5 USER ENGAGEMENT IN PUBLIC URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Matias Ståhle, Lauri Vuorinen and Sebastian Toukola Introduction The development of urban areas requires active collaboration between pro- ject stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle, from the front end to the operations phases (Artto et al., 2016). Municipalities must constantly develop their infrastructure and services to meet the needs and expectations of various citizen groups (e.g., children, workers and pensioners). Consequently, munic- ipalities are considering ways to engage citizens in urban development pro- jects. Citizen engagement plays a crucial role in urban development projects, as it promotes the consideration of communities’ needs and preferences, potentially leading to more effective and well-received outcomes. Engag- ing citizens in urban development projects empowers them to have a say in their urban environment, fostering a sense of ownership and community pride (Kujala et al., 2022). Successful engagement benefts not only citizens but also cities and decision makers, as it may lead to better informed deci- sions, increased project acceptance and improved project outcomes (Purvis et al., 2015). In this chapter, we focus on citizens as users of urban development projects. While citizens can assume various roles in such projects, it is the users who especially beneft from the fnal outcome of the project, such as a public build- ing. In this chapter, we defne user engagement as ‘organizational practices that are used to involve users in urban development project’s organizational activities’ (Greenwood, 2007, pp. 317–318). Even though previous research on stakeholder engagement in construction projects has emphasised collabo- ration between public and private actors (e.g., Cui et al., 2018; Hedborg & Karrbom Gustavsson, 2020) at the front end of projects (Candel et al., 2021; DOI: 10.4324/9781003463443-6 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY 4.0 license. User Engagement in Public Urban Development Projects 65 Toukola et al., 2023), increasing attention has been placed on understanding how users’ needs can be better acknowledged in different phases of these projects (Torvinen & Ulkuniemi, 2016). The goal of user engagement is often different in different phases of the project lifecycle. It can be assumed that the practices of user engagement would vary as well (Lehtinen & Aaltonen, 2020). Moreover, it is not evident what kinds of practices should be adopted to engage various user groups. Thus, there is a need to better understand how public project organisations (e.g., municipalities) engage project users in publicly procured projects throughout the project lifecycle. To study user engagement in publicly procured construction projects, we conducted a multiple case study in two Finnish municipalities. This chapter answers the following research question: How do municipalities engage users in different phases of the construction project lifecycle? We studied two urban development projects in different phases of the project lifecycle: one under early project planning and the other under the con- struction fnalisation and early use phases. The two cases complement each other, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of user engagement across various project lifecycle phases. Our primary data comprise semi- structured interviews (15 in total) with representatives of both municipali- ties and project users. The findings of this chapter reveal the practices of user engagement, how various user needs are communicated and how users’ needs and expectations are eventually considered in the project work. The find- ings show how the intensity of user engagement is often strongest in the project front end and the finalisation phases and how, around project commissioning, actors continue to collaborate to solve final issues in the project. This study contributes to the discussion on user engagement in publicly procured projects by demonstrating the importance of user engagement in committing them to urban development projects and how decision makers should employ engagement practices when developing urban spaces. The chapter begins with a literature review on user engagement in urban development projects. Next, research methodology and the two case studies are presented in detail, followed by the results section. Finally, the implica- tions of the research and practice and policy recommendations are discussed. Literature review Stakeholder engagement in urban development projects Urban development projects, such as the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, housing or public buildings, are important for municipalities, as they transform the urban landscape and create value for citizens as end 66 Citizen Participation in Sustainable Urban Development users of these different premises. These kinds of projects often have a long life- cycle, spanning from the initial planning and design of the project to fnally implementing the project and using the developed products. It might take several years to implement such projects, and the fnal product should last for decades, thus bringing sustainable value to societies (Di Maddaloni & Sabini, 2022; Vuorinen & Martinsuo, 2019). Projects often involve various stakeholders beyond the focal organisa- tions implementing the projects, such as citizens, media and non-proft organisations (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010). Stakeholders can be defned as individuals or groups that can impact, or be impacted by, organisations’ objectives (or, in this study, urban development projects) (Freeman et al., 2007). Recent research has studied