Imaging the Future: Geo-visualisation for Participatory Spatial Planning in Europe (Mansholt)

Geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe Imaging the future

M a n sh o lt p u b l i c a t i o n se ri e s - Vo l u m e 3

edited by: Adri van den Brink Ron van Lammeren Rob van de Velde Silke Däne Wageningen Academic P u b l i s h e r s

Imaging the future

Imaging the future Geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe

edited by: Adri van den Brink Ron van Lammeren Rob van de Velde Silke Däne

Mansholt publication series - Volume 3

Wageningen Academic P u b l i s h e r s

ISBN: 978-90-8686-039-5 e-ISBN: 978-90-8686-625-0 DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-625-0 ISSN 1871-9309 First published, 2007 © Wageningen Academic Publishers The Netherlands, 2007

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned. Nothing from this publication may be translated, reproduced, stored in a computerised system or published in any form or in any manner, including electronic, ­mechanical, reprographic or photographic, without prior written permission from the publisher, Wageningen Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 220, 6700 AE Wageningen, the Netherlands, www.WageningenAcademic.com The individual contributions in this publication and any liabilities arising from them remain the responsibility of the authors. The publisher is not responsible for possible damages, which could be a result of content derived from this publication.

Mansholt Publication Series The Mansholt Publication Series (MPS) contains peer-reviewed textbooks, conference proceedings and thematic publications focussing on social changes and control processes in rural areas and (agri)food chains as well as the institutional contexts in which these changes and processes take place. MPS provides a platform for researchers and educators who would like to increase the quality, status and international exposure of their teaching materials or of their research output. The Series is named after Sicco Mansholt (1908-1995), who was Minister of Agriculture in The Netherlands from 1945 until 1958. From 1958 until 1972 he was Commissioner of Agriculture and Vice-President of the European Commission. MPS is supported by the Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences (MG3S) and CERES Research School for Resource Studies for Development. The quality and contents of the Series is monitored by an interdisciplinary editorial board. MPS is published and marketed internationally by Wageningen Academic Publishers. The Mansholt Publication Series editors are: Prof. Wim Heijman Prof. Kees de Hoog Prof. Ekko van Ierland Dr. Arjen E.J. Wals Prof. Leontien Visser

Contents Mansholt Publication Series Address by Mr Barroso, President of the European Commission, to the final PSPE conference.

5 12

Foreword Henk Mulder, Director of Dienst Landelijk Gebied.

13

Acknowledgements

15

List of abbreviations

21

1. I ntroduction – geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde and Silke Däne 1.1. Participatory spatial planning in the European e-society 1.2. The power of geo-visualisation 1.3. The PSPE project 1.4. Purpose and structure of the book

23

2. P  erspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink 2.1. Introduction 2.2. What is spatial planning all about? 2.3. Citizen participation in spatial planning 2.4. Differences in planning culture 2.5. Conclusions

33

3. R  aising awareness for participation through interactive geo-visualisation in Catalonia Irene Compte Lobera and Rosa Olivella González 3.1. The context of participatory planning in Catalonia, Spain 3.2. Salt 70: a case for promoting participation itself 3.3. Methodology 3.4. Results and lessons learned 3.5. Conclusions

Imaging the future 

23 24 27 30

33 34 38 44 50 53 53 54 56 60 62

7

4. D  evelopment of a geo-discussion panel as a tool for public participation in Poland Maria Andrzejewska, Marek Baranowski, Anna Kowalska, Jan Matuszkiewicz, Ewa Roo-Zielińska, Monika Rusztecka and Jerzy Solon 4.1. General background 4.2. Applied participation and communication methods 4.3. Results 4.4. Conclusions and lessons learned 5. U  nderstanding the role of 3D visualisation: the example of Calden Airport expansion, Kassel, Germany Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns 5.1. The Calden Airport expansion project 5.2. Interactive and non-interactive visualisation tools: questions asked 5.3. Standards for quality assurance 5.4. Preparation and application of visualisations 5.5. Research results 5.6. Lessons learned 5.7. Future research 6. G  eo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier 6.1. Preliminary insights and guidelines 6.2. Basic notions of geo-visualisation 6.3. The transformation chain 6.4. Production of geo-visualisations 6.5. Visual thinking and visual communication 6.6. Interfaces for geo-visualisations 6.7. E-interaction communication protocols 6.8. Preliminary insights and guidelines 7. G  etting involved in spatial planning issues – A virtual flight over the city of Barreiro Nuno Banza and Susana Camacho 7.1. Introduction 7.2. Doing things better 7.3. An innovative tool for citizen participation 7.4. Main results and lessons learned 7.5. Conclusions and future actions

8

65 65 67 71 73 75 75 76 76 80 83 86 87 89 89 90 90 92 95 99 100 103 107 107 108 109 115 117

Imaging the future

8. Usability of 3D geo-visualisation for spatial orientation Malgorzata Milosz, Ron van Lammeren and Tessa Hoogerwerf 8.1. Introduction 8.2. Methodology 8.3. Results 8.4. Discussion and recommendations

119

9. T  ime travel to the future landscape of Groningen Lake City Wim Boetze and Joost van Uum 9.1. Introduction 9.2. Plan area and design brief 9.3. The Lake City viewer: flying in virtual reality 9.4. Professional appraisal of the viewer 9.5. Use of the viewer in the planning process 9.6. Artists and designers contribute ideas on living in Lake City 9.7. Conclusions and lessons learned

127

10. Adoption of innovative tools for public participation by the Flemish land agency Jeroen Jansen, Peter De Graef, Hilde Geskens, Heidi Van Offenwert and Jo Van Valckenborgh 10.1. Participatory spatial planning in Zondereigen 10.2. A website as a meeting point 10.3. Results 10.4. Conclusions and lessons learned 11. Organising innovation: the integration of innovative geo-visualisation techniques into participatory spatial planning Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde 11.1. An organisational perspective 11.2. Visioning about geo-ICT for public participation 11.3. Diffusion of new technologies 11.4. Access to spatial data 11.5. Conclusions 12. Epilogue: reflections on the lessons learned Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde, Silke Däne and Henk Scholten 12.1. The added value of the PSPE project 12.2. Lessons learned 12.3. Conclusion

Imaging the future 

119 119 121 124

127 127 129 130 132 134 138 141 141 143 147 150 151 151 152 156 161 165 169 169 169 174

9

References

175

Internet links

188

About the contributors

189

Keyword index

195

10 

Imaging the future

Address by Mr Barroso, President of the European Commission, to the final PSPE conference. The final conference of the PSPE project took place on 24 May 2007 in Barreiro, Portugal. The results of the project were presented to an international audience of decision-makers, professionals and practitioners. Mr José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, addressed the conference via a video message. In the video he praises the project as an excellent initiative which shows the impact that new technologies may have on the quality of life of European citizens and commends the goal of the project: the development of an interactive framework for assisting governments, citizens, companies and social organisations in decision-making processes for the spatial planning of public areas. Mr Barroso emphasises that the project is an outstanding example of the added value of cooperation at the European level. It also shows the value and benefits that the results of scientific research may have for society. Mr Barroso’s message is included on the DVD that accompanies this book.

12 

Imaging the future

Foreword The international community within Europe is becoming increasingly interdependent. European member states, governments and citizens depend on each other for their development, welfare and sustainability. I am pleased, therefore, that the European INTERREG IIIC programme for interregional cooperation has provided the opportunity to gain experience and exchange practical knowledge in the field of spatial planning and sustainable development. The overall objective of the PSPE project was to improve the exchange of spatial information for participatory spatial planning through renewed interactive approaches. The project has reviewed existing knowledge in this field, acquired new knowledge and, in case studies, has gained experience in applying this expertise to create new possibilities for participatory spatial planning within different regional and cultural settings. I believe that an important point to stress in this respect is that universities, research and information centres and local and regional government authorities have come together and cooperated in the development and application of practical knowledge. The project has generated new insights into how geo-visualisation can improve public participation in the formulation and resolution of spatial planning issues. Moreover, the project has shown that if geo-information is to support spatial planning processes, it needs to be available, accessible and embedded in the organisations responsible for these processes. I consider this to be an additional incentive to pursue further efforts to make geo-information more accessible, both in the Netherlands and throughout Europe, as promoted under the INSPIRE Directive. To conclude, I recommend the results of the PSPE project because they show how government authorities, particularly at the local and regional levels, can act as reliable partners of communities and society as a whole. Government authorities can work with citizens to find solutions to spatial planning issues. Numerous opportunities for this are available at the local level in particular. Better use can and must be made of the energy and enthusiasm to be found among the inhabitants of villages, neighbourhoods and districts. Local and regional government must take up this challenge because they have means at their disposal to support participatory processes. I believe it is necessary, certainly in our rapidly developing information and communication age, to make use of the possibilities offered by ICT to support citizen participation, and to seriously explore and fully exploit the opportunities for social innovation. Henk Mulder, Director of Dienst Landelijk Gebied.

Imaging the future 

13

Acknowledgements This book is the result of the Participatory Spatial Planning in Europe (PSPE) project, which was funded by the European Union under its INTERREG IIIC programme. The project was implemented by a consortium of partners from five different European countries. Any book resulting from such a wide-ranging project is inevitably a product of the efforts of many people. This book is no exception. First, of course, we are grateful to the contributors who have put so much effort into writing and revising their chapters. They also provided the visual materials which are such an important component of the book and the enclosed DVD. We would also like to thank all the people who participated in the many events that took place during the case studies and who provided us with valuable feedback on the use of the geo-visualisations. In particular, we thank the following people who contributed to the project in one way or another: Jan Waal, Linda de Groot, Jos Twente, Marleen Maarleveld and Vincent Tiel Groenestege (Government Service for Land and Water Management, Netherlands), Inge Vos (Groningen Lake City Project Office, Netherlands), Ankie Boomstra (Centre for Visual Arts, Netherlands), Adam Struzik (Mazovian Voivodship, Poland), Zbigniew Strzelecki and Tomasz Slawinski (Mazovian Office for Regional Planning, Poland), Wojciech Tarnawski (Municipality of Lomianki, Poland), Ana Loureiro, Andreia Pereira, António Pinto Angelo, Bruno Vitorino, Joana Ferreira, Luis Cerqueira, Manuel Landum, Raquel Marques, Ricardo Ferreira, Rui Romeira, Silvia Ratão, Susana Talete and Vera Jardim (Municipality of Barreiro, Portugal), Edmundo Nobre, Joao Batalha, Marina Lobo, Joana Soares, Conceição Capelo, Tiago Bilou, Teresa Costa, Olivia Somer, Rui Henriques, Gavin Gonçalves (YDreams and New University of Lisbon), Lluis Vicens, Emma Puigmal and Ramon Macià (University of Girona, Spain), Roland de Paepe and Guido Clerx (Flemish Land Agency, Belgium), Stef Verheyen (Spark Multimedia, Belgium), Aldo Bergsma, Theo Jacobs, Marolijn Bloemmen, Truus van de Hoef, Lena Elings, Antoinette Stoffers, Wim van Ingen and Rik Olde Loohuis (Wageningen University and Research Centre, Netherlands), and representatives of the Catalan Landscape Observatory, the Municipality of Banyoles, the Municipality of Salt, the Municipality of Santa Cristina d’Aro, the Municipality of Girona, the Public Participation Centre of the Regional Government of Barcelona, the Public Participation Office of the Catalan Government and the Vallvera High School in Salt (all from Spain). We are especially grateful to Antonio Camara (New University of Lisbon and YDreams, Portugal) and Henk Scholten (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Geodan, Netherlands) for providing the inspiration to initiate the PSPE project. In their teaching and research during the 1990s they developed the concepts and products that form the basis of the geovisualisations used in the project, and they were actively involved in the operationalisation and elaboration of these concepts in the case studies described in this book.

Imaging the future 

15

Our thanks are also due to a number of students of the MSc Geo-Information Science programme at Wageningen University, whose thesis research made a valuable input to the project. Tessa Hoogerwerf deserves a special mention because she researched her thesis, ‘The use of virtual reality in spatial planning’, during the initiation phase of the PSPE project and after graduation continued to work on the project as a junior researcher. Hilbert Davelaar’s research was made possible by the Flemish Land Agency, which provided him with the data from the Zondereigen case study. His thesis, ‘Participatory planning requirements for geovirtual reality’, provides an overview of 3D visualisations in planning to be constructed using ArcGIS. Malgorzata Milosz worked on ‘Visualisation of landscape change in computerised 3D environments’ with the support of the Polish PSPE partners, the Board of the Palace of Science and Culture in Warsaw and Arcadis Poland (see Chapter 8 of this book). Harm Luisman carried out research on the detection of changes in 3D visualisations. His thesis, ‘3D visualisation methods for geo-data changes’, was voted the best thesis of 2006 by the Board of Wageningen University. The Municipality of Wageningen and Wageningen public library supported this research in many ways. Hans Paul Velema’s thesis, ‘Guidelines for geovisualisation viewers based on film theory and cinema’, presents guidelines for improving the attractiveness of geo-visualisations. The Dutch National Film Institute, the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management and a number of film-makers, including Jan van den Berg, provided fascinating visual materials to support his research. Arjan Wilkens exploited the interaction between geo-visualisations and simulation models in his thesis, ‘GeoVR to interact with spatio-temporal models: The manipulation of spatiotemporal models from a 3D computer environment’. Ruben Lopez Velasquez and Anne Könst, both students of the Master of Landscape Planning and Design programme at Wageningen University, also contributed to the PSPE project with their thesis ‘A heterotopic fluvial extension in a metropolitan area: Warsaw’. This would not have been possible without the support of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Agricultural University of Warsaw and the Polish Geodetic Institute. Tiago Antunes and Nuno Capeta (both from the New University of Lisbon) wrote their Masters thesis during their work placement at Spinlab (Vrije Universiteit). In an interesting experiment, they translated the experience they gained in Portugal with the use of Virtual Portugal (EXPO 98) to the Dutch situation in Pilot Test – Ameland Island. They demonstrated that it is possible to integrate large GIS datasets and multimedia into a new visualisation tool which is scalable enough to run efficiently on a low-end laptop. We extend a special word of gratitude to Maria Giaoutzi (National Technical University of Athens, Greece) and Joachim Thomas (Upper Land Consolidation Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia and University of Applied Sciences, Bochum, Germany) for their critical but always stimulating comments as members of the project’s international expert panel. Diedrich Bruns (Kassel University, Germany) generously offered us room in his office for doing much of the editing of this book. Finally, we thank Derek Middleton for improving

16 

Imaging the future

our English and copy-editing the text, and Madelief Brandsma for designing the e-book and the cover plate. The editors Wageningen, Utrecht, Kassel May 2007

Imaging the future 

17

List of figures, tables and boxes Figure 1.1. Communicating spatial information via geo-visualisation. Figure 2.1. Spatial planning, related disciplines and relevant actors. Figure 2.2. Demands on spatial planning by society and by EU policy and legislation. Figure 2.3. Factors of planning culture influencing citizen participation. Figure 3.1. Screenshot from the University of Girona landscape viewer. Figure 3.2. Impressions of the education fairs. Figure 3.3. Salt landscape viewer. Figure 3.4. High school session in Salt. Figure 3.5. 3D image of the University of Girona. Figure 3.6. Groups and numbers of people directly involved in the sessions. Figure 4.1. Map of the Vistula River Valley case study area. Figure 4.2. The Polish PSPE website. Figure 4.3. Geo-Discussion Panel. Figure 5.1. Projected expansion of Kassel Calden Airport. Figure 5.2. Quality criteria for preparing, composing and presenting visualisations. Figure 5.3. Design of trials for the study, including number of participants. Figure 5.4. Trial sessions at Calden. Figure 5.5. Sequence of events during meetings with study participants. Figure 5.6. To what degree will the airport extension change landscape character? Figure 6.1. From 3D real world to 2D or 3D perception of a scene. Figure 6.2. Relation between transformations, ‘I’ factors and usability. Figure 6.3. Five levels of detail. Figure 6.4. Examples of interaction. Figure 6.5. The reality–virtuality continuum. Figure 6.6. Increasing graphical details based on the same geo-dataset. Figure 6.7. Examples of geo-visualisation interfaces. Figure 6.8. E-interaction communication protocol cube. Figure 6.9. PSPE case studies positioned in the ECP cube. Figure 7.1. Geographic location of Barreiro Municipality. Figure 7.2. Virtual Flight environment based on the orthophotomap of Barreiro. Figure 7.3. Virtual image of sites included in the Polis urban renewal programme. Figure 7.4. The kiosk at local festivities in August 2005. Figure 7.5. First Virtual Flight kiosk and the new kiosk with a fashionable look. Figure 7.6. Presentation of the Virtual Flight in schools. Figure 7.7. Virtual Flight internet interface on Barreiro’s website. Figure 7.8. Thematic comments made by citizens via the Virtual Flight kiosk. Imaging the future 

26 36 38 45 56 57 58 59 59 60 66 68 69 75 77 82 82 83 85 91 92 93 94 95 97 99 102 105 107 110 111 112 112 113 115 116 19

List of figures, tables and boxes

Figure 8.1. 3D geo-visualisation without (3DNN) and with street names (3DSN). Figure 8.2. Respondents filling in the questionnaire. Figure 8.3. Percentage of correct answers per task. Figure 8.4. Time spent on tasks. Figure 8.5. Elements used by respondents for orientation. Figure 9.1. Groningen Lake City masterplan. Figure 9.2. Lake City viewer, a virtual reality tool for visualising plans and ideas. Figure 9.3. Use of the Lake City viewer at a household fair. Figure 9.4. The artists’ ideas and proposals inserted in the Lake City viewer. Figure 9.5. Krater Meerstad by the artists collective Observatorium. Figure 10.1. Location of Zondereigen and the land consolidation plan. Figure 10.2. Three gateways to the website ‘Countryside in motion’. Figure 10.3. The ‘Let’s Talk’ page. Figure 10.4. Zondereigen geo-portal. Figure 10.5. Landscape viewer. Figure 10.6. Transformation from present to future landscape. Figure 11.1. Structure of the chapter. Figure 11.2. Nolan’s growth curve. Figure 11.3. Diagram of the Technology Acceptance Model. Figure 11.4. Internet use in PSPE countries. Table 1.1. Structure of the book. Table 2.1. Comparison of different typologies of participation. Table 2.2. Dimensions of using digital media related to ethical considerations of planning. Box 5.1. Box 9.1.

20 

Quality criteria for preparing, composing and presenting visualisations Examples from the nine artists and designers

120 121 122 123 124 128 129 131 135 137 142 144 145 146 147 148 152 157 161 165 31 39 41 78 136

Imaging the future

List of abbreviations 2D 3D AESOP AGIV

two-dimensional three-dimensional Association of European Schools of Planning Agency for Geographic Information in Flanders (Agentschap voor Geografische Informatie Vlaanderen) CAD computer-aided design CBK Centre for Visual Arts, Groningen (Centrum Beeldende Kunst) CEMAT European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning CEN/TC 287 European Committee for Standardization, Technical Committee on Geographic Information CMS content management system CPU central processing unit DLG Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management (Dienst Landelijk Gebied) EC European Commission ECP E-interaction Communication Protocol Cube EIA environmental impact assessment ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective EU European Union FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee FLA Flemish Land Agency GDP Geo-Discussion Panel GI geographic information GINIE Geographic Information Network In Europe GIS Geographic Information System GRID Global Resource Information Database HMD head-mounted display ICT information and communications technology IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment IGOP Institute of Government and Public Politics (Institut de Govern i Polítiques Púbiliques ) INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community INTERREG IIIC European Community Initiative which aims to stimulate interregional cooperation in the EU ISO International Organization for Standardization MORP Mazovian Office for Regional Planning Imaging the future 

21

List of abbreviations

MoU MSN NGO NI PEoU PSPE PU R&D SDI SEA SIGTE TAM TIM TIS TRA UNECE UNEP VR WFD WUR

22 

memorandum of understanding Microsoft Messenger non-governmental organisation non-immersive Perceived Ease of Use Participatory Spatial Planning in Europe Perceived Usefulness research and development Spatial Data Infrastructure strategic environmental assessment GIS & Remote Sensing Centre of the University of Girona (Servei de Sistemes d’Informació Geogràfica i Teledetecció) Technology Acceptance Model Topographical Information Management Technology Innovation System Theory of Reasoned Action United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations Environment Programme virtual reality Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy) Wageningen University and Research Centre

Imaging the future

1. Introduction – geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde and Silke Däne 1.1. Participatory spatial planning in the European e-society The term ‘spatial planning’ refers to a wide range of systematic activities designed to ensure that desired spatial goals are achieved in the future. These goals include environmental protection, urban development, different forms of economic activity, infrastructure development, water management and many others. As a formal profession, spatial planning has broadened enormously in scope since the European industrial revolution, and can now be said to encompass the act of planning for desired future conditions at all scales, within both the public and private sectors. Activities that are now classified as ‘spatial planning’ are known under different names in the languages of the European Union member states and have over time been influenced by continuously changing policy environments and planning cultures. But the term ‘spatial planning’ itself is relatively new and has been recognised for not much longer than about ten years. In its compendium of spatial planning the European Commission (1997) uses the term as a ‘neutral generic term’ which does not precisely equate to any of the terms used in the member states. ‘Spatial planning’ is, as Kunzmann (2006) puts it, a Euro-English buzz term that has become prominent among English-speaking academics and professional planners in Europe. The interest in regional development and spatial planning within the EU has increased in recent years. One of the reasons for this is that the egional dimension has been strengthened within individual nations and the EU as a whole (Albrechts et al., 2001; Adams et al., 2006). This interest also stems from various spatial planning initiatives taken by the EU, such as Europe 2000+, the European Commission’s policy document on regional development and spatial planning published in 1994, and the intergovernmental European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) published in 1999 (Committee on Spatial Development, 1999). Although spatial planning is not a European competence as such, and therefore the ESDP is a document without any formal status, it emphasised that spatial planning not only has local, regional and national dimensions, but a European dimension as well (Healy, 2004). The implementation of spatial principles and guidelines embedded in the ESDP has been supported via EU-funded programmes such as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and INTERREG IIIC. Moreover, under the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, territorial cohesion was put on a par with economic and social cohesion and would have become a goal of the Union, were it not for the fact that the ratification process of this Treaty has come to a standstill for the time being. Nevertheless, a ‘European territorial cooperation’ objective with funds for cross-border, transnational and transregional work was included in the cohesion policy for 2007–2013 (Faludi, 2006).

Imaging the future 

23

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde and Silke Däne

The increasing interest in regional development and spatial planning was also reflected in 2000 in the Lisbon Strategy for making Europe ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based society and economy in the world’. The Gothenburg European Council in 2001 completed this strategy by adding environmental protection to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development. To achieve maximum synergies between regional policy and other European Community policies, particular those which help to reinforce knowledge development and technological innovation, the implementation of the strategy was fuelled by several EU-funded programmes. One of these programmes, the e-Europe initiative, aims to bring the information society within the reach of all Europeans ([url 1]). Areas of action under this initiative have encompassed, for example, digital literacy and online access for all citizens, e-commerce, e-participation and government online. The eEuropeRegio theme was designed to give assistance to projects that stimulated less-favoured regions to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the information society and new technologies, where the productive sector, public services and inhabitants’ individual needs are concerned. In the context of this book it is important to note that the principle of public participation in policy-making and policy implementation, as addressed by the Rio Declaration (Principle 10), Agenda 21 (Part III) and the Aarhus Convention, was included in many EU directives and documents. Examples are Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information and Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation with respect to the drawing up of certain plans relating to the environment. The European Commission’s White Paper on European Governance should also be mentioned. Moreover, the principle of public participation was emphatically connected to the rise of what can be called the European e-society. Public participation, and hence democracy, can supposedly be strengthened by making use of digital technological innovations. In the field of spatial planning a broad range of such technologies, commonly referred to as ‘geo-visualisations’, seems very promising in this respect. It was against this background that in 2003 the INTERREG IIIC project ‘Participatory Spatial Planning in Europe’ (PSPE) was initiated. The PSPE project was about the application of innovative geo-visualisation technologies in spatial planning processes. This book presents the results of the project. Before describing the project in more detail, we first discuss the nature of geo-visualisations and the opportunities for their application. 1.2. The power of geo-visualisation As a result of the changing relationships between government, the market and civil society, governmental organisations increasingly fulfil a facilitating role in their communication with stakeholders about spatial issues. Citizens, non-governmental organisations and firms have become more and more critical and self-confident in defining their needs, ideas and wishes, which in turn contributes to the growing complexity of spatial planning and the increasing amount of information that needs to be processed. Governments must communicate spatial issues in a comprehensive way, develop alternative ways of action and involve stakeholders 24 

Imaging the future



1. Introduction – geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe

in decision-making and implementation (Maarleveld et al., 2006). In this context, social learning is about the development of different perspectives on reality through interaction with others in an environment that is new, unexpected, insecure, prone to conflict and hard to predict. The parties involved slowly develop overlapping – or at least complementary – goals, insights, interests and starting points, and also build mutual trust and feelings of dependence and responsibility (Röling, 2002). Geo-visualisations belong to the variety of communicative methods that exist to support social learning. Geo-visualisations are two-dimensional or three-dimensional visual representations of data that have a geographic reference. Geo-visualisations can be used to exchange spatial information in spatial planning processes. These planning processes deal with complex planning issues involving multiple urban functions that compete for land, such as housing, employment and infrastructure. A common way of dealing with such complex issues is inviting citizens, pressure groups, public organisations and private enterprises to participate in the planning process (Webler et al., 2001). Spatial planners consider the expertise, involvement and support of the participants to be important for an effective planning procedure and successful realisation of landscape transformations. The involvement of stakeholders and the information exchange during the process greatly influence the degree of mutual understanding, consensus and support for proposed changes. The role and influence of stakeholders in such processes varies according to the level of participation that is practised (Arnstein, 1969; Dalal-Clayton and Dent, 1993; Edelenbos et al., 1998; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). Two-dimensional (2D) geo-visualisations have traditionally been used to exchange information about transformations in the landscape. These visualisations were and still are difficult to understand for a considerable number of stakeholders, who generally have little experience with interpreting maps that represent spatial information (Darken and Peterson, 2002). Moreover, 2D geo-visualisations are limited to visualising differences between the current and future situation, presenting scenario studies and switching between scales and viewpoints. Therefore, more effective geo-visualisations need to be used to communicate spatial information to all participants. Using such visualisations may help to avoid unfocused design discussions, unjustified expectations, and expensive and unchangeable planning decisions (Al-Kodmany, 2002). This principle, which is the basic principle of the PSPE project, is schematically presented in Figure 1.1. This figure shows how geo-visualisations facilitate communication between the present situation and the future situation (i.e. alternatives of the desired or planned landscape). Geo-visualisations are modelled representations of reality, based on spatial information. Interactive approaches to public participation have changed the purposes and format of information exchange. Instead of the traditional approach in which information is provided in the final phase of the spatial planning process, interactive approaches require information exchange during all phases of the planning process in order to provide stakeholders with Imaging the future 

25

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde and Silke Däne

Figure 1.1. Communicating spatial information via geo-visualisation.

the knowledge, skills and procedural framework for participating (Moote et al., 1997). For these reasons, participatory planning requires communication tools that correspond to stakeholders’ perceptions of their environment and make use of their knowledge and experience to solve complex planning issues (Haklay, 2003; Talen, 2000). Moreover, the spatial information that is communicated via geo-visualisations needs to be adjusted to the planning context because the information exchange takes place in diverse combinations of stakeholders, planning phases and participation levels (Al-Kodmany, 2002; Kingston et al., 2000). Within this changing planning context, geo-visualisations must be able to meet the changing requirements for visual representations in terms of subject, level of detail, scale, interaction possibilities, etc. The traditional 2D maps mentioned above no longer meet all these information exchange criteria. New methods and techniques that do meet these criteria for communication in spatial planning can be provided by 3D geo-visualisations. They present spatial information that is inherently 3D in its natural format, which reduces the number of cognitive steps stakeholders have to make to understand a visual representation. 3D geo-visualisations are generated from 2D geographic data and include additional 3D objects, which lend perspective to the visualisation. They are flexible tools, allowing the visualised data, point of view, scale and interaction with data to be changed via an interface (viewer).

26 

Imaging the future



1. Introduction – geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe

The scientific literature reflects the diversity of research areas that are involved in the construction and use of 3D geo-visualisations. On the one hand, there are studies on the evaluation of specific software used to construct 3D geo-visualisations and the coupling of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) with 3D geo-visualisations. On the other hand, there are studies that focus on whether, how and to what degree computer-generated 3D visualisations can validly represent the real environment. Recent studies have focused on people’s responses to different levels of realism in computer-generated visualisations (Appleton and Lovett, 2003), how people rate the levels of realism, and which features contribute to this rating (Bishop and Rohrmann, 2003). The importance of evaluating current visualisation methods and techniques in order to gather knowledge about how to use these 3D geo-visualisations in participatory spatial planning has only recently been stressed in the literature. The technology for building 3D geo-visualisations, including their photorealism and visual quality, has been gradually improved over the past twenty years. This improvement in technology stands in contrast with the existing knowledge on how to use these geovisualisations in the planning process (Orland et al., 2001). The power of visualisations to influence the perception and decisions of people, and therefore to influence participants in the planning process, is widely acknowledged (e.g. Appleton and Lovett, 2005; Lange, 2001). Using geo-visualisations in participatory spatial planning without being certain of their suitability, therefore, can lead to the dissemination of unintentional misleading messages that may result in counterproductive processes. Such consequences can seriously damage the involvement and support of participants in the whole planning process. To avoid misleading messages and to make use of stakeholders’ knowledge and experience it is suggested in the literature that the characteristics of geo-visualisations should correspond to the planning context (Al-Kodmany, 2002; Bishop and Rohrmann, 2003). Given the great variety of planning contexts and geo-visualisation characteristics, there seems to be a need for a conceptual framework to structure the use of geo-visualisations in participatory spatial planning. 1.3. The PSPE project The overall objective of the PSPE project was to improve spatial information exchange in participatory spatial planning through renewed interactive approaches that make use of geo-visualisation. The starting point was that this could be achieved by adopting and adapting state-of-the-art concepts, methodologies, geo-ICT and instruments for geovisualisation and communication in spatial planning processes (in short ‘geo-visualisation and communication approaches’). At the time the project started, these interactive approaches were lacking, unknown, underdeveloped or unavailable in most of the EU member states. The added value of the project, therefore, should be to consolidate existing knowledge and know-how, and to accelerate the transfer and renewal of geo-visualisation and communication approaches. The approaches developed should be practical and Imaging the future 

27

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde and Silke Däne

accessible in diverse regional and cultural settings. This would then result in an effective interaction between the different public and private stakeholders in decision-making processes within the territories of the project partners. To realise this objective the project set out to achieve the following: 1. Compose an overview of geo-visualisation and communication concepts and methodologies, based on previous applied studies, experiences and innovative developments. This overview served to identify and develop various approaches (‘approaches for doing’), consisting of forms of participation and interaction, multimedia information based on geo-referenced data, ICT innovations like virtual reality techniques, and instruments to measure the effect these tools would have on the public. 2. Apply and adapt the proposed approaches in spatial planning by transferring know-how, tools, etc. and gaining experiences in case studies (‘learning by doing’). 3. Disseminate the results of the case studies to a broader audience by means of conferences, documents, presentations and this book (‘sharing knowledge and experiences’). The first step towards the project was taken in September 2002 when a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by the Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Wageningen University, the New University of Lisbon and the Portuguese Institute of Geography. The MoU addressed the internationalisation of geo-information issues, the need to learn from each other’s experiences and the increasing technological opportunities to improve the effectiveness of participatory spatial planning. The need felt by spatial planning agencies to be able to use a participatory approach then inspired the broader objective of what became the PSPE project, namely the development of geo-visualisation and communication approaches to assist spatial planning and regional development. The partnership developed into a consortium with partners in five EU member states. The INTERREG IIIC application was approved in December 2002 and an extension to the project was approved in June 2006. The consortium consisted of the Government Service for Land and Water Management (the Netherlands, lead partner), the Flemish Land Agency (Belgium), the Agency for Geographic Information in Flanders (Belgium), the Municipality of Barreiro (Portugal), the New University of Lisbon (Portugal), YDreams (Portugal), Wageningen University (the Netherlands), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Environmental Information Centre GRID (Poland), the Polish Academy of Science (Poland) and SIGTE University of Girona (Spain). The mix of knowledge institutes and policy implementation agencies has proven to be fruitful in terms of knowledge exchange and sharing experiences in the case studies. The knowledge institutes provided the conceptual background for the case studies: concepts for public participation in spatial planning, technological concepts for geo-visualisations and concepts for the organisational integration of geo-visualisation tools. They also conducted related research on the effects of the use of geo-visualisation in practice. The case studies focused on the local and regional perspective to ensure that their outcomes were embedded 28 

Imaging the future



1. Introduction – geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe

in concrete spatial planning practices. This allowed the project to contribute to the transfer, application and renewal of approaches to geo-visualisation and communication within the partnership and in the case study areas. The case studies generated initial insights into improving the effectiveness of spatial planning and regional development. The following case studies were carried out (the responsible partners are shown between brackets): • raising public awareness for public participation in urban development in the Catalonian town of Salt (SIGTE University of Girona); • development and application of a geo-visualisation tool for public participation in the decision-making process for a new expressway in the Vistula River Valley (Environmental Information Centre GRID and Polish Academy of Science); • raising public awareness about issues of spatial planning with the help of innovative geo-visualisation tools in relation to the updating of a local land use plan (Municipality of Barreiro, Portugal); • a virtual reality viewer for public participation in the development of a new residential area in combination with nature restoration, water management and outdoor recreation (Government Service for Land and Water Management, the Netherlands); • development of a website for public participation in the Zondereigen land consolidation project (Flemish Land Agency and the Agency for Geographic Information in Flanders). Reports on two of the research projects are included in this book. One is on the usability of 3D geo-visualisations in participatory spatial planning and was conducted by the Department of Geo-information at Wageningen University. The other is on understanding the role of 3D geo-visualisation in actual planning practice. This research was conducted by the Landscape Planning Department of Kassel University (Germany), which joined the consortium in the final stage of the project as an allied partner. During the project the exchange of approaches, concepts, technologies and experiences was of the utmost importance. The exchange took place in joint meetings, training sessions and working visits. Progress with the case studies was monitored and the results of the dissemination activities in relation to the case studies evaluated. Acquiring, transferring and bringing together the know-how, approaches and tools, and sharing the experiences gained led to renewed feasible approaches. For each case study a position paper was produced that described the specific planning context, the stage of planning, the stakeholder groups and the kind of geo-visualisation that was to be applied. These position papers were later elaborated into a detailed work plan for each case study. Both the position papers and the work plans were closely related to the general concepts being developed in parallel. All the documents and the progress made with the work were discussed in detail and evaluated during the joint meetings. An external international expert panel was invited to a number of these meetings to review the project. This continuous interaction between concept development, technology and actual practice, which we called the ‘PSPE approach’, has

Imaging the future 

29

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde and Silke Däne

proven to be effective and formed the basis for an enthusiastic and successful cooperation between the consortium partners. 1.4. Purpose and structure of the book The purpose of this book is to present the results of the PSPE project. It describes the conceptual framework and the case studies, with an emphasis on the lessons learned and pitfalls encountered. The latter will hopefully stimulate the reader to investigate the topic further and provide helpful information. The book is intended as a handbook for academics conducting research into geo-visualisation and professionals who use, or are considering using, geo-visualisations in spatial planning processes. The PSPE approach may also be relevant for social learning, not only between these two groups of people but also in their interaction with political decision-makers and stakeholders in planning projects and procedures. Because geo-visualisation is, above all, an imaging method, a DVD is enclosed with the book containing examples of all the geo-visualisations developed and used in the project, along with additional illustrations. This book is also included on the DVD as an e-book, with direct links between the text and the respective geo-visualisations. The book is divided into three types of contributions: General Concepts (Chapters 2, 6 and 11), Case Studies (Chapters 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10) and Research Results (Chapters 5 and 8). The page headers throughout the book clearly indicate which type of contribution each chapter is. The chapters are ordered so that the case study chapters follow the general concepts chapter to which they are most closely related (see Tabel 1.1). The general concepts provide a conceptual background for the case studies and the research results described in this book. Conversely, the results of the case studies and research projects are used to illustrate some of the theoretical notions. The book opens with Chapter 2, which deals with spatial planning and participation from a European perspective. This chapter sheds light on current developments in spatial planning in Europe, particularly the adoption of participatory approaches. It explains how the concepts of spatial planning and citizen participation are currently understood, and how planning cultures in the EU member states create very different contexts and conditions for the adoption of participatory approaches in spatial planning. Chapter 3 is about the Spanish case study, which serves as an example of how planning culture influences the knowledge of and attitudes towards participation by spatial planners, citizens and policy-makers. As citizen participation in spatial planning in Spain is still rarely practised, the Salt 70 case is in essence about educating on participation itself. In this case geo-visualisation tools were actually used as a means to raise awareness about the possibilities for citizen participation in small-scale urban renewal projects. The Vistula River Valley case study in Poland, described in Chapter 4, also illustrates how planning cultures influence the possibilities for participation. Following the recent introduction of legislation requiring public participation procedures in planning, an internet-based Geo-Discussion 30 

Imaging the future



1. Introduction – geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe

Table 1.1. Structure of the book. Ch 1

Introduction: geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe General concepts

Ch 2 Ch 3 Ch 4 Ch 5 Ch 6

Case studies

Research results

Spatial planning & participation Vistula River Valley, Poland Salt 70, Spain The role of geo-visualisation E-interaction in spatial planning

Ch 7 Ch 8 Ch 9 Ch 10 Ch 11 Organising innovation

Barreiro, Portugal Usability of geo-visualisation Groningen Lake City, Netherlands Zondereigen, Belgium

Ch 12 Epilogue: reflections on the lessons learned

Panel was established to provide new methods and techniques to support these participation procedures. Tests on the use of this tool with stakeholders in different sessions, in close cooperation with the regional planning authorities, have yielded promising pointers for the adoption of this tool in future spatial planning processes, which will also contribute to the democratisation process in Poland. Chapter 5 describes the research project on the extension to Kassel Calden Airport in Germany. It describes tests with an interactive and a non-interactive 3D geo-visualisation tool used to visualise changes in the landscape. The results revealed differences in the effects these tools may have on local citizens’ perceptions and understanding of changes in their environment. The results provide hints about the role that geo-visualisation may have in the planning process and the quality standards that need to be met for the tools to be used most effectively. Chapter 6 presents basic notions of geo-visualisation which are important for discussing and developing e-interaction in the context of participatory spatial planning. It is about the technology and tools that are currently available for interactive communication. The chapter addresses the question of what geo-visualisation is actually about, differentiating between

Imaging the future 

31

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde and Silke Däne

the ‘producer’s’ view on geo-visualisation and the ‘user’s’ perception of the visualised data. The impact of communication technology on e-interaction is also discussed. Chapter 7 is about the case study in Barreiro, Portugal, the project which best illustrates the possibilities that geo-visualisation tools offer for user interaction. In this project the municipality of Barreiro offered schoolchildren the opportunity to become involved in spatial planning issues using a ‘virtual flight’ over the city. The local authority used the tools to stimulated awareness about spatial issues and – as in the Spanish case – encouraged citizen participation itself. Chapter 8 describes a research project in which the usability of 3D geo-visualisation was tested in a Polish setting. Two types of 3D geo-visualisation were compared, one offering street names for orientation and one without this information. The results of the research show some slight differences in the effectiveness and efficiency with which citizens used the tools and the methods they used for orientation in the 3D geo-visualisation. This research also uncovered the need to consider some general difficulties people may have in understanding and interpreting 3D geo-visualisations. The central tool used in the Dutch case, presented in Chapter 9, is the ‘virtual reality viewer’ for the Groningen Lake City masterplan, which proposes major changes in the landscape. The viewer has been used to inform citizens about the masterplan, it has been assessed by different groups of professionals, and it has been combined with visual contributions by several artists. This case provides evidence of the numerous possibilities the viewer offers for citizen participation in very complex spatial planning settings. Chapter 10 deals with the land consolidation project Zondereigen, which is about the development of a website providing various possibilities for public participation. The case focuses on the integration of the ‘PSPE approach’ into the processes of the Flemish Land Agency and the necessary organisational changes for giving public access to the website. The Zondereigen case study is followed by Chapter 11, which presents general concepts of organisational innovation. It sketches the future role of GIS in participatory spatial planning, the way in which the acceptance and implementation of a geo-ICT takes place and how the diffusion of new technologies evolves within organisations. This chapter also explains initiatives undertaken by governments concerning Spatial Data Infrastructures. The concluding chapter contains a reflections on the lessons learned in this project.

