Roles revealed - Wageningen UR

Transcription

Roles revealed
The position of landscape architects in participatory processes
“Mijn ervaring is dat creativiteit net zo goed bij allerlei deelnemers in zo’n proces
zit en dat ontwerpers niet per definitie creatiever zijn.” Respondent 1, R221
“De tijd van een plan maken en uitvoeren is voorbij.” Respondent 3, R28
“De omgeving wordt weer onderdeel van de maatschappij.” Respondent 4, R331
“Participatie betekent dat mensen invloed kunnen uitoefenen wat betekent dat
je als overheid een beetje invloed moet inleveren” Respondent 5, R334
“Landschap staat veel te ver van de mensen.” Respondent 7, R283
“Je kunt geen landschap maken zonder andere partijen.” Respondent 7, R173
Iris Zwartkruis
870724-996-050
May 2011
Master thesis landscape architecture
Wageningen University
Supervisors: Ingrid Duchhart, Wur
Jeroen Kruit, Alterra
2
Roles revealed
The position of landscape architect in participatory processes
Author
Iris Zwartkruis
[email protected]
Supervisors
Ingrid Duchhart
Chair group Landscape architecture
Jeroen Kruit
Alterra Wageningen UR
Master thesis landscape architecture
May 2011
3
Table of content
Part one, theory
12
1 Introduction
14
1.1 Global changes
1.2 Loss of identity
1.3 Slow movements
1.4 Influence on the field of landscape architecture
1.5 Significance of the research
1.5.1 Scientific significance
1.5.2 Significance for society
1.5.3 Personal significance
1.6 Summary 14
14
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
2 Procedures
18
2.1 Philosophical assumptions of qualitative research
2.2 Qualitative research strategies
2.3 The purpose statement
2.4 Research questions
2.4.1 The central question
2.4.2 The sub questions
2.5 Relation theory and practice
2.6 Role of the researcher
2.7 Group work
2.8 Supervisors
2.9 Language
2.10 Summary 3 Participatory processes
24
3.1 What is a participatory process
3.2 Participatory processes in the Netherlands
3.3 Levels of participation
3.4 Goals of participatory processes
3.5 Roles in participatory processes
3.5.1 The role of citizens
3.5.2 The role of action groups and NGO’s
3.5.3 The role of politicians
3.5.4 The role of experts
3.5.5 The role of landscape architects
3.6 Differences in thinking
3.7 The importance of continuation
3.8 Summary 24
24
26
26
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
30
30
4 Interviewing
32
4.1 Qualitative interviews
4.1.1 Open interviews
4
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
32
32
4.1.2 Half structured interviews
4.1.3 Closed interviews
4.2 Roles interviewer, respondent and reader
4.3 Selection of the respondents
4.4 Ethics and the validity of interviewing
4.5 Strategies for validating findings
4.6 Procedures of the interview
4.7 Language
4.8 Summary 5 Landscape architects narratives
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
5.1 Type of interview
5.2 Selection of the respondents
5.3 Procedures of the interviews
5.4 Questions and content of the interviews
5.5 Processing the data of the interviews
5.6 Results of the interviews
5.6.1 Experiences of landscape architects 5.6.2 Roles and tasks of the landscape architect
5.6.3 Knowledge and skills
5.6.4 Positive and negative aspects of participatory processes
5.6.5 Commissioning
5.6.6 Different approaches participants
5.6.7 Selection participants
5.6.8 Role of governmental organisations and politics
5.6.9 Influence of the history participatory processes
5.6.10 Future developments participatory processes
5.7 Summary 38
38
38
39
40
42
42
43
45
46
48
49
50
51
51
52
52
Part one, lessons learned
56
Part two, practice
58
6 Zutphen the Mars: Introduction
6.1 The Assignment
6.2 The location
6.3 The actors
6.4 Guiding committee
6.5 Summary 7 Zutphen the Mars: Process
7.1 Interviews actors
7.1.1 Objective of the interviews
7.1.2 Interview questions
7.1.3 Results of the interviews
60
60
60
63
63
64
66
66
66
66
66
5
7.1.4 Evaluation interviews
7.2 The first workshop
7.2.1 Objective of the workshop
7.2.2 Lay out of the workshop
7.2.3 Results of the workshop
7.2.4 Evaluation of the workshop
7.3 Vision
7.3.1 Objective of the vision
7.3.2 The vision 7.3.3 Evaluation vision
7.4 Design alternatives
7.4.1 Objective of the design alternatives
7.4.2 The design alternatives
7.4.3 Evaluation design alternatives
7.5 The second workshop
7.5.2 Lay-out of the workshop
7.6 The design
7.6.1 Objective of the design
7.6.2 Design of the IJssel boulevard
7.7 Continuation of the process
7.8 Summary 68
70
70
71
72
72
75
75
75
76
76
77
77
81
82
83
83
83
83
88
88
90
93
93
Part two, lessons learned
94
8 Conclusion
96
9 Discussion
6
98
9.1 About this research
9.1.1 Participatory processes abroad
9.1.2 The results of the participatory process Zutphen
9.1.3 Different levels of participation
9.2 About the methodology of the research 9.2.1 The interviews
9.2.2 The case study
98
98
98
98
98
99
99
Literature list
100
Appendixes 102
7
8
Preface
After a bachelor degree in Garden and Landscape Design I decided to follow
the master program Landscape Architecture. This master program provided
me with additional knowledge and academic skills. With this master thesis I
finish the master program Landscape Architecture.
