Herramientas web y Sistemas de Información Geográfica participativos como métodos para introducir la participación en procesos de planeamiento: el caso del Master Plan de Helsinki = Web tools and PPGIS as methods for introducing public participation in urban planning processes: the case of Helsinki’s Master Plan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20868/tf.2020.17.4494Palabras clave:
Participación pública, planificación urbana, TIC, SIG participativos, Master Plan, Public participation, urban planning, ICT, PPGISResumen
Resumen
El artículo explora nuevos métodos de participación que aprovechan las posibilidades de las herramientas web para implicar a la ciudadanía en los procesos de planificación urbana utilizando la metodología del estudio de caso a través de la revisión del Master Plan de Helsinki (Helsinki City Plan 2050). Las distintas herramientas utilizadas en cada fase, especialmente las basadas en Sistemas de Información Geográfica (PPGIS), han sido revisadas para evaluar su contribución al resultado del proceso e identificar las ventajas e inconvenientes que han planteado. Destaca el uso del cuestionario on-line con base cartográfica, una aplicación fácil de usar que presenta muchas posibilidades de análisis y visualización de datos y resultados, pero, sin embargo, los profesionales encuentran dificultades para incorporar los resultados en el documento final. Aspectos como la elección de la herramienta participativa, la preparación del cuestionario, la colaboración de los distintos agentes implicados y la devolución de resultados a la ciudadanía resultan claves para lograr el éxito del proceso.
Abstract
The research explores new participation methods that use the potential of web tools to engage citizens in urban planning processes using the case study methodology through the Helsinki’s Master Plan Review (Helsinki City Plan 2050). Different participation tools used at every stage, particularly Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS), have been analyzed in order to assess its contribution towards the outcome of the process and identify the advantages and disadvantages raised. The main tool is an on-line map-based survey, an easy-to-use application that offers many possibilities of data analysis and visualization but, however, planners find it difficult to incorporate the results into the final document. The choice of the participatory tool, the preparation of the survey, the collaboration of all stakeholders and reporting sessions to citizens are key issues to achieving the success of the process.
Descargas
Referencias
Al-Kodmany, K. (1999). Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in plan-ning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45(1), 37–45. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00024-9
Afzalan, N. (2015). Participatory plan making: Whether and how online participatory tools are use-ful. University of Colorado Denver. http://search.proquest.com/openview/ bb7fdb6a4d01cf298581df82246d75d4/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
Afzalan, N., Evans-Cowley, J. (2015). Planning and social media: Facebook for planning at the neighborhood scale. Planning Practice and Research, 3083), 270-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052943
Afzalan, N., Muller, B. (2018). Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 84(2), 162-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1434010
Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T. W., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2017). Creating smarter cities: Considerations for selecting online participatory tools. Cities, 67, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.002
Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3-S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007
Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2016) City-as-a-Platform: The Rise of Participatory Innovation Platforms in Finn-ish Cities. Sustainability, 8(9), 2-31. Recuperado de https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i9p922-d77952.html
Bäcklund, P., Mäntysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice –the case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9 (4), 333-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684
Brown, G., Kyttä, M. (2014). Key Issues and Research Priorities for Public Participation GIS (PPGIS): A Synthesis Based on Empirical Research. Applied Geography, 46, 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004.
City of Helsinki Urban Facts (2012). Helsinki Quaterly 4/2012. Recuperado de https://www.hel.fi/hel2/tietokeskus/julkaisut/pdf/13_01_11_Quarterly.pdf, fecha de consulta 8/10/2019
Conroy, M.M. & Evans-Cowley, J. (2006). E-participation in planning: An analysis of cities adopt-ing on-line citizen participation tools. Environment and. Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1k
Czepkiewicz, M., Jankowski, P., & Młodkowski, M. (2017). Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: Recruitment methods, participant engagement, and data quality. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44(6), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2016.1230520
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning, Journal of the American Institute of Plan-ners, 31(4), 331-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187
Ertiö T. (2015) Participatory Apps for Urban Planning—Space for Improvement. Planning Practice & Research, 30 (3), 303-321, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1052942
Evans-Cowley, J. & Hollander, J. (2010). The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet- based Participation Tools. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 397–408. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02697459.2010.503432
Evans-Cowley J., & Manta Conroy, M. (2006). The growth of e- government in municipal planning. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(1), 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630730600752892
Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. New York: Anchor Press.
