MAPPING PLACE VALUES FOR THE GREEN, COMPACT, AND HEALTHY CITY: INTERLINKING SOFTGIS, SOCIOTOPES AND COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE Ian Babelon June 2015 TRITA-LWR Degree Project ISSN 1651-064X LWR-EX-2015:15 Ian Babelon LWR-EX-2015:15 © Ian Babelon 2015 Master thesis carried out in completion of the Masters in Sustainable Urban Planning & Design, Environment & Planning track Done in association with the Environmental Management and Assessment Research group Division of Land and Water Resources Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM, Sweden Reference should be written as: Babelon, I (2015) “Mapping place values for the green, compact and healthy city: Interlinking softGIS, sociotope mapping and communities of practice” TRITA-LWR Degree Project 2015:15, 118 pages. ii Mapping place values for the green, compact and healthy city SUMMARY IN SWEDISH Inom såväl forskning om stadsplanering som planeringspraxis finns det belägg för att urbana platsutvecklingsprocesser inte enbart ska byggas på experters och planeringsyrkesverksammas kunskap, utan de ska också omfatta stadsinvånarnas upplevelse och värderingar. Erfarenhet tyder på att byggandet av den gröna, kompakta och hälsosamma staden, som främjas av policy inom hållbar utveckling, måste ta hänsyn till hur platser används samt värderas av alla relevanta intressenter. SoftGIS är en sorts webbaserad ”medborgarsamverkan-GIS” (Public Participation GIS – PPGIS) som tillhandahåller både en metod och olika verktyg för att kartlägga individers värderingar om platser, samt för integrering av dessa inom professionellt stadsplanering. Denna föreliggande rapport fokuserar på tre olika softGIS verktyg: Mapita:s Maptionnaire, Spacescape:s Bästa Platsen, and SKL:s Geopanelen. Fem fallstudier från Finland och Sverige har granskats med syfte att ge ett kunskapsunderlag om hur softGIS kan integreras inom stadsplanering praxis och beslutfattande, med fokus på stadsförtätningsåtgärder. Därigenom kan man bedöma i vilken utsträckning softGIS kan leda till dialog mellan lekmän och yrkesmän, med särskilt fokus på planering av urbana ekosystemtjänster på grönytor. Rapporten demonstrerar softGIS:s potential i att expandera ”praktikgemenskaper” beroende på rätt institutionella sammanhang vad gäller medborgardialog och medborgarsamverkan. Dessutom visas också att användningen av softGIS-verktyg drar ytterst nytta av att kopplas samman med en omfattande ”verktygslåda” som kombinerar både fysiska som digitala verktyg för medborgarsamverkan. iii Ian Babelon LWR-EX-2015:15 iv Mapping place values for the green, compact and healthy city ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first and foremost like to thank Professor Berit Balfors at LWR, KTH and Gustav Malm at White Arkitekter, for their supervision, precious insights and generous advice. This thesis project has been a fantastic journey thanks to you two. I am also especially thankful to all interviewees for this report, who took the time to answer my questions. Many others have helped to shape this report in one way or another. I would to thank Frida Franzén, Sarah Ronkainen, Carl-Henrik Barnekow, Gunilla Eitrem, Caroline Karlsson, Marcel Moritz, Johan Dahlberg, Gustav Morgensson and many more: other professionals, all colleagues in the EMA Research Group, friends and of course relatives who have provided much appreciated advice and support along the way. May all the collective efforts and energies that have nourished this research process bear positive fruits for as many beings as possible. v Ian Babelon LWR-EX-2015:15 vi Mapping place values for the green, compact and healthy city TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary in swedish iii Acknowledgements v Abstract 1 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Summary: Public participation & the challenges of growing urbanisation 1 1.2. Aim 5 2. Methodology 5 2.1. A case-study research strategy 6 2.2. Case-study selection 6 2.2.1. SoftGIS tools 7 2.2.2. Geographical areas 8 2.2.3. Data used & methodological limitations 8 2.3. Literature review 9 2.4. Interviews & questionnaires 9 2.5. Participant observation 10 2.6. Situated knowledge: epistemological considerations 11 2.6.1. Situated knowledge: why partiality is a (necessary) strength 11 2.6.2. The Inter View: epistemological considerations 12 2.7. Hypothesis: Nature matters (but some care more about it than others) 13 3. Research results 14 3.1. State-of-the-art 14 3.1.1. Communities of practice 14 3.1.2. Building the compact city: densification, polycentricity, and strategic planning 17 3.1.3. Urban green qualities, human health, and environmental justice 19 3.1.4. Public participation, power and geographical scale 23 3.1.5. Places and place values: meaning and identity 28 3.1.6. Mapping cities: a practice between science, art and power 29 3.1.7. Sociotope mapping 33 3.1.8. Ubiquity, neogeography, and digital forms of citizen consultation and engagement 38 3.1.9. Governing GIS: from expert systems to SoftGIS 41 3.2. Case-studies: results 43 3.2.1. SoftGIS method and tools in various planning contexts 43 3.2.2. SoftGIS tool 1: Mapita’s Maptionnaire 44 3.2.3. The Maptionnaire in Helsinki’s comprehensive plan 46 3.2.4. The Maptionnaire in Vaasa, Finland 47 3.2.5. SoftGIS tool 2: Spacescape’s Bästa Platsen 49 3.2.6. Bästa Platsen in Bergshamra, Solna stad. 50 3.2.7. Bästa Platsen in Sollentuna. 