One of my personal goals to do the master program was to learn more
about some topics I was interested in. I used the available space for optional
subjects to get to know more about historical geography. There was little
opportunity to gain more knowledge about participatory processes, apart
from some guest lectures. This master thesis was a good opportunity to learn
more about this subject.
It was difficult to find a focus for my master thesis and the possibilities seemed
endless. Finally I decided to focus on the role of the landscape architect
within participatory processes. The topic was interesting because there was
a knowledge gap about landscape architects and their role in participatory
processes . I used three different methods during my research, a literature
study, interviews with landscape architects and a case study. The process
was chaotic because I worked on all three at the same time.
Since I had no experience with interviewing I did a research about it before
I could start the interviews. It took some time but I learned a lot from it. The
landscape architects I interviewed were enthusiastic and willing to tell their
stories. They provided lots of information, stories and opinions.
The case study, a participatory process in Zutphen, was a welcome distraction
from all the theory and I enjoyed the cooperation with the local parties very
much. I liked evaluating and observing the meetings and workshops. In some
cases it led to surprising insights and conclusions.
I want to thank my supervisors Ingrid Duchhart and Jeroen Kruit for their
support, guidance and all their help to improve this thesis. I want to thank the
nine landscape architects I interviewed. I thank them for their time and effort
but most of all for their enthusiasm. Some stories really inspired me and gave
an insight in the kind of landscape architect I would like to be. I also thank the
participants and the guidance committee of the case study in Zutphen, their
input was really valuable. Furthermore I will thank my family and friends for
their support and advice.
Iris Zwartkruis
9
Abstract
This research focused on the role of landscape architects within participatory
design or spatial planning processes. A participatory process can be defined
as a process where all relevant parties interact from the start or an early
stage of a project to prepare, determine or execute a plan or policy.
Changes like globalization, individualization, the shift from government to
governance and the increased complexity of spatial problems influence the
position and role of landscape architects. Landscape architects have to deal
with those changes. Involving citizens and other parties in participatory plan
and design processes can be a way to deal with those changes.
The main research question was: What is the role of the landscape architect
within a participatory design process? The research is split up in a theoretical
and a practical part. The theoretical research was done through literature
study and half structured, face-to-face interviews. The literature study
shows the diversity in participatory processes, participants and opinions.
The nine interviews with landscape architects about participation resulted in
an impression of participatory design processes and the role of landscape
architects in the Dutch practice. The practical part describes and evaluates a
participatory process in Zutphen, commissioned by the Wetenschapswinkel
of Wageningen UR.
Based on the results of this research we can conclude that there is no such
thing as “the role” of landscape architects. The research shows different
roles depending on the process, the phase in a project, the project group or
the personal preference of the landscape architect. Roles mentioned are;
the expert with the ability to design or visualise future situations. This makes
plans more concrete en therefore discussable. Another role is to integrate
different professional fields, integrate in space, different scales and time. The
roles described above enable the landscape architect to educate and guide
participants during participatory processes. A successful participatory process
can lead to an increased involvement of the participants and can result in less
resistance, more support, care and responsibility for the landscape. Because
of the professional skills a landscape architect can play a leading role during
a participating process. Nevertheless communication and managing the
group dynamics are important qualifications which depend strongly on the
personal skills or experience.
10
Samenvatting
Dit onderzoek gaat over de rol van de landschapsarchitect in participatieve
ontwerp en ruimtelijke plan processen. De definitie van een participatie
proces is; een proces waar de betrokken partijen vanaf het begin of een vroeg
stadium samenwerken om een plan of beleid te bepalen of uit te voeren.