how to engage these various stakehold- ers in projects, meaning ‘organizational practices that are used to involve stakeholders in urban development project’s organizational activities’ (Greenwood, 2007, pp. 317–318). This research on stakeholder engage- ment highlights a managing for stakeholder perspective, suggesting that or- ganisations should generate value not only for internal project stakeholders but also for external ones who, despite lacking offcial or contractual ties to the project organisation, may still infuence or be infuenced by the project (Freeman et al., 2007; Lehtinen & Aaltonen, 2020). Even though the importance of engaging external stakeholders in larger construction projects is acknowledged, it remains challenging to identify suitable and successful practices for engaging stakeholders throughout the lifecycles of projects (Derakhshan et al., 2019; Kujala et al., 2022). Especially in urban development projects, a project organisation’s (e.g., a municipality) primary purpose is to create value for all stakeholders, extending beyond stockholders, suppliers and customers, and organisa- tions should pay careful attention to their relationships with stakeholders (Eskerod et al., 2015). In the remainder of this chapter, we focus on a specific aspect of stakeholder engagement: citizens as users of urban development projects. Practices to engage users in various lifecycle phases Engaging users in urban development projects is important because they are the primary stakeholders affected once the projects are completed. The im- portance of local users and communities has been addressed increasingly in studies related to decision-making processes in projects (Derakhshan et al., 2019; Di Maddaloni & Sabini, 2022), addressing the social aspects of sus- tainable development. Typical ways to engage these kinds of stakeholders in projects include methods, such as interviews, forums, workshops and focus group discussions, as well as various digital tools, such as virtual reality, so- cial media, gaming or building information modelling systems (Toukola & User Engagement in Public Urban Development Projects 67 Ahola, 2022). As the goals of user engagement and the possibilities to affect project plans or outcomes vary throughout the project lifecycle, so does user engagement take different forms. The project front end is an important phase of the project lifecycle because there the possibilities to affect project plans and outcomes are oftentimes the highest (Zerjav et al., 2021). Especially in public projects, the users can be engaged, for example, in the zoning process of new living areas, as they of- ten involve an opportunity for users to state their opinion on the planning. Moreover, some municipalities have used participatory budgeting processes (Sintomer et al., 2012), where users can directly decide which projects are implemented in their neighbourhoods. Many of the studies in the project front- end phase, however, concentrate on the collaboration between public and pri- vate sector actors (i.e., internal stakeholders) (e.g., Candel et al., 2021; Toukola et al., 2023) and how projects should be managed for the best outcome. Mu- nicipalities represent users’ voices in these settings; thus, there is a signifcant risk of missing users’ opinions in project plans if they are not engaged at the project front end. The project implementation phase concentrates on implementing the project, based on the decisions made at the project front end. The focus here is mostly on cost-effcient management of the project in terms of time, budget and scope. For example, previous studies have focused on the co- ordination mechanism among various stakeholders (such as contractors, suppliers, developers and consultants) (e.g., Hedborg & Rosander, 2024), and Hietajärvi et al. (2017) concluded that integration needs between stakeholders often decrease when the project proceeds to implementation. Implementing organisations are, however, responsible for communicating with users, especially in the case of public infrastructure projects, to build trust and legitimacy (Di Maddaloni & Sabini, 2022). The implementation phase places high emphasis on project plans, and there is often little room for users to affect the project at this stage, which might explain the scarcity of such studies. Finally, the project proceeds to the finalisation and use phases after the project has been handed over to the customer. Here, the warranty period starts, and the contractor is often responsible for the project outcome for a number of years to come. The users’ voices can be argued to amplify, as when the use of the building starts, some errors can often be found. Pre- vious studies on project management in this phase have concentrated on project learning-related aspects, that is, what stakeholders learnt from the project and what they could have done better in future projects (Hartmann & Dorée, 2015). However, users’ viewpoints are often neglected, and more studies should concentrate on addressing the longer impacts of projects and whether the project creates long-term sustainable value for users. 