is an expert between who manage to be charge of the discussion”.
Interview 3.
Three interviewees thought that the communication and interaction has been poor.
They felt that the City of Vantaa has not gave enough information about the project.
One said that even he participated to one workshop he felt that the suggestions were not heard.
“The dialogue has definitely been poor”.
Interview 10.
He had memories from the time when the maintenance of Kuusijärvi was arranged appropriately and there were more associations involved in the place. I interpreted that to him Kuusijärvi’s facilities used to be in better condition years ago but nowadays the
maintenance has been arranged poorly. He had been visiting at the place as a resident and entrepreneur for a long time. During the interview, I noticed that there were sadness in his voice and that he missed the model of the maintenance which was in use before.
There were skeptic opinions about the concrete thinking of the development plan.
Three interviewees felt that more small preparations in the area should have been already done before new ideas were planned. Some were also concern about the size of the area and the lake which does not resist large groups of people at the same time.
“The area should be maintained accordingly before new ideas are planned. Of course there are requirements to plan new but at the same time already existing facilities should be maintained”.
Interview 4.
“This kind of guiding center, which would work as a gate, it would require planning to cross the Kuninkaantie. It is possible to build routes and information points and asks extension of the whole package. But Kuusijärvi as it is, with the saunas does not tolerate growing”.
Interview 10.
That most of the participants who were working in the public sector had more positive picture of the project and they have more positive experiences in the workshops.
However, those entrepreneurs who are working in the area weekly or daily were skeptic about the plans in the proposal. They were satisfied that new plans have been made but at the same time they felt that for example facilities should be maintained and fixed.
“Those concrete issues which should have been already repaired, those which are serving the users’ recreation, have been dilapidated”.
Interview 10.
While interviewing the participators, I noticed several different emotions and feelings while talking. Some of the participators were more passionate about developing the recreational center than other. As mentioned earlier, it can be stated that the more participator was involving to the place the more emotions were related. This means that the residents, for example, were regular visitors at the area and very keen on the place.
When considering the different stakeholders’ experiences about the project I interpreted that the public sector participants had more positive feelings. Moreover, their attitude against the project was convinced. Mostly their voices were bright while discussing the development plans and their body language expressed that they were convinced and certain that the plans will be conducted. Even they were not aware of the schedule they were firm that the development plans are taken forward. Their own experiences about communication and sharing information had been positive. However, some of them admitted that the external communication to other stakeholders could have been more effective.
I noticed that the public sectors’ experiences were more positive than entrepreneurs’
and residents’. Because entrepreneurs and residents were not aware of the schedule and the status of the project were not informed them, they felt more insecure about the plans. Some participators showed their frustration in the discussions. They were not looking straight to my eyes and at times their voice got more temper. At times, they did not finish their sentences to end. I would state that this kind of behavior is related to frustrations and negative experiences. The main difference between these groups is that the public sector had more knowledge about the project which has not reached the entrepreneurs and the residents.
Responsibility was mentioned several times during the interviews. The participators had experiences where they did not know who is responsible of different activities on the area. This considers especially the public sector. Many felt that the City of Vantaa has at least four different department or firms owned by the City of Vantaa who are operating in Kuusijärvi. This was experienced very confusing because stakeholders did not know who to contact when needed. It was interesting how the emotions varied during the interview. I noticed that for some participators the scattered responsibility was a fact they cannot affect to and they brought it up very neutral way. Their facial expression did not change at all and their voice was neutral. On the other hand, part of the participators became very active when discussing about the responsibility. They had aggression in their voice. All the participators agreed, both facets from the City and actual operators in the area, that there should be one certain facet to take the responsibility of all matters considering the area.
“The situation is quite interesting but also challenging becauset there are so many operators working in the area (at Kuusijärvi). In the very beginning of the project it was noticed that the responsibilities are not clear to anyone. And, for example, there was interesting discussion about the guide signs, that sport service department, greenspace unit department and Metsähallitus have their own signs in the area. Just that which guiding signs are used and where? And then we quickly found out that there is a need for new routes. From the City’s point of view, the challenge is, of course, that who takes the responsibility of Kuusijärvi. There are so many different departments involved”.
Interview 8.
From the table 4 the summary of experiences and repeated words and phrases can be seen.
Table 4. Summary of experiences and views.
Code Frequent themes & words Experiences Concrete examples
- Bridge
- Parking space - Guide sighs - Facilities
Poor communication & share of information Workshops
- Stakeholders’ voice were heard - Positive attitude
Enormous plans, small ones should be done first Responsibility of the public sector
During the interviews, it was noticed that all the participants were aware of the
proposal but only few had information of the further development plans. At the time of the interviews, in August and September 2016, most of the interviewees stated that they did not know the status of the project and that it was not communicated to them.
Mainly all participators were interested in the schedule of the plans. However, there were two entrepreneurs who felt that conducting the plans and being aware of the schedule was not important to them.
Not only the stakeholders from private sector or the residents but also the employees of the City of Vantaa brought this matter up as well. Vantaa has managed the development processes and the leader role when creating new innovations and offer platforms for collaborative innovations as Tukiainen et al. (2015) suggest. Taking citizens and private and public organizations into the process of innovation have been a beneficial approach to achieve new innovations. However, communication after the workshops seems to be
left without carefully attention. Moreover, because people are interested to participate to decision-planning processes (Sipilä and Tyrväinen 2005) it is important that the leader is updating and sharing information during every stage of the project to all participants.
(City of Vantaa 2016, Sipilä and Tyrväinen 2005; Tukiainen et al. 2015.)