Veranderingen zoals globalisatie, individualisatie, de verschuiving
van ‘government to governance’ en de toegenomen complexiteit van
ruimtelijke opgaven beïnvloeden de rol van de landschapsarchitect.
Landschapsarchitecten moeten omgaan met deze veranderingen, één van
de manieren om er mee om te gaan is het betrekken van locale en externe
partijen in een participatief plan of ontwerp proces.
De hoofdvraag van dit onderzoek is: Wat is de rol van de landschapsarchitect
in participatieve ontwerp processen? Het onderzoek is opgedeeld in twee
delen, een theoretisch en een praktijk deel. Het theoretische deel bestaat uit
een literatuur onderzoek en half gestructureerd interviews. De literatuurstudie
maakt het verschil in participatie processen, participanten en meningen
daarover duidelijk. De negen interviews met landschapsarchitecten in
Nederland geven een goed beeld van de verschillende rollen in de praktijk. Het
praktijk gedeelte beschrijft en evalueert een participatie proces in Zutphen.
De opdrachtgever van dit project is de Wetenschapswinkel onderdeel van de
Universiteit Wageningen.
Aan de hand van dit onderzoek kunnen we concluderen dat er geen vaste rol
bestaat. Het onderzoek laat zien dat een landschapsarchitect verschillende
rollen op zich kan nemen tijdens een proces. De rol hangt af van het project,
de projectfase, de samenstelling van de projectgroep of de persoonlijke
voorkeur van de landschapsarchitect.
Een mogelijke rol is de landschapsarchitect als de expert die kan ontwerpen
en toekomstige situaties kan visualiseren. Dit maakt de plannen concreter en
maakt discussies mogelijk. Een andere taak van de landschapsarchitect is
de verschillende vakgebieden, schalen en toekomst, heden en verleden met
elkaar te integreren. Bovenstaande rollen helpen de landschapsarchitect
tijdens een participatie proces. De landschapsarchitect kan zijn kennis en
vaardigheden gebruiken om participanten te begeleiden en helpen tijdens een
participatie proces. Een participatie proces kan leiden tot meer betrokkenheid,
meer draagvlak, minder weerstand, meer zorg en verantwoordelijkheid voor
de omgeving en het landschap. De landschapsarchitect kan ook een leidende
rol hebben tijdens een participatie proces. Communicatieve vaardigheden
en vaardigheden met betrekking tot groepsdynamiek zijn belangrijke
vaardigheden die vaak afhangen van de ervaringen en persoonlijkheid van
de landschapsarchitect.
11
Part one, theory
12
13
1 Introduction
In this introduction I will describe some global issues that influence the field
of landscape architecture. Those influences have led to new topics and
views on our profession. One of those new views are the motive to study the
subject of this thesis namely: participatory design processes.
1.1
Global changes
1.2
Loss of identity
The world is changing; change is an essential part of life and reflects the
underlying shifts in values and expectations. Change influences many aspects
of our lives and goes rather fast these days. This is one of the reasons that
change sometimes has a bad reputation (Devane & Holman, 1999).
Changes like globalization, individualization and the shift from government
to governance are ongoing processes that, among others, influences the
field of landscape architecture. Globalization is caused by new technologies
and techniques for example in the field of communication and transport.
Borders in time and space disappear. Individualization is a tendency that
takes place since the last centuries but has increased the last few decades.
Individualization is partly caused by the increased welfare. Due to this the
popularity of traditional views, norms and values also decrease (Dam et
al, 2008). At the same time there is a shift from government to governance
(Jonge, 2009). The way individuals and institutions, private as well as public
manage their affairs is changing. The educational level of citizens increases
and knowledge is spread faster by internet and other media. The result of
this is that the knowledge of professionals is not by definition superior to that
of citizens (Jonge, 2010). Processes are handled bottom up, stakeholders
with a shared wish, want to transform their wishes into shared ambitions with
the help of a participatory process (Nieuwe Gracht, 2008).
The effect of the ongoing globalization and individualization is a loss of
identity or a loss of belonging. Identity is the source of meaning. Identities
are created by history, geography, biology, institutions, collective memory,
personal fantasies and religious revelations. Those factors are used by
individuals, groups and societies to rearrange their meaning. Not longer
bound to time, place, traditional institutions and views, people have to develop
a new personal identity (Dam et al, 2008); (Castells, 2004). The physical
living environment (landscape) can be an important factor for people’s
identity. Words like ‘place attachment’ or ‘sense of place’ express the strong
emotional relation between a person and its surroundings.