68 Citizen Participation in Sustainable Urban Development Research method Research design Due to the explorative nature of this study, a multiple case study research design was chosen. This research design enables the formation of a deep un- derstanding through the collection of in-depth data from several informants (Yin, 2014). The cases of this study are two public construction projects, and the unit of analysis is the user engagement practices in these projects. The case study design resembles a common process approach (Eisenhardt, 2021) in which the same focal phenomenon is studied purposefully in different set- tings. In particular, the two cases focus on different phases of the project lifecycle, enabling us to study the practices of user engagement in two differ- ent settings. This way, the two cases complement each other, as visualised in Figure 5.1. We anticipate that examining user engagement during both the front-end phase (Zerjav et al., 2021) and the fnalisation phase is valuable, as project outcomes are often most affected during these stages. The goal of SchoolProject is the renovation of a primary school in a rela- tively remote suburb of a middle-sized city. The school facilities have been built in three phases: in the late 1960s, the late 1980s and the early 2000s. In addition to the primary school, several other public services, such as a local library and youth services, are provided in the same facilities. Outside school hours, the facilities are also used by different user groups, clubs etc. Conse- quently, the renovation project is of interest to many different user groups. We studied the early planning phase of SchoolProject, in which user groups’ needs and expectations for the project were identifed by the city. FIGURE 5.1 Case projects and the lifecycle phase they address Source: Authors. User Engagement in Public Urban Development Projects 69 CommunityProject concerns the construction of a new community centre building in a Finnish municipality with approximately 40,000 inhabitants. This is one of the biggest projects the municipality has ever implemented, being also innovative as it is built out of wood. The building is designed for high school use; however, the adult education centre, music institute and some other smaller groups operate on the same premises. Thus, similarly to SchoolProject, the premises are shared among various user groups. The pro- ject has been completed, and the new building has been in use since autumn 2023. We studied the fnalisation and use phases of CommunityProject, to identify how different users’ interests were considered in the completed building. Data collection and analysis Data were collected in spring 2023 (SchoolProject) and autumn 2023 (Com- munityProject) through semi-structured interviews. Altogether, 15 interviews were conducted (Table 5.1). The interviewees covered both user and client perspectives on the two case projects. In addition, in the SchoolProject case, we interviewed the consultancy company involved in the user engagement process, and in the CommunityProject case, we interviewed the contractor representatives. The list of interviewees was considered suffcient for this study because it includes the majority of key actors representing the buyer and user TABLE 5.1 Background Information on Interviewees and Interviews Interviewee Stakeholder group Duration (min) SchoolProject Coordinator Municipality 60 Youth services representative User 49 Consultant External consultant 52 Library representative User 32 School principal User 60 Youth services representative User 48 CommunityProject Head of project management Contractor 54 Principal, High school User 59 Principal, Adult education centre User 84 Project manager Contractor 69 Production engineer Contractor 88 Head of facility services Municipality representative/user 38 Responsible supervisor Contractor 64 Project manager Municipality representative/user 75 Head of educational administration Municipality representative/user 50 70 Citizen Participation in Sustainable Urban Development perspectives to the projects. In terms of the size of the projects, the number of interviews was considered suffcient to make meaningful conclusions in terms of the focus of this study. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Moreover, some publicly available data were utilised to verify key facts, and in the SchoolProject case, we also obtained the results of the engagement process conducted earlier for the municipality inhabitants. Preliminary results were discussed with municipalities’ representatives to enhance validity and reliability. The interview outline covered the following topics: the interviewees’ back- ground, background of the project, current situation in the project and project timeline; user engagement practices utilised throughout the project lifecycle, interviewees’ experiences of user engagement and perceptions of the overall success of the project so far. The interview structure was slightly altered de- pending on the interviewee and the project. For example, in SchoolProject, we focused on user engagement practices in the front-end phase and expec- tations expressed by the users. In CommunityProject, we focused on engage- ment in the fnalisation and use phases; thus, we could also discuss how the users’ needs were eventually considered in the fnal building. Finally, the data analysis proceeded by exploring the data freely to provide a holistic understanding of the two cases. We then specifcally coded the data inductively in terms of the user engagement practices utilised, the timing of user engagement and interviewees’ perceptions of such practices. Illustrative quotes are employed throughout the chapter to create connections between the conclusions and the data. The quotations have been altered slightly to improve meaning and clarity. To protect the interviewees’ privacy, the quotes are anonymised. Results User engagement at the project front end: SchoolProject The user engagement process of SchoolProject began in late 2022. The organ- isation responsible for developing the project was the property management services of the city. User engagement was led by the property services as well. However, to conduct user engagement in a comprehensive manner, the city