32 

Imaging the future

2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink 2.1. Introduction The intention of this chapter is to shed light on current developments in spatial planning in Europe, particularly the adoption of participatory approaches. In doing so, the central question to be addressed is: where do we stand with participatory spatial planning in Europe? However, as the state-of-the-art of citizen participation in spatial planning is complex and constantly changing, we cannot obtain a complete picture. We therefore focus on how the concepts of spatial planning and citizen participation are currently understood, and on how planning cultures in the EU member states influence the adoption of participatory approaches. The following three secondary questions guide us through this chapter: • Why do we need participatory approaches to spatial planning and what benefits can be expected from citizen participation? (Section 2) • How can citizens actually be involved in spatial planning and what does this imply for communication and the use of language? (Section 3) • How do prevailing conditions in the EU member states influence the possibilities for citizen participation and the adoption of the new approaches? (Section 4) To begin with, we explain how we understand the tasks of spatial planning in today’s society. These tasks are a result of changing socio-political conditions, which have contributed to a paradigm shift towards more participatory approaches to spatial planning. The question is no longer whether citizens participate in spatial planning, but to what extent they are actually involved in the development of spatial concepts and decision-making. In this chapter we explain how citizen participation in spatial planning should ideally be characterised and which methods may facilitate this participation. We describe a communication model useful for interactive communication and touch upon the use of an adequate visual language. These aspects are dealt with in detail in Chapter 6 on e-interaction. As illustrated in this book, experience from the PSPE cases show that participation has many different ‘faces’ in the EU member states. The PSPE partners found themselves in very different starting positions regarding public involvement in spatial planning. The next step, therefore, is to take a look at the prevailing conditions for citizen participation in these countries. We call these ‘planning cultures’. We focus on the differences between planning cultures and how they influence the adoption of innovative participation methods and techniques by organisations. This is dealt with in depth in Chapter 11.

Imaging the future 

33

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

2.2. What is spatial planning all about? ‘Spatial planning’ has been understood to mean different things in different places and at different times. Definitions of spatial planning have changed over time and many definitions and translations are a reflection of national planning systems. In this chapter we use definitions which refer to spatial planning in a European context. One of the first definitions of spatial planning in the European sense can be found in the European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter (Torremolinos Charter), which was adopted in 1983 by the European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT). The CEMAT defined spatial planning as follows: Regional/spatial planning gives geographical expression to the economic, social, cultural and ecological policies of society. It is at the same time a scientific discipline, an administrative technique and a policy developed as an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach directed towards a balanced regional development and the physical organisation of space according to an overall strategy. This definition implies that spatial planning is a multi-layered concept, cross-cutting different aspects of society as well as professions and disciplines. Defining spatial planning in the EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies, the European Commission (1997) emphasises spatial planning as a public sector activity: Spatial planning refers to the methods used largely by the public sector to influence the future distribution of activities in space. The aims of spatial planning are described as: Creating a more rational territorial organisation of land uses and the linkages between them and to balance the demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and to achieve social and economical objectives. This definition emphasises the overall goal of spatial planning as a sustainable development of space, balancing and accommodating ecological, social and economical objectives. The definition of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) also focuses on this overall goal and puts emphasis on the instrumental character of spatial planning: Planning is a tool to promote and manage change with a spatial approach. It is also a tool for the preservation of the environment and our cultural heritage. The core of this task is to conduct planning activities in such a way that society benefits and that economic, environmental, social and other goals are met ([url 1]).

34 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

The tools available and the way spatial planning is actually conducted largely depend on the respective planning systems. According to the European Commission (1997) the term ‘spatial planning system’ refers to the various institutional arrangements for expressing spatial planning objectives and the mechanisms employed for realising them. Spatial plans are usually prepared at different levels, from national and transnational planning, regional policy and regional planning to detailed land use planning. National spatial plans typically include the broad development perspectives which are of a strategic nature and guide spatial development proposed in lower-tier plans. Regional policy is also undertaken by national governments for an even economic and social development of the different regions. Regional planning seeks to shape development patterns within a certain region. Detailed land use planning regulates land use at local level (EC, 1997). Usually the only legally binding plans are prepared at the local and municipal level. However, the contents of these plans need to be consistent with national and regional objectives set out in plans made at higher administrative levels. The definitions given above imply that we can make a distinction between the contents (the ‘geographical expression’) and the process of spatial planning (the ‘methods’, ‘techniques’ and ‘approaches’). In this context, Hajer (2006) argues that the essence of spatial planning can be reduced to two components: ‘articulation’ and ‘coordination’. Spatial planning is always a combination of a component dealing with the contents of planning (‘articulation’) and a political-administrative component dealing with process management (‘coordination’). High quality spatial planning should strike the right balance between these two components. Current challenges to spatial planning The prevailing conditions for spatial planning in Europe have changed in recent decades, as a result of changing political priorities and developments in society. These socio-political changes have influenced both the contents as well as the process of spatial planning. Responding to the 1992 Rio Declaration, the EU has adopted the sustainability principle as a key aspect in directives and development perspectives (e.g. the European Spatial Development Perspective, the Water Framework Directive and the Birds and Habitats Directives), and these perspectives and legal documents influence spatial planning in the member states and the work of spatial planners. The sustainability principle has an impact on the substance of spatial planning and it has been observed that the linkages and overlaps between spatial planning and many other related policy areas are becoming more and more complex. In response, over the last ten years there has been a general trend in the EU member states towards extending and broadening the scope of spatial planning. The changing sociopolitical circumstances have also led to a growing uncertainty about future developments, and as a result spatial planning has become more and more strategic in nature. Spatial strategies which recognise the interrelations and total effects in a long-term perspective are gaining importance (Albrechts, 2006). These strategies articulate a more coherent spatial logic for land use regulation, resource protection and investments in urban renewal and infrastructure Imaging the future 

35

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

(Albrechts et al., 2003). Developing sustainable spatial development perspectives requires holistic, interdisciplinary approaches. ‘Sustainable development requires an integrated (environmental, technical, social, economic) approach to decision-making in relation to issues which have cross-cutting policy dimensions’ (Petts and Leech, 2000). Consequently, spatial planning cannot function without cooperation with neighbouring disciplines, such as urban planning, architecture, water management and ecology (see Figure 2.1). As sociospatial aspects gain in importance, spatial planners also need to consider social sciences aspects, such as human geography. In turn, the increasing complexity of planning issues makes it necessary to reconsider the planning process. Organising cooperation on planning issues between diverse actors, including experts and especially local people, has become more important. Recent fundamental changes in society have had an influence on the relationship between government and citizens. Government power has become increasingly fragmented, while the interconnections and interdependencies within society have multiplied. In this ‘network society’ (Castells, 1996) citizens feel they should have a say in the planning and decisionmaking processes which affect their living space. Moreover, developments in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) have made the provision of information and access to it, as well as the continuous exchange of information, a key element of public and private life (Kunzmann, 2000).

Figure 2.1. Spatial planning, related disciplines and relevant actors.

36 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

As well as these societal and technological developments, we have observed a general trend towards a democratisation of planning processes. Agenda 21 of the Rio Declaration recommends that the broadest possible participation should be encouraged. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has taken the Rio Declaration further in the Aarhus Convention (1998), which grants the public rights regarding access to information and public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, with a focus on interactions between citizens and public authorities. The EU has started applying the principles of the Aarhus Convention in its legislation, the Water Framework Directive being an important example. Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation with respect to the drawing up of certain plans relating to the environment amends the EIA Directive and other EU legislation to bring their provisions on public participation into line with the Aarhus Convention. These developments are part of a general trend at the EU level towards greater democracy. People’s disinterest and distrust of European politics prompted the European Commission’s strategy of better involvement and more openness. Its white paper on European governance proposes new forms of governance that bring the Union closer to European citizens, make it more effective, reinforce democracy in Europe and consolidate the legitimacy of the institutions (EC, 2001). In the view of Cabus (2002), ‘Governance has become a central topic among policy-makers, where an international consensus is held that policy-making is evolving from traditional top-down government towards a system of governing in which a key focus is on involving the citizens within an area.’ The changing socio-political conditions and the trend towards a democratisation of environmental decision-making processes has made it necessary to reconsider traditional spatial planning (Figure 2.2). Traditionally, spatial planners have seen their role as working on behalf of government to develop blueprints that form the basis for spatial decisions. The rationality of these plans was typically based on the planners’ knowledge and expertise (Innes and Booher, 2000). This style of top-down planning ignores the diverse interests of numerous actors affected by the planning issues and limits the ability of citizens to raise objections within consultation procedures included in administrative decision-making processes. As Albrechts (2006) says, ‘In most traditional spatial planning the focus is clearly on producing a plan, and public involvement is mainly end-of-the-line.’ Traditional approaches to spatial planning are no longer legitimate as they fail to create the societal support necessary to implement the plans. If the different actors’ interests are ignored, resistance and delays in the decision-making process are to be expected (Luz, 2000; Edelenbos, 2001). As a consequence, there is a demand for new approaches which facilitate the involvement of citizens in the plan and decision-making process from the very beginning. But legitimisation of decision-making and a higher effectiveness of spatial plans are not the only arguments for citizen participation in spatial planning. The argument that has grown in importance is that citizen participation improves the quality of the content of spatial plans (Petts and Leech, 2000; Edelenbos, 2001). It is based on the idea that various stakeholders in Imaging the future 

37

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

Figure 2.2. Demands on spatial planning by society and by EU policy and legislation.

a complex problem tend to understand, define and represent situations differently (Leeuwis, 2004). While for a long time spatial analysis has been based on expert knowledge only, today there is growing recognition that ‘lay knowledge’ or ‘local expertise’ is valuable and can generate new insights into planning issues. Citizens have a different view on spatial issues and can feed specific knowledge about ‘their’ environment into the planning process to provide a more complete survey of problems and possible solutions. In turn this makes it possible to improve the quality of the contents of the plan. Given the challenges facing the substance and process of spatial planning, we can conclude that spatial planners have to go further than interdisciplinary cooperation. Tress et al. (2003) speak about ‘transdisciplinary collaboration’: the involvement of ‘lay citizens’ or ‘non-experts’ in the plan making process to raise the legitimacy, quality and effectiveness of spatial plans. 2.3. Citizen participation in spatial planning Levels of participation The term ‘citizen participation’ is often used as a synonym for ‘public participation’ although the meaning is not exactly the same. ‘Public participation’ is a very broad concept with 38 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

many aspects. It incorporates education and information provision, information feedback, consultation and extended involvement to bring individuals, groups and organisations into environmental decision-making (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002). The term ‘citizen participation’ puts more emphasis on the involvement of ‘ordinary’ people, for example the inhabitants of a certain community or the users of a certain area who are affected by spatial plans. In an attempt to clarify the concept of citizen participation, various authors have defined different ‘levels’ or ‘degrees’ of participation (Arnstein, 1969; Edelenbos et al., 1998; IEMA, 2002; EC, 2002). These degrees of participation in decision-making refer to the amount of power that is transferred from the responsible authority to citizens (Arnstein, 1969; Petts and Leach, 2000). The most basic participation ladder has three levels: information supply, consultation and active involvement. Others are more detailed, differentiating between ‘inform’, ‘consult’, ‘give advice’, ‘co-produce’ and ‘co-decide’ (see Table 2.1). Under the changing socio-political conditions, the traditional meaning of the term ‘participation’ is shifting towards the higher levels of participation: ‘Public participation was always perceived to be a possibility for comments on decisions to be taken by elected representatives. … participation is now interpreted as a matter of generating knowledge as well as a matter of providing legitimacy’ (Hajer and Zonneveld, 2000). In this context, the term ‘interactive participation’ has become more and more popular. Interactive participation Table 2.1. Comparison of different typologies of participation. Ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969)

Participation Levels of ladder participation (Edelenbos et al., (IEMA, 2002) 1998)

Degree of involvement (EC, 2002)

Kind of participation

Non-participation

Manipulation Therapy Informing

Inform

Consultation

Consult

Placation

Give advice

Partnership Delegated power Citizen control

Co-produce Co-decide

Imaging the future 

Education and information provision Information feedback Involvement and consultation Extended involvement

Co-knowing/ Non-interactive information supply Co-thinking/ consultation

Co-operating/ Interactive active involvement

39

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

enables citizens to directly and actively take part in the development of goals and ideas as well as in the design or plan-making itself (‘co-produce’). They may also be empowered to participate in the decision-making process (‘co-decide’). Interactive participation implies a bottom-up approach and a two-way effect. The dividing line between interactive and non-interactive participation is generally drawn between the levels of ‘give advice’ and ‘coproduce’ (Edelenbos et al., 1998; see Table 2.1). We can also classify participation by looking at the reasons why policy-makers organise citizen involvement in spatial decision-making. Leeuwis (2004) makes a distinction between participation as a means and participation as an end. The first is an instrument for preventing social resistance and to confer legitimacy. Its goal is to increase the societal acceptance of spatial plans and make their implementation more effective (see also Todt, 1999; Luz, 2000). Participation as an end is based on a normative view: citizens have the fundamental (moral) right (or even the duty!) to participate in decisions which affect their living space. This approach aims at a factual democratisation of spatial decision-making. In most cases we can find a combination of reasons for involving citizens in spatial planning, as summarised by Albrechts (2006): ‘spatial planning involves relevant actors needed for their substantive contribution, their procedural competences, and the role they might play in acceptance, in getting basic support, and in providing legitimacy.’ In the context of PSPE we understand ‘citizen participation’ to be interactive participation, a two-way business. Citizen participation is a means to stimulate social learning processes in which people learn about each other’s interests and learn to respect them. They are then able to formulate common goals and develop a strategy to implement them. Social learning processes should ideally lead to win-win solutions or development perspectives which benefit all parties (van Woerkum and Aarts, 2002). However, this is not sufficient. In our view it is vital that the results of the social learning process are actually integrated within official decision-making. In ideal circumstances interactive policy-making will put the citizens’ ‘agenda’ into practice: citizens will recognise their interests in the final results and feel they ‘own’ part of the plan. If the learning processes are not linked to the official discourse among policy-makers, the results are likely to become irrelevant, causing frustration among the participating actors. Methods and techniques facilitating interactive citizen participation Active citizen involvement in spatial planning makes demands on the methods and techniques to be used in the planning and decision-making process. Traditional methods of participation used at the levels of ‘inform’ and ‘consult’ (e.g. newsletters, public meetings) are insufficient to facilitate interactive participation. The methods used to support interactive participation should enable the exchange of information, facilitate the discussion of spatial issues among participants and empower participants to contribute their ideas and decide on certain issues. Traditional methods must therefore be complemented by ‘innovative consultative’ 40 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

methods, such as web surveys, and ‘innovative deliberative’ techniques, for example citizens’ workshops or juries and web discussion panels (see also Van Twist et al., 1998; Petts and Leach, 2000; IEMA, 2002). Petts and Leach emphasise that only rarely will just a single method be ‘fit for purpose’. Integrating methods improves the chances of fully achieving the objectives of both participants and decision-makers. The choice of the technique also depends on the specific situation, such as the place and time of communication as well as the number of people involved. In the network society, techniques will typically be required to facilitate communication between a large number of actors and different place–different time communication protocols. These aspects of communication and the techniques and tools are described in detail in Chapter 6. Digital media and the ethics of planning Streich (2004) distinguishes between three levels in the use of digital media: Information, Communication and Participation. These more or less refer to the levels of participation ‘inform’, ‘consult’ and ‘co-produce’/’co-decide’. Each of these levels differs in terms of the aims and technologies used, but also, as Streich points out, in planning ethical considerations (Table 2.2.). At the ‘lower’ level of providing information, for example by presenting planned landscape changes via the internet, there are ethical considerations concerning the presentation of true and complete data and the protection of personal (i.e. private) information that may be part of this data. At the ‘higher’ level of communication, stakeholder activities are Table 2.2. Dimensions of using digital media related to ethical considerations of planning (Streich, 2004). Information

Communication

Participation

Aims

Explanation of facts and planned changes; presentation

Technologies

Internet / www

Coordination; digital correspondence; digital support of planning processes Internet / intranet; email; workflow management systems

Demands concerning the ethics of planning

Protection of information Finding consensus related to personal data between the actors (Data protection) linked to the spatial issues

Actively influencing a planning process and open / free access to information Interactive access to knowledge stores (data banks); interactive simulations Achieve an equality of ‘weapons’, that is ensuring equal access to information for all stakeholders

Imaging the future 

41

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

coordinated by different technologies, some of which may be intra-organisational, like workflow management systems. From an ethical point of view it is not enough to present true and complete data. The argumentation behind the plan should also be presented and interactively connected with the actions, arguments, etc. of the stakeholders. At the ‘upper’ level of participation, stakeholders not only exchange data, information and arguments, but they also actively influence the planning process and its outcomes. Equal access to all the relevant data is then an important condition; stakeholders need to be able to ‘fight’ with the same weapons as the authority responsible for the planning process. Such ethical considerations are only briefly indicated here, but they should be explored and taken into account in every spatial planning process. They should also be subject to open discussion and evaluation, which at the moment is too often not the case. The ethical aspects of planning deserve more attention than they usually get (Hendler, 1999; Lendi and Hübler, 2004, Thacher, 2004). Communication and the use of language If we want to use innovative consultative and deliberative techniques of participation, communication between decision-makers, spatial planners and citizens will have to be intensified. A useful model for describing communication methods appropriate for interactive participation is the ‘transactional model of communication’ (Adler, 1997) or ‘social interaction model of communication’ (Leeuwis, 2004). In this model, communication is seen as a continuous process in which feedback is a central feature rather than an optional extra added on to a one-directional basic framework. Previous communication in the wider social network of sender and receiver has to be considered because it strongly influences their construction of meaning. The same goes for other sources of information that the sender and receiver respectively have at their disposal. Communication processes take place in a series of interactions which lead to the communicating actors becoming interrelated, and so communication cannot be considered independently from these interrelations (e.g. power relations) between the communicating parties (van Woerkum and van Meegeren, 1999). The model takes note of the fact that we usually receive and send messages simultaneously. Communication is seen as a dynamic process in which the interaction itself becomes an essential issue. Communication and interaction are therefore used as synonyms (Aarts, 1998). Interactive participation by citizens will make it necessary to deal with differences in language (e.g. technical and non-technical language). These differences may hamper the dialogue between the communicating parties and may lead to misunderstandings. The most significant differences in language can be found between experts on the one hand and ‘lay citizens’ on the other. Experts tend to use their own jargon in communication with other stakeholders, both spoken and written. To level the ground between experts and citizens it is essential to use a visual language as the only common language which all participants 42 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

– technical and non-technical – can relate to (Al-Kodmany, 1999 and 2002). Not only can experts communicate their technical knowledge better using visual aids, but lay people are also able to express their knowledge and ideas about planning issues through visual media. Communication of spatial planning ideas is usually supported by visual language. Although visual language is usually easier to grasp than spoken language (‘a picture says more than a thousand words’), traditional uses of visual media do not necessarily provide a common ground for all participants. For example, two-dimensional maps, which are conventionally used to convey information about spatial plans, demand a great effort from lay people to imagine what the proposed changes would actually mean in the landscape. Even if people succeed in picturing the future landscape in their minds, it will still be difficult to discuss it (Bulmer, 2001). When people want to express their own ideas about changes in the landscape they may have a similar problem translating their ideas into the planners’ visual language. Geo-visualisation is supposed to solve this problem. Riedijk et al. (2006) have carried out a desktop study on the expected effects of geo-visualisation on the participatory spatial planning process and the actors involved. They found that compared with the use of 2D static maps, 3D geo-visualisations in particular make it easier for actors to recognise the area under study and to understand proposed spatial changes. Geo-virtual reality can give the viewer the idea of being in the future area and consequently provide a better impression of the impact that changes may have. Viewers can explore a spatial environment by simply navigating through the area, making it much easier for participants without any planning experience to relate the visualised information to the real world. Geo-virtual reality therefore has great potential for levelling the ground for communication between spatial planners and citizens. It all depends on people… As interactive participation is not yet embedded in the existing institutional framework of spatial planning, the use of interactive approaches depends largely on the available resources. Trying out innovative ways of involving citizens in spatial planning requires extra time and funding. The skills, engagement and enthusiasm of individuals such as planners, local authorities, geo-information specialists and others involved in the planning process, and especially the motivation of participating citizens, are vital for the success of interactive planning processes. The relations between the individuals in charge and their joint commitment is not to be underestimated for successful citizen participation. Interactive participation strongly depends on authorities and institutions being willing to organise the participation exercise and provide additional resources. Feelings of uncertainty and scepticism among policy-makers and spatial planners, and also among the public, can be a factor in stifling the use of innovative methods of participation. In other words, if local authorities are not willing to organise participation, if planners are not skilled in cooperation Imaging the future 

43

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

with citizens and if citizens are not motivated to participate, interactive participation will not be effective. This motivational aspect is closely tied up with the conditions under which spatial planning operates in different countries. The planning system and institutional arrangements have an impact on the way planners work, citizens are influenced by the general attitude towards participation in political decision-making, and local authorities are dependent on the distribution of political responsibilities and power. We explore these conditions, which we label factors of ‘planning culture’, in the next section. 2.4. Differences in planning culture In this section we make the step from theory to practice, looking at how things stand concerning the adoption of participatory spatial planning in the countries that participated in the PSPE project. The PSPE case studies provide evidence of differences in the prevailing conditions for putting participatory spatial planning into practice. In the Netherlands, for example, citizen participation in spatial planning is taken as a matter of course, whereas in Poland it is an emerging issue. What are the reasons for such differences? In this section we look more closely at the prevailing conditions for participatory spatial planning. Comparing the planning cultures of the countries that participated in the PSPE project, we explain how planning cultures influence the possibilities for citizen participation in spatial planning practice. Defining planning culture The combination of different factors that influence the way spatial planning processes are organised is referred to as the ‘planning culture’. In its compendium on spatial planning systems and policies the European Commission (1997) speaks of different ‘planning traditions’, which are described as ‘a complex mix of factors [which] has ensured that different arrangements are created in the member states and regions. These factors include historical and cultural conditions, geographical and land use patterns, the constitutional, administrative and legal framework, levels of urban and economical development, and political and ideological aspirations.’ We focus on four factors which we think particularly influence the possibilities for participation in spatial planning practice at the local level. Within the scope of this chapter we cannot aim to describe all possible factors in this complex subject and acknowledge that planning culture entails many more aspects. In particular, differences in culture, mentality and belief may play a role. The factors described are: • central–local government relations; • the tradition of democracy; • the approach to spatial planning; • legal requirements concerning participation. These four factors of planning culture are interlinked and influence one another as well as citizens, spatial planners and local authorities. Figure 2.3 shows the main linkages 44 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

Figure 2.3. Factors of planning culture influencing citizen participation.

between the factors of planning culture and the three main groups of people involved in citizen participation in spatial planning. It illustrates how the factors of planning culture may influence the work of local authorities and spatial planners as well as the attitude of citizens, and therefore determines the possibilities for citizen participation. Central–local government relations have a direct influence on the amount of decision-making power local authorities hold. The tradition of democracy has an impact on people’s attitude to participation. The prevailing approach to spatial planning influences the work of spatial planners. Legal requirements concerning citizen participation influence local authorities in their official and informal ways of organising participation. Central–local government relations This factor addresses differences in governmental structures, particularly the allocation of responsibilities and power between the different tiers of government. These differences determine to a great extent the set-up and operation of spatial planning systems. In the EU member states the only legally binding spatial plans are prepared at the local level. There is a considerable difference between states in the influence and control which the central government exercises on plan and decision-making at the local level. This influence in turn determines how much leeway local authorities and spatial planners have to actually include local ideas and opinions in spatial plans. For example, in the Netherlands the central government traditionally has an important role in guiding spatial developments. ‘Spatial planning key decisions’ are taken at national level to control developments of national Imaging the future 

45

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

interest (e.g. designation of new residential areas or flood risk management zones). In some cases the national government also has the responsibility for implementing these strategic policies. In other cases the spatial planning key decisions make explicit demands on spatial plans at regional and local level. For projects where national interests are at stake this may leave little room for the public to contribute their ideas and influence the contents of the plans. From 1 January 2007 responsibilities for the implementation of national policies for rural areas have been decentralised to the provincial authorities under the National Spatial Strategy published in 2005. The Strategy sets out government spatial planning policies and introduces a new governance model or ‘steering philosophy’. This model gives greater freedom to the public sector, private firms, civil society organisations and interested citizens at regional and local levels to determine their own course of action. This new approach in the Netherlands can be seen as a part of a general trend in the EU to increase the responsibilities and powers of regional governments and regional spatial planning administrations. This process is largely complete in the federal state of Belgium and the regionalised state of Spain (EC, 1997). In Spain and Belgium there is evidence of decentralising decision-making to the lowest administrative level, the municipal authority (EC, 1997; Rivolin and Faludi, 2005). In the unitary states of Portugal and Poland some steps towards decentralisation have been made, but significant powers and responsibilities still remain at the national level (EC, 1997; Lass, 2000). The EC (1997) highlights the importance of making a distinction between responsibilities and power. Whereas there is a trend to decentralise responsibilities, it often remains unclear to what extent decisionmaking power is actually transferred. In Poland the 16 regional governments of the voivodships have full responsibility for spatial planning, although central government still exerts considerable influence over regional and local affairs (Lendzion and Lokucijewski, 2000). In this context Graham (2001) states that ‘Local planning also suffers from dependence on the central government. Although the current state of planning is more locally directed than under the communist regime, its focus is embedded within a European context of physical and spatial planning rather than ... an intrinsic understanding of the value of citizen participation.’ Another example can be found in Belgium. Studying the recently emerging sub-regional platforms in Flanders, Cabus (2002) concludes that the relative powerlessness of the platforms is certainly the major weak point of this governance model. Only when a real decentralisation of decision-making power is achieved will the platforms be able to make a valuable contribution to a governance structure that allows citizens genuine participation in the policy process. Tradition of democracy The case studies have provided evidence that the awareness and experience of participation in political decision-making differs considerably between the countries participating in

46 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

PSPE. These differences have their roots in the tradition of democracy, which we believe has a strong impact on people’s attitude to participation. In north-western Europe citizen participation in spatial planning is an issue which the majority of people are aware of. Here we find the longest traditions of democracy. In the Netherlands and Belgium, for example, the political systems have been based on constitutional monarchies since the early 19th century. In the Netherlands, in particular, citizens have been familiar with participation in political decision-making for a long period under the Dutch political tradition of consensus decision-making, often referred to as the ‘polder model’. The goal is to reach an agreement through negotiation despite existing differences, however great these might be (van der Horst, 1996). Decision-making by consensus has to this day been the dominant planning style in the Netherlands (van der Valk, 2002). However, it does not automatically result in a bottom-up approach. Corporatist structures still hamper the involvement of the ‘common’ citizen (Duyvendak and Krouwel, 2001; Albrechts, 2006). In contrast to north-western Europe, the southern member states Spain and Portugal do not have a deep-rooted tradition of participation in political decision-making. The long periods of authoritarian government have left their marks on both the citizens as well as the political and administrative systems (Todt, 1999; da Rosa Pires, 2005). ‘The 1974 April Revolution drastically changed the overall planning context, but the socially pervasive conceptual framework inherited from the long years of the New State is still rather influential on both professional and social (and political) perceptions of the nature and scope of spatial planning’ (da Rosa Pires, 2005). In Portugal and Spain democracy was only restored in 1974 and 1975 respectively. Within the last 30 years, these two countries have undergone a process of rapid industrialisation as well as drastic political and social changes. In general, the level of awareness of environmental problems and social mobilisation around these issues is lower than in other European countries (Todt, 1999), and people are still hesitant about participating in political decision-making. However, in Spain there is a trend towards broadening the concept of spatial planning and going beyond the prevailing regulatory tradition. Rivolin and Faludi (2005) believe that the creation of new planning instruments in Spain ‘also contributes to changing cultural attitude towards territorial policies, through growing attention to concepts like the structural funds, environmental policy, cohesion and sustainable development.’ In Poland the transition to democracy which began in 1989 is still going on. It has to be noted that the collapse of the communist system does not, by itself, guarantee democracy or democratic participation. The transition to a democratic system is very much influenced by the complexity of its past political culture, as Graham (2001) states, ‘Poland’s forty-five years of totalitarian rule, its brief modern history of independence from foreign control (between the two world wars and since 1989), and its longer history of domination by Austrian, Russian, and Prussian partitions strongly influence its development of democracy.’ The lack of a tradition and experiences of democracy leaves only a few guidelines and reference points Imaging the future 

47

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

for governments and citizens to develop a more participative attitude. The lack of trust in those who hold the power (e.g. local authorities), particularly in rural areas, explains the hesitancy to participate in political decision-making (Graham, 2001). In Poland, citizen participation in political issues is only starting to become part of the culture. Approach to spatial planning Planning culture is about the differences in the comprehensiveness of spatial planning and the political priority given to it. Throughout Europe there is considerable diversity in how spatial planning is conducted (EC, 1997; Lass, 2000). The most complex systems of spatial planning can be found in north-western Europe. In the Netherlands spatial planning takes a comprehensive approach that integrates different sectoral activities and is referred to as ‘framework management’ (EC, 1997). It is based on a very systematic and formal hierarchy of plans ranging from national to local level. The Netherlands is an intensively planned country and spatial planning has a long tradition. It also has a strong political position because in this densely populated country situated in a river delta, spatial planning has been essential in directing urban growth. Albrechts (2006) characterises the planning tradition in the Netherlands as ‘longstanding and often innovative but technocratic’. Among spatial planners the old idea of ‘survey, analysis, plan’ is still widespread (Hajer and Zonneveld, 2000). In contrast to the Netherlands, the spatial planning system in Belgium has been based mainly on local land use management; that is, local authorities undertake most of the planning work (EC, 1997). The position of spatial planning is not as strong or wide-ranging as in the Netherlands (Holden and Turner, 1997). The planning system in Poland consists of different tiers of plans (national, regional and local) but is not yet a comprehensive and integrated system. At regional and local level, strategic and physical planning are still divided (Lendzion and Lokucijewski, 2000). The regional tier of spatial planning was only established in 1999 and the process of restructuring the Polish planning system is still far from over (Szydarowski, 2001). Graham (2001) argues that the central role of the national government is the main hindrance to reforming the Polish planning system: ‘Poland’s reluctance to decentralise its centralised, sectoral planning system reinforces dependence on an outmoded planning system that, in turn, reinforces country specific institutional procedures’. The Spanish spatial planning system has for a long time been characterised by the ‘urbanism tradition’ which has had ‘a strong architectural flavour and concern with urban design, townscape and building control’ (EC, 1997). As the planning system is not yet well established it has not commanded political priority and therefore has not been very effective in guiding spatial developments. However, in the context of the European Spatial development Perspective (ESDP) new instruments have recently been introduced that go

48 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

beyond the prevailing tradition of physical spatial planning and the regulatory approach, bringing about a move towards a more comprehensive system (Rivolin and Faludi, 2005). In contrast to Spain, in Portugal ‘the central government plays an important role in managing development pressures across the country and in undertaking public sector investments’ (EC, 1997). The Portuguese planning system is based on a regional economic planning approach that aims to even out regional disparities in wealth, employment and social conditions. The dominant approach to spatial planning still tends to be a restrictive and regulatory, which is in line with traditional spatial planning. Spatial planning in Portugal has been dominated by a blueprint approach with an emphasis on the urban or municipal scale. It has focused on controlling urban growth and making plans for urban areas rather than for whole municipalities (da Rosa Pires, 2005). Legal requirements concerning participation A general trend towards higher transparency of EU policy-making can be observed. Notwithstanding this positive trend, EU legal requirements for public participation in spatial planning are currently limited to passive consultation activities (Petts and Leach, 2000). In these consultation procedures people may raise objections, though at a late stage in the process. A number of EU directives recommend earlier and more active involvement of societal actors (see for example the Guidance Document of the Water Framework Directive) but do not explicitly require this interactive participation. The effectiveness of the formal consultation procedures has been questioned (EC, 1997; Petts and Leach, 2000; Albrechts, 2006), which leaves a gap between the participation procedures required by law and the participation procedures needed in spatial planning practice. Regarding the legal requirements for public participation at local level in the EU member states, the EC (1997) notes that ‘all planning systems incorporate some mechanisms for direct consultation with the public over and above the normal representative political processes.’ However, ‘the method and depth of public consultation required in the formal process varies considerably, and there may be more extensive informal consultation exercises undertaken by particular authorities.’ In trying to bridge the gap between legally required consultation and the increasing demands for a bottom-up approach to spatial planning, informal ways of involving citizens have gained importance. They enable a more active involvement of the public by making use of innovative communication methods and techniques. In the Netherlands, many experiments have been conducted recently with alternative approaches to spatial planning referred to as ‘interactive policy making’ (Edelenbos et al., 1998; van Woerkum, 2000; Edelenbos and Monnikhof, 2001; Duyvendak and Krouwel, 2001). In these methods citizens can express their opinions and ideas about the issues at stake and are empowered to decide on certain issues themselves. And yet, in the Netherlands as in Belgium, citizen participation in local spatial planning has been hindered as local representative democracy has been dominated by corporatism and party political arrangements (De Rynck and Voets, 2006). Imaging the future 

49

Silke Däne and Adri van den Brink

The authorities determine ‘from the top’ which groups of society represent the general public in the decision-making process. For individual citizens it remains very difficult to influence decisions (Duyvendak and Krouwel, 2001). Usually they do not participate until consensus among the main players has been secured (Hajer and Zonneveld, 2000), so in fact their input is no longer relevant. Albrechts (2006) agrees, concluding that the ‘newly constructed arenas of co-operation’ that have played a role in Spain, Flanders and the Netherlands ‘are “corporatist”, in that major players from local, regional, and national governments, and representatives from the business community – with their ways of seeing, knowing, and acting – run these arenas. The systems of meaning and the values of ordinary citizens, and particularly of minorities, get hardly a voice.’ However, de Rynck and Voets (2006) believe that in Flanders the ‘emergent networks for spatial planning are replacing old corporatist arrangements in a new institutional framework for local representative democracy.’ As described earlier, this is only true if not only responsibilities but also decision-making power is passed on to these networks (see also Cabus, 2002). Being tightly bound to the democratic traditions, citizen participation in Spain and Portugal is still largely limited to indirect and reactive mechanisms (Todt, 1999; da Rosa Pires, 2005). Public participation in political decision-making is a newly emerging issue which neither government authorities nor citizens are used to yet. Citing a recent evaluation report by the EC, da Rosa Pires (2005) states that the appreciation of the merits that bottom-up approaches may have is still lacking in Portugal. However, Todt (1999) believes that in Spain the possibilities for participation as well as the demand for involvement are growing, even though they are both still well below the levels reached in some central and northern European countries. He describes two basic hindrances for public participation in Spain. On the one hand, there is the unwillingness of the public administration to encourage participatory approaches and procedures, and on the other hand there is a certain reticence among citizens and non-governmental organisations themselves to use those participatory mechanisms that already exist and to try to enter into a constructive dialog with the public administration. Nevertheless, limited direct participation by individuals does occur, especially at the municipal level (Todt, 1999). Lacking a democratic tradition, public participation in spatial planning in Poland is limited to the legal consultation procedures which are experienced as very formal. As public hearings are not demanded by law, they are only rarely organised. There is a lack of effective procedures for consensus building and for responding to objections, which are usually refused on the grounds of ‘higher’ public interests (Lendzion and Lokucijewski, 2000). 2.5. Conclusions We began this chapter by explaining what spatial planning is all about and the challenges it is currently facing. These challenges can be summed up by two trends: a growing complexity of planning issues, and a growing number of actors eager to influence the contents of the plans. 50 