Due to processes like globalization (uniformity) the places specific diversity in
the landscape is threatened. Impersonal developments change the landscape,
and in this way threaten people’s identity. A result of the individualization is
that people want to reach their own interests. The landscape is an important
factor for people not only because of the usability (production) but also for
the satisfaction, security; happiness and emotional attachment local people
(Dam et al, 2008); (Castells, 2004).
14
1.3
Slow movements
A counter reaction on globalization is the slow regions, slow life, cities and
slow food movement. Those movements react on the rushed way of living and
threads our identity, environment and landscapes. The slow food organization
started in Bra, Italy in 1986. Local inhabitants prepared a traditional regional
pasta dish for the community. In this way they were protesting against the
opening of a fast food restaurant in their town. The slow food organization
was officially founded in 1989. They wanted to preserve local foods and
traditions and protest against fast life and food (www.slowfood.com).
The slow city movement started in Italy in 1999. A group of mayors wanted
to create principles to reach a calmer and less polluted environment,
preserve local aesthetics, traditions, crafts and food. They wanted to develop
places where you can enjoy good food, healthy environments, sustainable
economies and traditional rhythms of community life (www.planetizen.com).
In this way urban planners, mayors and citizens try to resist the processes
of standardization and homogenization, that otherwise would influence cities
and regions.
Local actors and inhabitants play an important role in the slow movements.
Membership of a slow organization is often an initiative of mayors, city councils
and local businesses. Initiatives and actions are taken by local parties that
have an interest in the identity and traditions of their environment, cities or
regions (www.planetizen.com). Urban planners and landscape architects
can play a role in those processes.
1.4
Influence on the field of landscape architecture
Because of the changing society and increased influence of citizens in
spatial planning and design landscape architects need to adapt their way of
working and approaches. Many guiding assumptions of organizations and
communities are no longer valid, the information technology is changing fast
and old methods to handle change don’t work anymore. Change can not be
handled single disciplinary anymore because complexity in spatial planning
and design has increased enormously over time (Devane & Holman, 1999).
Many topics present in the society are related to spatial claims and spatial
developments. Spatial assignments are crossroads where many interests
and parties meet each other (Hajer, 2006); (Ham & Meij, 1974). Designers
should be involved earlier because of their ability to integrate and creativity
(Nieuwe Gracht, 2008).
The role of the designer changes. Designers react different on the changes
that influence their daily job. One of those reactions is that landscape
architects make use of local parties in participatory processes. The role of
the design is changing as well: it is not developed within a steady process but
influences the shape and contents of the process. The design has no steady
form, it changes when it absorbs more intentions and meanings. This way it
becomes more specific and accurate. The design becomes more than just
15
a spatial plan; it is also used to be a guideline or point of inspiration (Jonge,
2009); (Hajer, 2006). Designing becomes more a process, important to build
confidence, shape attention and imagination of others (Forester, 1999).
Everyone in a participatory design process is a designer, including the ones
without a design background or education (Condon, 2008).
Planners and designers face the challenge of playing multiple roles, at
different times within the same project. They must have the knowledge and
expertise of a professional; they must listen and stimulate creative ideas
as mediators; they must defend values and negotiate; they must structure
participatory processes, discussions, invention and decision making as
organizers too (Forester, 1999).
New skills are needed to handle participatory processes. We need to learn
new skills to do an interactive planning and designing processes. Like
negotiation skills, facilitation skills, design skills and process design skills
(Forester, 1999). Designers even have to develop a mutual language that is
understood by all of the participants (Pröpper & Steenbeek, 2001). They will
have to adapt this languages to the groups they are dealing with, which is
not an easy task.
1.5
Significance of the research
This research is important on three different grounds. It has scientific
importance, for society and personal importance. Those three are described
below.
1.5.1 Scientific significance
The use of participatory processes by landscape architects and planners is
not new. There is some general information about participatory processes
related to planning and in lesser extend to design. But I couldn’t find a lot
of literature about the role of landscape architects and designers within
participatory processes. This research can add information about the way
landscape architects deal with participatory processes and the roles they
play.
1.5.2 Significance for the society
This research can influence the field of landscape architecture and the
educational programs. Landscape architects and students can learn from the
experiences described by other landscape architects, dealing with participatory
processes. More knowledge about the role of landscape architects involved
in participatory processes might change landscape architects approaches to
projects, stakeholders and inhabitants or raise more awareness about the
different roles a landscape architect can play.