collaborated with a consultancy company specialising in user engagement. User engagement took place in various ways in the front-end phase of SchoolProject. Methods for identifying user expectations included user in- terviews, a workshop, a survey and an information event. By pursuing user engagement in different ways, the city, with signifcant help from the consul- tancy company, could reach a range of user groups in the front-end phase. To promote participation in the user engagement process, the process was pro- moted on local media, on social media and through ‘traditional offine ways’. User Engagement in Public Urban Development Projects 71 The user interviews were targeted at different user groups in the school facilities. Examples of interviewed user groups included personnel of the school, library and youth services, and representatives of local clubs and as- sociations. Altogether, more than 20 user interviews were conducted by the consultancy company. Due to the relatively low number of interviews and the targeted nature of interviews as a form of user engagement, the interviews enabled a deep focus on the needs and expectations of specifc user groups. As one interviewee explained, ‘The user interviews felt more in time [than the other forms of user engagement]. You really had the opportunity to describe and explain [e.g., your wishes to the interviewers]’. In contrast to the individual characteristics of the user interviews, the user workshop enabled the discussion of user expectations in a collaborative manner. The main goal of the workshop was to ideate and discuss users’ wishes for the renovated school facilities, especially outside school hours. The workshop featured both individual and group work. As a representative of the consultancy company explained, ‘First, the participants of the workshop ideated individually. Then, the individual ideas were discussed and prioritised in small groups. – And after the workshop, we took the written documenta- tion, transferred it to the digital system and analysed the fndings’. The work- shop attracted more than 20 participants, most of whom were local residents, employees or users of the school facilities. The workshop fndings revealed three main areas of users’ expectations: cosiness of the school yard, fexible use of the school facilities (especially outside school hours) and the need for better facilities for the local youth. The third form of user engagement was a survey. Compared to the user interviews and the workshop, this form of user engagement enabled a signif- cantly higher number of local people to bring up their viewpoints to the user engagement process. Round 150 people responded to the survey. Illustrative groups of respondents included users of the library, residents of nearby neigh- bourhoods, parents of school pupils and users of the sports hall. The wide range of survey respondents enabled the identifcation of diverse expectations for the renovation project. In addition, as explained by a representative of the consultancy company, the survey enabled the ‘validation of the fndings from the user interviews and the user workshop’. The fourth and fnal form of user engagement was a user event. The purpose of this event was to communicate the main results of the user engagement process and the next steps of the project preparations to interested citizens. In terms of user engagement, this event was mainly about unidirectionally informing the citizens and lacked depth in the discussions. The four forms of user engagement discussed above – user interviews, workshop, survey and user event – illustrate the versatile forms of user en- gagement conducted at the front end of SchoolProject. These four forms were mostly led by the consultancy company. Partly simultaneously with this early 72 Citizen Participation in Sustainable Urban Development phase of user engagement, and especially immediately following it, early pro- ject planning began with the establishment of a planning group. This group comprised representatives of different city functions, and its frst task was to create a preliminary project plan for authorisation by the city council. Conse- quently, the early work of the planning group also included elements of user engagement – especially consideration of user viewpoints. On one hand, the planning group had to consider the needs and expectations of the offcial organisational user groups of the project (e.g., school, library and youth services). On the other hand, the viewpoints raised by citizens and other user groups had to be considered as well. However, in this early phase of project planning, only a preliminary project plan was created, and the needs of the organisational user groups were prioritised. In addition to describing the different forms of user engagement, the inter- viewees described their perceptions of the user engagement process. In general, the versatile forms of user engagement were appreciated by many interviewees. The interviewees described an open, active and positive atmosphere in the user engagement events. Due to the versatile forms of user engagement and the role of the consultancy company, a wide range of project users were reached, and data on their expectations were collected. However, some interviewees raised two slightly more concerned view- points. First, although getting several user expectations was praised numerous times, the novelty of these ideas was considered quite low. In addition, several interviewees brought up the risks of user disappointment if only quite a few user expectations could be fulflled in the renovation project: ‘There is always the risk that if people are actively engaged and listened to, but then