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