Imaging the future



2. Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe

Notwithstanding the EU-supported trend towards a higher transparency of environmental decision-making and better public involvement, legal requirements for citizen participation are currently limited to passive consultation activities. In this chapter we have argued that citizens can play an important role in spatial planning if they are interactively involved in the process – if they get the chance to contribute their views and ideas in the process and to influence decisions. The adoption of this interactive participation, as well as adequate communication, strongly depends on the skills, motivation and political will of policy-makers, citizens and spatial planners, which in turn are influenced by the planning culture. Exploring planning cultures in the countries that participated in PSPE, it becomes obvious that the prevailing conditions for implementing new approaches in planning practice vary. A different focus is necessary in order to stimulate interactive participation in the respective countries. Coming back to the central question of this chapter – where do we stand with participatory spatial planning in Europe? – we conclude that many current developments at EU level as well as in the individual PSPE member states favour interactive participation in spatial planning. Decentralisation of decision-making responsibilities and power, the growing participatory attitude among the public and the various emerging informal participation practices show a clear trend towards bottom-up approaches. However, the bottlenecks arising from the planning cultures described need to be resolved before interactive citizen participation can become standard practice. An important challenge is to connect official and informal discourses, in other words to make sure that the emerging regional networks or local platforms actually have an influence on official decision-making. The creative power of these networks can then be used effectively to find sustainable solutions for spatial development. Linked to this is the embedding of informal interactive participation practices into existing institutional frameworks. The adoption of geo-visualisation approaches by governmental spatial planning organisations may have a spin-off effect of integrating interactive participation into official procedures. As described in Chapter 11, current developments in the network society, such as Web 2.0 internet technologies, are pressurising governments to open up their decision-making processes and give people opportunities to participate. Such developments may speed up the integration of interactive citizen participation in spatial planning. The new technologies will probably also enable (i.e. empower) people to take the initiative and propose spatial developments not yet on the public agenda, or effectively resist unwanted developments. Ad hoc citizen groups are easily formed via the internet, and politicians are seriously taking account of such pressures. We conclude that visualisation technology provides promising opportunities for citizen participation in spatial planning decision-making. Speeding up the planning process and better quality plans stand out as obvious and possible benefits. Technology is there to be applied in practice. The case studies in this book serve as examples of present-day innovations that will be a matter of course in the near future. Imaging the future 

51

3. Raising awareness for participation through interactive geo-visualisation in Catalonia Irene Compte Lobera and Rosa Olivella González 3.1. The context of participatory planning in Catalonia, Spain As Spain is one of the youngest democracies in Europe it may be no surprise that the debate about public participation in political decision-making is still in its infancy, but at the same time very lively. In spite of the many positive experiences with participatory approaches in the domain of spatial planning reported since the early 1990s, effective participation processes seem to be an emerging issue instead of a consolidated reality. In trying to answer the question of how to introduce public participation into the different levels of government in Spain and Catalonia, we recognise that certain mindsets and attitudes necessary for the adoption of participatory approaches are still lacking or are only in the process of being developed. People tend not to be interested in how participation is organised elsewhere in Europe and the world, or in learning from these experiences. Decision-makers are often not aware that citizen participation – either organised or individual – can have added value for the decision-making process. Politicians are not yet ready to give up some of their power and transfer it to citizens and other stakeholders affected by their decisions. Public participation procedures were introduced into local, regional and national spatial planning legislation some years ago. In most cases, the term participation refers to no more than public consultation within the administrative decision-making processes. Spatial plans are put on public display for a certain period, which means that citizens may ask to see the project documentation at the town hall or, very rarely, access the relevant information via the internet. However, most people find it difficult to understand the available information about spatial plans. Even though the law implies the promotion of participation, local authorities responsible for implementing participatory approaches lack support and guidelines on how to actually put citizen participation into practice. This deficit has led to cooperation between some municipalities in the Girona region willing to implement participation. Members of this network of municipalities (Xarxa de Municipis Participatius de les Comarques de Girona / Network of participative municipalities in the region of Girona) share knowledge and experiences of public participation at the local and regional level. Much experience with public participation has already been gained in Catalonia, although these participation processes have had variable success, as recent studies show (IGOP, 2005; Neópolis, 2006). Analysing these experiences, we note that there are currently two political strategies for implementing participation: (1) participation to legitimate and (2) participation to transform (see also Chapter 2). In the first strategy, the objective is to use the participation activities Imaging the future 

53

Irene Compte Lobera and Rosa Olivella González

to strengthen the decision-makers’ initial position and interests without putting too much effort into considering citizens’ ideas. The second strategy is the opposite, since the objective is to encourage change by involving people in the decision-making process. In other words, it is considered essential that people actually participate (Pindado et al., 2002). Although participation for legitimacy purposes is currently the more common strategy in Spain, in recent years we have seen a slight shift towards the strategy of participation to transform. This strategy implies, first and foremost, that policy-makers have the will to commit time, resources and imagination to communicating spatial projects in the most intelligible way possible. Learning from our participation in the PSPE project, we believe that technology can play a major role in facilitating communication about spatial plans. 3.2. Salt 70: a case for promoting participation itself In Catalonia participatory spatial planning is explicitly linked to the local levels of administration. In many cases citizen participation is in fact limited to spatial interventions at a very local, architectonic scale. This is the framework within which the Salt 70 case study was carried out. The study illustrates the context in which many of the participatory spatial planning processes in Catalonia currently take place. These participatory processes have gained importance in recent years, due mainly to the adoption of a law on urban renewal at the level of the regional administrations (Lei 2/2004 de 4 de juny de millora de barris, àrees urbanes i viles que requereixen atenció especial / Law on the improvement of neighbourhoods, urban areas and villages which require special interventions). This law provides funding for municipalities for renewal in urban and rural areas and at the same time recommends the involvement of citizens living in these areas. Pla de millora urbana – Salt 70 (Urban improvement plan – Salt 70) is an example of such a project. It is not a project with large spatial impacts in terms of land transformation, but one in which small-scale spatial changes (e.g. the improvement of public space in high density areas) will have a large social impact. These small-scale interventions can therefore be very important for the future development of the medium-sized municipality of Salt. This makes the Salt 70 project particularly suited to participation initiatives. The town of Salt has about 28,000 inhabitants. It suffered from rapid urban growth during the 1970s (which is why the case study is called ‘Salt 70’), which involved the maximum possible vertical development and a minimum of public space. The project consists of 53 specific actions, related mainly to the following issues: • improvement of public space and green areas; • rehabilitation of communal buildings (e.g. community centres); • provision of infrastructure for common use (e.g. public spaces, swimming pools, schools, libraries); • social, urban and economic improvement programmes; • improvement of accessibility and dealing with architectural barriers.

54 

Imaging the future



3. Raising awareness for participation through interactive geo-visualisation

Under the provisions of the urban renewal legislation mentioned above, the municipality of Salt is going to integrate public participation into the planning and decision-making process. Even though this could be a typical case of participation for legitimacy purposes, the local authority has the opportunity to go beyond simply providing information and organise decision-making processes in which those affected are invited to take part. The Salt 70 case study illustrates the process of creating awareness for participation at different levels of local and regional planning. In it we tested innovative approaches to exchanging spatial information while at the same time explaining the practical purpose of participation to the population, and sometimes also to the politicians. In essence, Salt 70 was about education on participation itself. The GIS & Remote Sensing Centre (SIGTE) of the University of Girona contributed to this educational process, based on the assumption that participatory processes can indeed be considered to be educational processes (Pindado et al., 2002). We acted as an agent to facilitate these participatory processes, offering new tools for the visualisation of spatial information, adapting them to different needs and testing these applications, with the aim of achieving better communication between the local authority and the local population. Goals and opportunities of the Salt 70 case study Our main interest in becoming an active partner of the PSPE project was to explore the current opportunities for public participation in spatial planning at local and regional levels. This was pursued by disseminating creative uses of geo-visualisation tools to politicians, to experts in various fields related to spatial planning and to researchers in order to facilitate public participation processes. The case study had two main objectives: 1. To test the use of geo-visualisation as a tool with a high potential for improving communication. One of the basics of participation is that citizens are given in-depth knowledge of the issues presented to them, that they receive extensive information and that this information is understandable so that they can form an opinion about the alternatives presented and express their ideas about them (Font and Blanco, 2003). The goal was to test and share as fully as possible the new techniques and approaches developed within the PSPE project, all of which appeared extremely innovative to us because nothing of the sort had been used before in Catalonia in the context of participative planning. 2. To stimulate participative working, particularly among the experts, senior planners and managers working at the local authority. Possibly the most ambitious goal, and the key objective of cooperating in the PSPE project, was to create greater awareness among spatial planners, policy-makers and citizens about inclusive and interactive decisionmaking for complex planning issues. This approach is based on the idea that we have inherited a political culture which is not particularly amenable to public participation (Todt, 1999; Font and Blanco, 2003).

Imaging the future 

55

Irene Compte Lobera and Rosa Olivella González

Combining these two objectives, a key question for us was whether the adoption of innovative, interactive methods of communication could stimulate or even accelerate the acceptance of participation itself in spatial planning processes. While testing, demonstrating and sharing methods and tools, the intention underlying all our activities was to educate and raise awareness for participation in complex planning settings. 3.3. Methodology Our strategy to create awareness for participation Our initial and continuing ‘exercise’ was to communicate the aims and activities of the PSPE project to all the relevant actors and discuss our specific objectives in more detail. We believe this has been a key factor in our success during the course of the project because it became evident that the stakeholders involved in the participatory processes had little previous knowledge of ‘other’ approaches to participation. The tool we developed for visualising spatial data was the ‘landscape viewer’, a 3D model based on aerial photographs and elevation data. The model was developed for the area covered by the city of Girona and the campuses of Girona University. It offers the user the possibility to ‘fly’ over the area (Figure 3.1). When the tool was presented to representatives of the university responsible for external communication they immediately considered this interactive fly-over environment to be a very powerful tool for communication, particularly for promoting the university at education fairs. The university landscape viewer was

Figure 3.1. Screenshot from the University of Girona landscape viewer.

56 

Imaging the future



3. Raising awareness for participation through interactive geo-visualisation

subsequently presented at a number of these events, where people were invited to take part in a quiz based on the information shown in the viewer. These initial experiences at educational events, where most participants were young people, provided a perfect setting for testing innovative communication tools with the aim of stimulating a learning process (Figure 3.2). We based our approach on the idea that education should not be a sacrifice and that learning processes should be rewarding. Acceptance can be greatly improved if you make learning fun, interactive and useful for communicating better (Pindado et al., 2002). Even though these preliminary results from the education fairs were obtained in very specific settings and with a very specific public, they provided evidence that participation should also be fun and entertaining so that the participants have a good feeling about the time spent relating with others. After these educational events, we approached spatial planners and project managers who were working on ongoing participatory processes in different municipalities: the municipality of Salt working on the Salt 70 project (Figure 3.3); the municipalities of Palafrugell and Banyoles, both busy with urban restructuring projects; the municipality of Santa Cristina d’Aro working on ‘participatory budgets’; the Landscape Observatory of Catalonia and the participatory approach to the ‘landscape catalogues’ of Catalonia; and the municipality of Girona in their process of fostering and educating for public participation. In all cases, we helped the local authorities to develop geo-visualisations of specific spatial developments using the data that the authorities had at their disposal. The practical experience gained with these local authorities reveals that the main instrument for change is the people themselves. We change, and in doing so we make things change. We call this type of change educational: to make things change we need to be educated.

Figure 3.2. Impressions of the education fairs.

Imaging the future 

57

Irene Compte Lobera and Rosa Olivella González

Figure 3.3. Salt landscape viewer.

The education – the change – is in values, in attitudes and in the way we relate to others (in cooperation and in conflict), and it is only possible through learning-by-doing, through practical experience (Pindado et al., 2002). Drawing on these theoretical ideas and the initial experience gained at the education fairs, we decided to focus on education and awareness-raising for participation in a very specific way, by involving schools. This approach was given shape in several participation sessions with different groups (e.g. secondary school children, teachers and university professors) and different objectives, but all sharing a common goal: to develop an educational environment. The core activity of our case study was the session with the pupils at a secondary school in Salt (Figure 3.4). We prepared a set of questions about the urban renewal project dealing with their living space, which had to be answered using Google Earth. After a short introduction to the interactive possibilities of Google Earth, the pupils worked in small groups. The questions they worked on were about the quality of life in their city and the proposals presented in the Salt 70 project. The answers to the questionnaire were entered online and automatically in Google Earth. Later on they could later be shared and accessed by all the pupils and sent to the Salt 70 project managers. Although this session involved only a relatively small number of people and covered only one specific aspect of Salt 70, it was useful for the Salt 70 project managers as an ‘experiment’ about what participation could be like in other and wider contexts.

58 

Imaging the future



3. Raising awareness for participation through interactive geo-visualisation

Figure 3.4. High school session in Salt.

Development of geo-visualisation tools A major goal of our participation in PSPE was to test innovative technologies and their potential for improving participation in Catalonia and Spain. In this context, we also aimed to increase the level of knowledge and understanding of geo-visualisation tools within our research group at the university. The main tool used in our experimentation was the landscape viewer. We tested several software products that could be used to develop it for our specific purposes: Virtools (YDreams), Virtual Terrain Project (Opensource), Geoshow (Geovirtual) and Google Earth (and its related product Sketchup). These products enabled us to generate virtual landscape viewers based on public cartographic datasets (Cartographic Institute of Catalonia), mainly orthophotomaps at the scale of 1:5,000. We were able to input information related to spatial planning and architecture and 3D images into these virtual environments (see Figure 3.5 for an example).

Figure 3.5. 3D image of the University of Girona.

Imaging the future 

59

Irene Compte Lobera and Rosa Olivella González

To bring the landscape viewer to different locations and allow people to use it we have built a portable ‘kiosk’. This was designed to offer people the best possible experience of using the interactive virtual fly-over mode of the geo-visualisation and was inspired by the positive experiences of our PSPE partners from Barreiro in Portugal with their kiosk. We developed a similar tool adapted to our own purposes. The kiosk has not yet been used, but hopefully it will allow larger numbers of people to become familiar with geo-visualisations in the near future. 3.4. Results and lessons learned People experience geo-visualisation as a bridging tool The stakeholders we have had most contact with are those involved in the local scale of spatial management: politicians and local authority experts working in the fields of environment, GIS, economic development and urbanism, as well as in communication and participation. The sessions at secondary schools and at the education fairs were mainly with teenagers. We have also organised sessions with high school teachers and university professors (Figure 3.6). All the experiences we have gained so far provide evidence that geo-visualisation tools are capable of exciting people in a way that stimulates their involvement and helps them to contribute their knowledge and ideas, while at the same time informing them in a visual and dynamic way. The various groups of people that have participated have been very positive about the usefulness of the technology. Spatial planners even considered these tools to be potential solutions to some of their most common communication problems with citizens. There are significant gaps between the ‘language’ of those managing spatial developments and that of the local population. In this sense, we have observed that participants in our sessions perceived geo-visualisations as a bridging opportunity: the visual as a common axis for communication. Politicians, 6 Researchers, 4

Experts at municipalities, 12 Teachers, 4

Pupils, 215

Figure 3.6. Groups and numbers of people directly involved in the sessions.

60 

Imaging the future



3. Raising awareness for participation through interactive geo-visualisation

Although the landscape viewer may stimulate people to interact and participate, it is not enough to make up for an evident lack of basic principles of communication (why communicate, what to communicate and how to communicate?). We believe, therefore, that much more effort is needed to establish public participation as a common practice, especially by those people promoting it. Participation is limited to local projects Almost all the cases we have been involved with have been short-term urban planning interventions at a local, almost architectural scale (except for the case of the Landscape Observatory of Catalonia). It is important to note that participation processes which take place over a longer time period have a greater capacity to generate a democratic culture than short-term processes (Font and Blanco, 2003). The fact that public participation takes place mainly in small projects could be a reflection of the limited importance afforded it. Local authorities do not allow ‘really important’ issues to be decided using participative approaches. In the meantime, citizens may experience the information they receive about spatial plans to be contradictory because they are not able to link the small-scale spatial projects to strategic, longer-term projects at a higher scale. When policy-makers are not willing to invite citizens to participate in the development of a wider strategy, the principle of sustainability is far from being adopted as a collective strategy. This lack of compromise at a larger scale can easily frustrate citizens and erode their motivation for participation. The technology is there to serve people The technological result of focusing on the local scale has been a demand for greater detail in the ‘reality’ being visualised, which implies a demand for almost virtual reality. So we have quickly gone from having no geo-visualisation tools at all to demands for a ‘perfect’ image of reality to be reproduced virtually. Clearly there is a need to adapt the methodologies and tools to the needs of each participatory process, taking into account the status of the process, the objectives and the process itself. Furthermore, our aim is to improve user interaction with the tool. So far users have had to have a minimum level of technological knowledge, but we assume that the growing pervasiveness of ICT in our daily life will help to even out this aspect. Answering the question ‘why participate?’ Leaving the technology aside, we have noticed some fundamental problems that stem from an attitude best summed up by the question ‘why participate?’ This is reflected in a low motivation to engage in participation processes not only among citizens, but also among politicians and project managers, who should in fact be promoting public participation. It is therefore important to know from the very beginning what the motivations of politicians, project mangers and citizens are. Another indicator of this ‘why participate’ attitude is the Imaging the future 

61

Irene Compte Lobera and Rosa Olivella González

marginal position that participation currently occupies in urban planning. Participation is normally an unplanned phenomenon, with few technical and creative resources to develop innovative processes geared to achieving tangible results. The ‘classic model’ of participation, which is limited to official consultation procedures, is still commonly used because it is easy to follow and meets the basic legal requirements – but it often leads to frustration among citizens. Opportunities for change We believe our work within the PSPE project has opened up a large array of opportunities for change, not only for those with whom we have had direct contact, but also for those people who will receive information about the project in the future. We hope that our activities will achieve a great impact in terms of dissemination and that communication will play a more prominent role in participatory processes in Girona. Our optimism is fuelled by the fact that a variety of new tools are now known to spatial planners and other promoters of participation. We are on the way to breaking through the barrier of paper maps and are moving quickly towards the digital possibilities of geo-information and visualisation, opening up new opportunities for those working in participatory spatial planning and participation in general. The experience we have gained so far show that the unique combination of technology, art and geography promoted by the PSPE project can help Catalan and Spanish authorities to take a giant step forward in facilitating the complex process of public participation in spatial plans. 3.5. Conclusions Recent efforts in promoting citizen participation and experiments with methods and techniques of participation in Catalonia and Spain have resulted in a certain degree of success. But they also show that there is still much that needs to be improved, starting with the very basics of participation: the effective communication of spatial plans. In most cases communication between regional and local governmental bodies and the public is poor and ineffective. There is a need for innovative ways of communicating with citizens to put this situation right. We have learned much from our cooperation in the PSPE project. Some of the lessons we have learned concern both classic and innovative concepts, some are related to new methodologies and tools, and others are about how to approach different stakeholders more effectively in complex planning projects. But probably the most outstanding lesson we have learned is that public participation cannot be improvised. This may seem to be a rather obvious conclusion. However, although it might seem logical that to move beyond improvisation we just require a methodology and a set of techniques and tools for citizen participation, the first steps are in fact neither methodological nor technical, but political, because participation always has a political basis. Participation for what? This is the political 62 

Imaging the future



3. Raising awareness for participation through interactive geo-visualisation

question (Pindado et al., 2002). And this was also the central question for the case study that we have reported here, in which raising awareness for participation itself took up most of our efforts. Our most ambitious goal in the PSPE project was to create more awareness for inclusive and interactive decision-making in complex spatial planning projects in Catalonia and Spain. In the end, we will be extremely satisfied if we have managed to contribute innovative and interesting insights regarding the general practice of spatial planning and have stimulated the emerging debate about participation in our region.

Imaging the future 

63

4. Development of a geo-discussion panel as a tool for public participation in Poland Maria Andrzejewska, Marek Baranowski, Anna Kowalska, Jan Matuszkiewicz, Ewa RooZielińska, Monika Rusztecka and Jerzy Solon 4.1. General background Participation in spatial planning in Poland has a short history. Public consultation on local spatial plans was introduced several years ago. The consultation procedure has a passive character and focuses on giving the public access to the proposed plan and collecting their comments and objections. In 2003 a new law, the ‘Spatial Planning and Organisation Act’ (Ustawa o planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym), introduced public discussion as a mandatory action within spatial plan-making processes. Within thirty days of publishing a spatial plan the responsible authority must arrange a public discussion on the plan, but the form of this discussion is not specified. The open-ended nature of this requirement presents an opportunity to propose methods and formats for these discussions. The PSPE case study on the Vistula River Valley was an attempt to present some of them. It provided a new opportunity to support the discussion of spatial issues using modern ICT tools at public meetings and via the internet. The case study area is part of the Warsaw Metropolitan Area and runs along the Vistula River Valley in a north-westerly direction from the northern borders of Warsaw, ending near the town of Wyszogrod. The PSPE project was conducted in parallel with the preparation of the masterplan for the future spatial development of the Warsaw Metropolitan Area. The Mazovian Office for Regional Planning (MORP) of the Mazovian Voivodship (regional authority) is responsible for the planning. In cooperation with MORP we identified some hotspots – areas where there are conflicts between proposed developments. One of the these hotspots is located in Lomianki municipality to the north of Warsaw (Figure 4.1), where a proposed new section of the S-7 expressway that bypasses the town of Lomianki is expected to have considerable impact on the natural environment. The area surrounding Lomianki, located between the banks of the Vistula River and the Kampinos National Park, has been selected for a detailed study. It covers less than 3,000 hectares and includes parts of Natura 2000 sites with unique ecosystems that provide habitats for endangered flora and fauna. In addition, the region is densely populated and has one of the biggest housing development programmes in the country. There are therefore numerous conflicts between the transport and housing plans and the nature conservation interests in this area. The case study examined a number of different alternatives for the expressway, including assessments of their environmental impacts. The case study activities focused on supporting the planning process by analysing the nine alternative ring road locations. Source material on the area was collected and converted to Imaging the future 

65

Maria Andrzejewska et al.

Figure 4.1. Map of the Vistula River Valley case study area.

a standardised digital format for use in the geo-visualisation environment. Scenarios for the environmental changes were then compiled for each of the alternatives. A special internet tool, the Geo-Discussion Panel, was developed and used for visualising the different plan alternatives and collecting comments on them. Finally, two public discussion sessions were organised with the support of the Kampinos National Park authority and the Lomianki municipal authority. The case study was carried out by a team composed of members of two institutions, the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Information Centre UNEP/GRID-Warsaw. The first institute was involved in the environmental impact assessments of the planned expressway, the second was in charge of developing geo-visualisation tools, cooperation with regional authorities and supporting the public discussion sessions. A number of other institutions were also involved in various stages of the project. MORP was the main partner in the selection of case studies and the collection of planning-related material. The Mazovian Surveyor General Office helped with the data collection and Lomianki municipal authority and the company appointed for the construction of the expressway (DHV, an international consultancy and engineering group with headquarters in the Netherlands) cooperated with the project team during the assessments of the road alternatives. Some aspects of the project were discussed with Kampinos National Park and selected non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Mazovian Voivodship (a regional government authority) gave organisational and financial support to the case study.

66 

Imaging the future



4. Development of a geo-discussion panel as a tool for public participation

4.2. Applied participation and communication methods Spatial planning and public participation in Poland Spatial planning processes in Poland are organised in a hierarchical structure. At the national level there is a National Strategy of Spatial Management and thematic strategies for spatial development. At this level, overall goals are set which determine the possibilities and constraints for spatial planning and management. Subordinate levels of spatial planning include regional spatial management plans for the voivodships or metropolitan areas, municipal studies on environmental conditions and directions for spatial management, local plans and investment plans. The Vistula River Valley case study related to proposals at the investment plan level (i.e. the construction of the S-7 expressway) and focused on supporting the process of collecting opinions from all possible stakeholders. Public participation is a new practice in spatial planning processes in Poland. Stakeholders have not yet been able to put forward their own interests in specific plan alternatives. In cases where particular groups affected by the plans articulate contradictory interests, spatial planners are concerned that they will not be able to satisfactorily resolve all the conflicting interests and that the final plans will therefore still meet with resistance. Citizens are suspicious of the presentation of proposed alternatives and focus on their own interests. Moreover, broader discussions about the impact plans may have on the whole community are often impossible since this requires knowledge of all aspects related to the planning issues and a willingness to agree to a compromise. Another obstacle is the reluctance of spatial planners and local authorities to use modern ICT tools. Knowledge of GIS tools, and geo-visualisation in particular, is very limited. The most common (and perhaps also most comfortable) way for local authorities to present the results of the planning process is to upload a PDF file of the plans to their website and wait for people’s comments. But this approach certainly does not stimulate citizen participation. Communication and participation via the internet After considering the available ways of communicating with the stakeholders in the planning process, an internet-based application called Geo-Discussion Panel (GDP) was developed for use in the Vistula River Valley case study. The GDP is based on geo-visualisation methods and was developed both for internet consultations and to support discussion at public meetings. The main reason for the development of this tool was the lack of available solutions tailored to the needs of public consultations and accessible in the Polish language. The GDP was provided to all parties and individuals interested in the plan proposals who wanted the opportunity to comment on them. Collecting geo-referenced comments in digital format provided an opportunity to analyse them directly in their spatial context.

Imaging the future 

67

Maria Andrzejewska et al.

The tool was intended to be applied at different levels of public participation, with special emphasis on the ‘information feedback’ and ‘involvement and consultation’ levels of participation defined by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA, 2002; see also Chapter 2). The public were allowed to make comments on proposed planning solutions, but also given an opportunity to contribute new ideas and propose other options for consideration. The GDP is available through the Polish PSPE website, which has also become a medium for communication between the case study team and potential users of the tool who are interested in the possibilities it offers for public participation (e.g. students, local authorities and NGOs). The Polish PSPE website (Figure 4.2) therefore serves as a platform for information and education and an easily manageable back office for the moderator of the public participation process. The information and educational content on the website covers all materials resulting from the project activities. They include: • an overview of the Vistula River Valley case study area, illustrated with maps and pictures, including a description of environmental and nature conservation values and the potential threats arising from developments in the Warsaw Metropolitan Area; • maps and descriptions of the scenarios developed for the spatial management plan and their impact on vegetation, Natura 2000 habitats and the populations of certain species; • an outline of public participation procedures under Polish law, including a set of the most common problems that may arise during public sessions from the point of view of the stakeholders involved; • a section on the practical use of the Geo-Discussion Panel, with a detailed manual and practical comments on its use.

Figure 4.2. The Polish PSPE website (www.gridw.pl/pspe).

68 

Imaging the future



4. Development of a geo-discussion panel as a tool for public participation

Figure 4.3. Geo-Discussion Panel.

As public awareness of participation in spatial planning is low in Poland, there is a need for presentations that explain the role of the public and other stakeholders in spatial planning procedures, and these should be disseminated as widely as possible. Consequently, one important goal of the website is to explain to people how they can participate constructively by making their opinions and ideas known and by collaborating with other stakeholders. Effective participation is also a matter of learning how to be active, how to find a compromise, and to understand that a ‘not in my backyard’ attitude obstructs the planning process and does not result in satisfying solutions. Communication and education about this is crucial, and it seems that internet-based solutions have a huge potential and importance in meeting these challenges. With this in mind the Polish PSPE website aimed to provide a platform for communication and education. The website also serves as a back office environment for the moderator using the GDP in public participation sessions. The role of moderator is to: • manage access by registered users to the GDP; • design and include thematic maps in the GDP; • present spatial issues that are under public discussion; • analyse and summarise geo-comments left by users of the GDP; • respond to the geo-comments. Two ways of using the Geo-Discussion Panel We have experimented with two ways of using the GDP: single-user application via the internet and at public meetings. People familiar with computer techniques can use the internet application to express their ideas by creating simple drawings consisting of points, lines and polygons. It is possible to attach text to this graphical information. Together, the drawings and text comments comprise the geo-comments, which are integrated immediately and saved in a spatial database. They are included in the background to the respective Imaging the future 

69

Maria Andrzejewska et al.

thematic spatial issues (e.g. route variants of the planned expressway). All single-user actions within the GDP are registered in the database on the server. At public meetings the role of the moderator is to present the spatial issues and comments made on them to stakeholders via the GDP. Consequently, the job of the moderator is to respond ‘live’ to comments made by participants by inserting the geo-comments in the database as they are made, so that people can at once see how the spatial solutions they propose are integrated into the surroundings. Participants in public sessions, therefore, do not need to have computer skills. Expected strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches Both approaches have their strong and weak sides. The strong side of single-user internet application of the GDP is that users can take their time to look closely at the proposed issues in the spatial plan. They can explore the spatial impact of proposed changes – for example in their neighbourhood on a local scale, but also in a wider context – at their own pace. A disadvantage of the single-user approach is that it requires that participants have computer operating skills, such as digital drawing, which not everyone can be expected to have. Access to the internet is another barrier to this approach, as currently only about 30% of Polish households have access to the Internet (Internet World Stats, 2007). As a consequence, most potential users of the single-user application of the GDP will be inhabitants of towns and cities and young people with computer skills who are used to trying out new internetbased tools. The strong side of the second approach is that none of the participants of public sessions need to have computer experience. The only demand made on them is that they are able to formulate opinions and point out the relevant locations on the map shown on the screen. Public sessions also give participants the opportunity to discuss the issues, thus improving interaction between stakeholders. Public sessions also have their weak points. The first is that people need to gather in one place at the same time, which might not be convenient for everybody, and in most cases the audience will not be representative of the whole community. Another weak point is that discussions between participants can sometimes obstruct the collection of opinions and proposals. People may be intimidated and reluctant to express their opinions if the relationship between the experts and the audience is felt to be a hierarchical one. Also, people may become less involved if they are not able to operate the system themselves and explore the information at their own pace. The success of this approach depends a lot on the communication skills of the moderator presenting the information via the GDP.

70 

Imaging the future



4. Development of a geo-discussion panel as a tool for public participation

3D visualisation of the case study area A 3D visualisation showing the case study area was prepared for presentation as an introduction to the public sessions in the municipality of Lomianki. The visualisation presents the general geographical situation of the area under discussion, with a special focus on environmental issues. It shows the ecological system of the Vistula River Valley and its relationship with the Kampinos National Park area. It also presents the conflicts between the main ecological corridors and alternative routes for the expressway. The 3D visualisation is based on Google Earth. All the proposed alternative expressway routes were depicted on a background consisting of satellite images; additional data were converted into the Google Earth format. These data relate to ecological corridors and other nature conservation areas, as well as hotspots where construction of the proposed expressway would probably have considerable environmental impacts, especially on Natura 2000 habitats. 4.3. Results Testing the Geo-Discussion Panel Several tests on using the GDP have been carried out. Participants included students, members of NGOs, representatives of local authorities and spatial planners. The conclusions resulting from their experiences with the tool can be summarised as follows: • the application is versatile and has many functional options useful for browsing the available spatial data, as well as for collecting comments; • accessibility via the internet has the benefit of being a ‘no-cost’ installation; • the tool seems to be too complex for users with limited experience of computer technology. One of the conclusions of the testing phase was that the GDP is useful in public discussions and as a tool to facilitate cooperation between members of the institutions in charge of the planning process (i.e. planners at MORP, road engineers and staff of Kampinos National Park). A further opportunity to test the GDP was at the working sessions with MORP, where the geo-visualisation application was presented in detail. The tool met with a positive reception from most of the participants. However, some of them expressed doubts about general use of the tool, mainly because they thought it was too complicated for average users with limited computer literacy. Ecological analyses Ecological analyses were made of several alternative expressway routes. One of these routes, developed by Lomianki municipal authority bypasses the town on the north side, in contrast to the route proposed in the spatial management plan of the Mazovian Voivodship. It runs along the boundaries of Natura 2000 sites on the banks of the Vistula River. The analyses Imaging the future 

71

Maria Andrzejewska et al.

showed that this route would have negative ecological impacts. Comparable analyses were performed for alternative expressway locations developed by the General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways in Warsaw. This study also indicated threats to ecological systems, affecting • protected plant species and vegetation communities; • protected animal species (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians); • protected areas (Kampinos National Park, Natura 2000 sites, nature reserves); • the continuity of ecological corridors. The assessments were used to compare the ecological consequences of the different routes and rank the alternatives. These were incorporated into the GDP database and made available to all users. Public sessions Besides a number of working meetings with members of the institutions involved in the planning process, two public sessions were organised to put the developed geo-visualisation approaches into practice. The first session took place in the Kampinos National Park, where representatives of the surrounding municipalities, NGOs, research institutes and universities met to present the environmental impact assessments of the alternative expressway routes. Then all the scenarios were shown in Google Earth as on-line visualisations and via the GDP, which was also used to collect opinions on specific planning solutions put forward by the participants. The geo-visualisation tools developed in the case study were intensively discussed. Most of the participants thought that the tool has great potential for use in public participation exercises in planning. Other possible uses of the presented tools, such as supporting environmental impact assessment procedures, were also proposed. The chief officer of the county and four municipal chief officers present at the session expressed their interest in training their employees in the use of the GDP, with the aim of integrating use of the tool within their organisations. The second public session was organised with the Lomianki municipal authority and was attended by representatives of the City Council and the City Board. The alternative expressway routes were visualised and presented with the help of the GDP. The participants recognised that this was a useful tool for informing people about spatial investment plans. They also found the possibilities for citizens to make their opinions known to be a very useful alternative to traditional public inquiries.

72 

Imaging the future



4. Development of a geo-discussion panel as a tool for public participation

4.4. Conclusions and lessons learned The new legal framework for spatial planning requires public discussions to be held on spatial plans. However, the legal framework does not recommend methods and tools for facilitating these discussions and in many cases decision-makers are reluctant to organise public sessions. There also is a lack of approaches and methods for preparing and conducting public consultations in a way that leads to solutions accepted by all stakeholders. Public sessions and other meetings organised within this case study showed that geovisualisation technology provides some answers to the problems outlined above. As an example, the chief officer of one of the municipalities adjacent to Lomianki stated in an article in the local press that he expects the GDP to serve his municipality as a tool for stimulating citizen participation in spatial planning issues. Geo-visualisation techniques require access to spatial data. In Poland there is still only a limited amount of such data available and the creation of a spatial data infrastructure will take some years. In the Mazovian Voivodship more data is available than in other voivodships, but the cost of data is relatively high, which forms an additional obstacle to the implementation of geo-visualisation in the planning process. The experience gained and the tools developed within the case study seem to have a potentially broad application. Companies preparing investment projects are very interested in the potential of the GDP. Under new regulations they have to arrange and conduct public discussions during the preparation of each investment plan. Another potential use of the GDP is in the implementation of Natura 2000 policies. The GDP could be used to show municipalities adjacent to Natura 2000 sites the dependencies between sustainable land management and the existence of habitats of particular species. The PSPE project and the Vistula River Valley case study provided us with a considerable body of experience. It gave us the opportunity to experiment with a useful tool for stimulating public discussion which is likely to be implemented in many other projects.

Imaging the future 

73

5. Understanding the role of 3D visualisation: the example of Calden Airport expansion, Kassel, Germany Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns 5.1. The Calden Airport expansion project The city of Kassel has a low-capacity regional airport located in Calden, a small municipality in Kassel administrative region (Regierungsbezirk). The number of regular flight connections, charter flights and low cost carrier flights is expected to rise. Simply adding new sections to the existing runway would, for a number of reasons, not deliver the desired capacity increases. These can be provided by a new 2.5 km long runway and several new buildings and roads. Plans for expanding the capacity of this airport cover a total area of roughly 270 ha (see Figure 5.1). The rural landscape of fields, pasture and woodland may soon be replaced by a mix of new buildings and other air traffic installations, totally transforming the character of the landscape. The changes would be quite visible, which is one reason why the Calden Airport project was selected for this study. The other reason is that the project has been in the public eye. Discussions about the need for increasing air traffic in the Kassel region now go back more than ten years. People have been arguing about the economic growth that expansion of the airport could generate, but also about the environmental and social effects to be borne by those who live in the neighbourhood of the airport. As the expansion plans moved towards the decisive stages, the exchange of arguments became more detailed and the tone of the controversy intensified. With planning approval expected in 2007, the controversy surrounding the airport expansion plans presented a good opportunity to test the use of various geo-visualisation tools for sounding out people’s opinions during 2006 as part of a research project.

Figure 5.1. Projected expansion of Kassel Calden Airport.