nothing will happen in the end’. However, one of the more critical interviewees pondered in the following way: If the user engagement process was conducted to fgure out novel ideas, it was quite useless – but if it was conducted to make the people feel that they have been listened to and they are now happy, then it was defnitely worth the money and the effort. Finally, the early work of the planning group raised some concerns about different organisational user groups. In particular, a few interviewees raised the risk that the requirements of the most powerful organisational user group, the school, would override all other organisational user groups. As one inter- viewee described, ‘The agenda of one meeting included nothing but issues of the school – [person X] was present, she did not say a word – I was present, I was not asked a single question’. Engaging in the fnalisation and use phases: CommunityProject The construction of CommunityProject started in 2021, but design planning of the building had begun already in 2014. In these early phases, the users User Engagement in Public Urban Development Projects 73 were engaged in various workshops, and fnally, in 2017, the users could participate in voting in the architectural competition, where the jury and the users reached the same conclusion regarding the winner concept. Thus, the foundation for the engagement had already been built, and all project stake- holders agreed to engage users whenever appropriate. In the construction phase between 2021 and 2023, the main engage- ment activities occurred from late 2022 to project handover in 2023. At the beginning of the project, a project management group was established that involved all main stakeholders of the project. In this management group, all possible problems and changes were discussed together, which actively reduced the workload and decision-making needs at the construction site. Altogether, the collaboration in the triad of the contractor, the municipality and users was considered clear and developed further as the project moved ahead. When the fnalisation phase approached, the intensity of user engagement also grew. Different types of meetings were organised between the stakehold- ers, and the role of the high school principal was especially emphasised. The principal actively collected users’ needs and requirements and commu- nicated these to the project management group. The role of such individuals was to collate a list of requirements from the fnal users and to flter and pri- oritise the noticed issues. This way, the contractor could concentrate on the main tasks and evaluate what could be left for further consideration and fxed when the warranty period started. It was also important to separate the tasks based on what needed to be corrected by the contractor, which errors were design faults, and which issues were more like wishes for the future, typically not included in the project plan. As more straightforward examples of user engagement, several site vis- its were organised for the users during the fnalisation phase. As there were various user groups (e.g., students and teachers of the high school, the adult education centre, the arts school and the music institute and employee of the cultural services of the municipality), it was important to consider all of them individually. For example, the adult education centre and music institute use special equipment in teaching (e.g., musical instruments or equipment for pottery classes). Due to the wide range of different user groups, it was not immediately clear how the spaces would function cohesively across all insti- tutes. This issue persisted as a signifcant concern for users, necessitating the adoption of new methods for collaboration and planning. The users’ repre- sentatives held joint meetings to discuss all requirements, which were then communicated to the contractor and municipality representatives. By visiting the almost completed building, the users could notify potential problem ar- eas, some of which the contractor was still able to solve before the handover. The municipality project manager and the high school principal coordi- nated the user engagement by deciding whom of the users were invited to 74 Citizen Participation in Sustainable Urban Development which training sessions. From the municipality side, a photographer was also involved in video recording of all the sessions (Contractor project manager). One of the larger entities that was left to the fnalisation phase was the choice of furniture. Here, the users chose a specifc group among themselves that made the choice from the furniture options. The users could not choose individual furniture pieces (such as chairs or tables) but had to make a choice from the set of various pieces of furniture. In some cases, this was problem- atic as the fnal choice was eventually a compromise of various needs (e.g., what kind of chairs can be used by both the children and elderly people?). However, this was still considered a good practice, as the users felt like they were listened to. When the project proceeded to the handover in summer 2023, the in- tensity of the project work grew. The contractor was in a hurry to fnalise all construction work and, at the same time, furnishing needed to be completed. The overlapping schedules were considered challenging. Teachers played a crucial role in furnishing and moving to the new premises, and they managed to complete the transfer before the summer holiday season. At this stage, care- takers were a crucial user group, as they were responsible for maintaining the building’s technical functionality. The importance of the early engagement of this user group was emphasised