51 3.2.8. SoftGIS tool 3: SKL’s Geopanelen 53 3.2.9. Geopanelen in Tyresö 54 4. Discussion: SoftGIS for the green, compact and healthy city 57 4.1. Green qualities in urban residents’ experiences and in planning practice 57 4.1.1. The place of green qualities in urban residents’ experiences 57 4.1.2. The place of green qualities in planning practice 59 4.2. Representativeness and extent of participation in softGIS 63 4.2.1. Sampling 63 4.2.2. Low participation in softGIS? 64 4.2.3. How representative is representative? 64 4.2.4. Incentivisation 66 4.2.5. Misuse and hijacking surveys 66 vii Ian Babelon LWR-EX-2015:15 4.2.6. Inaccuracy of respondents’ responses 66 4.2.7. Spatial insight vs. attractive technology 67 4.2.8. Location-based comments, spatial relations, and spatial cognitions 67 4.2.9. Extent and quality of participation in public deliberation frameworks 68 4.3. Integration of softGIS within planning practice 69 4.3.1. User-friendly & customisable 69 4.3.2. Affordable 69 4.3.3. Develop and adapt continuously applications through collaborative efforts 70 4.3.4. Organisational capacity 71 4.3.5. A well-defined use 71 4.3.6. Integration with other tools 72 4.3.7. Public participation incurs investment costs 73 4.3.8. Simplified data management improves uptake 73 4.3.9. Sharing the knowledge and experience of tools can boost their uptake 74 4.3.10. SoftGIS works best early in the planning process 74 4.3.11. SoftGIS at other planning stages 75 4.3.12. Towards checklists for softGIS 76 4.3.13. Dialogical/deliberative component 77 4.4. Integration of softGIS within decision-making and planning outcomes 77 4.4.1. Assessing the impact of softGIS on development plans 78 4.4.2. Assessing the cost, effectiveness, and quality of public participation frameworks 79 4.4.3. Method and institutional context are closely intertwined 80 4.4.4. Planning expertise, dialogue and empowerment 81 4.4.5. SoftGIS or not SoftGIS: a question of institutional context? 83 4.4.6. Does SoftGIS help to broaden communities of practice in urban planning? 86 5. Conclusions 89 5.1. Further Research 92 5.1.1. Toward systematic research 92 5.1.2. Assessing the costs and benefits of public participation frameworks 93 5.1.3. SoftGIS in a multifunctional toolbox: combining innovation with other tools 93 5.1.4. Testing and refining innovative applications for softGIS 95 6. References 96 viii Mapping place values for the green, compact and healthy city ABSTRACT Urban planning research and practice provides forceful evidence that urban place-making processes should not be driven by experts and planning professionals alone: they should also build on the experiential knowledge and values of lay citizens. Experience shows that the construction of the green, compact, and healthy city fostered by sustainable development policies requires considering how places are used and valued by all relevant stakeholders. SoftGIS is a form of web- based Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) that provides both a method and tools for mapping the values that people attach to places and for integrating these in professional urban planning practice. This report focuses on three softGIS tools: Mapita’s Maptionnaire, Spacescape’s Bästa Platsen, and SKL’s Geopanelen. Five case studies from Finland and Sweden are analysed so as to discuss some of the main substantive issues surrounding the uptake of softGIS applications urban planning practice and decision-making, particularly in the context of urban densification measures. In so doing, the extent to which softGIS can support dialogue between lay citizens and planning professionals is assessed, with a focus on urban ecosystem services in green areas. It is demonstrated that the potential of softGIS to help broaden communities of practice in urban planning hinges on a conducive institutional context for public participation and dialogue. Furthermore, it is argued that the use of softGIS tools is optimised when it is integrated in a comprehensive multifunctional toolbox that combines both physical and digital forms of public participation. Keywords: SoftGIS, PPGIS, sociotope mapping, public participation, compact city, communities of practice, urban planning 1. INTRODUCTION The Introduction provides a comprehensive summary of the interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral context concerning the use of softGIS for mapping places values for the green, compact and healthy city. The Introduction summarises much of the state-of-the-art, mentioning gaps in the literature and motivating the research at hand. The aim and research questions of the study are then formulated to address some of the existing gaps in knowledge.