Imaging the future 

75

Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns

5.2. Interactive and non-interactive visualisation tools: questions asked Various visualisation tools have been developed to support communication, particularly between spatial planners and stakeholders. Observations from professional practice seem to suggest that planning participants have a preference for three-dimensional visualisations. To comprehend even the most complex planning subjects, such as the cumulative environmental effects of a large number of different projects, 3D tools may have more to offer than traditional types of visualisation. Although only a small number of observations have been reported and their general validity remains uncertain, they may be taken as the starting point for substantiating individual findings by further investigating the communicative qualities of innovative visualisation tools. There is also considerable practical interest in results from such studies (Ervin, 2001; Lange and Bishop, 2001). The hypothesis of the study discussed in this chapter is that interactive tools are more powerful and more effective than non-interactive visualisations in presenting and communicating the contents and results of spatial planning. The Calden Airport expansion project was selected to test this hypothesis in a controlled setting and compare the workings of two different types of close-to-reality 3D visualisation techniques, one interactive and one non-interactive. The non-interactive technique includes pre-rendered images and animations generated from a digital 3D model. The interactive tool presents a 3D model such that users can experience what happens if they change position and angle of view. This real-time model may remind people of video computer games in which it is also possible to ‘navigate’ and interact within a model environment. A research programme was designed for a series of trials to investigate three questions: • What impact does interactivity have on the amount of information communicated by 3D visualisations, and how do different kinds of 3D visualisation raise people’s understanding of what this information means? • What impacts do different kinds of 3D visualisation have on people’s perception of the intentions and objectives of a plan? • How do different user groups perceive and understand 3D visualisations, and what are the differences between them? 5.3. Standards for quality assurance Although three-dimensional visualisations may remind people of glossy advertising brochures, this unfortunate association illustrates the most desirable quality of innovative tools: they present ‘products’ that closely resemble reality. To overcome their marketing image when used for spatial planning purposes, visualisations must be prepared and presented in a way that allows viewers to perceive them as trustworthy. In fact, visualisations are often employed deliberately to help stakeholders to come to trust a plan. However, as the number of steps needed to create a presentable image increases, viewers may find it more difficult to realise how these images relate to baseline information, and ultimately to the contents that are 76 

Imaging the future



5. Understanding the role of 3D visualisation: Calden Airport expansion

visualised. So while visualisations make communication easier, advanced types of imagery may potentially make it difficult to build confidence and trust among the public. In this research a number of provisions were made to establish standards for quality assurance. A wide range of standards were found to be of considerable importance in preparing, composing and presenting visualisations for practical planning purposes. A review of criteria discussed in the recent literature is included on the DVD accompanying this book. Three sets of quality criteria were used to standardise visualisations for the purpose of this study (see Figure 5.2 and Box 5.1). Reading Figure 5.2 from left to right, the first set of quality criteria relates to preparing the contents and results of a spatial plan for visualisation. Data and information must be selected carefully and incorporated in the digital model to a level of detail appropriate to the scales and data used in the actual plan. The second set of criteria relates to composing the structure of the digital model. It is important that models use representative shapes and forms that help viewers to easily understand what planners wish to communicate. The third set of criteria relates to how presentations are finally used. It may be helpful at the beginning, for example during meetings with stakeholders, to explain how 3D techniques work and how to use the tools.

Figure 5.2. Quality criteria for preparing, composing and presenting visualisations.

Imaging the future 

77

78  Composing visualisations

Presenting visualisations

Imaging the future

2006: 5).

timeframes and conditions (Sheppard, 2005: 87).

2D orientation – installation of a small Interest – the model or visualisation should overview map on CD or internet arouse and maintain people’s interest Legitimacy – the methods used for modelling presentations; for meetings a big poster (e.g. (Sheppard, 2005: 87). should be made transparent and defensible, and of a topographical map) can be useful to all assumptions made regarding accuracy and Anchorman – those presenting visualisations support orientation (Warren-Kretzschmar et uncertainty must be detectable (Sheppard, 2005: at public meetings need to have good al., 2005: 173). 87). communication skills. Close-to-reality perspectives – commonly Visual clarity – the content, details and components Clear and comparable – allow direct known views like those of cyclists or of the visualisation should be communicated comparisons of different representations pedestrians help viewers to identify with the (existing and planned, scenarios, etc.) clearly (Sheppard, 2005: 87). visualisations (Paar et al., 2004). through the use of interactive elements or Delimitation of areas – the scale of the model should be sufficiently large to ensure that all contents will Target-oriented interactions – combine possible other techniques (Warren-Kretzschmar et al., interactions within a model with clear 2005: 173). be understood by viewers (Strobl, 2006). questions and targets (Strobl, 2006). Access to visual information – visualisations Interactions – the size of the model must be Target groups – adjust the model’s complexity should be accessible to all interested people large enough to allow the user to learn about or interface (if possible) to the target groups or groups (Sheppard, 2005: 87). interactions between the planning site and its (Strobl, 2006). surrounding environment (Thompson and Horne,

User interface – the design and layout of a Explanations – give a short introduction to model’s user interface should be both simple the technology and methodology used for and problem- and target-oriented (Strobl, visualisation; this ensures a content-related 2006). discussion later on (Thompson and Horne, Accuracy – visualisations should represent the 2006: 8). actual or expected appearance of the landscape as Language – explanations and preparations accurately as possible (Sheppard, 2005: 87). should be given in a simple and common General conditions – introduction to the language (Warren-Kretzschmar et al., 2005: general conditions of the planning and the Representativeness – visualisations and models part played by the model. should be representative for common perspectives, 173).

Purpose and range of application – relevant starting points for defining model size, timeframes and level of detail (Thompson and Horne, 2006: 8).

Preparing visualisations

Box 5.1. Quality criteria for preparing, composing and presenting visualisations

Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns

Imaging the future 

Sound – use sound as an additional source of information to support the overall experience and understanding of the model or visualisation (Thompson and Horne, 2006: 8).

4D – use the strengths of 4D representations to communicate aspects of the planning process (Thompson and Horne, 2006: 5).

Chance to compare – visualise different states of a landscape to enable people to make comparisons (existing and planned, alternatives, scenarios, etc.) (Warren-Kretzschmar et al., 2005: 173).

Additional elements – use elements such as name tags (e.g. for villages or actions) to explain the content of the model or to support orientation (Lovett et al., 2006). Saving aspects – insert functions to save comments or viewpoints.

Adoption – support a playful experience with the virtual environment.

Motivation – use interactive elements to Navigation – facilitate an intuitive navigation communicate ideas and motivate viewers (Warren- within the model or visualisation, e.g. by Kretzschmar et al., 2005: 178). using games hardware such as joysticks.

Additional helpful aspects Additional information – add further information, such as explanations or tables, to the actual visual representation (e.g. by using interactive elements) (Thompson and Horne, 2006: 8).

 5. Understanding the role of 3D visualisation: Calden Airport expansion

79

Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns

5.4. Preparation and application of visualisations Selection of techniques The use of digital simulations for studying landscape perception and preferences has been established in the planning literature (see for example Helfand et al., 2006). Based on these experiences, the landscape changes expected in the project area were simulated using two different techniques: non-interactive and interactive. The two sections of the project area selected for inclusion in this study would be most affected by future airport expansion. One of these sections is located in the western part of the project site; the other is located at the eastern end. For the non-interactive technique, all the positions from which views would be offered had to be selected and fixed, including the direction and angle of view and the path followed to see the images in sequence. Impromptu changes to these pre-determined settings, for example during a public meeting, is not an option. If people wish to see a view from a different position or angle, new images have to be produced and shown at a later meeting. For the interactive technique, a 3D model was prepared and presented in a way that allows users to change position and to choose new perspectives. People can also navigate within the model environment and look at the scenery from any flight path they choose. At any given time users may switch between images that show the present landscape and images that visualise how it may look in future if the projected changes go ahead. For the purposes of this study, the techniques were selected according to the importance attached to finding out more about their potential value and risks when used for communication about spatial planning. To reduce the number of variables influencing people’s perceptions, it was particularly important to include visualisations that present images as similar as possible in aesthetic appearance. In other words, the products created using the two techniques had to be visually ‘comparable’. The same textures and colours were used, as well as the same buildings and 3D elements, such as power transmission pylons, trees and other vegetation elements. The visual differences that remained are due to the specific properties of the techniques used. These are small and it would require an inordinate effort to eliminate all of them. Images and animated scenes were generated from GIS data by using high-end visualisation software called Visual Nature Studio. This software has been optimised for presenting large expanses of land and landscapes that contain a variety of different vegetation types. For test areas, the eastern and the western airport project sites, close-to-reality positions and perspectives were selected and rendered. All views and camera settings were designed to resemble human perception as closely as possible. Fly-overs, bird’s-eye views and overviews were not included because they present landscapes and projects in ways that are ‘unreal’ (Sheppard, 2005). All camera positions and paths were created at eye level and as close as possible to reality and real-life activities like hiking, cycling or driving.

80 

Imaging the future



5. Understanding the role of 3D visualisation: Calden Airport expansion

The interactive models were built using Quest3D software, which is based on video game technology (Game Engine). With this software it is possible to present even complex scenes such as rural and urban landscapes in high quality resolution and in real time. Options for interactivity include switching between existing and planned site conditions. Two virtual cameras were positioned inside the model created for the study. Viewers look at the land at normal eye level and may move through the landscape at walking, cycling or driving speeds. A site map with an arrow was inserted into the user interface for optimal orientation while using the model, such as determining your own location and the direction of view. Application of visualisations in test settings Controlled settings were required to obtain comparable results for this study, and the conditions under which visualisations were tested had to be as similar as possible. The trials included two groups of people who were exposed to different visualisations and then asked to answer a set of questions. Considering the high level of public interest generated by the Calden Airport expansion project it could be realistically expected that a relatively large number of people would wish to participate in this study. It was also be expected that people from the Calden area would be highly motivated and emotionally involved and that the case study would closely simulate real-life situations, such as public consultation events held for controversial projects. One group therefore included people from the Calden area, several of whom would be affected by the airport expansion. Another group included students from Kassel University. Both groups are different, particularly regarding the following characteristics: • exposure to the potential effects of airport expansion; • familiarity with computers and intensity of computer use; • experience in handling 3D presentations and with computer games. The design for the study trials is illustrated in Figure 5.3. The objective was to produce datasets that can be analysed statistically. During trial sessions images were presented on a white screen in a dark room using a video projector (Figure 5.4). The study team did all the necessary navigation within the model and offered help and comments when needed. One member of the team chaired the discussions during and after presentations. Detailed information on how participants reacted to visualisations was collected from a questionnaire. The answers were statistically analysed. To help with the interpretation of these data, participants were also asked to provide information on their personal background. While the participants viewed the images and worked on their questionnaires, a second method was used to gather information that may be called ‘participating observation’. Emotions and reactions that participants exhibited during and after presentations were noted. The observations were made by a person who actually took part in the trials as if they were one of the invited group members. The results of these observations may be used

Imaging the future 

81

Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns

Figure 5.3. Design of trials for the study, including number of participants.

Figure 5.4. Trial sessions at Calden.

to evaluate the results generated from answers to the questionnaire and can even provide new factual information (Figure 5.5).

82 

Imaging the future



5. Understanding the role of 3D visualisation: Calden Airport expansion

Figure 5.5. Sequence of events during meetings with study participants.

5.5. Research results Interactive visualisations improve understanding of landscape change Both of the visualisation techniques employed during the trials of this study seem to be equally useful in presenting landscape scenes, landscape changes and features that noticeably affect landscape character. However, when asked about the dimensions of certain landscape elements or certain technical features of the airport expansion, participants who were exposed to interactive real-time models generally estimated the dimensions and scale of these features much more accurately than members of groups viewing non-interactive visualisations. For example, an embankment was shown that would be created at the eastern side of the airfield. This new structure would be 14–18 m high. Members of the real-time trial group estimated its size to be about 15.5 m (standard deviation = 8.3). The members of the other trial group estimated the size of the same embankment to be about 25.4 m (standard deviation = 21.2). Similar results were obtained when complex spatial arrangements and alterations had to be assessed. An example of where these differences became particularly apparent is the realignment of segments of the federal highway B7. Observers who were exposed to real-time models quickly developed a much better understanding of future changes than the members of the non-interactive groups. People using the interactive model even noticed changes that are not as obvious as large new structures. For example, changes from arable land to grassland were noticed by the interactive trial group, but hardly at all by those viewing the non-interactive model. This may be explained by interactivity allowing people to manipulate their view and to get a ‘closer’ look at things. At the same time, it became apparent from answers given on the questionnaire, and from observations made during the trials, that any personal involvement seems to influence peoples perceptions. Attitudes towards visualisations depend on people’s operational capabilities There are considerable differences in how different groups took ownership of the visualisations presented to them during the trials. Participants under 30 years old needed much less time to do so than older group members. People appeared to find it more difficult to orientate with Imaging the future 

83

Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns

real-time models than with simple non-interactive ones. A great deal of spatial imagination seems to be needed for getting used to real time visualisations. Some people were observed to express frustration while getting oriented and they seemed to need extra help. For example, most of the older people had trouble reading the arrow on the site map in the user interface and many of them needed help with finding out how this device tells viewers something about the direction in which they are looking at any given time. Most of those under about 30 had had plenty of exposure to similar indicators, often in computer games. These participants manoeuvred effortlessly through the real-time models. Despite the difficulties some people encountered, almost all participants said they had been well informed by the visualisations. For example, most people had a much better idea about the real dimensions of new buildings and embankments. This is especially true for all of those who had little previous experience with computers but had expressed a desire to be open to learning more about them and the techniques they offer. The comments made by participants who already had considerable experience with computers and computer games were much more critical. These people have a better understanding of how computer technologies may be used to manipulate images, particularly with real-time and interactive techniques. The participants’ attitudes towards real-time models seemed to be more critical than their assessments of non-interactive models. On the other hand, most of what participants found wanting, and the improvements they would like to see, could be provided best by using real-time techniques. Experience with computers is not necessarily a prerequisite for using innovative visualisations, but such experience does make it easier for people to get oriented and become familiar with a model. Interactive visualisation techniques provide added communication value Once interactivity was offered, participants became increasingly engaged in using the model and found the possibilities it offers exciting, for example switching between the present site conditions and planned project conditions, or changing positions and viewing angles within the model. Interactivity generated more contributions to group discussions and more ideas and potential changes to the proposals. People who participated in groups that viewed non-interactive visualisations were less engaged. When viewing 360° panoramic images, for example, they could easily have given statements on issues related to the angle of view or asked to stop or repeat animated sequences. But they hardly ever did. Interactivity seems to stimulate discussions within groups of people and it also seems to make it easier for people to express their opinions by using the model. These were often sparked off by choosing a certain position or angle of view to best illustrate an argument. Discussions were uninitiated and were about topics like the dimensions of the airfield and how the airport may change the landscape character. Another issue that was raised was the visual impacts the extended runway may have on the surroundings. These discussions included questions regarding the visibility of airport structures from certain viewpoints. Participants 84 

Imaging the future



5. Understanding the role of 3D visualisation: Calden Airport expansion

often wanted to go back to certain positions, and a wide range of recommendations has been listed on the presentation of views and perspectives and ways to make orientation easier. Factors influencing how visualisations are interpreted A number of factors have been identified that seem to influence how trial participants perceived and interpreted visualisations. Some of these factors are included in Figure 5.6, in which responses by participants are presented in relation to (1) visualisation techniques, (2) groups of participants, (3) opinion on airport expansion plans, and (4) how familiar people are with the project site. The question to be answered by participants was: To what degree will the airport expansion change landscape character? To begin with, landscape character changes were rated highest by participants who were exposed to real-time models. Most Calden citizens also gave very high ratings. The same is true for people who said they were opposed to the airport expansion plans. In addition, there appears to be a close link between people’s familiarity with the location and their ability to take note of changes. Participants who stated that they know the project area well gave much higher ratings in their assessment of landscape character change than those who said that they know Calden and its surroundings little or hardly at all. These findings are supported by research on the cultural meanings of landscape that help explain how landscape mirrors society (Kaufmann, 2005; Nassauer, 1997; Schama, 1995). Opposition to the airport expansion is part of local mainstream thinking and Calden residents were much more sensitive to landscape changes, as if they were seeing them through a magnifying glass. Some people even began to project their criticism onto the visualisations themselves, seemingly confusing them with the project itself. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

very noticeable

pictures, realtime animations models technique

noticeable

local students residents group

hardly noticeable

for

against opinion

not at all noticeable

high

medium

low

familiarity with site

Figure 5.6. To what degree will the airport extension change landscape character?

Imaging the future 

85

Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns

5.6. Lessons learned Allow people to become familiar with visualisations People need time to understand what visualisations are expressing, time to get to ‘like’ the model, and time to become oriented inside a virtual world that represents the real world and that may be new at first. Getting oriented appeared to be one of the greatest challenges to most of those who participated in groups that were exposed to interactive real-time models. In line with the findings of von Haaren et al. (2005), the user interface of the real-time model was equipped with site maps and tools that indicate the user’s location and the direction in which they are looking. Nevertheless, orientation was not always easy, especially for older participants. Once oriented, people use the model to support what they have to say about an area, or about a project. Giving people time to get familiar with visualisations is critical for successful communication. Adjust visualisations to stakeholder expectations As shown in Figure 5.6 stakeholder groups perceive visualisations differently. Several opportunities exist to adjust visualisations to specific types of spatial planning and to their specific communication purposes, and to individual stages of the planning process at any given time. If certain planning situations require specially adapted visualisation tools, realtime models seem to be best suited to presenting and illustrating complex spatial settings and making changes to them. However, they do require more instructions than simpler visualisations, and they take longer to adjust to and become oriented. They also need long periods of time for presenting and viewing. Interactivity effectively helps people to state and exchange views and interactive models seem to be useful for communicating controversial plans and projects. Non-interactive visualisations, on the other hand, seem to be particularly helpful when planners want to inform stakeholders about relatively simple and straightforward issues. It has also been noted that visualisations lead viewers to develop certain expectations, for example about the stage of a planning process or about how a project may look. People may get frustrated if these expectations are not met. During the trials of this study, especially when sections of new airport buildings were shown, participants said that they would have expected much greater visual impacts. Opponents to airport expansion in particular had hoped to see more pronounced representations of these structures; they expected them to confirm the images they had already formed in their own minds. Anticipating such reactions, and dealing with them during participatory sessions, is a job planners need to prepare for.

86 

Imaging the future



5. Understanding the role of 3D visualisation: Calden Airport expansion

Lessons learned for interactivity When real-time models are more powerful in effectively supporting information exchange, this is mainly due to their interactive properties. It is interactivity that makes real-time models different from traditional 3D visualisations and makes them especially useful in helping people to comprehend spaces in the landscape and the processes of landscape change (Bishop and Lange, 2005). The successful introduction of interactivity into spatial planning requires adaptation of communication methods. In practice it may be customary to present information first, for example by using maps, graphs and pictures, and to discuss the contents of the plan afterwards. Ideally, all of these activities should run parallel when using interactive models. The experience gained during the trials of this study shows that having an open discussion during the presentation of visualisations supports communication between participants. People feel encouraged to use the visualisations actively to express their thoughts. At the same time, planners will need to acquire the skills needed to moderate this kind of presentation and exchange. Lessons learned for quality assurance In the past, quality assurance standards have been suggested for planning-related visualisation, including suggestions for dealing with interactivity (see above). By and large, these standards have proved to be very useful during preparations for this study, and also during the trials with interviews. Participants accepted all the visualisations presented to them, and they even found them to be useful for communicating controversial messages. These visualisations succeeded in maintaining neutral positions and were not seen to be leaning in any particular direction. Even those participants who had expected to be shown more drastic images of the project did, in most cases, not doubt the integrity of the models and images. It would seem worthwhile to introduce general standards into planning practice similar to those followed here. Visualisations may also need to be prepared and presented in a form that is easily understood by viewers who are not trained to use 3D models for information exchange. 5.7. Future research Little is known about the role of visualisation in planning-related communication. The insights discussed in this paper raise a number of issues and questions that may be explored in the future: • Differences have been observed between the information presented, the information actually perceived and the assessments trial participants made of the degree to which they felt the different visualisation techniques supported their understanding of the plan. These are complex relationships that need to be understood better. • Planners, experts from other fields and different stakeholders who become involved in planning processes all have different perceptions of what visualisations comprise. It seems important to better understand what these differences are and how to best consider Imaging the future 

87

Jochen Mülder, Sabine Säck-da-Silva and Diedrich Bruns

them in spatial planning. Even within one planning team it may take time and effort to ‘come to terms’ with what members from different fields actually understand from the team communication. • There is an obvious time lag between the current state of the landscape and the state the same landscape will have in the future. All projections and forecasts used in spatial planning will have to consider landscape change, and it seems a special challenge to visualise and compare status-quo prognoses with project-related prognoses. An additional degree of complexity is added by the simple fact that those who will experience future changes may have different perceptions today than they will have in years to come. They also may not be the ones who participate in decision-making today. Evaluating research findings, not only academically but also in practice, seems to be important, mainly owing to the practical nature of spatial planning. Several issues should be considered and the following questions may be raised in view of the findings of this study: • Raising quality –– Do visualisation techniques improve the quality of decision-making processes? –– Are planning contributions that use innovative visualisations more valuable for communication, especially compared with standard consultation practices? –– Will innovative visualisations be better than traditional ones in conveying understanding of what is in a plan, and consequently generate higher degrees of acceptance and, ultimately, the realisation of the plan itself ? • Application in practical communication –– Will it be possible to use innovative interactive visualisation techniques to involve stakeholders more intensively, for example by using them in citizen workshops? –– What are the best strategies for rapidly familiarising participants in communication sessions with different visualisation techniques and enabling them to apply these techniques, even independently in small working groups? What kind of human and technical support will lead to higher degrees of public participation and higher quality contributions? Where are the limits? Both of the techniques studied are equally suitable for envisioning and communicating landscape changes. Visualisations are an effective tool for communicating planning issues and motivating people to take part in discussions. The interactive features of a real-time model enable the viewer to play an active and independent role and to exert a real influence on the procedure of the presentation.

88 

Imaging the future

6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier 6.1. Preliminary insights and guidelines The PSPE project emphasises the importance of geo-visualisation in participatory spatial planning, based on expectations that it will improve the quality and effectiveness of participation. First, visualisation of geo-data may stimulate collaboration by serving as a metaphor for a planning environment, which enables users to discuss, develop, design and manipulate a representation of the space to be planned. Second, visualisation may provide support for dialogue (about information, plans, methods, strategies or decisions). Geovisualisation is considered to be essential for communicating the complex nature of spatial issues relevent to participatory spatial planning. As such it supports the formation of a joint perception and understanding of the spatial problem and routes to possible solutions. Third, visual representation may support coordinated activity for compiling information, designing plans and making decisions (MacEachren, 2005). Additionally, a variety of authors mention different functions like motivating people to get involved in spatial issues, demonstrating the consequences of possible solutions and putting them in the context of spatial planning (see for example Dransch, 2000). Motivated by these expectations, and given growth in technological capacities, we may expect that in future spatial planning communities will increasingly be supported by methods involving geo-visualisation. These will be closely linked to web-based applications and services. However, the quality of geo-visualisations can vary significantly and this will influence the role of such web-based applications and services. Many web-based applications and services based on geo-information have already been launched. Platforms such as Google Earth, Nasa Wind and MS Virtual Earth triggered this offensive and even appear to be the starting point for many innovative applications, which at the moment vary considerable in quality. These expectations and the successes of current web-based examples ([url 1]) suggest that geo-visualisation is an important factor in e-interaction: the interaction between planning participants (public and private stakeholders) for collaboration, mutual understanding and improved coordination of activities through various digital (mostly web-based) interfaces that offer geo-visualisations of (proposed) spatial transitions. E-interaction relies heavily on the participatory nature of the planning process. Chapter 2 dealt with the necessity of improving citizen participation in spatial planning. It was emphasised that visual languages, and geo-visualisation in particular, are most suitable for facilitating communication about spatial plans. This chapter presents some basic notions Imaging the future 

89

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

of geo-visualisation. These are important for discussing and developing e-interaction in the context of participatory spatial planning. First we explain generally what geo-visualisation is about. Then we introduce the scientific debate, including the ‘producer’ and ‘user’ view of geo-visualisation, in which technological options come up against cognitive interests. As communication is one of the driving factors in this debate, we discuss the impact of communication technology on e-interaction. We finish with conclusions on the main issues concerning the use of geo-visualisations in support of planning communities. As such it provides a conceptual background for the PSPE case studies described in this book; likewise, the results of the case studies are used to illustrate some principles. 6.2. Basic notions of geo-visualisation The verb visualise means to form a mental image or to imagine ([url 2]). Visualisation, therefore, is a process of creating and viewing graphical images of data (Visvalingram, 1994). Some authors state that the aim is to increase human understanding, based on the premise that humans are able to reason and learn more effectively in a visual setting than when using textual and numerical data (Tufte, 1990; Hearnshaw and Unwin, 1994; Visvalingram,1994). Geo-visualisation – the visualisation of geographical data – is the use of concrete visual representations and human visual abilities to make spatial contexts and problems visible (MacEachren et al., 1999). Including the geographical dimension in the visualisation process makes it much easier to identify and interpret spatial patterns and relationships from complex data on a particular study area. As such, geo-visualisation makes the spatial problems and contexts visible through visualisation methods and human visual abilities (MacEachren et al., 1999). According to Edsall (2003) ‘geo-visualisation grows out of research issues concerning the representation of, and interaction with large amounts of complex data, though in its case, the data are specifically geospatial (referenced to the earth’s surface)’. Kraak (2003, after Dykes et al., 2005) described geo-visualisation as ‘a loosely bounded domain of science because studies related to the visualisation process according geospatial data integrates notions from cartography with those from other information representation and analysis disciplines, including scientific visualisation, image analysis, information visualisation, exploratory data analysis and GIScience’. In other words, geovisualisation is more than the creation of an alternative visual representation of the data (Fairbairn et al., 2001); it also deals with cognitive aspects based on human perception and intentionality. These aspects in particular could address the usability of geo-visualisation approaches. For this reason Kraak (2003) emphasises the visualisation of geographic data, which undergo many transformations to make the information displayable to and understandable by the human perceptive and cognitive systems. 6.3. The transformation chain The visualisation of geo-data requires (geo-)computational methods and processing techniques to transform it into a graphic and displayable format. This displayable format 90 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

must be narrowly related to the devices used (i.e. the presentation environment). The computational powers of such devices allow many different transformations to be made. Figure 6.1 shows transformations involved in the process of creating and perceiving images of the real world through a geo-visualisation based on geo-data. The first transformation (1) deals with the description of real world phenomena by means of geo-data that can be stored in the form of a two-dimensional (2D) referenced data model, as in the case of most traditional cartographic purposes (transformation1a). Geo-data can also be captured in a three-dimensional (3D) referenced data model (transformation 1b). To visualise the data the most obvious transformation is the 2D geo-visualisation of 2D geo-data (transformation 2a) and the 3D geo-visualisation of 3D geo-data (transformation 2d). 2D geo-data can, however, also be transformed into a 3D geo-visualisation (transformation 2b), often based on a thematic attribute like height. This process does not deliver a full 3D representation of the real world, but a partial representation commonly referred to as 2.5D (Bos et al., 1998). A transformation from 3D geo-data into a 2D geo-visualisation is also possible by discarding the z-information during the rendering process (transformation 2c).

Real world

Geo-data

Geo-visualisation

Computer display

Perception

3D

2D

2D

2D

2D

3D

3D

User criteria

Production criteria

Transformations

Although, in principle, full-fledged 3D geo-visualisations can be rendered, it is not possible to display them in 3D using current computer displays. They require holographic displaying techniques which are not commonly available. To overcome this, various stereoscopic rendering techniques (such as anaglyphic images, polarised pictures or alternate-frame sequencing) are being developed to let humans perceive an illusion of depth. Letting humans experience the illusion of a real 3D experience underlines the relation between a geovisualisation and virtual reality. A geo-virtual reality is seen as a 3D, computer-generated environment that gives the user a sense of being in a real world (de Roo, 2005, after Masum

Information intensity

3D Immersion

Intelligence objects Interactivity Accuracy

Comprehensibility

Legitimacy

Interesting

Representativeness

Figure 6.1. From 3D real world to 2D or 3D perception of a scene.

Imaging the future 

91

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

and Nahiduzzaman, 2003; van Lammeren and Hoogerwerf, 2003; van Lammeren and Bergsma, 2006). 6.4. Production of geo-visualisations Making geographic data displayable and understandable involves a number of items that must be considered in this chain of transformations. Some of these items we call the factors concerning the production of geo-visualisations, recalling the factors for construction and use mentioned by Heim (1998), MacEachren et al. (1999) and Wachowicz et al. (2002). These factors are: information intensity, intelligence of objects, interaction, and immersion and augmentation (the ‘I’ factors’). If we link these ‘I’ factors to the transformations presented in Figure 6.1, we see that information intensity and intelligence relate mainly to geo-data, geovisualisation and their transformations (Figure 6.2). Immersion and interactivity are more related to geo-visualisation, the computer display environment and their transformations. Looking at the transformations themselves, we can say that information intensity depends on the transformation of real-world phenomena into geo-data features. Choices need to be made about what information from the real-world should be captured for representation in a data model. Most current geo-data models offer a 2D representation of the real world, which certainly limits the information intensity in a 2D to 3D transformation (transformation 2b in Figure 6.1) because the information for one dimension somehow needs to be inferred from the other two dimensions. This typically results in a difference in generalisation (or levels of realism) between the x and y dimensions and the z dimension. According to Heim (1998) and MacEachren et al. (1999), information intensity is about the level of detail with which objects are represented in geo-visualisations. An example of this is shown in Figure 6.3. In general, the information intensity in geo-visualisations is influenced by three main aspects: the software, the geo-data and the person that constructs the geo-visualisations. First, the software package that is used partly determines the level of detail with which a landscape, including its objects, can be presented. Second, the number, quality, extent and/or resolution of the geo-datasets used is important. Third, as Appleton and Lovett (2005) argue, the role of the person that constructs the geo-visualisations is Real world 3D

1b

Geo-data

Geo-visualisation 2a

1a

2D

1b

3D

2b 2c 2d

Computer display

2D

3a

3D

3b

2D

Perception

4a

2D

4b

3D

transformation production flow

Figure 6.2. Relation between transformations, ‘I’ factors and usability.

92 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

Figure 6.3. Five levels of detail.

important, especially the way this person performs their task (knowledge, skills, experience, etc.). As mentioned before, several geo-visualisations, such as 2D maps and 3D scenes, can be built from the same geo-datasets. In the case of spatial planning it is all about transitions of land uses and landscapes, and the underlying geo-data are the results of process model runs and manually constructed editions of the data. Intelligence depends on the captured knowledge about the behaviour or adaptive sensitivity of the various phenomena and the way this will be represented by objects in a geo-data model. The intelligence of objects refers to the extent to which phenomena in the environment have a certain behaviour that can be characterised as ‘intelligence’ (MacEachren et al., 1999). Some geo-visualisations provide users with the opportunity to select and manipulate the position or appearance of objects, therefore enabling them to feed back their opinions on proposed transitions or propose alternative transitions (Batty et al., 1998; Verbree et al., 1999). Often behavioural knowledge is not part of the geo-data itself, but is added to it by connecting process models. Various connections to external process models have been experimented with, for example the implementation of game engines (see for example Louwsma et al., 2006). For spatial planning purposes, intelligence could support the focus on transitions and public feedback on these transitions. Interactivity is determined mainly by the geo-visualisations and to a lesser extent by the display that is used. In general there are no differences in interaction between 2D and 3D geo-visualisations, except that the interactions are linked to the number of dimensions. Geo-visualisations can support interaction in the virtual environment and of the virtual environment, on individual and group levels (van Lammeren and Hoogerwerf, 2003). Interacting in the environment can be subdivided into several classes of interaction (Groetelaars, 2002; Schneiderman, 1998; Wachowicz et al., 2002): orientation, movement, navigation, manipulation, explanation and elaboration (Figure 6.4). The first four interaction classes deal with the geometric domain of geo-visualisations; the last three interact with the thematic domain (van Lammeren and Hoogerwerf, 2003). Interaction of the environment means that the user is able to define the viewer settings to influence the way the environment is experienced by the user. From a technical point of view, interaction Imaging the future 

93

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

Figure 6.4. Examples of interaction. Top left: East Poland by Terraview; top right: Texel by Cortona; bottom left: Groningen by Virtools; bottom right: Boston by Google Earth.

restricts the information intensity in geo-visualisations. Rendering a 3D scene with high information intensity requires a fast computer and results in long downloading times when distributed via the internet. Immersion is often described as the sensation of ‘being in’ a virtual environment (MacEachren et al., 1999). Witmer and Singer (1998) more precisely define immersion as ‘a psychological state characterised by perceiving oneself to be enveloped by, included in, and in interaction with an environment that provides a continuous stream of stimuli and experiences’. On the one hand it is pointed out in the literature that immersion would make conditions more similar to those we can see in the real world, which would increase the validity and effectiveness of geo-visualisations (Bishop and Dave, 2001; Slocum et al., 2001). On the other hand, Slocum et al. (2001) also mention that ‘cartography is successful, precisely because the world is too complex to take in at once – we need abstraction and separation between representation and ourselves to help us make sense out of it’. Realistic geo-visualisations, with high information intensity, can increase the immersive experience of users in the 3D scene and therefore the effectiveness of geo-visualisations in the planning process. However, care should be taken to include only the most usable information intensity in the geo-visualisation with respect to the specified goal of the geo-visualisation. Discussions on immersion lead on to the options for augmented and virtual reality. Nothelfer (2002) clearly explained that we have many options in this range of immersion types (Figure 6.5).

94 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

Mixed reality (MR)

Real environment

Augmented reality (AR)

Look at the world.

Repeat, but wearing a head mounded display.

Virtual environment

Explore your digital 3-D model in a CAVE.

Figure 6.5. The reality–virtuality continuum (Nothelfer, 2002). Reality-Virtuality (RV) Continuum

6.5. Visual thinking and visual communication Perception and understanding All choices implied by the four factors of producing geo-visualisations via the ‘transformation chain’ will influence the user’s perception of a geo-visualisation. Perception will also influence actor behaviour, but there is as yet little scientific evidence available to support this proposition. This section, therefore, concentrates on some cognitive aspects, such as perception, understanding and communication. Perception and understanding are processes that largely take place at the individual level, or in the ‘private realm’ as DiBiase (1990) puts it, and are sometimes referred to as ‘visual thinking’; communication typically takes place in the ‘public realm’ and is referred to as ‘visual communication’. Perception and understanding are two related terms. Perception refers to the process of acquiring, interpreting and processing sensory information. It can be described as a sensation (experienced through vision, hearing, smelling, and haptic feedback) which is interpreted by an individual. Spatial cognition is the discipline that focuses on issues related to the perception and understanding of spatial environments (Slocum et al., 2001; Lloyd, 1997). Understanding arises, at least from an operational point of view, when a perceiver relates the perceived to a mental model; in other words, the perceived stimuli will become a meaning. This implies that the understanding of identical geo-visualisations may differ between users, not only because users develop different perceptions of the things they observe, but also because they relate them to different mental models or even mental maps (Lynch, 1960).

Imaging the future 

95

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

A general hypothesis, however, is that geo-visualisation, and especially immersive, interactive 3D visualisations, enable users to form a common perception and understanding of a spatial environment more easily – under the assumption that when a user interacts naturally, using immediate understandable metaphors, the learning pace is quickened and communication is facilitated. The user pays more attention to the information and scenario creation than to the tool itself. Further research is needed to clearly understand how spatial information is represented and recalled and how new knowledge and associations are derived. Until now the research and development interest has focused too much on the technology, whereas research on the user side, such as spatial cognition and perception, is rather rare (Bishop and Rohrmann, 2003). User-oriented requirements On the user side of geo-visualisation, preliminary conditions have been defined for the effectiveness (i.e. impact on perception and understanding) and ethics of geovisualisation. Sheppard (2001, 2005) mentions that geo-visualisation needs to be able to convey understanding of a proposed project, demonstrate credibility and avoid bias in representation of the proposed project. To accomplish these objectives Sheppard requires that geo-visualisations are: • accurate: they should simulate the actual or expected appearance of a landscape; • representative: they should contain the most important characteristic of a landscape; • comprehensive: they should communicate the details, components and overall content of the landscape; • interesting: they should engage and hold the interest of the audience; • legitimate: they should be defensible, including legally. Figure 6.3 shows the assumed relations between transformations, ‘I’ factors and Sheppard’s user requirements. We now discuss how these requirements are related to the production factors. Accuracy of geo-visualisation strongly depends on the selection of appropriate geodata sources. 3D data structures are especially sparse. Many of the 3D geo-visualisations used for spatial planning are based on 2D structures, the height being deduced from a thematic property of the objects in the datasets (for example height of the terrain or buildings). Another common technique is to infer height information from nominal data such as descriptions of buildings, types of forest, etc. Besides geometric accuracy, there is also the thematic accuracy of 3D geo-visualisations to consider. The tradition of 2D cartography contains well defined notions on how to use graphic symbols and attributes to create classified, abstracted and simplified representations of the real world (Bertin, 1981). Most users are aware of these characteristics of 2D cartographic representation. 3D representation, on the other hand, offers extra ‘cartographic degrees of freedom’ (Wood et al., 2005) which might suggest to users that the levels of realism and detail are higher than in 2D representations (Figure 6.6). The increasing level of detail of the photographic images in Figure 6.6 could immediately be perceived as a greater degree of accuracy, but this is not the case at all. 96 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

Figure 6.6. Increasing graphical details based on the same geo-dataset: (a) abstract; (b) semirealistic; (c) realistic – Groningen Lake City (Hoogerwerf et al., 2005a).