several times for the successful use of the building. The contractor engaged the caretakers when training them in the use of technology, and these training sessions were also recorded for others to watch later. For round one and a half months, the users, furniture suppliers and several teachers in addition to high school principal were visiting the work site daily. We needed actively to coordinate our activities during that time (Contractor production manager). The contractor managed to hand over the building in summer 2023, with all major issues corrected. By the time of fnishing the interviews, there were still some defects in the building (e.g., visibility issues in the main audito- rium) and some concerns were raised regarding the suffciency of the park- ing spaces. Some issues (e.g., an additional loading ramp) were left for the municipality to decide later, but the building was fully functional when the use phase started in autumn. Based on early user feedback, for example, some additional coffee stations were added to some foors. Moreover, the signposts inside and outside the building were not completely ready in the beginning. However, the users seemed to be pleased and proud with their new community centre and how their voices were heard in various phases. User engagement was considered helpful from both the contractor and municipality sides, as the project would affect the lives of the users for many decades to come. When you go there [community centre] and encounter a seven-year-old pupil going to violin lesson, an elderly person going to pottery class, a high User Engagement in Public Urban Development Projects 75 school student or a politician, it feels special and something that is shared by all of us (Municipality worker). Discussion and conclusions Conclusions and implications for research In this explorative multiple case study, we examined user engagement in pub- lic urban development projects. In particular, we aimed to answer the follow- ing research question: How do municipalities engage users in different phases of construction project lifecycles? Our results contribute to the research stream of stakeholder engagement in projects (Eskerod et al., 2015; Kujala et al., 2022), especially from the perspective of user engagement throughout the project lifecycle. The results reveal various ways of user engagement in different phases of the project lifecycle, highlighting a ‘not one size fts all’ viewpoint to stake- holder engagement. In SchoolProject, the focus was on the project front end, where a survey, user interviews, a workshop and a presentation session were utilised to engage users. Focus was on giving a voice to different user groups and on identifying users’ expectations for the upcoming renovation project. In CommunityProject, the focus was on the fnalisation phase of the project and the practices of user engagement consisted of various meetings, site visits and feedback collection practices. The results highlighted ways to ensure that the outcome of the project satisfed the needs and requirements of the users. Although most of the forms of user engagement identifed in this research have been discussed in earlier studies (e.g., Hedborg & Rosander, 2024; Lehtinen & Aaltonen, 2020; Sintomer et al., 2012; Toukola & Ahola, 2022), our fndings paint a more detailed picture of user engagement in different phases of a project lifecycle. In addition, our study contributes to the group of earlier studies discussing the heterogeneity of users and the delivery of value to them (Di Maddaloni & Sabini, 2022; Zerjav et al., 2021). Our results highlight variation in the intensity and nature of user en- gagement, revealing how user engagement evolves throughout the project lifecycle. At the project front end, more comprehensive user engagement can take place, as decision makers aim to grasp several viewpoints. In the im- plementation phase, contractors and project owners mostly focus on cost- effcient management of the project according to project plans, which leaves less room for user engagement. However, there seem to be signifcant opportuni- ties to engage users when reaching the fnalisation phase and even the early use phase. The importance of user feedback has been discussed in earlier research (Eskerod et al., 2015; Zerjav et al., 2021), but this study demonstrates how users can take various other roles in the engagement process. This study continues the nascent discussion on user engagement in project studies and 76 Citizen Participation in Sustainable Urban Development contributes to the lifecycle view on projects (Vuorinen & Martinsuo, 2019). The study demonstrates that engaging various stakeholders is not only impor- tant in the project front-end phase, but opportunities for value creation also occur in the later phases of a project lifecycle. Implications for practice and policy For project management practitioners, the results encourage user engagement to be included in project plans. The plans for user engagement should con- sider different user groups and the different phases of a project lifecycle. Our results indicate how, especially early in the project, forms of user engagement can be more versatile so that the voices of the various user groups are ampli- fed and several viewpoints are considered. When a project proceeds to the implementation phase, especially towards the fnalisation phase, more formal coordination of user engagement, such as meetings and feedback collection systems, might be required to effciently gather all concerns of the fnal users and prioritise the tasks. Moreover, this might mean identifying key people in all stakeholder groups (such as the principal in the CommunityProject