Gordon, E., Schirra, S. & Hollander, J. (2011). Immersive planning: a conceptual model for de-signing public participation with new technologies, Environment and Planning B, 38(3), 505– 519. https://doi.org/10.1068/b37013
Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28(3), 289–307. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63 (2), 143-62. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/40113141
Helsinki City Planning Department (2017), Helsinki City Plan – Helsinki is growing sustainability. Helsinki Plans 2017:1. Recuperado de https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/esitteet/esite-2017-1-en.pdf
Helsinki City Planning Department (2012), How the City Plan is drawn up and how you can partici-pate? Strategic Urban Planning Division reports 2012:1. Recuperado de https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2012-1_en.pdf
Helsinky City Planning Department (2015), Urban Plan. Helsinki city plan draft. Helsinki plans 2015:1. Recuperado de https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/esitteet/esite_2015-1_en.pdf
Innes, J.E., de Booher, D. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65 (1), 9-26. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01944369908976031
Jankowski, P., Czepkiewicz, M., Młodkowski, M., & Zwoliński, Z. (2016). Geo-questionnaire: A method and tool for public preference elicitation in land use planning. Transactions in GIS, 20(6), 903–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12191
Kahila-Tani, M., Broberg, A., Kyttä, M. y Tyger, T. (2016). Let the Citizens Map—Public Participa-tion GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process, Planning Practice & Research, 31(2),195-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1104203
Kahila, M, y Kyttä, M. (2009). SoftGIS as a bridge-builder in collaborative urban planning. En S. Geertman y J. Stillwell (Eds), Planning Support Systems Best Practice and New Methods, (pp.389-411.) Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Kahila, M. y Marketta, K. (2006). Web-based SofGIS Method in the Urban Planning Practices. Recuperado de http://opus.tkk.fi/dokumentit/conf_ams_urban_dynamics_softGIS_2006.pdf
Kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto (2015), Helsingin keskeisimmät maankäytön muutosalueet. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissunnitteluosaton selvityksiä 2015:8. Recuperado de https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2015-8.pdf
Khan, Z., Ludlow, D., Loibl, W. y Soomro, K. (2014). ICT enabled participatory urban planning and policy development, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 (2), 205-229. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2013-0030
Kyttä, M., Kahila-Tani, M. & Broberg, A. (2011). Perceived environmental quality as an input to urban infill policy-making, Urban Design International, 16(1), 19–35. doi:10.1057/udi.2010.19.
Kyttä, M. Kahila-Tani, M & Broberg, A. (2018) Chapter 3 Helsinki (Finland): Social Sustainability of Urban Settings - Contextually Sensitive, Participatory Approach Utilizing PPGIS Methodology. In Darchen, S. & Searle, G. (eds.) Planning Innovations for Urban Sustainability: A Global Outlook. Emerald Publishing, pp 26-41.
Land Use and Building Act (132/1999, amendment 222/2003 included), english version. Recupera-do de https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990132.pdf
Ministry of Environment (2017). Government Decision on Finland’s National Land Use Guidelines. Recuperado de https://www.ymparisto.fi/download/noname/%7BC8DAA05E-FBC8-490E-A805-37BCE01A1E43%7D/138177, fecha de consulta 11/12/2019
Nordregio, (2004). Regional planning in Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Working paper. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Nature Agency, Denmark.
Sieber R. (2006). Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x
Staffans, A., Kahila-Tani, M. & Kyttä, M. (2020). Participatory Urban Planning in the Digital Era. Accepted to be published in Handbook of Planning Support Science. (eds. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell). Springer International Publishing.
Stern, E., Gudes, O., & Svoray, T. (2009). Web-Based and Traditional Public Participation in Comprehensive Planning: A Comparative Study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and De-sign, 36(6), 1067–1085. https://doi.org/10.1068/b34113
Vaattovaara, M., Kepsu, K., Bernelius, V. & Eskelä, E. (2009). Helsinki: An Attractive Hub of Crea-tive Knowledge? The views of high-skilled employees, managers and transnational migrants. ACRE report 8.5. Recuperado de: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254916327_Helsinki_An_Attractive_Hub_of_Creative_Knowledge_The_views_of_high-skilled_employees_managers_and_transnational_migrants
Vries de, S., A. E. Buijs, F. Langers, H. Farjon, A. Van Hinsberg, & F. J. Sijtsma. (2013). Measur-ing the Attractiveness of Dutch Landscapes: Identifying National Hotspots of Highly Valued Places Using Google Maps. Applied Geography 45: 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apge-og.2013.09.017.