The representativeness of geo-visualisation is mainly related to information intensity and object behaviour. Sheppard defines representativeness as the presence of the most important characteristics. The exact nature of these characteristics depends on the purpose and the users of a particular geo-visualisation (Lange, 2001). Photographic images, for example image c in Figure 6.6, often provide too many details for users like landscape designers, who often use sketches that only show the elementary issues (Al-Kodmany, 2001). On the other hand, high levels of detail are most likely to enable members of the public to understand and communicate spatial issues concerning their own environment (see also Chapter 8). But although modern visualisation platforms permit the creation of extremely realistic visualisations, a lack of detailed geo-data is often compensated for by including photorealistic pictures or detailed 3D objects – which opens up the way for biased representations (Appleton and Lovett, 2003; Sheppard, 2001). Another aspect is that not all visualised elements need to have the same level of detail. Appleton and Lovett (2003) and Ervin (2001) state that different object types require a different level of realism. They also describe the effect distance should have on the sharpness of the visualisation. It seems, however, that such distinctions in realism and sharpness between, for example, vegetation, landscape structures and water should not be exaggerated (Lange, 2001). Carver (2003) elaborates on this and states that the level of realism may vary per object: ‘people primarily attend to task related objects and the authors postulate that such objects can often be identified in advance. … They show experimentally that it is possible to render scene objects not related to the task at lower resolutions without the viewer noticing any reduction in quality’. This means that objects that are more distant, or not related to the respondents’ task, may be of lower quality, or even contain errors, and respondents will not notice them. Previous studies have shown that people also require different levels of realism in different stages of the planning process (Al-Kodmany, 1999). Preliminary PSPE studies (Hoogerwerf, 2003; Bloemmen et al., 2005) have shown that a low level of realism could be used in certain stages. A higher level of realism was preferred in the final planning stage, the presentation phase (see also Chapter 5), when visual comparison of a Imaging the future 

97

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

before and after situation is most often used. Immersion and intelligence may also be relevant for representativeness because a higher level of detail and dynamics of the visualisation may help in getting stakeholder groups involved. Comprehensibility has a close relation with interactivity, immersion and intelligence. Interactivity refers to querying and manipulation of geo-visualisation. Querying is the retrieval of information about the visualised objects by a user. This can be information about single or multiple objects, such as descriptive information or information about the current viewpoint, for example the current scale, location, direction of view, etc. Manipulation is the use of the tools available for altering the position and angle of view (for example zooming and panning and, in 3D visualisation, flying, walking, tilting, rolling, etc.) and the tools for manipulating objects in the geo-visualisation (encompassing mutations in the location, geometry and topology of objects). Appropriate manipulation methods help users to explore and modify a geo-visualisation. Immersion refers to the user’s willingness to be part of an environment. The degree of immersion that can be realised depends to a large extent on the type of output device. It is difficult to experience immersion using a 2D display, for example a monitor (Bishop et al., 2001), as the output medium is by definition considered as an auxiliary to the viewer. However not all scholars agree with this conclusion. Robertson et al. (1997), for example, state that it is possible to be deeply involved in a computer game, movie or television soap. Seldom do these have more than one screen. It appears that other factors besides the number of screens influence the immersion of respondents. ‘Fluency’ (Reber et al., 2004) is probably one of the factors that influence the level of immersion. It might explain why people can become immersed in a book. Modern virtual reality (VR) environments, such as Head-mounted displays (HMDs) or larger installations such as panoramas or CAVEs, make it much easier for users to experience the sensation of being part of the environment. Knowledge of what is behind, in front, below or above is easily obtained as it is conceived to be directly related to the position of the observer (i.e. the user). A geo-visualisation should also be interesting for the user because it is accessible and attractive. Accessibility is a property of the usability of the interface hosting the geo-visualisation. Traditional GIS and VR interfaces often require knowledge and skills which cannot be expected to be common currency. Defining interface concepts and designs that allow all types of stakeholders to be engaged in e-interaction and effectively use geo-visualisation still presents a challenge. Concepts from the fields of gaming and film may be useful for creating interesting geo-visualisations. A second aspect is the access to geo-visualisation itself, or the effort a user has to make to use the geo-visualisation. The increasing access to broadband internet connection enables potentially growing numbers of citizens to participate in einteraction (see Chapter 11).

98 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

Finally, the legitimacy of geo-visualisation has three aspects. First, the visualised information must be appropriate and sufficient to the stage of the planning process currently under consideration. Second, it should also include the common and necessary information needed by the user. Third, it should provide genuine knowledge to users and not confuse them or contain propaganda (Monmonier, 1996). 6.6. Interfaces for geo-visualisations Interfaces play a key role in the perception of displayed images (2D) or scenes (3D). In these environments simple manipulations, for example starting and ending the display and pan and zoom functions, can be coupled with interactive tools. Figure 6.7 shows some examples of such interfaces. Both a physical and a graphical interface are required to enable users to establish an einteraction through geo-visualisation. In the end, the possibilities of the interface determine the possible levels of detail, accessibility, possible immersion and communication modes, and therefore the potential application in participatory spatial planning. During the last ten

Figure 6.7. Examples of geo-visualisation interfaces. Top left: non-immersive screen; top right: workbench; bottom left: CAVE; bottom right: ImmersaDesk, both developed by Electronic Visualisation Laboratory Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Illinois, Chicago (Laurini, 2001).

Imaging the future 

99

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

years many new forms of human–computer interaction have been devised to facilitate and stimulate public participation. At present we have examples of immersive systems and nonimmersive environments, which are typical interfaces for virtual reality (Camara, 2005). The possible levels of interactivity and immersion strongly depend on the interface offered to users. Geo-visualisation interfaces are seen as a window onto a virtual reality, such as a 3D viewer, as mentioned in the previous section. Yun et al. (2004) pay much attention to this issue and to the importance of including human cognition factors in the design process. They define several points that require consideration: • concision: tools and menus should offer users choices about viewing options and allow them to adjust the viewing settings to suit their personal preferences; • colour harmony: harmonic colours should be used to make interfaces look good and avoid user distraction; • display space: the area of the viewer devoted to displaying important information should be used effectively; • visual information: visual attention and visual search law should be used to focus the user’s attention on moving objects by using contrast or changing colours (see also Milosz, 2006). Non-immersive interfaces are all types of virtual reality on a desktop screen, media walls, multimedia kiosks, interactive billboards and tables (Figure 6.7). A good example is the workbench system, a non-immersive system that uses a projection on a table surface for tracked interaction with 3D scenes. Since the view is non-immersive, participants share a collaborative working space and can pool their information to form a collective knowledge base. The virtual workbench runs with single or two-handed interaction and in stereoscopic mode so that objects appear to project out of the display surface. The immersive interfaces link these options to a three-dimensional experience by triggering the human parallax. An example of an immersive interface is a CAVE system (Figure 6.7), which gives the user the sensation of being really present in a virtual world. This world is created by projecting images onto three walls (front, left and right) and onto the ground. Users must have head-mounted displays (HMD) to experience the 3D world. Several users can be present in the virtual world at the same time to create a collaborative working space. The ImmersaDesk and Infinity Wall use the same immersive concept as a CAVE. 6.7. E-interaction communication protocols Communication plays an important role in participatory spatial planning (see Chapter 2). To put it simply: the message to be sent should be received as intended. Even in daily life it is hard to find out if a message is received and understood as it is meant. A well-known example is the telegram game in which a child starts the game by whispering a sentence in the ear of the child on his or her left. This child repeats the whispering procedure, which 100 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

continues around the ring until the first child receives the message again. Comparing the original and final sentence is guaranteed to generate considerable mirth as the original message has usually completely changed. This game illustrates different communication protocols (Rinner, 2001; Pleizier et al., 2004): first, the whispering stage represents one-toone communication (1:1); second, one-to-many communication (1:N) when the child that starts the game compares the first and last sentences; third, many-to-many communication (M:N) when the result and the intermediate changes are discussed by the group. There are just two conditions related to this game: the children are in the same location (SL) and play at the same time (ST). The first mode of communication represents interpersonal communication between two participants. Traditional models of communication, like those of Shannon (1948) and Adler (1997), use a transport metaphor of interpersonal communication to describe this process in terms of a sender that encodes a message and sends it through a channel. At the other end of the channel a receiver receives the message and decodes the message. Noise can be introduced along the route from sender to receiver. It is obvious that encoding and decoding can easily lead to misinterpretation of messages and, consequently, to misunderstandings between sender and receiver. In bidirectional communication there is a feedback from receiver to sender, which is the inverse version of the process described above. In response to this feedback, the sender can adapt the message, the encoding or the channel that is used to transmit the message. The models of Shannon and Adler are not necessarily designed for 1:N and M:N communication. 1:N communication involves broadcasting messages from one sender to many receivers using mass communication channels like the internet. Often the transactional feedback is limited during 1:N communication. M:N communication involves various messages from several senders, received by various receivers often using different channels. The M:N mode of communication predominates in participatory spatial planning. Participants often communicate and negotiate their spatial preferences simultaneously, alternating between sender and receiver. Sheppard repeats the communication problems identified previously by Shannon. He points out the technical problems (how accurately can a message be transmitted), semantic problems (how precisely is the meaning ‘conveyed’) and usability problems (how effectively does the received meaning affect behaviour). We realise that the models presented are highly simplified representations of reality, especially the descriptions of 1:N and M:N communication. However, for the purpose of classifying and evaluating various geo-visualisation interfaces, they provide a suitable instrumental framework. The fact that e-interaction is highly dependent on digital interfaces means that communication technology is interwoven with the interface technology, offering opportunities to communicate in a space-time matrix (MacEachren, 2005). The communication protocol between the players of the telegram game is bound to the same place and time slot (SP/ Imaging the future 

101

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

ST). Communication technology offers new options in this space-time matrix, such as the same place but no particular time slot (SP/DT) offered by multimedia kiosks. Protocols based on the communicators being in different locations exist too. Video conferencing and chat rooms are examples of the different location but same time (DP/ST) option; email, text messaging (sms) and multimedia messaging (mms) show the power of different places and different time concepts (DP/DT). These technology-based extensions of the communication protocol introduce new challenges for participative communication. We have integrated these three protocol items in the e-interaction communication protocol cube (ECP cube, see Figure 6.8), which offers a framework for defining the communication protocol via communication modes, space and time protocols. In the ECP cube we divide the place-time components in an immersive and a nonimmersive half (inside the blue dashed lines of Figure 6.8). In the ST/SP protocol a myriad of geo-visualisation interfaces show up. Non-immersive (NI) communication for plenary presentations is one of the most common applications, like the landscape viewer used in the Barreiro and Groningen Lake City case studies (see Chapters 7 and 9) to present geovisualisations to large groups. The geo-groupware systems offer another example: N:M interfaces to support collaborative working environments for the design of spatial plans, like MapTalk (Vullings et al., 2004). There are no real geo-visualisation interfaces available yet for a DP/ST communication protocol, although there are means available to organise videoconferencing or chat sessions, even with MSN Messenger, that could share a geovisualisation application (e.g. [url 3]). For the more immersive approaches, the development of virtual worlds such as those of Second Life ([url 4]) may open new prospects for DP/ST Communication mode M:N

immersive

1:N

1:1

Time protocol not

not Location protocol

not

not (DT)

(DP)

(SP)

(ST)

Figure 6.8. E-interaction communication protocol cube.

102 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

communication protocols. Interfaces that support SP/DT protocols are rare. Information desks or multimedia kiosks can now sometimes be found in or outside town halls or in public areas of new developments. These devices could give citizens a convenient opportunity to discover and comment on the plans and new developments in their region, although the significance of such facilities is not always appreciated by passers by. Interfaces that support DP/DT protocols are well-known from email and posting applications, and many authors offer more examples and elaborative descriptions of various geo-visualisation interfaces within the space-time matrix of communication protocols (Sarjakoski, 1998; Sancar, 1993; Kingston et al., 2000; Webler et al., 2001; Haklay and Tobon, 2003; Walsh and Pawlowski, 2004; Ottens, 2004). 6.8. Preliminary insights and guidelines This chapter explains the idea of e-interaction driven by geo-visualisation. The richness of options for developing geo-visualisation-based interfaces embedded in a chain of transformations is enormous. However, the scientific debate has not yet produced a guideline or recipe for participative spatial planning that integrates the producer’s technology-driven options with the user’s cognitive demands. The technology-driven push side of the equation will still influence all links in the transformation chain, improving the basic geo-data layer, the options to visualise these, the display and interface technology, and the space-time matrix of communication protocols. All of these will finally have an impact on the perception of processes and plans for areas in transition. We appear to be just at the beginning of such a process. Ongoing experiences and further research are needed to bridge the gap that still exists between e-interaction design and the understanding and perception of planning participants. For instance, Robinson (2005) underlines a lack of awareness that geo-visualisation tools are applicable in certain decisionmaking situations. An important issue is raised by Yun et al. (2004), who state that geovisualisations are not yet designed in such a way that they can serve and support public involvement. The need for research on the interpretation possibilities of geo-visualisations, as expressed by researchers like Lovett et al. (2002), Slocum et al. (2001) and Bishop (2005), highlights the absence of the perceptual and societal aspects in research. The ability to learn from a geo-visualisation appears to be more important than its technological excellence (Castro and McNaughton, 2003), which presents a challenge to the usability of a geovisualisation. Andrienko et al. (2003) stress that usability is not only connected with the visualised geo-data, but has a wider context related to the specification of the task to be performed and the problem to be solved by the users. The cultural and personal differences in interpreting and understanding visualisations also deserves more attention when considering the use of geo-visualisations (Fuhrmann et al, 2005; see also Chapter 2). Each of the PSPE case studies runs into these important aspects of the production and use of geo-visualisations. Although a myriad of sophisticated approaches have been designed and Imaging the future 

103

Ron van Lammeren, Arend Ligtenberg, João Serpa, Joana Abreu and Irene Plezier

enhanced with innovative interfaces, as presented in Section 6.6, there is still a reluctance to use these tools. Various possible reasons for this were observed in the PSPE project. First, an important reason is still the high dependency on highly skilled technicians for the production of a geo-visualisation. The transformation from the (mostly) 2D datasets to 3D representations remains a particularly complicated thing to do for a planner or policy-maker. Second, there is the amount of work that still needs to be done to create geo-visualisations that meet the requirements of the users and fulfil the criteria specified by Sheppard (2001). Creating interesting geo-visualisations that offer an accurate and legitimate view on the proposed future of areas in transition still requires the involvement of multidisciplinary teams. Although the introduction of platforms like Google Earth and accompanying tools such as Sketchup make it easier to create 3D geo-visualisations, the process is still timeconsuming. In current planning processes 3D visualisations often are considered as add-ons to the more conventional methods of communicating spatial plans (sketches, maps, etc.); advanced geo-visualisations require more effort and thus more budget. In the case studies the information intensity carried by geo-data and the transformations into geo-visualisation varied greatly. Besides real 3D scenes, more traditional cartographic visualisations were also developed and used, and the combination of aerial pictures draped over elevation data was used in all case studies. In all the cases, tools were available to comment on the geo-visualised area in transition, ranging from pointing at a location to trigger taped spoken messages about that location (see Chapter 7) to pointing at a location to trigger a ‘send a card’ option (see Chapter 10). None of the PSPE case studies developed a full set of visualisation criteria and conditions for information intensity, intelligence, immersion and interaction. Also, Sheppard’s criteria were not explicitly used in any of the case studies. Figure 6.9 positions each of the cases studies in the ECP cube. Two cases, Barreiro (B) and Groningen Lake City (M), worked with an immersive system in one-to-one and one-tomany communication modes in a same place/same time setting. Zondereigen (Z) and Vistula River Valley (V) developed a web-based interface with a one-to-many communication protocol for a different place/different time approach. We can conclude that e-interaction is still in its infancy. We expect, however, that interfaces like Google Earth and Second Life will make government authorities and citizens more responsive to its potential. The public will get used to 3D representations and will expect such visualisations in spatial planning processes. People will start demanding modern and accessible e-interaction interfaces that will eventually meet criteria for visualisation ethics (Sheppard, 2005), participation levels and the latest results of scientific research in this multidisciplinary domain.

104 

Imaging the future



6. Geo-visualisation – The e-interaction factor in spatial planning

Communication mode M:N

V Z

immersive

1:N

B M

1:1

B M B Location protocol

not

not (DT)

Time protocol not

not

(DP)

(SP)

(ST)

Figure 6.9. PSPE case studies positioned in the ECP cube. B: Barreiro; M: Groningen Lake City; V: Vistula; Z: Zondereigen.

Imaging the future 

105

7. Getting involved in spatial planning issues – A virtual flight over the city of Barreiro Nuno Banza and Susana Camacho 7.1. Introduction Motivation, involvement, innovation and teamwork were the essential ingredients that made this project an important achievement. The aim of the project was to raise awareness about spatial planning issues in the municipality of Barreiro using innovative geo-visualisation tools. From the beginning we realised that to be successful we would also have to change people’s participative behaviour. We decided that the easiest and perhaps most promising way to approach the community and stimulate these changes was to involve schoolchildren and young people from 10 to 18 years old. This group is generally enthusiastic about using computer-based tools and is used to working with computers. We also intended to get other people involved in spatial planning decisions, and for that we developed different approaches. Moreover, we introduced some organisational changes within the municipal authority. Barreiro is an urban municipality within the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, covering approximately 32 km2 and with about 79,000 inhabitants (Figure 7.1). Since the 19th century, Barreiro has experienced massive industrial growth and has acquired some peculiar spatial characteristics, with urban and peri-urban countryside environments. The Quimiparque industrial park in Barreiro was established in the early 1900s and was the most important site for heavy chemical industry in the country for almost 100 years. Unfortunately, disinvestment

Figure 7.1. Geographic location of Barreiro Municipality.

Imaging the future 

107

Nuno Banza and Susana Camacho

following nationalisation has made it largely obsolete, bringing high unemployment and sweeping social and cultural changes. Today a large part of the industrial park, almost 400 ha in size, lies abandoned and major changes are needed to permit reuse of the park. The municipality of Barreiro therefore contains different areas with very different characteristics, some the target of various planning interventions. To back up this redevelopment and regeneration effort, the municipal authority is also updating Barreiro’s local land use plan. The planning procedures include mandatory public participation based on a formal process of citizen consultation in which citizens may view the plans and raise objections. Faced with the planning problem of Quimiparque, Barreiro municipal authority decided to become involved in the PSPE project via the New University of Lisbon. It must be noted that at that time the public authorities had no experience with public participation or were not aware of its importance and the opportunities it presents for improving local planning. 7.2. Doing things better In Portugal public participation has been hampered by the centralised political system and the concentration of decision-making powers at national level, but some public participation procedures have been introduced in recent years, essentially because of the introduction of the environmental impact assessment of spatial planning proposals (Partidário, 1999). Governments now recognise that policy-making and the planning of public spaces can be improved through a participatory approach. Knowledge and information exchange are important means to achieve this. Public participation in political decision-making processes is still in its infancy and neither the authorities nor the public are used to it yet. Nevertheless, the national government is making efforts to promote public participation in local planning issues. In pursuing these efforts Barreiro municipality is now engaged in the Local Agenda 21 process and is trying to introduce public consultation and involvement through a range of traditional and more innovative techniques of participation. The local authority realises that establishing partnerships with other organisations and interest groups with a stake in sustainable development is the right way to break down barriers of distrust and conflicts of interest. But which are the best techniques, and how can the municipal authority nurture better understanding between actors of each other’s problems and promote joint ownership of the solutions? At first, the authority acknowledged that the complexity of the spatial issues involved made it essential to improve communication and listen to what citizens have to say. Until now the lack of an adequate communication infrastructure has led to huge delays in planning processes, while the inclusion of formal consultation procedures at a late stage in the process has only encouraged resistance to proposed plans. Many of these delays could probably be 108 

Imaging the future



7. G  etting involved in spatial planning issues

prevented if citizens are involved at an earlier stage. The national environmental impact assessment legislation, which requires public participation for projects that may have impacts on the environment, has introduced changes in decision-making processes, but these are limited to formal consultation and therefore not very effective. So how can the municipal authority stimulate and facilitate citizen participation in spatial planning decision-making? Today, when a municipality updates its land use plan, public consultation is required by law. Organising public sessions, questionnaires and such like, which usually take place in the later stages of decision-making processes, are the most commonly used techniques. But these are not the best ways to involve citizens and consequently use their knowledge. Barreiro municipal authority tried to take a proactive approach to the lack of public participation, as reported by Luísa Schmidt in an article in the national paper Expresso (Schmidt, 2005). To show that deliberate and constructive changes could be made to the way things are done, the authority decided to participate in the PSPE project. An additional argument was that the revision of the local land use plan would benefit from the experience to be gathered within the PSPE network. 7.3. An innovative tool for citizen participation A central goal of the Barreiro case study project was to improve the information exchange between the community and the municipal authority with the aim of providing a wide and balanced spectrum of news, data and public issues. This might help citizens to form an opinion about spatial issues, make choices and reach a consensus about important matters. The goal was to be achieved in three steps. The first step was to develop a tool for visualising future projects in a realistic way and, at the same time, allow for the discussion of ideas, political intentions and plans for the redevelopment of public places. The second was to use and test the participatory planning infrastructure by implementing it in an actual case study. Finally, the evaluation of the entire infrastructure and the case study in the last step was designed to improve participation practices and support knowledge dissemination. The aim of exploring this new form of local democratic participation was to give value to the opinions of the citizens and allow their involvement in the decision making process. At the beginning of the project, the project group prepared a day-by-day action plan for accomplishing the overall goal and distributed it to the authority’s local partners: YDreams, an ICT company specialised in developing innovative communication tools, and two universities, the Professional School of Education for Development and the New University of Lisbon. Two undergraduate students from the former university and a PhD student from the latter university were involved in the project.

Imaging the future 

109

Nuno Banza and Susana Camacho

Development of the Virtual Flight Over the last few years, Portugal has witnessed a growing use of computer-based simulations of future spatial developments. They facilitate the visualisation of changes in the landscape and are therefore seen as valuable tools for supporting environmental decision-making processes and citizen participation. With this aim in mind, Ydreams and the municipality of Barreiro developed a visual tool that makes use of new technologies: the Virtual Flight over the City of Barreiro. This tool also includes images of improvement areas in the national Polis urban renewal programme. The Virtual Flight is an innovative tool that shows a virtual model of the municipality. It includes some possibilities for users to interact with the virtual environment by surfing over an orthophotomap as if they were flying over the town (Figure 7.2). Including distinct geo-spatial specifications, the Virtual Flight allows users to zoom in to see the selected areas in detail and leave their opinion in the form of a geo-referenced spoken message using a microphone. Later these messages were listened to and interpreted to provide input into planning processes, either to solve specific problems or introduce new ideas for municipal policy. The users could also see images of the planned improvements to some of the sites included in the Polis programme, such as Verderena and Santo André (Figure 7.3). The tool was presented in the form of a ‘kiosk’, a portable device with a screen, a keyboard and a joystick which gives users the opportunity to freely navigate in space, increase and reduce speed and interact with a wide variety of objects associated through geographic references.

Figure 7.2. Virtual Flight environment based on the orthophotomap of Barreiro.

110 

Imaging the future



7. G  etting involved in spatial planning issues

Figure 7.3. Virtual image of sites included in the Polis urban renewal programme.

The Virtual Flight presented in public The Virtual Flight over the City of Barreiro was inaugurated in December 2004. The tool was used in a public session on the municipal environmental plan Greenways and Ecological Structure. From April to July 2005 the two students from the Environmental Management technical course publicly demonstrated the use of the Virtual Flight and collected comments about some urban renewal interventions in specific locations. During this period the Virtual Flight was available for use near the market, the municipal park (during the Annual Pedagogic Fair) and in the Forum Shopping Centre. In August 2005 the Virtual Flight was available for public participation during local festivities (Figure 7.4). From October to December 2005 the municipal authority introduced the tool in schools to increase young people’s awareness of the development of their own city and to encourage their participation in civic issues. The sessions with the children started with an explanation of Barreiro’s involvement in the PSPE project. Then the school’s location was shown on the virtual map, as well as some future spatial plans. Finally, the children were invited to experiment with the Virtual Flight. They were asked to give and record suggestions about the future plans or about their own living environment. The intention was to present a more attractive and innovative way to get them involved in urban planning. The ideas generated in the sessions were then studied and the municipal authority made an attempt to include these in local policy strategies. The Virtual Flight was first presented in six elementary schools to 1,290 schoolchildren. Then the kiosk was improved to upgrade Imaging the future 

111

Nuno Banza and Susana Camacho

Figure 7.4. The kiosk at local festivities in August 2005.

some functions and components (Figure 7.5). During the next period, from February to April 2006, presentations of the Virtual Flight were given to 878 children in five secondary schools (Figure 7.6).

Figure 7.5. First Virtual Flight kiosk (left) and the new kiosk with a fashionable look (right).

112 

Imaging the future



7. G  etting involved in spatial planning issues

Figure 7.6. Presentation of the Virtual Flight in schools.

Reactions and interpretations Many people’s first reaction to the Virtual Flight was to look for their own house, school or workplace. Young people (from 10 to 18 years old) were successfully involved and exhibited great interest in using the tool. During the presentations of the tool we also noticed that elderly people could easily understand the proposals, but had some difficulties using the computer-based tool. Many children’s comments focused on the situation of their school and its surroundings, for example classrooms without equipment, sports gymnasium without basic materials, walls and roofs in terrible conditions. Some children mentioned the lack of safety in the area around their school, such as poor lighting between home and school, bad road access, missing traffic signs and the need for pedestrian crossings. The need for green spaces and the dilapidated roads and pavements in the neighbourhood were often mentioned. When asked for suggestions on how to make Barreiro a better place to live in, people mentioned building

Imaging the future 

113

Nuno Banza and Susana Camacho

a new municipal swimming pool, a cultural forum for concerts, upgrading sports areas and the establishment of a good municipal library and a multimedia centre. In summary, people’s comments about Barreiro were generally about environmental problems, education, sports, culture and entertainment issues as well as transport, building, tourism, health, social matters and economic development. The last topic was often raised in relation to the Quimiparque area and its future use. Problems encountered and their solutions Some problems were encountered during the presentation of the Virtual Flight in public. Some elderly citizens were restricted in their use of the tool because they lacked experience with computer-based technologies. It was difficult for them to handle the interactive features that the tool offers. We also noticed some difficulties in understanding and recognising objects when people were ‘flying’ over the orthophotomap, as well as some initial reticence when people were invited to make suggestions. To solve these problems we decided always to have a staff member available near the kiosk to help people to use the Virtual Flight, give details about the project and encourage their participation. From our first experiences with the kiosk we learned that the tool needed some improvement to facilitate individual use. In the second version of the kiosk we included some basic instructions and gave it an attractive look. The height at which the first microphone was installed and the noise of the ventilator fan for the CPU had been commented upon by users. We replaced the built-in microphone with an external one. Despite the upgrade, there are still some technical problems that have not yet been solved. The Virtual Flight software needs to be improved to show the predefined tracks at a faster speed. The kiosk needs to be adapted for small children and disabled people by making it possible to move the screen up and down. The screen should have some anti-reflex protection and the message button should be made more noticeable. Some wheels have to be added for easier transportation. Finally, the CPU should be easier to access for updating the software and processing the comments left by citizens. Communication and business strategy of the project During the initial meetings with teachers and the presentations of the Virtual Flight we provided some information leaflets explaining the project and its goals. After the sessions all the recorded information was collected on a CD-ROM. A copy was sent to the boards of all the schools where the tool had been presented so that they could use the children’s and teachers’ comments and suggestions to help solve the problems identified in their school and its surroundings.

114 

Imaging the future



7. G  etting involved in spatial planning issues

We published two advertisements about the Virtual Flight in Distrito Online, a regional newspaper, and on its website. There were also some other press releases in the local, regional and national media. We publicised the PSPE project actions on Barreiro’s official website and in the municipal bulletin and cultural agenda, and published an article about the school sessions with the kiosk in the municipality’s environmental bulletin Folha Viva (Nº4, February 2006). In May 2006 the tool was presented at a fair organised by the National Environmental Institution in Oporto on the topic ‘Education. Guarantee the Future’. This fair focused on environmental education and its importance for sustainable development. Future use of the Virtual Flight In future we want to make the tool available to all citizens of Barreiro. One important step towards this goal has been to make the Virtual Flight available via the municipal website (Figure 7.7). The internet version also has the additional feature of allowing users to view information on how their suggestions and comments are being considered by the municipal council. A back office has been established for data management and for dealing with comments, proposals and questions raised from within the municipal organisation. Despite the fact that the tool is already online it is still in the testing phase, but will soon be available for general use.

Figure 7.7. Virtual Flight internet interface on Barreiro’s website.

7.4. Main results and lessons learned With the PSPE case study we achieved three distinct outcomes. The first is that the Virtual Flight proved to be a powerful tool that gave us the opportunity to collect a total of 242 comments related to different areas and spatial issues (Figure 7.8). Imaging the future 

115

Nuno Banza and Susana Camacho

Improvements suggested by citizens' comments 8.26% 0.83% 0.41% 2.07% 1.65% 1.24% 5.37%

25.62%

1.24% 22.31%

Environment Economic developments Sports Education Culture and entertainment Building Patrimony Health Public security Social Transports Tourism

23.55% 7.44%

Figure 7.8. Thematic comments made by citizens via the Virtual Flight kiosk.

The question arising from this was how to reply to the various comments and suggestions. The feedback we would like to give to citizens is strategically sensitive as it involves issues affecting different local authority departments. We were therefore unable to answer all the comments. However, by sending the CD-ROMs to all the boards of the participating schools we gave them an opportunity to use the comments when considering improvement works to the school and its surroundings. To be able to give direct answers to citizens’ comments in future we intend to create an efficient system for finding solutions for spatial issues identified by citizens. It goes without saying that all relevant municipal departments will need to take part in this system. The second outcome was the enthusiasm of the people participating. It is a fact that the tool easily attracts people’s attention and that citizens using it easily become involved in spatial issues. The results show that about 2,200 people, or 2.8% of the population, tried out the Virtual Flight. Although the biggest group involved in this project were from the school community (school children, teachers and other education staff ), we also tried to involve the general public. While we are aware that the group of kiosk users is not a representative sample of Barreiro’s inhabitants, we do think that this experience provides useful pointers for future actions. We could, for example, involve citizens and children in municipal issues in a creative and attractive way, analyse the needs of different groups (particularly young people), raise awareness about spatial problems and ways to solve them, and prove that by expressing their opinion people can influence local authority decisions. This participation would certainly be useful in finding solutions to many problems that occur every day and influence people’s idea of a liveable community.

116 

Imaging the future



7. G  etting involved in spatial planning issues

The final and most important result of the case study was the political support and awareness of citizen participation that has been created through the use of the tool. In 2006, as a result of this political support, a new municipal department, the Department for Participation, Citizenship and Democracy, was established. It started work on a project called Participatory Options, which can be seen as a follow-up of the case study and deals with issues related to citizen participation. 7.5. Conclusions and future actions The project produced positive outcomes. First, the case study raised the interest of many people in the use of new and innovative technologies. It was an appealing and useful approach, linking interaction and geo-visualisation and raising citizens’ awareness of the importance of different aspects of everyday life related to the area where they live, study, work and play. We believe that this approach raised people’s awareness about spatial planning issues, making it easier for them to identify with these issues and giving them the opportunity to actually get involved in solving them. We also think that the tool and the knowledge acquired can be useful to other governments in informing citizens about future spatial developments. It allows them to present and visualise proposals in a realistic way and communicate the potentials, ideas and plans for the development or regeneration of public space. It is important to mention that the case study bolstered citizen participation and the responsibility of citizens and governments, and therefore supported sustainable environmental development. The new Department for Participation, Citizenship and Democracy will continue this work, encouraging citizen participation while remaining open-minded about the useful resources that innovative visualisation tools are. An important task of this department is to find effective ways of giving feedback to comments collected via the kiosk and other tools that may be developed by the department. This will pave the way for future progress with citizen participation in different procedures and local authority activities, which is crucial for a vital democracy. In short, we expect that the Virtual Flight will have an important role in future citizen participation processes. The PSPE project in Barreiro reveals that it is possible to stimulate a participative attitude in the municipality. The use of innovative geo-visualisation tools attracted considerable interest and were particularly effective in encouraging people to become involved.

Imaging the future 

117

8. Usability of 3D geo-visualisation for spatial orientation Malgorzata Milosz, Ron van Lammeren and Tessa Hoogerwerf 8.1. Introduction Spatial planning is shifting towards a more interactive and participatory approach (see for example Geertman 2002; Pleizier et al., 2004; Hofschreuder, 2004). The efficient flow of information, discussion and communication between different groups of stakeholders involved in participatory spatial planning requires new methods and techniques. As some authors have stressed, geo-visualisation also needs to be taken into consideration in participatory spatial planning processes (Bloemmen et al., 2005; Bishop et al., 2005; Krause, 2001). A geo-visualisation can be understood to be a means of making the spatial problems and contexts visible by using visualisation methods and the visual abilities of people (Kwan and Lee, 2004). In our research, geo-visualisation is a visualisation of spatial data to support public participation in the spatial planning process. The type of geo-visualisation we considered is one that makes use of the third dimension (3D geo-visualisation), is computergenerated and is screen displayable. Geo-visualisation tools are currently going through a period of rapid development. Once mostly reserved for experts and specialists, they are now becoming more accessible to the public (Yun et al., 2004). However, a big gap still remains between the design and the functionalities of geo-visualisations and the way geo-visualisations are understood and perceived by target groups (see Chapter 6). Like Lovett et al. (2002) and Slocum et al. (2001), a number of peers have raised the need for research into the usability of geo-visualisations. Perhaps more important than the technological excellence of geo-visualisations is people’s ability to understand and learn from them (Castro and MacNaughton, 2003). This chapter relates people’s understanding of geo-visualisations to spatial orientation, which can be understood as the ability to imagine how an object will appear when viewed from different positions and angles. People need to imagine being in a different location and make a judgment about the situation and the spatial relations (Contreras et al., 2001). Their ability to orientate themselves in 3D geo-visualisations is an important spatial planning issue. Do people really understand what is presented on the screen and do they recognise the area? We present an evaluation of the usability of a 3D geo-visualisation in relation to spatial orientation and illustrate a specific aspect of the debate introduced in Chapter 6: the relation between the production of geo-visualisations and their use. 8.2. Methodology The definition of usability we adopted for our research is the one proposed by the ISO standard, in which the usability of a 3D geo-visualisation is seen as the extent to which it can Imaging the future 

119

Malgorzata Milosz, Ron van Lammeren and Tessa Hoogerwerf

be used by actors in spatial planning processes to achieve specified goals effectively, efficiently and satisfactorily. There are many different methods for evaluating usability, but two main groups can be distinguished: usability inspection and usability testing methods. The main difference between these two groups lies in the level of expertise of the people carrying out the evaluation. In the usability inspection method the evaluation is performed by experts, whereas in the usability testing methods the designed product or system is assessed by end users (Nielsen and Mack, 1994). The usability testing method used in this research took advantage of the opportunity of inviting non-professional people to perform the usability test. Of the various methods available, we chose to hold a questionnaire survey because this method requires less time, equipment and expertise (Holzinger, 2005), and also provides quantifiable results. At least 30 participants are needed for each usability test to obtain reliable results. A web-based questionnaire was developed to test the usability of two specially constructed 3D geo-visualisations. The test was designed to assess performance against three criteria: effectiveness (number of correct answers), efficiency (time required to accomplish the task) and satisfaction (opinions of the respondents). The questions were designed to test the users’ spatial orientation within a 3D geo-visualisation. Spatial orientation is defined as the human ability to imagine how an object will appear from different viewpoints (Contreras et al., 2001). We tested this capacity by using 2D maps in relation to stills and videos of two different 3D geo-visualisations. All these materials covered the same area. Two types of 3D geo-visualisations were built for the test, each showing a part of central Warsaw: one without street names (3DNN) and one with street names (3DSN). These are illustrated in Figure 8.1. A separate questionnaire was compiled for the respondents exposed to the 3DNN and for those who saw the 3DSN. In each 3D visualisation model we made stills from certain locations and videos along certain routes. For each 3D model (3DNN and 3DSN) we asked questions about the relation between a location on a map and the view presented in stills and animations. The users had to select the correct still. We also asked them about the relation between a route on a map and the sequence of views as presented by an animation.

Figure 8.1. 3D geo-visualisation without (3DNN) and with street names (3DSN).

120 

Imaging the future

Wim Boetze and Joost van Uum

9.7. Conclusions and lessons learned The Lake City viewer has made a positive contribution to supporting planning for the area by DLG, which is convinced that 3D and virtual reality will be the way to exchange information in future. The methods that have been developed and their technological components will have to be broadened in scope to make them widely applicable within DLG, both in terms of the technical aspects and the transfer of expertise on the use of these visualisation methods. The viewer has already been used and further developed in other DLG projects, helping to make it a much more interactive and participatory technique than it is now. So far, it has not been possible to enter reactions to plans into the viewer straight away. The time and knowledge of image programming needed to input new or corrected images makes the viewer more of a tool for stimulating discussion and less a of tool for incorporating people’s ideas directly into the total picture. At the moment it is more of a communication tool than a design tool. In practice, the public participation mostly took place in retrospect, after the main decisions had been made. To make the viewer a real participatory technique, the links with geodata and digital drawing programs will have to be improved (particularly regarding speed and picture quality). The viewer, as a manipulable aerial photograph, is no more than a virgin landscape on which new alterations to the appearance and use of the land can be drawn in a clear and representative manner. The viewer could be used in this capacity during earlier stages of planning. Further experiments with the viewer will be needed to make it suitable for these uses, even though it already offers considerable room for creative forms of application. Previous applications (the exhibition symposia, household fairs and questionnaires, and individual and group use in the project office’s information centre) have already demonstrated that this is possible by working well and delivering clear information for plan amendments and new strategies. The viewer makes a noticeable improvement to the value of consciously responding to emotions, where these are partly induced by planning processes. The process should not just be informative but appeal more to the senses, and the viewer shows that the technical and emotional aspects can be successfully used together. To improve the emotive appeal of the viewer, more use will have to be made of music and sounds. Moreover, it should not just be loaded with static plans but should include moving images, especially people, in the visualisation. The viewer should not be the only instrument used in the planning process; hand-drawn illustrations and rough sketches still have a valuable role to play. A combination of old and new forms of presentation would go well together, and by getting the combination right a complete storyline could be produced instead of a series of separate images. The use of real pictures and photocollages can work better than simulated images such as animations. A critical factor here is properly matching the level of accuracy and ‘perfection’ of the images to the various stages in the planning and communication process.