case) whose task is to collect the feedback and communicate it to everyone else in the project organisation. This study suggests the vision and common goal of a project as an impor- tant form of user engagement. The vision commits stakeholders to the project, and it may be easier to engage users if they feel that the project is ‘built for them’. For the project organisation, this implies that communicating with the users all the way from the early project front end builds commitment to the project and potentially increases its legitimacy in the eyes of the user groups. Even though user engagement might not bring any additional insights to pro- ject plans, as is, the sole engagement has a value itself. Finally, for policy, public decision-making and urban planning, this study highlights the active collaboration among various stakeholders, and that re- sources should be reserved for the user engagement process. When choos- ing contractors for upcoming urban development projects, not all might be familiar with user engagement. The experience of user engagement in public projects could be included as one decision-making criterion. For urban de- velopment on a larger scale, users’ voices should be considered better when developing the urban space to make more approachable spaces for everyone in the future. References Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder in- fuence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4), 381–397. User Engagement in Public Urban Development Projects 77 Artto, K., Ahola, T., & Vartiainen, V. (2016). From the front end of projects to the back end of operations: Managing projects for value creation throughout the system life- cycle. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 258–270. Candel, M., Karrbom Gustavsson, T., & Eriksson, P. E. (2021). Front-end value co- creation in housing development projects. Construction Management and Economics, 39(3), 245–260. Cui, C., Liu, Y., Hope, A., & Wang, J. (2018). Review of studies on the public–private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Man- agement, 36(5), 773–794. Derakhshan, R., Mancini, M., & Turner, J. R. (2019). Community’s evaluation of or- ganizational legitimacy: Formation and reconsideration. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 73–86. Di Maddaloni, F., & Sabini, L. (2022). Very important, yet very neglected: Where do local communities stand when examining social sustainability in major construction projects? International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 778–797. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt method, really? Strategic Organiza- tion, 19(1), 147–160. Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Ringhofer, C. (2015). Stakeholder inclusiveness: Enrich- ing project management with general stakeholder theory. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 42–53. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Sur- vival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate re- sponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327. Hartmann, A., & Dorée, A. (2015). Learning between projects: More than sending messages in bottles. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 341–351. Hedborg, S., & Karrbom Gustavsson, T. (2020). Developing a neighbourhood: Explor- ing construction projects from a project ecology perspective. Construction Man- agement and Economics, 38(10), 964–976. Hedborg, S., & Rosander, L. (2024). Self-organizing in urban development: Devel- opers coordinating between construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 42(2), 116–130. Hietajärvi, A. M., Aaltonen, K., & Haapasalo, H. (2017). Managing integration in in- frastructure alliance projects: Dynamics of integration mechanisms. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(1), 5–31. Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136–1196. Lehtinen, J., & Aaltonen, K. (2020). Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box. International Journal of Pro- ject Management, 38(2), 85–98. Purvis, R. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., & McCray, G. E. (2015). What’s in it for me? Using ex- pectancy theory and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its direction and intensity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 3–14. Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A., & Allegretti, G. (2012). Transnational models of citizen participation: The case of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Delib- eration, 8(2), 9. Torvinen, H., & Ulkuniemi, P. (2016). End-user engagement within innovative public procurement practices: A case study on public–private partnership procurement. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, 58–68. Toukola, S., & Ahola, T. (2022). Digital tools for stakeholder participation in urban development projects. Project Leadership and Society, 3, 100053. 78 Citizen Participation in Sustainable Urban Development Toukola, S., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., & af Hällström, A. (2023). The co-creation of value by public and private actors in the front end of urban development projects. Inter- national Journal of Project Management, 41(8), 102542. Vuorinen, L., & Martinsuo, M. (2019). Value-oriented stakeholder infuence on infra- structure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 750–766. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research – Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Zerjav, V., McArthur, J., & Edkins, A. (2021). The multiplicity of value in the front-end of projects: The case of London transportation infrastructure. International Journal of Project Management, 39(5), 507–519.