1 / 25

18th IAPS Conference Vienna, July 8 th 2004

18th IAPS Conference Vienna, 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 ?.

tamyra
Download Presentation

18th IAPS Conference Vienna, July 8 th 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 18th IAPS Conference Vienna, July 8th 2004 Assessing landscape needs in peri-urban communities:Promoting need-oriented participatory planning Jacqueline FrickMatthias Buchecker Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL

  2. Needs regarding everyday landscape? Role of participation? Project topics

  3. higher quality of life ?  need satisfaction  low participation high participation  integration  attachment vicious circle sustainable development ? increased leisure mobility withdrawal ? A positive feedback (Buchecker, 2002) lower quality of life

  4. 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

  5. Research questions Which landscape-related needs are most relevant for perceived quality of local living environment?  social functions of landscape? How do people react to unsatisfied needs? participation? withdrawal? compensation in remote areas?

  6. 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%

  7. Assessing landscape-related needs “How important for your living environment do you rate …” Factor analysis: Mean rating (0…10) safety, restoration, nature 8.6 entertainment, hobby, contacts 6.5 town structure & traditional elements 6.6 opportunities for involvement, 6.1 co-operation, self-realization opportunities for specific groups 7.7(children, families, elderly, adolescents)

  8. averageimportance essential Safety, restoration, nature

  9. averageimportance essential Entertainment, hobby, contacts

  10. averageimportance essential Town structure & traditional elements

  11. averageimportance essential Opportunities for involvement

  12. averageimportance essential Opportunities for specific groups

  13. Quality of criteria = Perceived availability weighted by importance safety / nature .33*** .14** involvement overall perceived quality of living environment .12* groups n.s. hobby / contact R2 = 23% n.s. town structure Need satisfaction / residential quality

  14. Residential quality and identity involvement .45*** hobby / contact n.s. place attachment(i=10) town structure .20*** safety / nature n.s. R2 = 31%

  15. Residential quality and integration involvement .53*** .20*** hobby / contact social integration(i=4) town structure - .13* n.s. safety / nature R2 = 46%

  16. self-reported commitment integration .30*** R2 = 9% -.15* attachment self-reported withdrawal integration -.14* R2 = 7% Identity / integration and participation

  17. leisure time spent in town attachment .27*** R2 = 7% .38*** attachment leisure activities in town (i=12) integration .18** R2 = 26% Identity / integration and mobility

  18. Residential quality and mobility involvement .22*** .21** hobby / contact leisure activities in town town structure n.s. n.s. safety / nature R2 = 11%

  19. Residential quality and mobility (2) involvement n.s. .16* hobby / contact leisure time spent in town town structure n.s. .21** safety / nature R2 = 9%

  20. lower quality of life ?  need satisfaction low participation  integration  attachment ? increased leisure mobility withdrawal ? Answers to research questions

  21. lower quality of life   need satisfaction low participation  integration  attachment  increased leisure mobility withdrawal  Answers to research questions

  22. Social functions of landscape:important for quality of life Participation: One more step towards need-oriented consensus building Conclusions • Mobility: related to attachment

  23. 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

  24. Thank you! www.wsl.ch/land/society

  25. Explaining (non-)participation attitudes part. self-efficacy socialintegration participationbehavior placeattachment social fears socialnorms perceivedopportunities

More Related