138 

Imaging the future



9. T  ime travel to the future landscape of Groningen Lake City

People navigate through a 3D environment every day of their lives. We therefore expect that a virtual 3D environment, such as the Lake City viewer, could make an effective contribution in the field of spatial planning. Realistic and semi-realistic presentations of plans in combination with a navigation system will permit a more rapid communication of information.

Imaging the future 

139

10. Adoption of innovative tools for public participation by the Flemish land agency Jeroen Jansen, Peter De Graef, Hilde Geskens, Heidi Van Offenwert and Jo Van Valckenborgh 10.1. Participatory spatial planning in Zondereigen The planning context: land consolidation Open space is scarce in Flanders and therefore we need to be careful not to squander it. The planning and restructuring of rural areas is the task of the Flemish Land Agency (FLA). One of the planning instruments used by the FLA is land consolidation, which involves the reallocation and consolidation of agricultural holdings. The prime objective of land consolidation schemes is to rationalise agricultural activities. Farmland is improved and the field layout and infrastructure reorganised to allow farmers to work more efficiently (e.g. by creating more regular and accessible fields, modifying drainage, etc.). Another objective of land consolidation schemes is to create the conditions for the sustainable development of an area in all its facets, integrating agricultural use, landscape development, nature conservation, water management, archaeological heritage and extensive recreation. The land consolidation scheme currently underway in the area around Zondereigen, a small village in the north of the Province of Antwerp bordering the Netherlands (Figure 10.1), was initiated for the broader aim of rural development. From its inception in 1995 the Zondereigen land consolidation project has been a collaborative process in which government institutions, local authorities and focus groups worked together on the masterplan, which has now been approved by the Flemish government. The masterplan sums up the concepts and main aims of the project: nature conservation, water management, improvements to the road network and landscape elements (e.g. planting trees along the roads), safeguarding the archaeological heritage and providing opportunities for extensive recreation. A detailed plan of the specific measures to be taken has not yet been prepared. This plan will take account of the wishes and ideas of the local population. The goal: integration of innovative tools in the planning process Until now, static (paper-based) maps have been used to visualise and communicate the masterplan for Zondereigen. Although innovative tools for presenting spatial information in a dynamic and interactive way are available, the FLA has not yet used these tools in regional or local projects. Over the last few years some Flemish government authorities, mainly local authorities, have been experimenting with online participation (De Bruyne and Broos, 2006). The PSPE approach of using geo-visualisation techniques for participation in spatial planning, however, can be seen as a pilot project in Flanders.

Imaging the future 

141

Jeroen Jansen et al.

Baarle-Hertog

Weelde

Legend

Mobility Nature development Roads Conservation and evironmental care Forests Roads to be abolished Project boundaries Forests to be cleared Water balance Farming land Linear green elements Drainages Meres - ponds Linear green elements to be cleared Drainages to be abolished Green to be maintained

Recreational facilities Walking route Laarzenpad 0

500 1000 meters

Figure 10.1. Location of Zondereigen and the land consolidation plan.

Within the PSPE project, the FLA originally focused on the development of new tools for planning the Zondereigen land consolidation project. The basic idea was to visualise some areas of the masterplan in a user-friendly way and to integrate these visualisations into a website. The website was created to serve as a crossroads or meeting point for people interested in the project. We are aware that the success of a land consolidation plan strongly depends on all stakeholders exchanging views and taking part in the process. Our intention, therefore, was to lower the barriers to participation and encourage the population of Zondereigen to become involved, and consequently to increase their level of participation in the current stage of planning. During the course of the PSPE project, however, the focus of the case study shifted. The central question became how the lessons learned from developing geo-visualisation tools for the Zondereigen land consolidation project could be integrated into the internal organisation and work processes of the Flemish Land Agency. Participation in the PSPE project allowed the FLA as an organisation to (1) explore the added value of adopting new visualisation 142 

Imaging the future

 10. Adoption of innovative tools for public participation by the Flemish land agency

techniques and adapt them to spatial planning, (2) use new methods of communicating with the local population and (3) develop more interactive communication processes. 10.2. A website as a meeting point Why a website? We constructed a project website to make information about the Zondereigen land consolidation project more accessible and to present opportunities for citizens to become involved. There were several reasons for choosing to build a website to achieve these aims. First, the website enables us to combine and interconnect key pieces of information (from different sources, using different approaches and presented via different techniques), new media and visualisation techniques. Second, the website makes participation at the individual level possible, and in people’s own living rooms. It will allow local residents to explore the information available on the website at their own pace. Third, the content management system (CMS) allows us to update the contents presented in the website in a cost-efficient way and with little effort. This is important as the execution of land consolidation plans and other spatial planning projects usually takes years. The final point is that once a website has been built for one project, it will be fairly easy for the FLA to adapt it for use in their other projects. Nevertheless, we must stress that the website is not an end product in itself. It is a suitable way of collecting information and visualising this information using innovative techniques. Presenting information via the internet may encourage participation at the individual level, but to be effective the possibilities the website offers for communication have to be embedded within a broader communication strategy and combined with traditional means of communication. It can, for example be used for non-staffed exhibitions about the project (e.g. in town halls, libraries, schools and community centres) and at public hearings and information evenings. The structure of the website We designed the website (which we named ‘Countryside in motion’ – Platteland in beweging) to be a crossroads, a forum for linking different sources, approaches and techniques for informing people about spatial plans and as a place where different people can meet, with plenty of possibilities for interaction. We provided three ‘gateways’ to the site which provide information from different perspectives (Figure 10.2). The first gateway to the website gives access to the facts and figures (Feiten en cijfers) on the Zondereigen spatial planning project. The second looks at the project from a thematic point of view (Thema’s), going back to the roots of the land consolidation project and presenting the building blocks of the plan: agriculture, nature and landscape, water management, safe commuter traffic, infrastructure for cycling and walking, and archaeological heritage. We provide answers to very simple, basic questions about the plan: what does the land Imaging the future 

143

Jeroen Jansen et al.

Figure 10.2. Three gateways to the website ‘Countryside in motion’.

consolidation plan propose; where, when and especially why? The third gateway focuses on the visual approach (In beeld). The user can explore the spatial plan by means of different geo-visualisation techniques, such as the geo-portal, 3D round trips and a picture library containing video recordings, photos, photo simulations, artists’ impressions and historical maps. Of course, there are no barriers between these three ways of accessing the information. The added value of the website lies in the fact that the facts and figures, the thematic analysis and the visual material on spatial planning are closely interconnected by hundreds of crossreferences linking content to images. Participation offered via the website As a crossroads is a place where not only different roads but also different people meet, the website provides opportunities for interaction between the planning authorities and different stakeholders, such as advisory boards, town councils, farmers and the inhabitants of Zondereigen. The website takes a broad approach to participation, ranging from ‘informing’ to ‘co-deciding’. It is to be noted that these possibilities for participation, especially those on the top of the participation ladder (see Chapter 2), have to fit within clear-cut margins and conditions. It must be clear to all participants why they are being asked to become involved. Encouraging people to participate just for the sake of it, or inviting them to put forward suggestions and ideas without considering these in the decision-making process, will lead to frustration and disappointment. The FLA is going to offer the following possibilities for people to become involved at various levels of participation: • Inform. In order to participate, citizens first of all have to understand the contents and purposes of the spatial plan and grasp the implications it may have for their region, as well as the possibilities offered to them for participation. People can consult a frequently 144 

Imaging the future

 10. Adoption of innovative tools for public participation by the Flemish land agency

asked questions page to find basic information about the project. The FLA has paid special attention to the use of clear language, including forms of presentation that meet the needs of special target groups, such as visually handicapped people and the elderly. • Consult. The website will be used at public enquiries to pre-test the feasibility of proposals and modes of operation. People are usually reticent about participating in public enquiries on spatial plans for a number of reasons. For example, they need to be at the town hall at a certain day and time, and have to view and understand a lot of technical documents and maps. The FLA assumes that using the interactive website as an extra tool at public sessions and as a way for people to make comments online will encourage the public to become involved. • Co-produce. To stimulate people to contribute to the development of their own region we installed a section called In Gesprek (‘Let’s Talk’) on the website (Figure 10.3). This section offers opportunities for interaction by inviting people to make comments and upload and share pictures of spatial issues. The section also contains a digital drawing board. • Co-decide. The process of spatial plan-making leaves some room for people to take part in making decisions on certain local issues, for instance finding solutions for areas with dangerous traffic. Local inhabitants are regarded as ‘hands-on’ experts and empowered to co-decide on different alternatives. In the ‘Let’s Talk’ section visitors to the website can vote on the most suitable mode of operation. Visualisation tools integrated into the website Different tools for visualising changes in the landscape have been integrated into the website: a geo-portal, an interactive 2.5D landscape viewer and photo simulations (before and after images). The geo-portal provides thematic geographical data on the internet. Users are able

Figure 10.3. The ‘Let’s Talk’ page.

Imaging the future 

145

Jeroen Jansen et al.

to visualise up-to-date geographical information and view related attribute data. The FLA had not previously used geo-portals for the visualisation of rural plans for regional planning. However, the Agency for Geographic Information in Flanders (AGIV), which at the time was part of FLA, already had some experience with geo-portals, although for much larger areas. The construction of the geo-portal (Geo-loket, Figure 10.4) demanded a range of skills and was therefore a joint effort by the designer of the website, spatial planners and specialists in ICT, GIS, communication and graphic design. The landscape viewer was based on the ArcGlobe software. In ArcGlobe, aerial photographs can easily be combined with elevation data to provide a 2.5D view of the landscape. There are two ways to fly over the virtual landscape: one with a perpendicular view of the surface, which actually is no more than flying over the aerial picture, and one with a view at an angle of less than 90°, which allows the user to see the horizon and the topography of the landscape. It is possible to determine a certain ‘flight route’ and export it as a movie file. ArcGlobe does not have the functionality to visualise the flight in real time on a larger scale. The website offers a fly-over movie, developed in Macromedia Flash, which shows views of the area as a whole and the possibility to view hotspots (Figure 10.5). The website also contains some more traditional applications of visualisations. The design of some of these applications makes it possible to easily reuse them in other websites. The slideshow presents a sequence of pictures. The before and after application lets the user switch between the original photo showing today’s situation of the landscape and a photo simulation showing the future landscape (Figure 10.6). Another application also shows before and after impressions, but in a 360° panorama image. These three ways of visualising changes in the landscape have been developed with Macromedia Flash. It is planned to develop a tool which adds zoom functionalities to very large pictures.

Figure 10.4. Zondereigen geo-portal.

146 

Imaging the future

 10. Adoption of innovative tools for public participation by the Flemish land agency

Figure 10.5. Landscape viewer.

10.3. Results Participation via the website has not yet been tested Due to delays in the Zondereigen land consolidation project, the website has not been completed, field-tested or put online. When the decision was made to use the Zondereigen project as the case study of the Flemish PSPE partners, the land consolidation plan enjoyed both political and public support. But since then the farmers in the region have been confronted with the implementation of the European Birds and Habitat Directives, which may have a serious impact on their farming methods. The implications of these directives have not yet been translated to the detailed level of the individual farms, and while the full legal implications remain uncertain political and public support for the land consolidation plan has dwindled. Naturally, this has had implications for FLA’s external communication about the PSPE project. To assess these implications, we consulted the town council, the local farmers’ organisation and cultural history societies. Even though they clearly understood the potential and the added value of using the website for the land consolidation project, they unanimously suggested that it would not be advisable to carry out any information or participation exercises for the moment. Settling the problem of legal insecurity understandably has top priority. The FLA and the AGIV complied with this advice and focused on internal dissemination. The development of the website created a spin-off Despite of the problems encountered in Zondereigen, we were able to incorporate the approach underlying the website as well as the new geo-visualisation techniques into our organisation’s working processes. The concept of the project-oriented website will be used as an example for communication on other FLA spatial planning projects and will be integrated into FLA’s new coordinating umbrella website. In December 2006 the FLA established a new ‘PSPE advisory board’, which has started integrating geo-visualisation in Imaging the future 

147

Jeroen Jansen et al.

Figure 10.6. Transformation from present to future landscape.

148 

Imaging the future

 10. Adoption of innovative tools for public participation by the Flemish land agency

a structural way into the FLA’s activities. The added value of geo-visualisation techniques for participation is now being explored in two projects on a smaller scale. Integration of participatory technologies in FLA procedures For the FLA team involved in the PSPE project, one of the main goals has been the integration of the experiences of the Zondereigen case study into the FLA’s mission and internal organisation, particularly concerning personnel matters, investments in hard- en software, education and communication. The PSPE advisory board consists of experts in GIS, ICT, graphic design, spatial planning and communication employed at the headquarters and the regional offices of the FLA. It advises the Board of Directors on the three topics listed below, and has already obtained some initial results. 1. Exploring the possibilities and added value of 3D geo-visualisations in the wide range of spatial projects managed by the FLA. Following initial investigations, each regional office has selected a pilot project (including both land consolidation and nature restoration projects) in which the use of 3D geo-visualisation tools based on ArcGlobe and ArcScene will receive special attention. 2. Investing in specific hard- en software for 3D visualisation. Each regional office has invested in a PC configuration suitable for working comfortably with GIS-based 3D applications. The FLA has purchased two specific applications: Vue Infinite and 3D Map Animator. These applications are being put to the test in three spatial projects: the Merksplas land consolidation project (adjoining the area of the Zondereigen case study), the ‘Open Space between Hechtel and Eksel’ land management project, and the ‘Averbode Forest and Heath’ nature development project. This last project was the FLA’s entry for the Flemish government’s 2007 SPITS contest, which rewards innovative projects by Flemish government agencies, and reached the final selection stage. 3. Dissemination of knowledge and experiences. A new post of geographic information designer will be created in each regional office. The GI designer acts as a mediator between GIS, ICT, graphic design and communication experts, explores the possibilities for 3D geo-visualisation in regional spatial projects, and coordinates training sessions and the procurement of hardware and software. And what about participation? Despite the problems with the Zondereigen land consolidation project, we continued with two other projects on a smaller scale. The first one is about bringing the cultural heritage and identity of the Zondereigen area alive, recalling the Viking occupation of Zondereigen by building a reconstruction of the wooden fortification in the form of a land art object. The FLA has used visualisations of the land art project to support and stimulate discussions with the local history society about the possibility of building the object. In the second project, residents of the Lochtenberg neighbourhood in Hechtel-Eksel have been invited to participate in the renovation of the community centre and a playground. The FLA has Imaging the future 

149

Jeroen Jansen et al.

combined the functionalities of the Vue Infinite software with the participation model of Dorp inZicht (Village inSight), which is based on the English village appraisals ([url 1]). This method not only enables interaction between citizens and the local government, but also provides a platform for networking between people and communities. In these two projects we are able to combine three key elements of PSPE: • visualisation of changes in the landscape by means of 3D tools; • participation by local inhabitants; • enhancing regional identity and strengthening the community network. 10.4. Conclusions and lessons learned Looking back on the Zondereigen case study and the illuminating feedback we received during the internal PSPE dissemination sessions, we believe in the added value and potentials of using new geo-visualisation tools in spatial planning processes. Implementing project websites in the planning process opens up a wide range of possibilities for participation. The integration of different visualisation methods in a project website that is used as a communication tool is expected to stimulate citizen participation in Zondereigen. Our goal is to gain local support and by doing so to design sustainable spatial plans. Some aspects need further attention before the approach can be used in different projects in the future: • the participation of external actors in wider, more complex processes will require careful management and this is a time-consuming process; • experimenting with participation and co-decision in spatial processes like land consolidation schemes is not always an easy option because they are subject to fixed official procedures that leave little opportunity for more innovative participation exercises in addition to the conventional consultations prescribed by the legislation; • the private nature of information needs to be taken into account when communicating to a broad audience. Beside these organisational problems, some technical issues have to be taken into account: • a 3D view of a rather flat countryside has limited added value; • the data necessary for making geo-visualisations is voluminous and requires adaptation; • the exact geo-visualisation tools used will have to be selected to meet the needs of the local people and conditions. It should also be noted that visualisation and other innovative tools do not replace the more traditional means of communication, such as brochures and leaflets, but should be used in combination with them. The overall goal is still to lower the barriers to stakeholder participation in planning processes. The geo-visualisation tools developed in the PSPE project help to achieve this goal. 150 

Imaging the future

11. Organising innovation: the integration of innovative geo-visualisation techniques into participatory spatial planning Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde 11.1. An organisational perspective From the preceding chapters on general concepts we have learned about the reasons for using geo-visualisation tools and techniques in participatory spatial planning. Chapter 2 was about how socio-political factors have contributed to a paradigm shift towards participatory approaches within spatial planning. Chapter 6 explained how the use of geo-visualisations can be made more effective by using different types of geo-visualisations, communication protocols and interactions. In this chapter we shift the focus of our attention to the level of organisations. After all, they will have to adopt geo-visualisation tools and techniques into their communication activities. We will see that geo-visualisations are part of an extremely broad array of institutional arrangements that contribute to a successful – or unsuccessful – integration of geo-visualisation tools and techniques. The definition of geo-visualisation used in this study is derived from Kraak (2003): Geo-visualisations are visual geospatial displays designed to explore data and through that exploration to generate hypotheses, develop problem solutions and construct knowledge. Maps and other linked graphics play a key role in this process. We use the term ‘tools’ to mean the technological instruments, know-how and equipment needed to implement geo-visualisations, and ‘techniques’ to mean the methods, practices and procedures employed by organisations that are introduced or adapted in order to implement new geo-visualisation tools. The central question of this chapter is: Which factors determine the successful integration of geo-visualisation tools and techniques into organisations responsible for participatory spatial planning? To answer this question, we first break it down into three sub-questions: 1. What can be learned from the scientific literature about the adoption and acceptance by organisations of innovative geo-visualisation tools and technologies? 2. Which factors determine the successful implementation of geo-visualisation tools and techniques from an organisational point of view? 3. What is the state of the art regarding the use of geo-visualisations by governmental organisations, and, more specifically, what can be said about the development of spatial data infrastructures in Europe?

Imaging the future 

151

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

Figure 11.1 illustrates the structure of this chapter. The arrows indicate the relations between the different sections. Section 11.2 starts with a vision on the future role of geographic information systems (GIS) in participatory spatial planning. We emphasise the dynamic nature of information technology and defend the idea that organisations should follow these dynamic trends and keep their tools for participatory processes up to date and attractive to use. However, it may not always be possible to do this in practice. Therefore, in section 11.3 we describe how new technologies, and specifically geo-ICT, are accepted and implemented. We will discuss several theories that explain how they are taken up within organisations and diffused through society, and the user’s role in the diffusion. We compare several transition theories, discuss the mechanisms and operational requirements from different perspectives, and consider the user perspective. Before an organisation can implement new geo-ICT applications it must first have a stable infrastructure for storing and sharing spatial data, a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). Section 11.4 explains the initiatives taken by governments to set up Spatial Data Infrastructures, considering and comparing the efforts taken at both the national and international level. In Section 11.5 we present our overall conclusions and discuss the lessons learned.

Trends (Section 11.2)

The diffusion of the new trends in society (Section 11.3)

Governmental initiatives to support the new trends (Section 11.4)

Figure 11.1. Structure of the chapter.

11.2. Visioning about geo-ICT for public participation Web 2.0: challenging the traditional one-way communication protocols GIS technology was developed from the 1960s until the early 1990s, when information had a less dynamic character. De Man (2003) calls this period the ‘prior information age’. In his view, information in these days was supply driven and produced in standard presentation formats. Furthermore, cartographic organisations were large and prestigious, and they collected and used spatial information according to their own requirements. The processes and structures for translating data into information were hierarchical, monolithic and monopolistic, and were generally in the hands of governments. As ideas about governance, accountability and transparency became widely debated within and among governmental organisations, these tendencies were gradually replaced by networking and multi-party

152 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

information infrastructures. Data collection and production, as well as the presentation of data, became more customised to the demands of other parties. These trends were accompanied by increasing attention to public participation. Not surprisingly, researchers and practitioners started to develop methods and techniques for facilitating public participation that make use of geographic information. These pragmatic approaches focused on supporting various stages of participatory planning processes, such as disseminating planning-related information online, involving more stakeholders in planning, making analyses more easily understandable through the use of visualisations and weighting alternatives using graphical user interfaces (Sieber, 2006). We agree with Carver (2003) that, parallel to these developments, GIS has gradually been transformed into a tool for the masses, driven to a large extent by the rise of internet-based GIS applications. In particular, since the introduction of geo-referenced services like Google Earth, Google Maps and Virtual Earth, casual users can interact and see spatial data that were previously only available to GIS experts. People that are interested in information about spatial transformations want to be able to find that information quickly and easily. Modern information services are moving on from traditional one-way communication protocols. The introduction of Google Earth is a good example. In 2005 Google shocked the geo-information sector with its launch of Google Earth. How was it possible that this company had accomplished what so many other companies and government institutions could only dream of, namely to construct a web-based infrastructure, accessible to the whole world, for viewing high resolution aerial photographs of every location on earth. The introduction of Google Earth established a worldwide standard for obtaining and sharing geo-spatial data publicly. Unique to such new information and communication platforms is the combination of worldwide coverage, powerful visualisation, intuitive threedimensional (3D) interfaces and a heavily user-oriented approach that enables the user to obtain and exchange geospatial data very easily (Riedijk et al., 2006). It was just a matter of weeks before frequent internet users started to use and explore Google Earth. Of course, the first thing people do is to find their house, their school, their car or their favourite holiday location. But the real enthusiasts soon started to experiment with the sharing function of Google Earth, which makes it possible, for example, to design routes along sites of historic, tourist or aviation interest and share these files with members of special forums, such as the Google Earth Community. This sharing function of Google Earth is an example of what in the ICT world is called ‘Web 2.0’, which stands for the second generation internet technology. More recently, online library services have emerged in which people can upload information or data they wish to share or make available for anyone else. Examples of existing libraries for files are Flickr (photos), YouTube (videos), Scribd (documents) and Slideshare (presentations). Blogs, wikis and podcasting are other examples of Web 2.0 internet technologies called ‘social software’ and are characterised by user created content. They are services that connect people through a shared interest in information. The software is open, which means that the flow of microcontent between domains, servers and machines Imaging the future 

153

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

depends on two-way access (Alexander, 2006). With Web 2.0 the internet has become a place to share and create information, rather than to just collect information. Downes (2005) speaks of a new attitude, rather than a new technology: In a nutshell, what was happening was that the Web was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, repurposed, and passed along. And what people were doing with the web was not merely reading books, listening to the radio or watching TV, but having a conversation, with a vocabulary not just of words but of images, video, multimedia and whatever they could get their hands on. And this became, and looked like, and behaved like, a network. … Web 2.0 is an attitude, not a technology. It’s about enabling and encouraging participation through open applications and services. Making GIS available to the masses implies that the success of GIS data and applications depends to a great extent on the ease with which an application can be used; in other words, people that do not have GIS skills should be able to use them. To respond adequately to this trend, governmental institutions need to shift from internal communication within spatial projects towards external communication. It seems that the trend called Web 2.0 is starting to create a new attitude towards communication that requires open access to all kinds of information. For organisations this means that they will have to deal with a more external orientation that serves users’ needs. This growing external orientation is expected to place additional demands on geo-visualisations. They will no longer be used solely by experts, but by everybody affected by spatial planning projects. If organisations want to follow this trend, they will have to adopt a usability standard for the geo-visualisations they use. Moreover, technologies in the field of geo-visualisation are evolving rapidly. Organisations need to be aware of this and should be flexible enough to adjust their standards and goals where necessary. Going with the technological and social flow As we have seen, people are getting used to finding all the information they need on the internet. Moreover, they are getting used to giving feedback on that information instantly, also through the internet. Government organisations now have to ask themselves whether it is necessary to respond to this development and whether they are ‘ready’ to use new information and communication technologies to involve citizens in spatial planning. Going back to the Google Earth example, would it not be a great advantage if people could log onto their local authority’s website to consult the land use plans for their neighbourhood? The maps and plan scenarios could be viewed on a Google Earth type interface, where citizens could leave their comments or ideas about the plan proposals using the special tool in the interface. They could also see any comments or ideas already made by their neighbours. This would be an example of participatory spatial planning in which the public enters the 154 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

stages of the planning process prior to the legal participation procedures that allow citizens to object to ready-made plans. A survey conducted in the Netherlands, for example, showed that citizens and small businesses rarely raise questions about specific issues in existing local land use plans or other spatial plans. The type of questions they pose are: Do I need a building permit? What am I allowed to do, and is my neighbour allowed to do what he is doing? What are the consequences of the plans for my living environment in terms of noise, traffic and green space? They also ask all kinds of questions about the planning procedures and want to be involved in the planning process as early as possible so that they can influence the outcome (Otterman et al., 2006). This shows that there is indeed a clear demand to consult spatial information in a user-friendly way on the internet. Some Dutch municipalities already make their local land use plans available for consultation online. In fact, in 2008 all Dutch municipalities will be legally obliged to publish any new plans online in a portal called Spatial Planning Online (de Swart, 2007). At the moment though, services that allow the public to react to these plans in the early stages of their development are rare. The Google Earth interface developed by the Portuguese company YDreams is designed to serve just this purpose. To make proper use of such interfaces, government organisations must be prepared to stimulate openness and transparency. By making information and data accessible, they would be challenging the traditional relationships between experts and members of the public by positioning the public as experts on their living environment (Petts and Leach, 2000). Practice shows that technology is not a barrier at all. Current geo-visualisation tools are becoming more flexible and accessible as the limitations of both hardware and software are constantly being pushed back: more and more data files are being made available, exchangeable and manageable, and tools are being developed to manage, combine and open up data files. Riedijk et al. (2006) have summarised the trends in geo-visualisation technology as follows: • large and growing volumes of information are being made available (pictures, geomorphologic data, contour maps and aerial photographs); • tools are being developed to improve the presentation and analysis of data; • computers are becoming faster and more powerful and are therefore able to handle the data in combination with tools; • more and more people are familiar with the internet and its possibilities; • governments are increasingly using the internet as a platform for sharing and exchanging information; • internet connections are becoming more powerful for uploading and downloading data; • tools are being developed for building 3D geo-information systems and animations; • standardisation of the interoperability of GIS systems (open GIS, world wide standards) is making it easier to share and integrate data from different sources.

Imaging the future 

155

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

Technological developments make it possible to communicate a realistic picture of present and future spatial scenarios to groups of people involved or interested in spatial transitions. We assume that geo-visualisation tools and techniques can support better involvement of stakeholders. However, this involvement can only be realised if the future geo-visualisation tools and techniques meet a number of criteria (see also Chapter 6). The main criteria are that the tools and techniques: • can be used by people with little or no knowledge of spatial planning (intuitive interfaces); • can be used on ‘standard’ computer systems (e.g. internet browser); • are challenging for people to use; • offer a transparent picture (clear terminology); • have options for displaying the whole plan area and for zooming in to particular details, and to retrieve extra information from those details; • have options to view the area from different angles; • offer possibilities to analyse the effects of different scenarios. In this section we have described the trends that might motivate government organisations to implement geo-visualisation tools and techniques in their daily operations. As we have seen here and in previous chapters, there are many technical and visual requirements for successful geo-visualisations. To implementing geo-visualisation tools and techniques, organisations will have to invest time, money and people. As we will see below, this is not just a matter of balancing the costs and benefits, but of ‘going with the flow’ of social software and geo-visualisation tools as opposed to sticking to the old tried and tested, less complex information systems. The acceptance and implementation of new technologies has many features, from both the organisation’s as well as the user’s point of view. These features will be dealt with in the next section. 11.3. Diffusion of new technologies Conditions for change All the partners in the PSPE project have experienced what it is like to implement geoinnovations into their daily processes. One thing is already clear, though: there is no blueprint for the adoption and use of geo-information technologies in organisations because these will vary according to organisational conditions. A key concept here is that of change. Change is a central concept in the PSPE project as the aim of the project is to change the way government authorities interact with the public. But change is a sensitive issue. According to de Caluwé and Vermaak (2006), people are willing to change but they are not willing to be changed. This implies that change management is effective only when people are directly involved in procedures of change. In this section, therefore, the question of change will be examined in depth and related to the organisational changes needed to benefit fully from innovative geo-visualisation techniques that facilitate participatory spatial planning. Many 156 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

authors have conducted research into the conditions that facilitate change and some of their findings are applied to the field of geo-information. To understand the diffusion of geo-visualisations within governmental organisations and society we need to know which factors contribute to the adoption of new tools for public participation. Technology transition Much research has been done about the process of adopting GIS in organisations. In the 1990s Scholten and Grothe (1996) carried out extensive research on the status of geoinformation within 1,602 Dutch governmental organisations. To answer their questions about the process of adopting new technologies, the authors used Nolan’s stage model of computer development in organisations. There are four stages in this model, represented by the well-known S-curve: Initiation, Contagion, Control and Integration (Nolan, 1973; see Figure 11.2). Nolan developed the curve initially for the integration of computer systems into organisations. However, his model can also be applied to the uptake of technologies in general within organisations (King and Kraemer, 1984). Nolan’s growth model has four stages: 1. Initiation. The information system is used by less than five people in the whole organisation. This stage is characterised by limited and decentralised control and minimal planning. 2. Contagion. More than five people experiment with the new system, acceptance grows and the number of applications increases. The use of the system accelerates as more people start to use it. The costs also grow at an increasing rate, in turn demanding greater management efforts.

Growth processes

Building the applications portfolio Building the organization Building the dep management planning and control Developing user awareness Time Stage I: Initiation

Stage II: Contagion

Stage III: Control

Stage IV: Integration

Figure 11.2. Nolan’s growth curve (Nolan, 1973).

Imaging the future 

157

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

3. Control. Organisational measures to control the new system are taken to ensure greater use and cost efficiency. Standards are established and documentation is prepared on the use of the system. 4. Integration. The applications are integrated within the organisation. Planning and control of the systems has been established and the information system is adapted to meet the needs of the organisation. Similar analyses of the adoption of a new technology have been made by others. Rotmans et al. (2000), for example, also distinguish four different phases, which resemble the Nolan growth curve: 1. a predevelopment or i phase: the developers of the technology look for opportunities to introduce this new technology; 2. the take-off phase: the change starts to occur; 3. the breakthrough phase: embedding of the technology, characterised by visible structural changes; 4. the stabilisation phase: the speed of social change decreases. The phases described by both Nolan (1973) and Rotmans et al. (2000) can be found at a range of scales, with similar phases and transitions encountered at each scale. Rotmans et al. (2001) have made a distinction between different aggregation levels at which technological transitions can be studied. At the micro level, niches of individuals or companies that adopt an innovation arise. At the meso level, regimes of networks and communities start to adopt the innovation. And at the macro level the adoption of the innovation is widely spread along landscapes of conglomerates or governmental organisations. The adoption of internet technology in organisations and society is a clear example of this. The internet started as a military service to improve communication between members of the organisation, but is now used by people all over the world. The speed at which the transition occurs depends on the level at which it takes place. Moreover, transitions are neither uniform nor deterministic: there are large differences in the scale of change and the period over which it occurs. It is likely that the changes within a niche follow the growth curve faster than the changes on the macro level. For example, a transformation process in which society changes in a fundamental way takes one or more generations (Rotmans et al., 2001). Mechanisms for the diffusion of new technologies Nolan’s growth curve shows that the translation of innovation does not follow a linear path from research to development and implementation. Some technologies do not even complete a full path at all. The adoption of innovations tends to involve complicated mechanisms and interactions involving science, technology, learning, production, policy and demand (Edquist, 1997). Geels (2002) describes how technological transitions consist of a change from one socio-technical configuration to another, involving the substitution of a technology as well as changes in elements such as user practices, regulation, industrial 158 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

networks, infrastructure and symbolic meaning. With this he indicates that a change is also necessary within the workflow procedures and infrastructure. Just substituting a technology will not lead to a successful transition. One way to approach the diffusion of an innovative, emerging technology in society is to look at it as a Technology Innovation System (TIS). This system does not follow a growth curve like those of Nolan and Rothman, but considers the boundary conditions for the successful integration of a new technology within organisations or society. TIS was first defined in 1991 by Carlsson and Stanckiewicz (1991) as ‘a network or networks of agents interacting in a specific technology area under a particular institutional infrastructure to generate, diffuse and utilise technology.’ These agents may be firms, R&D infrastructures, educational institutions or policy-making bodies (Carlsson and Jacobsson, 1997). The system can be applied within each separate niche to study the characteristics of the system associated with a specific emerging technology. The TIS must have a number of functions that have to be used before a system becomes successful. The functions of innovative systems are the activities that contribute to the goal of the innovation system (Hekkert et al., 2007). It is assumed that as more functions are served, and the better they are served, the better the performance of the TIS will be and thus the better the development, diffusion and implementation of innovations will be (Edquist, 2001). The system functions described below can be seen as critical success factors that contribute to successful adoption of innovations in society: • Entrepreneurial activities. These are essential for the introduction of innovative systems. • Knowledge development. Mechanisms of learning are essential and new knowledge has to be developed. This can be done by experimentation, R&D, learning by doing and imitation initiatives. • Knowledge diffusion through networks. The network determines the structure of the innovation system because it provides the channels for direct contact between the organisations and the market. • Guidance of the search. There needs to be a focus on further investment. This function indicates the activities that can positively affect the visibility and clarity of specific needs and wishes of technology users. • Market formation. New technologies have to compete with existing embedded technologies. This function involves the creation of a niche or a temporary competitive advantage, such as preferential tax treatment. • Resource mobilisation. Financial and human input are necessary for all activities within the system. Actors in the system will always complain about insufficient resources. • Advocacy coalitions. The technology has to become part of an incumbent regime. The regime can act as a catalyst by placing the technology on the agenda, lobbying for resources, and creating a favourable tax regime.

Imaging the future 

159

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

The users’ perspective In the previous sections we described the mechanisms that play a role in introducing new technologies into society and organisations from the organisational and technological perspective. However, the opinions and attitudes of the users also have to be taken into account. These users can be government officials, planning professionals, policy-makers, journalists or citizens interested in a particular geo-related topic. This section deals with the users’ perspective and what drives the users to start using the new technology in the first place. There are several theories that attempt to predict the adoption and acceptance of a new technology by potential users. One of the first theories was the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1980). This theory tries to explain the relation between attitude and behaviour. Put simply, a positive attitude towards a new technology does not automatically lead to its use – there has to be a link between attitude and behaviour. Fishbein and Ajzen analysed the determinants of behaviour, such as social norms, time and context elements and found that a person’s behaviour is to a large extent influenced by how they think other people would view them if they performed the behaviour (Manstead, 1996). In addition, if people are to translate their positive attitude towards a new technology into actually using it, they must have time, knowledge, money, and the necessary technical infrastructure. A more commonly used extension of the TRA is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) devised by Davis (1989). The TAM uses two main factors to predict the acceptance of a system: the Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU) and the Perceived Usefulness (PU) of the system. Both factors are explicatively stated as being ‘perceived’ because both the ease of use and the usefulness of the technology may be different for different users. The diagram in Figure 11.3 illustrates the basic TAM model. Many varieties and elaborations have been made of the model to make it applicable to specific user groups. From the Technology Acceptance Model we may logically conclude that when people find a new technology useful and easy to use, the right conditions for acceptance are created. Within the PSPE project we saw this in the Polish case study, in which an online ‘geodiscussion’ tool is gradually gaining acceptance among the professional stakeholders as they become more aware of the benefits of participatory approaches. But more importantly, they already have a strong affinity with the use of maps and the use of internet. They also consider the geographical datasets to be a major requirement for future development in the field of participatory spatial planning (Hoogerwerf, 2005b). The Polish example shows that a shared positive attitude towards new technologies leads to good initiatives. Another good example is the introduction of the mobile telephone. Because they are as easy to use as standard telephones, the perceived ease of use factor will not be much different from that for standard telephones. As it turned out, this new technology was perceived to be very useful 160 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

Perceived ease of use (PEoU) Attitude towards using a new technology

Behavioural intention to use a new technology

Actual use of the new technology

Perceived usefulness (PU)

Figure 11.3. Diagram of the Technology Acceptance Model (adapted from Davis, 1989).

because it opened up a host of new possibilities for staying in touch with work, friends and family outside the home. This perceived usefulness has led to widespread adoption of the mobile telephone. In this section we have seen that for the acceptance and implementation of our vision as described in section 11.2, a simple cost-benefit analysis will not be enough for the successful implementation of new geo-ICT. From both the organisational and the users’ viewpoint, we need to create the right preconditions. One such precondition, the accessibility of all spatial data, is of crucial importance and is explained in next section. 11.4. Access to spatial data The role of standardisation in GIS Before organisations can start using geo-visualisations in their day-to-day work they have to fulfil some basic requirements. One such requirement is the establishment of a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). According to the SDI Cookbook (Nebert, 2004), this term is often used to denote the relevant basic collection of technologies, policies and institutional arrangements that facilitate access to spatial data. The SDI provides a basis for spatial data discovery, evaluation and application for users and providers within all levels of government, the commercial sector, the non-profit sector and academia and by citizens in general. For example, in a country where an SDI is a common good, it is much easier for an organisation to access the spatial data necessary to make effective visualisations and to let citizens interact with these data and images. Defining SDI The first forms of what were later called Spatial Data Infrastructures started to emerge from the mid 1980s (Masser, 1999). They were developed mainly because geographic information was expensive and an SDI made it possible to exchange spatial data, avoiding the need to gather and manage the same spatial data many times (Rajabifard et al., 2003). Masser (1998) notes that the higher purpose of SDI initiatives was to promote economic development, Imaging the future 

161

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

stimulate better government and guarantee a sustainable environment. According to van Loenen (2006) the definition of SDI has developed over the years from being a pure technical device into being a combination of information, content and people. The SDI framework continuously supports the effective and efficient construction, processing and use of relevant geographic information within or between organisations. Crompvoets (2006) describes the following core elements of an SDI: • Access networks. The access network technically facilitates the use of data by people. It seeks access to relevant data sources and spatial information services by anyone, anywhere. The best example of an access network is a national clearinghouse. Crompvoets defines a spatial data clearinghouse as ‘an electronic facility for searching, viewing, transferring, ordering, advertising, and/or disseminating spatial data from numerous sources via the Internet and, as appropriate, providing complementary services. Such a clearinghouse usually consists of a number of servers that contain information (metadata) about available digital data.’ Other names used for such access networks are ‘catalogue services’, ‘spatial data directories’ and ‘data information systems’ or ‘metadata information systems’. • People. Increased use and awareness of spatial information leads to an increasing number of people using GIS. Three groups of people are involved in a clearinghouse environment: data suppliers, managers (service administrators) and end users. The power of a clearinghouse is that an extensive number of data suppliers can disseminate their products via the facility. • Policy. The policy and administrative component of the SDI definition is critical for the construction, maintenance, access and application of standards and datasets for SDI implementation. In general, policies and guidelines for SDI concern the following topics: spatial data access and pricing, funding, spatial data transfer, custodianship, metadata and standards. • Technical standards. Standards are essential to ensure interoperability between the datasets and access mechanisms defined by an SDI. They can be applied at many different levels within an SDI. Standards for metadata, for example, tell the user about the content, quality, source, and lineage of the data. Widely used metadata standards are those of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), the European Committee for Standardization (CEN/TC 287) and the ISO Standard for Geographic Information (ISO 19115). • Data. Data within an SDI should be compatible in terms of format, reference system, projection, resolution and quality. Most clearinghouses provide access to standardised metadata. Data can be transmitted via email or Web Feature Servers and the variety and numbers of datasets that can be accessed vary considerably. For example, the US Federal Clearinghouse allows the user to access to more than 139,000 datasets, while the 25 European clearinghouses together give access to only 10,000 datasets.

