Image
At Sitowise, we design transport routes, bridges, tunnels, buildings, parks and other structures that shape stakeholders’ everyday lives or transform familiar landscapes. Changes in the living environment may be long-awaited improvements, but they can also evoke negative emotions. Providing opportunities to participate, ensuring people feel heard, and delivering information at the right time can all help increase acceptance of change. More broadly, this is about trust, openness, and democracy, which support social stability.
Fortunately, stakeholder engagement is already legally required in many built environment projects in Finland. In my experience, many companies and organisations are willing to go beyond these legal requirements. These frontrunners recognise that the discussions sparked during the planning phase can influence project timelines or even whether the project will proceed at all. Residents and other stakeholders often hold valuable, local insights that benefit both the planning and implementation of projects.
It is important to emphasise that offering equal opportunities to participate is required under Finnish law, EU directives, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Aarhus Convention, and several other international human and civil rights agreements.
Typically, a city provides opportunities to comment on plans through a map-based service and organises public meetings for residents. These approaches are valuable, but I still wonder whether everyone feels these channels are genuinely for them. Do people have the digital skills needed to use map services?
Is current stakeholder engagement sufficient and accessible?
There is much good already, but I believe interaction should be more diverse, creative, and accessible than it is today.
Typically, a city provides opportunities to comment on plans through a map-based service and organises public meetings for residents. These approaches are valuable, but I still wonder whether everyone feels these channels are genuinely for them. Do people have the digital skills needed to use map services? Is language proficiency sufficient to participate if someone’s first language is not Finnish or Swedish? I worry that, for many, the answer is no.
In my experience, participants in engagement events are predominantly native Finns, many of them already retired. Participation numbers in events and surveys can also be disappointingly low.
I recommend reaching stakeholders through channels and locations familiar to them, such as schools, daycare centers, hobby venues, shopping centers, public events, or social media platforms popular among young adults.
How can we make engagement more accessible?
The threshold for participation should be as low as possible, both mentally and practically. I recommend reaching stakeholders through channels and locations familiar to them, such as schools, daycare centers, hobby venues, shopping centers, public events, or social media platforms popular among young adults. This way, we can better reach those who do not actively follow zoning processes or the progress of general, road, or rail plans.
Targeted discussions, for example via Teams, may serve associations, sports clubs, youth councils and similar organised groups better than one large public event. Alternatively, a panel of active stakeholders can be assembled to meet several times around different themes. As the scale and impact of projects vary widely, engagement should always be planned on a case-by-case basis.
Projects should also better consider participants’ physical, cognitive, and sensory-related needs. According to the Plain Language Needs Assessment (2025), an estimated 14 % of Finland’s population requires plain language. This includes people with intellectual disabilities, language disorders, neurodivergence, challenges with perception, memory disorders, or fatigue. It also includes people whose first language is not Finnish or Swedish, or whose reading skills are limited.
Events should be organized in accessible venues whenever possible. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Invitations should also clearly describe accessible routes to the venue.
Is communication supporting accessible engagement?
Interaction and communication are inseparable. Opportunities to participate must be communicated actively, across multiple channels and using diverse communication methods. The reputation formed during the earliest stages of a project often shapes how it will be received later.
Alongside engagement efforts, we must also communicate the project’s benefits, goals and progress and respond to public discussion when needed. All of this requires planned and skilled communication. For the public sector, website content and other digital communication must also meet accessibility requirements.
This topic feels especially important to me at a time marked by increasing polarisation. Accessible engagement strengthens stakeholders’ sense of agency and builds trust in authorities and other actors. Ultimately, this is about reinforcing democracy.