18th iaps conferencevienna, july 8 th 2004
DESCRIPTION
18th IAPS ConferenceVienna, July 8 th 2004 . Assessing landscape needs in peri-urban communities: Promoting need-oriented participatory planning Jacqueline Frick Matthias Buchecker Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL. Needs regarding everyday landscape ?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Assessing landscape needs in peri-urban communities:
Promoting need-oriented participatory planning
Jacqueline FrickMatthias Buchecker
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
18th IAPS Conference Vienna, July 8th 2004
Role of participation?
Project topics
Needs regarding everyday landscape?
A positive feedback (Buchecker, 2002)
lower quality of life
withdrawal
low participation
increased leisure mobility
vicious circle
integration
attachment
need satisfaction
?
?
?
sustainable development
highparticipation
higher quality of life
Aims of the study
Assessing landscape-related needs of residents
Need structure, perceived quality of life
Interrelations between need satisfaction, participation and leisure mobility
Test existing assumptions (Buckecker, 2002)using a quantitative approach
Identifying reasons for (non-)participation Optimizing participatory methods
Research questions
1. Which landscape-related needs are most relevant for perceived quality of local living environment? social functions of landscape?
2. How do people react to unsatisfied needs? participation? withdrawal? compensation in remote areas?
Methods
Mail survey in three peri-urban municipalities (n = 1000 each)
First municipality: - 5700 inhabitants- 28 km from Zurich- well connected to public transportation, many commuters- Several participatory activities with limited inclusion of residents- municipality regarded innovative, committed to sustainable
development- attractive residential area
- 1000 questionnaires mailed to random sample, age 16 to 85, response rate: 38%
Assessing landscape-related needs
“How important for your living environment do you rate …”
Factor analysis:Mean rating
(0…10)
1. safety, restoration, nature 8.6
2. entertainment, hobby, contacts 6.5
3. town structure & traditional elements 6.6
4. opportunities for involvement, 6.1 co-operation, self-realization
5. opportunities for specific groups 7.7(children, families, elderly, adolescents)
Safety, restoration, nature
averageimportance
essential
5 6 7 8 9 10
places left to nature
feeling save
traffic safety
places to take a walk
public transportation
safety (crimes)
privacy
beautiful landscape
quietness
nature
Entertainment, hobby, contacts
averageimportance
essential
5 6 7 8 9 10
restaurants and venues
public festivities and events
entertainment
comfortable roads and access
organisations / clubs for hobby
diversion
opportunities for social contact outside
sport facilities
attractive public squares to linger
Town structure & traditional elements
averageimportance
essential
5 6 7 8 9 10
places reminding ofpast
identifiable towncenter
beautiful view ofthe place
Opportunities for involvement
averageimportance
essential
5 6 7 8 9 10
engagement
contribution(development)
creativity
caring for others
self-realization
use of abilities
respect
corporate feeling
Opportunities for specific groups
averageimportance
essential
5 6 7 8 9 10
families
elderly
children
adolescents
Need satisfaction / residential quality
Quality of criteria = Perceived availability weighted by importance
overall perceived quality of living
environment
safety / nature
involvement
hobby / contact
town structure
groups
.33***
.14**
.12*
n.s.
n.s. R2 = 23%
Residential quality and identity
place attachment(i=10)
involvement
hobby / contact
safety / nature
town structure
.45*** n.s.
.20***
n.s. R2 = 31%
Residential quality and integration
social integration(i=4)
involvement
hobby / contact
safety / nature
town structure
.53***
.20***
- .13*
n.s. R2 = 46%
Identity / integration and participation
self-reported withdrawal
attachment
integration
-.15*
-.14* R2 = 7%
self-reported commitmentintegration
.30***
R2 = 9%
Identity / integration and mobility
leisure activities in town (i=12)
attachment
integration
.38***
.18** R2 = 26%
leisure time spent in townattachment
.27***
R2 = 7%
Residential quality and mobility
leisure activities in town
involvement
hobby / contact
safety / nature
town structure
.22***
.21**
n.s.
n.s. R2 = 11%
Residential quality and mobility (2)
leisure time spent in town
involvement
hobby / contact
safety / nature
town structure
n.s. .16*
n.s.
.21** R2 = 9%
Answers to research questions
lower quality of life
increased leisure mobility
withdrawal
low participation
attachment integration
need satisfaction
?
?
?
Answers to research questions
lower quality of life
increased leisure mobility
withdrawal
low participation
attachment integration
need satisfaction
Conclusions
• Social functions of landscape:important for quality of life
Participation: One more step towards need-oriented consensus building
• Mobility: related to attachment
Where do we go from here?
• Comparison of different contexts
• Needs of different groups of actors (conflicts)
• Preferred ways to participate? (hindering reasons, preconditions)
• Intervention experiments (effect of participatory process on need satisfaction and social capital)
• Development of monitoring/evaluation tool
Thank you!
www.wsl.ch/land/society
Explaining (non-)participation
perceivedopportunities
attitudes part.
socialnorms
placeattachment
participationbehavior
self-efficacy
social fears
socialintegration