162 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

SDI moves onto the political agenda The national SDI in the USA was launched by Executive Order 12906, which was issued by President Clinton in 1994. Europe has also taken steps to create a European SDI. The European Commission launched the GINIE Programme (2001–2004) with the goal of realising a Geographic Information Network In Europe (Craglia et al., 2003). This culminated in the adoption by the European Commission in July 2004 of a proposal to draft a directive on the establishment of a European SDI. The INSPIRE Directive (INfrastructure for SPatial Information in Europe) was approved on 23 November 2006 by the European Parliament and the Council and provides the legal framework for realising a European Spatial Data Infrastructure. It obliges European member states to make practical arrangements to ensure the interoperability and where possible harmonisation of their spatial datasets and cartographic services. The directive will initially be implemented in support of environmental policies and will later be enforced in the agriculture, transport and energy sectors. The member states themselves are responsible for making their national geo-information infrastructures compatible with the provisions of the directive (Europa Decentraal, 2006). INSPIRE was initiated to solve the problems of data gaps, missing documentation and incompatible spatial datasets and services arising from the use of different standards, and to remove the barriers to the sharing and reuse of spatial data. In its proposal for the INSPIRE Directive, the Commission stated that action at the Community level is necessary for the following reasons (European Commission, 2004): • Few Member States have developed a framework for establishing a national infrastructure for spatial information that addresses operational, organisational and legal issues. Where steps have been taken, they have often been restricted to specific regions or specific sectors. • In most Member States where a framework has been adopted, not all problems have been addressed or initiatives are not compatible. • Without a harmonised framework at Community level, the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of national and Community policies that directly or indirectly affect the environment will be hindered by the barriers to exploiting the cross-border spatial data needed for policies which address problems with a cross-border spatial dimension. Implementing SDI: barriers and successes How much progress has been made worldwide with implementing national SDIs? This question was answered in a doctoral thesis by Crompvoets (2006). From 2000 to 2004 Crompvoets assessed the worldwide status and development of national spatial data clearinghouses and identified the critical internal and external factors for the successful development of national clearinghouses. Crompvoets identified a total of 456 spatial data clearinghouses in 80 countries. He focused his research on national clearinghouses available via the internet, finding 83 in 2005. Most of the spatial data clearinghouses can be found Imaging the future 

163

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

in Europe, South-East Asia, and North and South America. The countries with the highest number of clearinghouses are the USA and Canada; Africa and the Middle East contain the fewest. According to Crompvoets, the challenges of making larger amounts of spatial data more accessible are more likely to be organisational than technical in nature. From an analysis of the results obtained by Kok and van Loenen (2005), van Loenen (2006) identifies six critical organisational aspects that determine the development of SDI: leadership, vision, communication channels, the power of a GI community to reorganise, awareness and sustainable resources. Rajabifard and Williamson (2001) mention six key factors for speeding up SDI development. Three of these factors are related to organisational development: (1) awareness of the variety of applications in geo-information and SDI, (2) involvement and support from politicians, and (3) cooperation between diverse stakeholders. Furthermore, Craglia et al. (2003) and Rajabifard et al. (2003) note that in addition to strong leadership, awareness of the added value of geo-information in relation to multi-level policy making is an important stimulating factor. The limited cooperation and coordination between public sector organisations on defining clear data exchange policies also seems to be an important constraining factor (Nebert, 2004). According to Hoffmann (2003), this has to do with four competing ethics within government: 1. Open government. Information produced by the government is public and should therefore be inexpensive and easy to access. 2. Individual privacy. The privacy of citizens is paramount and data cannot be made public. 3. Security. Security of the state is a major factor and data that compromise that security cannot be made public. 4. Fiscal responsibility. Government should be entrepreneurial in its approach to data that have a market value. Another important constraining factor, as described in the SDI Cookbook, is the fact that most of the motivation to employ geographic information and tools is still internal to institutions with the aim of serving their primary needs. Outreach and education are not emphasised because existing systems primarily serve their own clientele without concern for the needs of other potential users. Furthermore, transparency remains a major problem. Organisations do not seem to know what exactly is available, where different types of data are available and who is in charge of producing this information. Instead of being able to draw on an organised spatial data infrastructure, sharing data is largely a matter of good or bad luck (Nebert, 2004). Besides these internal organisational aspects, Crompvoets (2006) found that societal conditions have a strong impact on the establishment of national clearinghouses. The 164 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

standard of living is a critical factor. Countries with a high standard of living have a sound investment climate and policies that promote openness and high quality (technological) infrastructures and services. They also have a good education infrastructure and supportive legal and regulatory instruments. Societal conditions therefore have an important role in the success or otherwise of national clearinghouses. Important factors in this are taxes, energy use, internet and agriculture. Taxation is the main source of revenue for many governments and tax revenues can be used to fund data infrastructures. Energy consumption is a reflection of people’s wealth. Internet use is linked to information and communication technologies that offer opportunities for economic growth and better service delivery (see Figure 11.4). Lastly, in many countries agriculture is the main source of employment. 80 70 % of population

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Belgium

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Figure 11.4. Internet use in PSPE countries (Internet World Stats, 2007).

11.5. Conclusions We started the chapter by introducing the Web 2.0 trends in society. We learned that for a Web 2.0 technology to be successful, it must be highly user-centred, giving users the power to mould the available information to meet their needs and questions. Our vision is that this Web 2.0 ‘attitude’ can be exploited to encourage active, environmentally conscious citizens to become more involved in the development of their spatial environment. Governments should therefore be willing to invest time, money and people to find out what Web 2.0 could mean for their future participatory processes. The question then is how we can embed these technologies in society. We looked in more detail at the processes which can influence the adoption and acceptance of new technologies in organisations and in society. In this chapter we have found answers to our first two research questions:

Imaging the future 

165

Arda Riedijk, Irene Pleizier, Henk Scholten and Rob van de Velde

1. What can be learned from the scientific literature about the adoption and acceptance by organisations of innovative geo-visualisation tools and technologies? 2. Which factors determine the successful implementation of geo-visualisation tools and techniques from an organisational point of view? In answering the first question we found that the Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Reasoned Action can best predict the adoption and acceptance of a new technology. When a technology is perceived to be useful and easy to apply, acceptance of the technology will be more or less automatic. Perceived usefulness is a particularly important consideration when creating new technologies for public participation. Users must feel that the new technology is indeed useful, otherwise it will not be used. The answer to the second question can be derived from the Technology Innovation System (TIS) concept described in section 3.3. The TIS concept states the functions that can determine the successful implementation of a new technology within an organisation. Factors such as resources, training, legitimacy, entrepreneurial activities, expectations and research have to be considered if public participation techniques are to be successfully introduced. In summary, we can say that the adoption and acceptance of new technologies depends on a combination of factors that together contribute to successful implementation. The third question to be answered was: 3. What is the state of the art regarding the use of geo-visualisations by governmental organisations, and, more specifically, what can be said about the development of spatial data infrastructures in Europe? We acknowledged that a crucial requirement for the implementation of geo-visualisations in organisations is to have an organised, standardised system for consulting and sharing geo-information. By studying the state of the art of SDI development in Europe we can say much about progress in Europe in the field of geo-information technologies. We have seen that SDI is still in the developmental phase and has not yet reached the integration stage described by Nolan. However, in recent years SDI has become an important asset in the European political agenda owing to the INSPIRE Directive. Here we can see that political commitment is a major stimulator of innovation. Furthermore, locally-based projects such as PSPE are likely to have a large impact on knowledge dissemination across Europe. Likewise, there are many initiatives in society that will ultimately lead to a sense of urgency for a broader uptake of participatory processes in planning procedures using new communication and visualisation tools and techniques. The main question to be answered in this chapter was: Which factors determine the successful integration of geo-visualisation tools and techniques into organisations responsible for participatory spatial planning? We drew on empirical and theoretical examples to show that successful integration of geo-visualisation tools and techniques depends on a combination 166 

Imaging the future



11. O  rganising innovation

of organisational factors and societal factors. Organisational factors include leadership, vision, communication channels, the power of a GI community to reorganise, awareness and sustainable resources. Societal factors are trends that occur externally but have a direct influence on the operational activities of organisations. These factors include legal initiatives, developments in internet technology and growing awareness among citizens of planningrelated issues. These organisational and societal factors are the success factors for organisational change. As every country has its own characteristic organisational culture, planning culture, technological culture, economic culture and political culture, it is difficult to conclude with a set of recommendations that are valid for every country. Therefore, on the basis of the information provided, we finish this chapter with an open-ended conclusion: the climate for change is very positive. There seem to be few technological barriers to the development and use of geo-visualisation tools and techniques in spatial planning procedures, and many encouraging private and public initiatives. Moreover, many national planning cultures in Europe embrace participatory approaches, or have the potential to do so. Consequently, our recommendation to local organisations is to focus on awareness raising and knowledge dissemination within the organisation to highlight the benefits of using geo-visualisation tools and techniques, and in doing so to emphasise the need for a Spatial Data Infrastructure. The tools, practices, approaches and commitment developed among the PSPE project partners provide an excellent starting point.

Imaging the future 

167

12. Epilogue: reflections on the lessons learned Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde, Silke Däne and Henk Scholten 12.1. The added value of the PSPE project The overall objective of the PSPE project was to improve spatial information exchange in participatory spatial planning through renewed interactive approaches that make use of geo-visualisation. We have reviewed the existing knowledge in the field and obtained new insights. In the case studies we gained experience with the use of geo-visualisation techniques in various regional and cultural settings and explored new possibilities for participatory spatial planning made possible by these techniques. The continual interaction between concept development, technology and actual practice, which we call the ‘PSPE approach’, underpinned the enthusiastic cooperation between the consortium partners. In general, we can state that the PSPE approach has been a fruitful one. In the view of the project partners, the attention paid to knowledge development, discussion and reflection certainly contributed to the successful outcome. Another important factor was that the case studies were about real live planning issues. And because the project partners are each rooted in their own national planning and cultural contexts, we were able to study a broad range of applications of geo-visualisations for use in participatory spatial planning. The PSPE partners used geo-visualisation techniques in different stages of the planning process for projects which had different goals and involved different types of stakeholders. This in turn led to a variety of results and lessons learned. The project has given us a greater understanding of the ways in which geo-visualisation can help to improve participation by the public in the process of finding solutions to spatial planning issues. The project has also led to a greater understanding of the need for accessible geo-information to support spatial planning processes, and of the need to embed this information within the relevant organisations. The results of the project described in this book, therefore, make up a valuable resource for professionals and practitioners already working with geo-visualisations in participatory spatial planning as well as those looking to do so. They can turn to this book for insights and inspiration. The lessons learned during this project provide specific pointers, evidence and ideas for the practical application of these participation tools. These lessons are summarised and explained in this chapter. 12.2. Lessons learned The PSPE project has yielded a number of interesting insights of importance for the practical application of geo-visualisation in participatory spatial planning. These insights have enriched our understanding across a range of disciplines, reflecting the broad scope of the project itself. Imaging the future 

169

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde, Silke Däne and Henk Scholten

Geo-visualisation acts as a catalyst for developing new forms of participatory spatial planning Digital spatial information has become more widely available and more accessible over the years. More recent developments, such as Google Earth, have opened up a range of important new opportunities and possibilities for using this information. Accessing such information has even already become a normal part of many people’s lives in all the countries of the European Union. The availability of such spatial information is a clear example of the rise of the European e-society, and in turn is one of the motors driving this development. It is also clear that government authorities are looking for ways to exploit this trend in the pursuit of their policies, but also to learn how to deal with its consequences. However, citizen participation is by no means an equally accepted part of spatial planning practice in all European countries, as the Portuguese, Spanish and Polish case studies showed. At the same time, technology is exerting a tremendous influence in the field of spatial planning. It not only increases the possibilities for supporting the planning process – by conducting spatial analyses for example – but actually opens up a wider range of options for the ways in which plans are made. Stakeholders want to be involved as early as possible in the process of plan-making, partly to know what the plans are, but also to be able to influence the content of plans before it becomes difficult to alter any decisions that have been made or before potentially desirable options have been foreclosed. Traditional forms of information transfer, such as reports and printed maps, have had their day and much spatial information is freely available via the internet. This implies a different way of thinking and working. The case studies illustrate various examples of the way in which geo-visualisations can help to intensify communication in spatial planning processes, although it is too early to draw conclusions about the actual effects that geo-visualisation may have on stakeholders and the planning process. Geo-visualisation raises the question of which spatial information is necessary to come to a decision and how this information should be communicated At first sight, this appears to be an obvious statement. If a spatial intervention could have consequences for nature conservation values in the area, for example, it is important to have an understanding of the type of conservation values involved and their vulnerability to external influences. An example of this is the choice of route alignment for a new expressway in the Vistula River Valley case study. The key question, though, is how this information is communicated; in other words, how the future situation is presented in the form of spatial images produced by modelling spatial data in a geo-visualisation. Of course, the representation of the future situation is not the same as the future reality itself. Indeed, representations of the real world as it is now are always a reflection of reality as perceived by various stakeholders, and these perceptions are often different. A geo-visualisation, therefore, is one particular version, or vision, of reality and the desired or necessary changes to it. Such a vision is not primarily concerned with the actual data used, but is more a vessel 170 

Imaging the future



12. Epilogue: reflections on the lessons learned

for emotions that reflect the ways in which people identify with their living environment, what they find attractive in it, what they want to preserve and what they would like to see changed. The essential thing is how these emotions can be linked to data and images. Compared to television advertising for example, this is largely uncharted territory in the field of spatial planning. In spatial planning processes citizens take a much looser approach to presenting their own vision of the existing or future reality than government authorities. What government authorities can do is use geo-visualisations to uncover these emotions. A good example is the kiosk developed by the Barreiro municipal authority in which people can ‘fly’ over their own neighbourhood, record their spoken comments and questions and link these to the relevant images. Equally illustrative are the visions and ideas of artists and designers on living and working in the future Groningen Lake City. Linking these visions to the viewer developed for this project created an emotional attachment to specific sites in the project area. In the Kassel Calden Airport research project, people familiar with the area reacted much more emotionally to the geo-visualisation showing the changes in landscape than those people who were not directly affected by the plans. All these case studies suggest that geo-visualisations may have a great potential to reveal people’s sense of place and their attachment to it. However, within the scope of this project it has not been possible to find concrete answers to the question of which geo-data and geo-visualisation best serve this purpose. The emotional aspects of spatial information also point to the need to pay greater attention to the ethical aspects of spatial planning. Geo-visualisation is an effective educational tool for stimulating dialogue between citizens and decision-makers The case studies have revealed that although participation is anchored in the planning legislation of the countries concerned, it plays little part in actual planning processes. Government authorities either have little experience of participatory processes or are reluctant to engage in them for fear of losing their grip on the outcome or because the organisational culture formed over many years leaves little room for active citizen participation. In such situations, a geo-visualisation can help to get the dialogue between citizens and government going. An example is the Salt 70 case study. This case study was not so much about participation as such, but about educating citizens and decision-makers on the purpose and value of participation and the possibilities for making effective use of it. This also happened in Barreiro, with the Virtual Flight kiosk, and in Poland, where the Geo-Discussion Panel prompted intensive discussions between the local authority and stakeholders. In this sense, the geo-visualisations provided a vehicle for turning the largely unfulfilled legislative requirements for participation into practice. Another important aspect, particularly in the Barreiro and Salt cases, is that considerable attention was paid to getting young people to think about changes to the physical environment and to express their own views. The kiosk was used in schools not only as a participation tool but also as an educational aid. In general, young people take to using these types of tools very easily because they are familiar with them from playing computer games. Adults are often much Imaging the future 

171

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde, Silke Däne and Henk Scholten

less comfortable about using such tools or lack the required skills, as became apparent in the research into the possibilities for using geo-visualisations for the expansion plans for Kassel Calden Airport. On the other hand, older people tend to identify more strongly with the local environment and are able orient themselves more quickly in visual representations of this environment. The research project on the usability of geo-visualisations provides evidence that people may have difficulties using geo-visualisation. Besides basic problems like recognising the virtual environment and identifying proposed changes, these difficulties may also relate to the impact these changes may have on their environment. Much work is still needed on finding out how best to adapt geo-visualisations to the needs of the target groups (e.g. realism requirements, design of the interface, additional support for orientation). In addition, people need to be trained in the use of the technique, particularly in relating geo-visualisations to their mental images and expectations. The PSPE project has shown that it is of the utmost importance to train people how to use virtual representations of real or planned landscapes, how to interpret those landscapes and to identify with them. This is particularly true for young people, who need to be helped to make a greater contribution to shaping the future world – their future world. In this respect, an advantage of geo-visualisations is that they are particularly well suited to ‘playing’ with the physical environment and easily making changes to it. In fact, the similarity between geo-visualisations and video games is no coincidence because much of the software comes originally from the games industry. The case studies have not given concrete answers to the question of how participants actually perceive the new tools. Are they in fact useful for acquiring and sharing knowledge about the environment? Do stakeholders find these tools to be stimulating and satisfactory? Further research is needed in comparing traditional and innovative forms of information and knowledge exchange in planning practice, as well as their effects on stakeholders and planning processes. The successful application of geo-visualisation requires considerable input of time and money as well as organisational change The PSPE project has shown that geo-visualisation has great potential and that government authorities and stakeholders alike consider it to be an important tool for improving communication about spatial changes. The technology is available and is no longer expensive. Despite this, considerable adjustment to working practices is required to actually put this technology to good use. We have already mentioned the need to train the public in the use of such tools, but this is also true for the staff of the relevant public authorities. The results of the case studies show how important it is to bring together knowledge and skills from various disciplines (planning, graphic design, GIS and communication) to embed geo-visualisation within the day-to-day work of these organisations. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial, one option being to form ‘e-interaction design teams’. In response to the 172 

Imaging the future



12. Epilogue: reflections on the lessons learned

Zondereigen case study, the Flemish Land Agency even decided to create the new profession of ‘GI designer’. Another important constraint we encountered was that proposals made by stakeholders, for example during public meetings, could not immediately be translated into a new representation of the future situation. This had to be done later by a ‘geo-specialist’, after which the spatial representations of the proposals could be presented and discussed during a follow-up meeting. An example of this is the fly-over of Groningen Lake City. Moreover, the relevant data have to be assembled and converted into a suitable format for use in a geovisualisation. Major advances have been made on this front in recent years. Vast quantities of data have become available, even in countries which had a lot of ground to make up in this respect, such as several of the new EU member states. New developments like Google Earth have speeded up this process enormously and have made it possible for anyone to exchange information, effectively with the whole world. These developments have given the concepts of time and space a whole new meaning. For example, in the traditional approach it was the government authorities involved who chose when to make project information available, but stakeholders can now influence this via internet, and they are doing so in growing numbers. Public authorities increasingly have to take account of this in the way they communicate with stakeholders. The Zondereigen case study has shown that this does not just happen by itself because the website that was developed for this purpose has still not been made available to the public. Public authorities will have to invest in the collection, storage and retrieval of data via Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) and are being spurred on to do this by the obligations placed on them by the recently adopted EU INSPIRE Directive. They will have to adapt their organisational structures and processes and adopt open sources and open standards. Various EU member states now have portals where much public sector geographic information can be accessed at no charge, and these are already heavily visited. Examples include TIM-online in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany and Geoportail in France. The case studies also clearly show that governments should make arrangements that allow them to adequately respond to comments and proposals made by stakeholders. Initial steps in this direction have been made in the municipality of Barreiro (which has established a Department for Participation, Citizenship and Democracy) and the Flemish Land Agency (PSPE Advisory Board). Geo-visualisation is not a panacea for ‘planning ills’ The last group of lessons learned seek to put the issue of participation into perspective. In the legislation and in discussions about how to structure spatial planning processes, the participatory model is usually presented as the ideal one. However, real participation is all too easily equated with climbing up the ‘higher’ rungs of the participation ladder: ‘coproduce’ and ‘co-decide’. In practice, hierarchical forms of steering tend to dominate. Even in the case studies in the countries where participation has been a part of planning practice for some time (Groningen Lake City, Zondereigen), participation still remains limited to Imaging the future 

173

Adri van den Brink, Ron van Lammeren, Rob van de Velde, Silke Däne and Henk Scholten

forms of ‘inform’ and ‘consult’. Hierarchical forms of governance are deeply engrained in the culture of organisations responsible for spatial planning – and organisational cultures can only be changed very slowly. Moreover, this hierarchical steering is bolstered by the growing influence of planning and control in the public domain. On the other hand, not every proposed spatial intervention necessarily lends itself to extensive public discussion with a view to co-decision by stakeholders. Each case has to be considered in its own right. What the case studies do show is that geo-visualisations can be used to initiate major changes to planning practice. In essence, government authorities are almost forced to make use of the possibilities opened up by these new technologies, not only because stakeholders demand it or because they already have access to these technologies, but primarily because of the widely felt need for a more open and democratic society. The technical possibilities themselves do not define what is possible in this respect. In the end it all comes down to the willingness of public authorities to satisfy this need by adapting formal procedures and working practices and empowering stakeholders. The political will to take up this challenge will be the decisive factor and techniques like geo-visualisation are promising tools for helping public authorities to do this. When applied to spatial planning they demand a new way of responding to the contributions made by stakeholders. 12.3. Conclusion In closing, we can conclude that the PSPE project has shown that it is possible within a period of a few years to make considerable progress with the use of geo-visualisation in participatory spatial planning processes. The specific ‘PSPE approach’ played its own part in this success. The partners in the consortium learned from each other, adopted each other’s concepts and working methods and actively shared and discussed their learning experiences. Although there are – and always will be – big differences in the nature and scale of planning tasks and their social and administrative contexts, and between planning cultures, we found that more or less the same technology, data and expertise could be used successfully in all the cases studies to make progress with the renewal of planning processes and participation. The knowledge required to apply these innovations covers the whole spectrum from awareness raising to complete integration of geo-visualisation in the processes of plan preparation and implementation. An important stimulus for this was having access to a Spatial Data Infrastructure. If this infrastructure is organised in such a way that the data can be used for multiple purposes and at different scales, the initial costs of using this information in a concrete development project will be relatively small. Public authorities can then make a quick and efficient start with using geo-visualisations, and put the lessons learned described above directly into practice.

174 

Imaging the future

References Aarts, M.N.C., 1998. Een kwestie van natuur. Een studie naar de aard en het verloop van communicatie over natuur en natuurbeleid. Doctoral thesis, Wageningen University. Adams, N., J. Alden and N. Harris (eds), 2006. Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot. Adler, R.B. andG. Rodman, 1997. Understanding Human Communication. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth. Ahonen-Rainio, P., 2003. Concept testing of some visualisation methods for geographic metadata. In: K. Virrantaus and H. Tveite (eds), ScanGIS’2003 – The 9th Scandinavian Research Conference on Geographical Information Science, 4–6 June 2003, Espoo, Finland – Proceedings. Department of Surveying, Helsinki University of Technology, pp. 103–117. Albrechts, L., 2006. Shifts in strategic planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environment and Planning A 38: 1149–1170. Albrechts, L., J. Alden and A. da Rosa Pires (eds), 2001. The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot. Albrechts, L., P. Healey and K.R. Kunzmann, 2003. Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association 69: 113–129. Alexander, B., 2006. Web 2.0. A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE review March/April 2006 41(2): 32–44. Al-Kodmany, K., 1999. Using visualisation techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation, and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: 37–45. Al-Kodmany, K., 2001. Supporting imageability on the World Wide Web: Lynch’s five elements of the city in community planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28: 805–32. Al-Kodmany, K., 2002. Visualisation tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature 17(2): 189–211. An, K., 2005. Implementation of real-time landscape visualisation for planning process. In: E. Buhman, P. Paar, I. Bishop and E. Lange (eds), Trends in Real-Time Landscape Visualisation and Participation. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2005. Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 184–194. Andrienko, N., G. Andrienko and P. Gatalsky, 2003. Exploratory spatio-temporal visualisation: An analytical review. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 14: 503–541. Appleton, K. and A. Lovett, 2003. GIS-based visualization of rural landscapes: Defining ‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decisionmaking. Landscape and Urban Planning 65(3): 117–131. Appleton, K. and A. Lovett, 2005. GIS-based visualization of development proposals: Reactions from planning and related professionals. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29(3): 321–339. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 8: 216–224. Batty, M., M. Dodge, S. Doyle and A. Hudson-Smith, 1998. Modelling virtual urban environments. CASA Working Paper 01, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London. http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/publications/workingPaperDetail.asp?ID=1

Imaging the future 

175

References

Bergen, S.D., C.A. Ulbricht, J.L. Fridley and M.A. Ganter, 1995. The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15: 135–146. Bertin, J., 1981. Graphics and Graphic Information Processing. Walter de Gryter Inc., Berlin. Bishop, I.D., R.B. Hull IV and C. Stock, 2005. Supporting personal world-views in an envisioning system. Environmental Modelling & Software 20: 1459–1468. Bishop, I.D. and B. Dave, 2001. Beyond the moving camera: Systems development for interactive immersive exploration of urban environments. In: K.K. Kim (ed), Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management Honolulu, July 2001. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii, Hawaii, USA, pp. 1–20. Bishop, I.D. and E. Lange, 2005. Visualization classified. In: E. Lange and I. Bishop (eds), Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning – Technology and Applications. Taylor and Francis, London and New York, pp. 23–34. Bishop, I.D. and B. Rohrmann, 2003. Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning 65(4): 261–277. Bishop, I.D., W.E. Ye and C. Karadaglis, 2001. Experiential approaches to perception response in virtual worlds. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 115–123. Bloemmen, M., A. Ligtenberg, R. van Lammeren and T. Hoogerwerf, 2005. Approaches for the use of geo-visualisation in participatory planning processes. PSPE Work/Working document, Wageningen University. Bodum, L., 2005. Modelling virtual environments for geo-visualisation: A focus on representation. In: J. Dykes, A.M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak (eds), Exploring Geovisualisation. Pergamon/ Elsevier. Bos, S., A. Bregt and R. van Lammeren, 1998. Overdracht van ruimtelijke informatie door 2D- en 3D-visualisaties. Kartografisch Tijdschrift 14(4): 18–24. Bulmer, D., 2001. How can computer simulated visualisations of the built environment facilitate better public participation in the planning process? Online Planning Journal. http://www.casa. ucl.ac.uk/planning/articles61/complanning.pdf (13 November 2001). Cabus, P., 2002. Governance in Flanders’ regional policy: Subregional platforms as development coalitions. Belgeo 3: 277–293. Camara, A., 2005. Virtual reality and the simulation of Europe’s land use in the XXI century. ILAB Nova Lisboa paper, 30 p. Carlsson, B. and S. Jacobsson, 1997. Diversity creation and technological systems: A technology policy perspective. In: C. Edquist (ed), Systems of Innovation – Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. Pinter, London, pp. 266–294. Carlsson, B. and R. Stankiewicz, 1991. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1: 93–118. Carver, S., 2003. The future of participatory approaches using geographic information: Developing a research agenda for the 21st Century. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association 15(1): 61–71. Castells, M., 1996. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. I: The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

176 

Imaging the future



References

Castro, E.D. and A. McNaughton, 2003. Bioregional mapping as a participatory tool in the Community Based Watershed Management Project in Santo Andre, Greater Sao Paulo, Brazil. Paper prepared for delivery at the 2003 meeting for the Latin American Studies Associations, Dallas, Texas. Committee on Spatial Development, 1999. European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Contreras, M.J., R. Colom, P.C. Shih, M.J. Alava and J. Santacreu, 2001. Dynamic spatial performance: Sex and educational differences. Personality and Individual Differences 30: 117–126. Craglia, M., A. Annoni, M. Klopfer, C. Corbin, L. Hecht, G. Pichler and P. Smits (eds), 2003. GINIE: Geographic information in the Wider Europe. University of Sheffield, Sheffield. Crompvoets, J.W.H.C., 2006. National spatial data clearinghouses: Worldwide development and impact. Doctoral thesis, Wageningen UR. Da Rosa Pires, A., 2005. The fragile foundations of European spatial planning in Portugal. European Planning Studies 13: 237–252. Dalal-Clayton, B. and D. Dent, 1993. Surveys, Plans and People: A Review of Land Resource Information and its Use in Developing Countries. Environmental Planning Issues 2. IIED, London. Darken, R.P. and B. Peterson, 2002. Spatial orientation, wayfinding, and representation. In: K.E. Stanney (ed), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp. 493–518. Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340. De Bruyne, T. and A. Broos, 2006. Van Stedelijke Website tot Digitale Stad. Uitgeverij Vandenbroele, Bruges. De Caluwé, L. and H. Vermaak, 2006. Leren veranderen: een handboek voor de veranderkundige. Alphen aan de Rijn, Samsom. De Man, W.H.E., 2003. Cultural and institutional conditions for using geographic information: Access and participation. URISA Journal 15, Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information Number 1 (two part special issue in electronic form only: http://www. urisa.org/node/8060). De Roo, R., 2005. Improving Geo-VR: Immersion, navigation & multi-user interaction. Thesis report GIRS-2005–08, Wageningen University. De Rynck, F. and J. Voets, 2006. Democracy in area-based policy networks. The case of Ghent. American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 58–78. De Swart, N., 2007. Onderzoek naar functionaliteit RO-Online website. Draft internal report. Geonovum [National Spatial Data Infrastructure executive committee in the Netherlands], Amersfoort, Netherlands. DiBiase, D., 1990. Visualisation in earth sciences. Bulletin of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University 59: 13–18. Downes, S., 2005. E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine (October 2005). http://www.elearnmag.org/ subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

Imaging the future 

177

References

Dransch, D., 2000. The use of different media in visualizing spatial data. Computers and Geosciences 26(1): 5–9. Duyvendak, J.W. and A. Krouwel, 2001. Interactieve beleidsvorming: Voortzetting van een rijke Nederlandse traditie? In: J. Edelenbos and R. Monnikhof (eds), Lokale Interactieve Beleidsvorming. Uitgeverij Lemma BV, Utrecht. Dykes, J., A.M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak (eds), 2005. Exploring Geovisualisation. Pergamon/ Elsevier. Edelenbos, J., 2001. Interactieve beleidsvorming als inhoudsabsorberend proces. Bestuurskunde 10(8): 349–356. Edelenbos, J. and R. Monnikhof, 2001. Locale interactive beleidsvorming. Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de consequenties van interactieve beleidvorming voor het functioneren van de locale democratie. Uitgeverij Lemma BV, Utrecht. Edelenbos, J., R. Monnikhof and H. Galesloot, 1998. Spanning in interactie: Een Analyse van Interactief Beleid in Lokale Democratie. Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, Amsterdam. Edquist, C., 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations. Pinter, London. Edquist, C., 2001. The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An Account of the State of the Art. DRUID, Aalborg. Edsall, R.M., 2003. The parallel coordinate plot in action: Design and use for geographic visualisation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 43(4): 605–619. Ervin, S.M., 2001. Digital landscape modeling and visualisation: A research agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 49–62. Europa Decentraal, 2006. Overeenstemming bereikt over INSPIRE-richtlijn. http://www.ikcro. nl/php/object.php?id=305396 (23 November 2006). European Commission, 1997. The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Regional Development Studies. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission, 2001. European Governance: A White Paper (COM(2001) 428 Final), Brussels. European Commission, 2002. Guidance document on public participation in relation to the water framework directive. Active involvement, consultation, and public access to information. Annex I Public participation techniques. European Commission, 2004. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE) (COM(2004) 516 Final), Brussels. Fairbairn, D., G. Andrienko, N. Andrienko, G. Buziek and J. Dykes, 2001. Representation and its relationship with cartographic visualisation: A research agenda. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 28(1): 1–29 Faludi, A.K.F., 2006. The king is dead – Long live the king! Why there is no renewed European Spatial Development Perspective and what happens to the ESDP agenda anyhow. In: L. van DePoele, F. Delmartino, M. Hart and A. Lagendijk (eds), Shaping EU Regional Policy: Economic, Social and Political Pressures. Regional Studies Association, Leuven, pp. 1–16.

178 

Imaging the future



References

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice Hall, London. Font, J. and I. Blanco, 2003. Polis, la ciutat participativa. Participar en els municipis: qui, com i per què? Papers de Participació Ciudadana, 9. Diputació de Barcelona, Xarxa de Municipis. Font, J., I. Blanco, R. Gomá and M. Jarque, 2000. Mecanismos de Participación Ciudadana en la Toma de Decisiones Locales: Una visión panorámica. In: XIV Concurso de Ensayos y Monografías sobre Reforma del Estado y Modernización de la Administración Pública. Administración Pública y Ciudadanía, Serie Documentos Debate. Centro Latinoamericano de Administración para el Desarrollo, Caracas. Fuhrmann, S., P. Ahonen-Rainio, R.M. Edsall, S.I. Fabrikant, E.L. Koua, C. Tobón, C. Ware and S. Wilson, 2005. Making useful and useable geo-visualisation: Design and evaluation issues. In: J. Dykes, A. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak (eds), Exploring Geovisualisation. Pergamon/Elsevier, pp. 553–566. Fundació, J.F. (ed), 2004. La participacio ciutadana a través de les noves tecnologies. Estratègies per a la utilització de Consensus. Colecció Finestra Oberta 42. Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31(8-9): 1257–1274. Geertman, S., 2002. Participatory planning and GIS: A PSS to bridge the gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29(1): 21–35. Graham, A., 2001. No more dreams of America. Citizen initiative, global transfer and global exclusion in Poland. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20: 293–307. Groetelaars, D.A., 2002. Visuele interactie in 3D-GIS & Virtual Reality. Geodesia 44(1): 28–31. Hajer, M., 2006. Planning is dood, lang leve de planning! Voor een heruitvinding van de strategische planning. Stedenbouw & Ruimtelijke Ordening 87(5): 26–31. Hajer, M. and W. Zonneveld, 2000. Spatial planning in the network society – Rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies 8(3): 337–355. Haklay, M., 2003. Community participation and geographic information systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30(2): 319–320. Haklay, M.M. and C. Tobon, 2003. Usability evaluation and PPGIS: Towards a user-centred design approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17(6): 577–592. Healy, P., 2004. The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(1): 45–67. Hearnshaw, H.M. and D.J. Unwin, 1994. Visualisation in Geographical Information Systems. Wiley. Heim, M., 1998. Virtual Realism. Oxford University Press, New York. Hekkert, M.P., R.A.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann and R.E.H.M. Smits, 2007. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(4): 413–432. Helfand, G.E., J.E. Park, J.I. Nassauer and S. Kosek, 2006. The economics of native plants in residential landscape designs. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 229–240.

