Multiple interpretations of the sustainable city

—Does the planner get lost?—

Lahti Science Day, Lahti, 27 November 2007

Janne HukkinenHelsinki University of Technology, TKK Lahti Center, Environmental Protectionjanne.hukkinen@hut.fi

Introduction: Hiking in the city (1)

Homogeneous party of hikers Heterogeneous party of hikers

Introduction: Hiking in the city (2)

Homogeneous party Heterogeneous party

Members Hikers with destination and schedule

Historian H, naturalist N, engineer E, layman L

Objective ’Go from A to B’ ’Appreciate the cityscape’

Items to observe (indicators)

MapFeatures of the cityStreets with signs

H: traces of past human activityN: signs of urban ecosystem typeE: signs of potential construction sitesL: enjoyable items in the cityscape

Indicators assume scenarios ’Appreciating the cityscape’ is like ’defining the

sustainable city’: several well-reasoned interpretations

Scenarios (storylines) articulate different assumptions about what is valuable in built environment

Indicators are a way of expressing the value of things in several different dimensions

Indicators assume scenarios, because scenarios provide a series of reference points against which to assess the significance of specific indicator values

In practice, scenarios often go unrecognized in indicator systems

The PSR indicator system Indicators make sense to human beings: they enable

communication of causally rooted intent to action PSR (articulation of scenario with indicators):

there exists pressure (P) which is likely to induce a change in the state (S) of affairs, which calls for an intentional response (R) from human

beings

Pressure State Response

Scenarios in the debate on the future of built heritage in Helsinki (HS 27 Nov and 4 Dec 2005)

City of Helsinki (Pekka Korpinen)

Board of Antiquities (Mikko Härö)

Pressure Helsinki must double building base in 50 years to maintain current population

Helsinki is under development pressures

State Too stringent protection of built heritage

Post-war built heritage in Helsinki is inadequately protected

Response Compromise: relax protection and develop areas currently under outdated use (Santahamina, Malmi airport)

Synthesis: respect built heritage in development by innovatively combining knowledge, views and public debate

Indicators assumed by the scenarios of built heritage in Helsinki

City of Helsinki (Pekka Korpinen)

Board of Antiquities (Mikko Härö)

Pressure Required rate of increase in building base (sq-m/yr)

Rate of disappearance of built heritage (sq-m/yr)

State Area protected (sq-m); type of protection (legal binding)

Age structure of protected built heritage (sq-m per era); type of protection (legal binding)

Response Benefit-cost ratio of land use; zero-sum compromises

Deliberative design of land use; win-win syntheses

How many scenarios? ’Compromise’ and ’synthesis’ are two scenarios Is there an infinite number of scenarios in any given

case? Or can we make sense of scenarios, storylines, and

viewpoints by categorizing them? Cultural theory

Cultural bias based on group and grid (Douglas 1982)

+-

-

+

Group (member-ship)

Grid (control)

hierarchic: centrally guided decisions within homogeneous group

fatalistic: centrally guided decisions within heterogenous group

egalitarian: individually based decisions within homogeneous group

individualistic: individually based decisions within heterogeneous group

Cultural biases in the Helsinki debate

+-

-

+

Group (member-ship)

Grid (control)

hierarchicfatalistic

egalitarian: WIN-WIN SYNTHESIS IS POSSIBLE

individualistic: COST-BENEFIT COMPROMISE IS NECESSARY

Built environment as a hybrid of cognition and artefact Built environment is not ’out there’ being created by

different cultural groups ’in here’ Multidisciplinary evidence: physical environment

structures human cognition and action science and technology studies (Winner, Haraway) ecological evolution (Ehrlich) cultural evolution (Tomasello) cognitive studies (Gentner)

Built environment is an artefactual sign language—a code—of cultural bias

Evolving hybrid of built heritage: cognition↔built environment

How can we as members of built heritage make decisions about our own future?--Scenarios and indicators--

To understand debates over built environment, need to articulate underlying cultural scenarios and respective indicators

Each scenario has a unique set of indicators and each indicator has a unique bandwidth the set of indicators expresses which issues are

significant in that particular scenario the bandwidth of an indicator expresses the

permissible range of variation in indicator value

Scenarios, indicators, and bandwidths

Scenario A(indicators1,2,4,6)

Scenario B(indicators1,3,5,6)

Indicators1

2

3

4

5

6

BandwidthsScenarios

How can we make decisions about the future?--Coexisting subcultures-- The four subcultures/scenarios coexist Scenarios can articulate the challenge of modern

human habitats: hybrids with simultaneous demand for maintenance of built heritage, high technical performance, and protection of valuable ecosystems

Details of cultural bias in built environment: toward indicators

Hierarchic Egalitarian Individualistic Fatalistic

Myth of nature-culture relationship

Governed by wise rulers

Governed by agreement among individuals

Governed by powerful majority

Beyond individual control

Decision making process

Welcomes regulatory directive

Win-win deliberation

Zero-sum compromise

Tolerates regulatory directive

Criterion of fit between entities of built env’t

Enlightened governance

Negotiated agreement

Benefit-cost ratio, monetary compensation

Planning theories

Inter-changeability between entities of built env’t

Hero planners design optimal systems

Irreplaceable buildings and materials

Replaceable buildings and materials

Regulations determine replacement

Policy benefits of scenario-framed indicators of built environment

Improve legitimacy of policies over built heritage (transparency)

Improve quality of indicators of built heritage (inclusive expertise)

Application of indicators at appropriate scale (co-existence of cultural biases)

Articulate path dependence of current choices (ratchet effect of built heritage)

Deal with contingencies