Imaging the future 

179

References

Hendler, S. (ed), 1999. Planning Ethics, A Reader in Planning, Theory and Education. 2nd Edition. Centre for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ. Hoffmann, M.C., 2003, The Ethics of Public Data Dissemination: Finding the ‘public’ in Public Data. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of PPGIS, 21–23 July, Portland OR. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), Park Ridge IL, pp. 273–82. Hofschreuder, J.M., 2004. Visual criteria in detail: Correlation between the required level of detail of 3D-landscape visualisations and visual criteria. Thesis report 04-16, Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University. Holden, R. and T. Turner, 1997. Western Europe, current city expansion and the use of GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 36(4): 315–326. Holzinger, A., 2005. Usability engineering methods for software developers. Communications of the ACM 48(1): 71–74. Hoogerwerf, T., 2003. The use of virtual reality in spatial planning: A study on realism requirements in the levels of public participation. Thesis report GIRS2003–34, Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing Group, Wageningen University. Hoogerwerf, T., 2005a. Geo-visualisation approaches. Internal report for PSPE project, Wageningen University. Hoogerwerf, T., 2005b. Work visit Poland. Internal report for PSPE project, Wageningen University. Innes, J.E. and D.E. Booher, 2000. Planning institutions in the network society: Theory for collaborative planning. In: W. Sale and A. Faludi (eds), The Revival of Strategic Planning. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, Amsterdam, pp. 175–189. Institut de Govern i Polítiques Púbiliques (IGOP), 2005. La Participació Ciutadana als Petits Municipis. http://www10.gencat.net/drep/binaris/petitsmunicipis_tcm112-43888.pdf Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 2002. Perspectives. Guidelines on Participation in Environmental Decision-making. Perspectives series 2. IEMA, Lincoln. Internet World Stats, 2007. Internet Usage in the European Union. http://www.internetworldstats. com/stats4.htm#europe (29 March 2007). Kaufmann, S., 2005. Soziologie der Landschaft. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Freiburg. King J.L. and K.L. Kraemer, 1984. Evolution and organizational information systems: An assessment of Nolan’s Stage Model. Communications of the ACM 27(5): 456–475. Kingston, R., S. Carver, A. Evans and I. Turton, 2000. Web-based public participation geographical information systems: An aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24(2): 109–125. Kok, B. and B. van Loenen, 2005. How to assess the success of National Spatial Data Infrastructures? Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29(6): 699–717. Kraak, M.-J., 2003. Geovisualization illustrated. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing 57: 390–399. Kraak, M.-J. and A.M. MacEachren, 2005. Geo-visualisation and GIScience. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 32(2): 67–69. Kraak, M.-J. and F.J. Ormeling, 2003. Cartography: Visualization of Geospatial Data, second edition. Prentice Hall, Harlow, England.

180 

Imaging the future



References

Krause, C.L., 2001. Our visual landscape managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 239–254. Kunzmann, K.R., 2000. Strategic spatial development through information and communication. In: Salet, W., Faludi, A. (eds): The Revival of Strategic Planning. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, Amsterdam, pp. 259–265. Kunzmann, K.R., 2006. The Europeanization of spatial planning. In: N. Adams, J. Alden and N. Harris (eds), Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, pp. 43–63. Kwan, M.P. and J. Lee, 2004. Geovisualization of human activity patterns using 3D GIS: A timegeographic approach. In: M.F. Goodchild and D.G. Janelle (eds), Spatially Integrated Social Science: Examples in Best Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 48–66. Lange, E., 2001. The limits of realism: Perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 163–182. Lange, E. and I.D. Bishop, 2001. Our visual landscape. Analysis, modeling, visualization and protection. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 1–3. Lass, J., 2000. Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems in the Baltic Sea Region. Visions and Strategies around the Baltic Sea (VASAB) 2010. http://vasab.leontief.net/ Laurini, R., 2001. Computer Systems for Public Participation. Sommet de Villes de la Méditerranée, 11–14 October 2001, Genoa, Italy. http://www.gisig.it/vpc_sommet/CD_Sommet/ws3/ articololaurini.pdf Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation. Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford. Lendi, M. and K.-H. Hübler, (eds), 2004. Ethik in der Raumplanung, Zugänge und Reflexionen. Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, Forschungs- en Sitzungsberichte, Band 221, Hannover. Lendzion, J. and K. Lokucijewski, 2000. Poland. In: J. Lass, 2000. Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems in the Baltic Sea Region. Visions and Strategies around the Baltic Sea (VASAB) 2010. http://vasab.leontief.net/ Lewis, J.L. and S.R.J. Sheppard, 2006. Culture and communication: Can landscape visualisation improve forest management consultation with indigenous communities? Landscape and Urban Planning 77(3): 291–313. Lloyd, R., 1997. Spatial Cognition: Geographic Environments. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Louwsma, J., S. Zlatanova, R. van Lammeren and P. van Oosterom, 2006. Specifying and implementing constraints in GIS – with examples from a Geo-Virtual Reality system. GeoInformatica 10(4): 531–550. Lovett, A., K. Appleton, G. Sünnenberg, B. Evans, J. Orson and S. Herrmann, 2006. Modelling and visualising runoff and soil erosion problems in an agricultural catchment. In: E. Buhmann and S. Jörgenson (eds) Trends in Knowledge-Based Landscape Modeling. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2006. Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg.

Imaging the future 

181

References

Lovett, A., J.R. Kennaway, G. Sunnenberg, R.N. Cobb, P.M. Dolman, T. O’Riordan and D.B. Arnold, 2002. Visualizing sustainable agricultural landscapes. In: P. Fisher and D.J. Unwin (eds), Virtual Reality in Geography. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 102–131. Lovett, A., G. Sünnenberg, T. Dockerty, P. Dolman, D. Cobb and T. O’Riordan, 2002. The use of VRML in landscape visualisation. Trends in GIS and virtualisation. In: E. Buhmann, U. Nothhelfer and M. Pietsch (eds), Trends in GIS and Virtualisation in Environmental Planning and Design. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2002. Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg. Luisman, H., 2006. 3D visualisation methods for geo-data change. Thesis report GIRS 2006–12, Wageningen University. Luz, F., 2000. Participatory landscape ecology – A basis for acceptance and implementation. Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (1–3):157–166. Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London. Maarleveld, M., R.J. van de Velde, J. van Uum and I. Pleizier, 2006. To see or not to see, that is the question: Geoinformation visualisation tools as a means to facilitate stakeholder dialogues in land and water management. In: S. Stoll-Kleemann and M.W. Welp (eds), Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management Theory and Practice. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg. MacEachren, A.M., 2005. Moving geovisualization toward support for group work. In: J. Dykes, A.M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak (eds), Exploring Geovisualisation. Pergamon/Elsevier. MacEachren, A.M. and I. Brewer, 2004. Developing a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geocollaboration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 18(1): 1–34. MacEachren, A.M., R. Edsall, D. Haug, R. Baxter, G. Otto, R. Masters, S. Fuhrmann and L. Qian, 1999. Virtual Environments for Geographic Visualization: Potential and Challenges. Proceedings of the 1999 workshop on new paradigms in information visualisation and manipulation, in conjunction with the eighth ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Kansas City, Missouri, United States. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA. Manstead, A.S.R., 1996. Attitudes and behaviour. In: G. Semin and K. Fiedler (eds), Applied Social Psychology. Sage Publications Ltd. Masser, I., 1998. The first generation of national geographic information strategies. In: Proceedings of Selected Conference Papers of the 3rd Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Conference, 17–19 November 1998, Canberra, Australia. Masser, I., 1999. All shapes and sizes: the first generation of National Spatial Data Infrastructures. International Journal of Geographic Information Science 13: 67–84. Masum B. and K.M. Nahiduzzaman, 2003. Prospect and efficiency of 3D visualisation of urban settings: Exploration into the nature and extent of applications in planning affairs. In: J. Schiewe, M. Hahn, M. Madden and M. Sester (eds.), Challenges in Geospatial Analysis, Integration and Visualisation II, Proceedings of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS) Workshop, 8–9 September 2003, Stuttgart. (CD-ROM). Milosz, M., 2005. Usability evaluation of geo-visualisation in the participatory spatial planning. Thesis report GIRS 2005-x, Wageningen University. Momot, A., 2003. Visualisation of the hydrologic data of Biebrza Valley in Poland. Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University.

182 

Imaging the future



References

Monmonier, M., 1996. How to Lie with Maps. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Moote, M.A., M.P. McClaran and D.K. Chickering, 1997. Theory in practice: Applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environmental Management 21(6): 877–889. Nassauer, J.I. (ed), 1997. Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC. Nebert, D.D. (ed), 2004. Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook, version 2.0, 24 January 2004, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure. www.gsdi.org/gsdicookbookindex.asp (pdf ). Neópolis, 2006. La participació ciutadana en els municipis gironins. Direcció General de Participació Ciudadana, Generalitat de catalunya i Xarxa de Municipis Participatius de les Comarques Gironines. Nielsen, J. and R.L. Mack, 1994. Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York. Nolan, R., 1973. Managing the computer resource: A stage hypothesis. Communications of the ACM 16(7): 399–405. Nothhelfer, U., 2002. Landscape architecture in the reality-virtuality: In: E. Buhmann, U. Nothhelfer and M. Pietsch (eds), Trends in GIS and Virtualisation in Environmental Planning and Design, Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2002. Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg. Orland, B., K. Budthimedhee and J. Uusitalo, 2001. Considering virtual worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 139–148. Ottens, S.M., 2004. Muppet - A 3D discussion environment. Thesis report GIRS2004-033 Wageningen University. Otterman, E., E. Opdam, F. van Heest and L. Hick, 2006. Klik en Klaar? Ruimtelijke informatie voor burgers op internet, Report 16 maart 2006. Novio Consult Van Spaendonck BV, Nijmegen. Paar, P., O. Schroth, U. Wissen, E. Lange and W.A. Schmid, 2004. Steckt der Teufel im Detail? Eignung unterschiedlicher Detailgrade von 3D – Landschaftsvisualisierung für Bürgerbeteiligung und Entscheidungsunterstützung. In: M. Schrenk (ed) CORP 2004 Geo-Multimedia 04 – Proceedings. Vienna University of Technology. Partidário, Maria do Rosário, 1999. Introdução ao Ordenamento do Território. Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, 111 p. Petts, J. and B. Leach, 2000. Evaluating methods for public participation: Literature review. R&D Technical Report: E135. Environment Agency, Bristol. Pindado, F., O. Rebollo and J. Martí (eds), 2002. Eines per a la participació ciudadana. Bases, mètodes i techniques. Papers de Participació Ciudadana 6. Diputació de Barcelona, Xarxa de Municipis. Pleizier, I.D., R. van Lammeren, H.J. Scholten and R. van de Velde, 2004. Using virtual reality as information tool in spatial planning. In: W. Kuhn (ed.), Proceedings of EuroConference on Methods to Support Interactions in Geovisualisation Environments, 13–18 March 2004, Kolymbari, Crete: ESF (2004). Rajabifard, A. and I.P. Williamson, 2001. Spatial Data Infrastructures: Concept, SDI Hierarchy and Future Directions. Proceedings of GEOMATICS’80 Conference, Tehran, Iran. http://www. geom.unimelb.edu.au/research/publications/IPW/4_01Raj_Iran.pdf.

Imaging the future 

183

References

Rajabifard, A., M.-E.F. Feeney, I.P. Williamson and I. Masser, 2003. National GDI initiatives. In: I. Williamson, A. Rajabifard and M.-E.F. Feeney (eds.), Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 101–105. Reber, R., N. Schwarz and P. Winkielman, 2004. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4): 364–382. Riedijk, A., R. van de Velde, I. Pleizier, T. Hoogerwerf, R. van Lammeren, W. Baltussen, J. Jansen, P. Wynia, J. van Uum and R. van Wilgenburg, 2006. Virtual Netherlands. Geo-visualisation for interactive spatial planning and decision-making: From wow to impact. Definition Study. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Rinner, C., 2001. Argumentation maps: GIS-based discussion support for on-line planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28(6): 847–863. Rivolin, U.J. and A. Faludi, 2005. The hidden face of European spatial planning: Innovations in governance. European Planning Studies 13(2): 195–215. Robertson, G., M. Czerwinski and M. van Dantzich, 1997. Immersion in desktop virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposiun on User Interface Software and Technology, October 14–17 1997, Banff, Alberta, Canada. ACM Press, New York, USA, pp. 11–19. Rohrmann, B. and I. Bishop, 2002. Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 319–331. Robinson, A.C, J. Chen, E.J. Lengerich, H.G. Meyer and A.M. MacEachren, 2005. Combining usability techniques to design geovisualization tools for epidemiology. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 32(4): 243–255Röling, N.G., 2002. Beyond the aggregation of individual preferences. Moving from multiple to distributed cognition in resource dilemma’s. In: C. Leeuwis and R. Pyburn (eds), Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social Learning in Rural Resource Management. Van Gorkum, Assen, pp. 25–47. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp and M. van Asselt, 2001. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight – The Journal of Future Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy 3(1): 15–31. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, M. van Asselt, F. Geels, G. Verbong and K. Molendijk, 2000. Transitiemanagement: de casus van een emissiearme energievoorziening. International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS), Maastricht. Rowe, G. and L.J. Frewer, 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3–29. Sancer, F.H., 1993. An integrative approach to public participation and knowledge generation in design. Landscape Planning 26(1–4): 67–88. Sarjakoski, T., 1998. Networked GIS for public participation – Emphasis on utilizing image data. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 22(4): 381–392. Schama, S., 1995. Landscape and Memory. Vintage Books, New York. Schmidt, Luísa, 2005. Saber é poder. Expresso (ÚNICA), pp. 62–65. Schneiderman, B., 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-computer Interaction. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Boston MA.

184 

Imaging the future



References

Scholten, H.J. and M. Grothe, 1996. GIS in de publieke sector: Een inventarisatie naar gebruik van geo-informatie en GIS bij de Nederlandse overheid. Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, Utrecht / Vakgroep Ruimtelijke Economie, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Serpa, J., 2004. Interactive technologies for public participation. Thesis report, New University of Lisbon. Shannon, C., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Technical Journal 27: 379–423. Sheppard, S.R.J., 2001. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualisation. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 183–199. Sheppard, S.R.-J., 2005. Validity, reliability and ethics in visualization. In: E. Lange, I. Bishop (eds), Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning – Technology and Applications. Taylor & Francis, London, New York, pp. 79–97. Sieber, R., 2006. Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(3): 491–507. Slocum, T.A., C. Blok, B. Jiang, A. Koussoulakou, D.R. Montello, S. Fuhrmann and N.R. Hedley, 2001. Cognitive and usability issues in geovisualisation. Cartography and Geographic Information Society 28(1): 61–75. Streich, B., 2004. Information, Wissen, Planungsprozesse und Macht, Die Wissengesellschaft als Herausforderung an die Planungsethik. In: M. Lendi and K.-H. Hübler (eds), Ethik in der Raumplanung, Zugänge und Reflexionen. Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte, Band 221, Hannover, pp. 31–49. Strobl, J., 2006. Visual interaction: Enhancing public participation? In: E. Buhmann and S. Jörgenson (eds), Trends in Knowledge-Based Landscape Modeling. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2006. Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg. Szydarowski, W., 2001. Poland and the European development perspectives. In: M. Hansen and K. Böhme (eds), Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea Region. Implications of the European Development Perspectives. Nordregio, Stockholm, pp. 31–34. Talen, E., 2000. Bottom-up GIS - A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(3): 279–294.Thacher, D., 2004. The casuistical turn in planning ethics, lessons from law and medicine. Journal of Planning Education and Research 3: 269–285. Thompson, E.M. and M. Horne, 2006. Diversity in virtual reality landscape modelling. In: E. Buhmann and S. Jörgenson (eds), Trends in Knowledge-Based Landscape Modeling. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2006. Herbert Wichmann verlag, Heidelberg. Todt, O., 1999. Social decision-making on technology and the environment in Spain. Technology in Society 21: 201–216. Tress, B., G. Tress and G. Fry, 2003. Potential and limitations of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape studies. In: B. Tress, G. Tress, A.J.J. van der Valk and G. Fry (eds), Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Landscape Studies: Potentials and Limitations. DELTA Series 2. Wageningen, pp. 182–192. Tufte, E.R., 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire CT, USA.

Imaging the future 

185

References

Van der Horst, H., 1996. The Low Sky: Understanding the Dutch. The Book that Makes the Netherlands Familiar. Scriptum Books/Nuffic, Schiedam/Den Haag. Van der Valk, A.J.J., 2002. The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning 58(2–4): 201–210. Van Lammeren, R. and A. Bergsma, 2006. Towards geodata-based communities: Moving from mapping tools to digital peep-box. GIM International 20(8): 31–33. Van Lammeren, R. and T. Hoogerwerf, 2003. Geo-virtual reality and participatory planning. Virtual Landscape Position paper version 2.0, CGI-rapport 2003–07. Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen. Van Lammeren, R., R. Olde Loohuis, A. Momot, and S. Ottens, 2004. VisualScan, 3D visualisations of 2D scenarios. CGI-report 2004-09. Wageningen University. Van Loenen, B., 2006. Developing geographical information infrastructures: The role of information policies. Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands. Van Twist, M.J.W., E.F. ten Heuvelhof and J. Edelenbos, 1998. Ontwikkelingen in wetenschap en technologie. ICT: Mogelijkheden voor sturing en ontwerp in landelijke gebieden. Nationale Raad voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, Den Haag. Van Woerkum, C.M.J., 2000. Communicatie en Interactieve Beleidsvorming. Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn. Van Woerkum, C.M.J. and M.N.C. Aarts, 2002. Wat maakt het verschil? Over de waarde van pluriformiteit in interactieve beleidsprocessen. Report 02.2.019, Innovatie Netwerk Groene Ruimte en Agrocluster, The Hague. Van Woerkum, C.M.J. and P. van Meegeren, 1999. Communicatie en verandering: Een introductie. In: C.M.J. van Woerkum and P. van Meegeren (eds), Basisboek Communicatie en Verandering. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam, pp. 11–27. Verbree, E., G. van Maren, R. Germs, F. Jansen and M.-J. Kraak, 1999. Interaction in virtual world views – Linking 3D GIS with VR. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13(4): 385–396. Visvalingram, M., 1994. Visualisation in GIS, cartography and ViSC. In: H. M. Hearnshaw and D. J. Unwin (eds), Visualisation in Geographic Information Systems. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York, pp. 18–25. Von Haaren, C., B. Oppermann, K.I. Friese, R. Hachmann, J. Meiforth, A. Neumann, S. Tiedke, B. Warren-Kretzschmar and F.-E. Wolter, 2005. Interaktiver Landschaftsplan Königslutter am Elm. Schriftenreihe: Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 24. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Bonn - Bad Godesberg. Vullings, W., A. Ligtenberg and J. Bulens, 2004. Evaluation of GIS-based design tool to support decision making within collaborative spatial planning. Paper presented at the 7th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Heraklion, Greece, 29 April to 1 May 2004, Parallel Session 8.2: Decision Support Systems. Wachowicz, M., J. Bulens F. Rip, H. Kramer, R. van Lammeren and A. Ligtenberg, 2002. GeoVR construction and use: The seven factors. Paper presented at the 5th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain, 25–27 April 2002.

186 

Imaging the future



References

Walsh, K.R. and S.D. Pawlowski, 2004. Collaboration and visualization: Integrative opportunities. Journal of Computer Information Systems 44(2): 58–64. Warren-Kretzschmar, B., A. Neumann and J. Meiforth, 2005. Interactive landscape planning – Results of a pilot study in Koenigslutter am Elm, Germany. In: M. Schrenk (ed), CORP 2005 GeoMultimedia 05 – Proceedings. Vienna University of Technology. Warren-Kretzschmar, B. and S. Tiedtke, 2005. What role does visualisation play in communication with citizens? – A field study from the Interactive Spatial Plan. In: E. Buhman, P. Paar, I. Bishop and E. Lange (eds), Trends in Real-Time Landscape Visualisation and Participation. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2005. Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 156167 Webler, T., S. Tuler and R. Krueger, 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27(3): 435–450. Witmer, B.G. and M.J. Singer, 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7(3): 225–240. Wood, J., S. Kirschenbauer, J. Döllner, A. Lopes and L. Bodum, 2005. Using 3D in visualisation. In: J. Dykes, A. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak (eds), Exploring Geovisualisation. Pergamon/Elsevier. Yun, L., C. Yufen and W. Yingjie, 2004. Cognition theory-based research on adaptive user interface for geo-visualisation system. In: S.A. Brandt (ed), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Geoinformatics, University of Gävle, Sweden, 7–9 June 2004. Gävle University Press, Gävle, Sweden.

URL references Chapter 1 [url 1] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/2005/all_about/egovernment/index_ en.htm

Chapter 2 [url 1] http://www.aesop-planning.com/Planning.html

Chapter 6 [url 1] http://aecnews.com/news/2006/06/12/1874.aspx [url 2] http://www.Askoxford.com [url 3] http://www.virtueelapeldoorn.nl [url 4] http://www.secondlife.com/ [url 5] http://www.gisig.it/vpc_sommet/CD_Sommet/ws3/articololaurini.pdf (see Laurini, 2001)

Chapter 8 [url 1] http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/wyborcza/1,68586,3296154.html#dalej

Chapter 10 [url 1] http://www.dorpinzicht.be

Imaging the future 

187

References

Internet links 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

188 

http://web.agiv.be http://www.cm-barreiro.pt http://www.dienstlandelijkgebied.nl http://www.geodan.nl http://www.gridw.pl http://www.grs.wur.nl http://www.lup.wur.nl http://www.pan.pl http://www.pspe.net http://www.sigte.udg.es http://www.spinlab.vu.nl http://www.uni-kassel.de http://www.fct.unl.pt http://www.vlm.be http://www.vu.nl http://www.wur.nl http://www.ydreams.com

Imaging the future

About the contributors Joana Abreu has worked at the Portuguese National Centre for Geographical Information and the Portuguese Geographical Institute. She was also part of SNIG, the team responsible for the implementation of the first National Spatial Data Infrastructure in Europe. She has an MSc in Geographical Information Systems from the School of Geography at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom. She is currently a consultant at the Quality of Life Division of YDreams - Informatica S.A. Maria Andrzejewska is Vice-Director of UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre, Poland. She holds an MSc in Geography and is specialised in cartography, geo-visualisation and remote sensing. She is an expert in cartographic design, image processing and spatial analyses using GIS. During the PSPE project she was responsible for GIS data processing and the use of geo-visualisation tools in public participation. Nuno Banza is Head of the Environmental Sustainability Division of the Municipality of Barreiro, Portugal. He graduated in Environmental Engineering at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and is currently studying for a Masters degree in Territorial Management and Environmental Planning. During the PSPE project he led the Portuguese case study team. Marek Baranowski is Director of UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre, Poland. He holds an MSc in Geography and a PhD in Computer-Assisted Cartography. He is an expert in GIS, geo-visualisation, and environmental reporting. He is also a member of the INSPIRE Implementation Rules Drafting Team on Data Specification. During the PSPE project he was the leader of the Polish case study team. Wim Boetze is a designer and planner specialising in rural and peri-urban areas. He works at the Government Service for Land and Water Management, Groningen, Netherlands. His current interests and activities are in land art, urban design and new methods for spatial transformations and visualisations. Diedrich Bruns is Professor of Land Use and Landscape Planning at Kassel University School of Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Planning, Germany. He is also the senior partner in the consulting firm Landscape Ecology and Planning. His current research interests include environmental risk management, planning concepts for heritage landscape values and concepts for urbanised landscapes. Susana Camacho works at the Environmental Sustainability Division of the Municipality of Barreiro, Portugal. She graduated in Environmental Engineering at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and is currently studying for a Masters degree in Sanitary Engineering. In the PSPE project she was responsible for the use and testing of the Virtual Flight and co-responsible for the analysis, evaluation and reporting of the results. Imaging the future 

189

About the contributors

Irene Compte Lobera has a degree in Geography and is specialised in Geographic Information Systems. Currently she is Director of the GIS Centre of the University of Girona, Spain. She has given several seminars and short courses in GIS at the University of Girona, the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, the Universidad Nacional of Costa Rica and the University of Salzburg. Silke Däne studied Landscape Planning at Kassel University, Germany and has an MSc in Landscape Architecture and Planning from Wageningen University, Netherlands. She currently works freelance with a focus on visual communication in spatial planning and methods and techniques of participation. Peter De Graef is a communication advisor at the Flemish Land Agency, Antwerp Office, Belgium. He advises on communication process for regional land use planning, land consolidation, nature conservation and other rural projects. Hilde Geskens is a graphic designer at the Flemish Land Agency, Antwerp Office, Belgium. She is responsible for the graphic design of the communication tools used for public information and consultation on regional rural projects. Tessa Hoogerwerf is GIS consultant at the Dutch Directorate for Public Works and Water Management. Her current professional interests include geo-information in a policy context. Jeroen Jansen was project manager of the PSPE project at the Flemish Land Agency, Antwerp Office, Belgium. He is currently project coordinator at the Regional Landscape Noord-Hageland (Demer Valley Project). Anna Kowalska is a researcher at the Department of Geoecology and Climatology at the Stanisław Leszczycki Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. She is currently working on her PhD thesis. Her main scientific interests are in geobotany, changes in plant communities, human activities in river valleys, GIS, nature protection and ecological education. Arend Ligtenberg is a senior researcher at Alterra, Centre for Geo-Information Science, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Netherlands. His current research interests include multi-agent systems for land use change modelling and geo-visualisation. Jan Matuszkiewicz is a Professor at the Department of Geoecology and Climatology at the Stanisław Leszczycki Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. His main research interests include plant ecology, especially the typology and dynamics of forest communities, and plant and vegetation cartography.

190 

Imaging the future

About the contributors

Malgorzata Milosz is a GIS specialist at the consulting firm Nieuwland, Wageningen, Netherlands. Her current professional interests include GIS applications for land use planning. Jochen Mülder holds an MSc in Landscape Planning and works as a research assistant in the Environmental Meteorology Group at Kassel University School of Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Planning, Germany. His focus is on using GIS for the preparation of Hong Kong’s Urban Climate Map. Rosa Olivella González is Coordinator of International Projects at the GIS Centre of the University of Girona, Spain. She is a Geography graduate and specialises in research, education and professional development in the fields of environment, spatial planning and recently in GIS. She has lectured in several courses at the University of Girona and was an environment technician at the Municipality of Celrà. Irene Pleizier is a researcher at the Spatial Information Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and at the geo-information firm Geodan, Amsterdam, Netherlands. She is working on a PhD on the influence of digital geo-information on secondary school geography education. Arda Riedijk is a researcher at the Spatial Information Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and a junior consultant at the National Spatial Data Infrastructure executive committee Geonovum, Amersfoort, Netherlands. Ewa Roo-Zielińska is a Professor at the Department of Geoecology and Climatology at the Stanisław Leszczycki Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. Her main research interests include plant ecology and plant geography, especially plant species and vegetation as indicators of the geographical environment. Monika Rusztecka is Programme Manager at UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre, Poland. She holds an MSc in Physical Geography and specialises in the development of spatial information systems and GIS-based applications. She has coordinated several software development projects focused on GIS and internet solutions. During the PSPE project she was responsible for the PSPE Polish website and the development of the Geo-Discussion Panel tool. Sabine Säck-da Silva is a research assistant in the Land Use and Landscape Planning Group at Kassel University School of Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Planning, Germany. Her research interests include communication in planning processes, participation methods and tools, visualisations, process evaluations and water management.

Imaging the future 

191

About the contributors

Henk Scholten is Professor in Spatial Informatics at the Faculty of Business Economics and Professor in Geo-Informatics at the Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Institute of Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. He is Scientific Director of the Spatial Information Laboratory (SPINlab), Center for Research and Education on Spatial Information, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is co-founder and CEO of Geodan, Amsterdam. João Serpa has a PhD in Environmental Engineering from the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, specialising in numerical modelling and tangible interfaces applied to environmental simulation. He works at YDreams, Portugal as a project manager, mainly in the field of education and culture. He has been involved in several interactive installations and ubiquitous computing projects. Jerzy Solon is a Professor of Landscape Ecology at the Department of Geoecology and Climatology at the Stanisław Leszczycki Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. His main research interests include vegetation differentiation at the landscape level, landscape and nature protection, forest ecosystems dynamics and different approaches to bio-indication. Adri van den Brink is a Professor of Spatial Planning at Wageningen University, Environmental Sciences Group, and senior strategist at the Government Service for Land and Water Management, Utrecht, Netherlands. His current research interests include the geographical dimensions of risk management, spatial transitions in the metropolitan landscape, and heritage management. Rob van de Velde has an MSc in Human Geography and Regional Planning from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. He is Director of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure executive committee Geonovum, Amersfoort and a lecturer at the Spatial Information Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. Until November 2006 he was Manager of the GIS Competence Centre at the Government Service for Land and Water Management, Utrecht, Netherlands and Project Manager of the PSPE project. Ron van Lammeren is an Associate Professor of Geo-information Science at Wageningen University, Environmental Sciences Group, Netherlands, and a Dutch state-registered landscape architect. His current research interests include geo-visualisation, m-learning (location based education) and spatial modelling. Heidi Van Offenwert is a GIS-coordinator at the Flemish Land Agency, Antwerp Office, Belgium.

192 

Imaging the future

About the contributors

Jo Van Valckenborgh is Account Manager for Research and Development at the Agency for Geographical Information Flanders, Gent, Belgium. He is involved in developing knowledge and giving advice related to image processing, geo-information infrastructure and services. Joost van Uum is a programme manager at the GIS Competence Centre of the Government Service for Land and Water Management, Utrecht, Netherlands. He is responsible for innovation and (re)development of GIS solutions within the organisation and involved in management and consultancy for GIS in rural development processes.

Imaging the future 

193

Keyword index A Aarhus Convention 24, 37 aerial photograph 56, 129, 138, 146, 153, 155 animation 76, 85, 120, 121, 123, 133, 135, 138, 155 architecture 36, 59, 130 B Barreiro 28, 29, 32, 60, 102, 104, 107, 171 Belgium 28, 46, 47, 48, 49, 165 C Catalonia 29, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63 cognition 26, 90, 95, 96, 100, 103 collaboration 89 communication –– channel 101, 164, 167 –– external 56, 147, 154 –– infrastructure 108 –– interactive 56, 143 –– internal 154 –– level 41 –– means 143, 150 –– medium 68 –– method 42, 49, 56, 67, 87 –– mode 99, 101, 104 –– model 33, 42, 101 –– platform 153 –– principle 61 –– process 42, 138, 143 –– protocol 41, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 151, 152, 153 –– skill 70, 78 –– strategy 114, 143 –– technique 49, 166 –– technology 32, 90, 101, 102, 154, 165 –– tool 26, 57, 109, 127, 132, 150, 166 Imaging the future 

consensus 25, 41, 47, 50, 109, 132 D decentralisation 46, 51 democracy 24, 37, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 61, 109, 117, 173, 174 E e-society 23, 24, 170 education 39, 55, 56, 57, 68, 69, 109, 114, 115, 116, 121, 134, 149, 159, 164, 165, 171 ethics of geo-visualisation 96, 104 ethics within government 164 European –– Birds and Habitat Directives 147 –– Commission 23, 24, 34, 35, 37, 44, 163 –– Community 24 –– competence 23 –– context 34, 46 –– Council 24, 163 –– Governance 24 –– Parliament 163 –– perspective 30 –– Regional/Spatial Planning Charter 34 –– Regional Development Fund 23 –– Schools of Planning 34 –– Spatial Development Perspective 23, 35, 48 –– Union 170 –– Union member states 23, 163 expertise –– local 128 F Flanders 28, 29, 46, 50, 141, 146 fly-over 56, 60, 80, 146, 173

195

Index

G geo-ICT 27, 32, 152, 161 geographical dimension 90 Germany 29, 31, 75, 173 Google Earth 58, 59, 71, 72, 89, 94, 104, 153, 154, 155, 170 Google Maps 153 governance 37, 46, 152, 174 government –– central 45, 46, 49 –– local 45, 50 –– national 50 –– regional 46, 50 graphic design 135, 146, 149, 172 Groningen Lake City 32, 97, 102, 104, 127, 171, 173 I ICT – See: Information and Communicatins Technology immersion 92, 94, 98, 99, 104 Information and Communications Technology 28, 36, 61, 65, 67, 109, 127, 136, 149, 153 information exchange 25, 26, 27, 87, 108, 109, 128, 169 INSPIRE 163, 173 intelligence 92, 93, 98, 104 interactive –– communication 31, 33 –– participation 39, 42, 49, 51 –– planning 43, 128, 129 interactivity 76, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 92, 93, 98, 100 INTERREG IIIC 23, 24, 28 K Kassel Calden 31, 75, 171, 172 knowledge –– behavioural 93 –– development 24, 159, 169 –– diffusion 159 196 

–– dissemination 109, 149, 166, 167 –– exchange 28, 108, 128, 172 –– expert 38 –– lay 38 –– local 128 –– technical 43, 61 L landscape –– perception 80 –– preferences 80 –– viewer 56, 59, 60, 61, 102, 145, 146 language –– common 42, 78 –– differences 42, 60 –– non-technical 42 –– technical 42 –– use 42 –– use of 33, 145 –– visual 42, 43 local –– authority 32, 43, 44, 45, 53, 55, 57, 67, 108, 116, 134, 141, 154, 171 –– citizens perceptions 31 –– environment 172 –– government 44, 150 –– inhabitants 145, 150 –– land use planning 29, 48, 49, 108, 109, 155 –– level 35, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55 –– people 36, 150 –– perspective 28 –– planning 55 –– platform 51 –– population 55, 60, 132, 141, 143 –– project 61, 141, 166 –– residents 85, 133, 143 –– scale 60, 61, 70 –– spatial planning 53, 65, 67, 108 –– support 150

Imaging the future

Index

M mental maps 95, 125 municipal –– authority 46, 66, 71, 72, 108, 109, 111, 171 –– level 35 –– policy 110 –– scale 49 municipal level 50 N national –– clearinghouse 162, 163, 164, 165 –– government 35, 46, 48, 108 –– level 67, 108, 152 –– planning system 34 –– spatial planning 35, 53, 169 national level 45, 46, 48 Netherlands 28, 29, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 66, 127, 130, 133, 134, 141, 155, 165 network society 36, 41, 51 NGOs 66, 68, 71, 72 O on-line visualisations 72 orthophotomap 59, 110, 114 P participation –– informal 51 –– interactive 40, 43, 44 –– ladder 39, 144, 173 –– level 25, 26, 38, 39, 41, 42, 68, 104, 142, 144 –– method 33, 40, 43, 62 –– model 150 –– non-interactive 40 –– online 141 –– procedure 31, 49, 53, 68, 108, 155 –– process 53, 55, 61, 68, 117 –– session 58, 69 Imaging the future 

–– technique 33, 42, 62, 108, 166 –– tool 169, 171 –– typology 39 perception 26, 27, 32, 47, 76, 80, 83, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 99, 103, 170 photo-realistic 97 photorealism 27 planning –– agency 28 –– approach 49 –– context 26, 27, 29, 47, 141 –– culture 23, 30, 33, 44, 45, 48, 51, 167, 174 –– decision 25, 45, 46, 107 –– ethics 41, 42, 171 –– experience 43 –– instrument 47, 141 –– local 46 –– phase 26 –– practice 29, 44, 49, 51, 87, 170, 172, 173, 174 –– procedure 25, 30, 69, 108, 130, 155, 166 –– regional 55, 146 –– setting 32, 56 –– situation 86 –– stage 29, 97, 138, 155 –– style 47 –– system 34, 35, 44, 45, 48, 49 –– tradition 44, 48 Poland 28, 30, 31, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 65, 67, 69, 73, 165, 171 Portugal 28, 29, 32, 46, 47, 49, 50, 60, 108, 110, 165 processing techniques 90 PSPE –– advisory board 147, 173 –– approach 29, 30, 32, 141, 169, 174 –– case 33, 44, 65, 90, 103, 104, 115 –– countries 51, 165 –– network 109 –– partners 33, 60, 147, 169 197

Index

–– studies 97 –– website 68, 69 public –– access 24, 32, 65 –– awareness 29, 69 –– consultation 49, 53, 65, 67, 73, 81, 108, 109 –– discussion 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 174 –– enquiry 145 –– feedback 93 –– hearing 50, 143 –– inquiry 72, 124 –– interest 81, 131 –– involvement 33, 37, 51, 103 –– sector 34, 46, 49, 134, 164, 173 –– space 54, 108, 117 –– support 147 Q questionnaire 58, 81, 82, 83, 109, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 132, 138 R regional –– development 23, 24, 28, 29, 34 –– dimension 23 –– disparity 49 –– identity 150 –– network 51 –– perspective 28 –– platform 46 –– policy 24, 35 –– project 149 –– residents 136 –– setting 28, 169 –– spatial planning 31, 34, 35, 46, 53, 65, 67 regional level 46, 48, 53, 55 representation 25, 26, 78, 86, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 104, 125, 132, 170, 173 Rio Declaration 24, 35, 37

198 

S Salt 70 30, 55, 57, 58, 171 scenarios 25, 66, 68, 72, 78, 96, 132, 154, 156 school –– elementary 111 –– high 59, 60 –– secondary 58, 60, 112, 133 SDI – See: Spatial Data Infrastructure simulation 41, 80, 110, 144, 145, 146 social learning 25, 30, 40 Spain 28, 30, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 59, 62, 63, 165 Spatial Data Infrastructure 32, 73, 151, 152, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 173, 174 stage of planning 142 standardisation 155, 161 sustainable development 34, 36, 47, 108, 115, 141 T territorial cohesion 23 transdisciplinary collaboration 38 transnational 23, 35 transparency 49, 51, 152, 155, 164 transregional 23 U urban planning 36, 61, 62, 111 V virtual flight 32, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 171 Vistula River Valley 29, 30, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 104, 170 visual –– aids 43, 128 –– clarity 78 –– communication 95, 128 –– language 33, 89 –– quality 27 Imaging the future

Index

–– representation 78, 89, 90, 126, 129, 172 visualisation –– approach 72 –– criteria 104 –– interactive 84 –– interface 100, 102, 103 –– method 27, 67, 90, 119, 138, 150 –– model 120 –– non-interactive 76, 84, 86 –– platform 97 –– process 90 –– technique 27, 73, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 129, 141, 143, 144, 147, 151, 156, 166, 167, 169 –– technology 51, 73, 151, 155, 166 –– type 76 W Water Framework Directive 35, 37, 49 Web 2.0 51, 152, 153, 154, 165 Z Zondereigen 29, 32, 104, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 173

Imaging the future 

199

Warszawa