1.5.3 Personal significance
It becomes more common that citizens are involved in planning and design
16
processes. More landscape architects and designers have to deal with
participatory processes. As a student I have no experience with participatory
processes but it is likely that I have to deal with it during my professional
life. A practical design assignment gives me the possibility to cooperate and
participate in a participatory process as a landscape architect, guided by
people that have experience with such processes. Doing this thesis gives me
an opportunity to learn from theory, literature, the practice of professionals,
and apply the theory into practice during a participatory process.
1.6
Summary
Globalization, individualization and the shift from government to governance
are changing the world, they are tendencies taking place since the last
centuries but increased in the last decades. One of the effects of globalization
and individualization is the loss of identity. The landscape, one of the
constructors of identity is also changing rapidly. Some regions try to maintain
the identity of the landscape by the creation of the slow movements. Local
parties and inhabitants play an important role in the realization and success
of those movements. At the same time there is a shift from government to
governance. Citizens need or want to take responsibility and show initiatives
them selves.
Professionals like urban planners and landscape architects can play an
important role in those processes. The use of local parties and inhabitants
and the complexity of the design assignments have changed the role and
approaches of the landscape architects and the design. Planners and
designers face the challenge of playing multiple roles, at different times within
the same project. And at the same time we need to learn new skills to handle
participatory processes.
This research adds new information about the way landscape architects
handle participatory processes and their role to the professional field and
is therefore scientifically relevant. This might change the way landscape
architects deal with participatory processes and their role in it. They can
change their position in society which makes it a relevant research for society.
Besides that it is of personal importance because I will have to deal with
participatory processes during my professional career. Therefore it is good to
have some knowledge about and experience with the topic.
17
2 Procedures
Based on the developments described in chapter one, I decided to research
the influence of participatory processes on the role and position of landscape
architects in the Netherlands. This chapter describes among other things
the procedures used for my thesis, the goal of the research, the research
questions and how I will answer them.
2.1
Philosophical assumptions of qualitative research
This research contains both, the advocacy and the social-constructivist world
view (Figure 1). The development of participatory processes is strongly
related to the advocacy world view. It is intertwined with politics and a political
agenda. Developments created by the government created circumstances
for participatory processes (Creswell, 2009) (Pröpper & Steenbeek, 2001).
Some of those circumstances are:
• The politic culture in the Netherlands is based on deliberation between
different parties.
Meetings are accessible for different parties,
organizations and the public. The media plays a big role in this process.
• The value of democracy and citizenship is increasing since the sixties.
Since the end of the eighties the government wants citizens to take
more responsibility with public issues. They want active participation,
engagement and increase democracy.
• The Dutch government shifts from government to governance. Public
and private parties work together.
• Those changes increase the democracy and influential level of citizens
and organizations, and therefore democracy. This is an important social
issue of today. Participatory processes change the role of the citizen
from passive to active; citizens can influence processes and change
(Creswell, 2009). This increased influence of citizens also changes the
work of landscape architects and designers.
The practical design part of this thesis is also related to the advocacy
world view. Working towards a design is change oriented. The participatory
process was used to change the individual approach into a mutual approach,
to change their current position in the ongoing developments.
The phenomenon, participatory processes, fits in the advocacy world view.
My way of researching the role of the designer in those processes will be
more related to the social-constructivist world view (Creswell, 2009).
This research will contain interviews with designers who deal with participatory
processes during their work. What are their experiences with participatory
Advocacy / Participatory worldview
• Political
• Empowerment Issue-oriented
• Collaborative
• Change-oriented
Fig 1: Worldviews. (Creswell 2009)
18
Constructivism worldview
• Understanding
• Multiple participants meanings
• Social and historical construction
• Theory generation
processes and how do they handle them. The answers on the open ended
questions will be interpret and compared. The designers view on this
phenomenon is an important part of the research.
In both cases the research will have a qualitative approach to inquiry.
2.2
Qualitative research strategies
Some characteristics according to Creswell (2009) for a qualitative approach
are:
• The used inquiry strategies like: phenomenology, grounded theory,
ethnography, case study and narratives. The used methods like: openended questions, emerging approaches, text or image data.
• The used practices of research by the researcher: the researcher takes
a stand, collects the meanings of participants, focuses on a single
phenomenon, brings personal values into the study, studies the context
of participants, validates the accuracy of findings, interprets the data,
creates an agenda for change and collaborates with participants. Most of
those practices will be used during the research.
Creswell (2009) describes five qualitative strategies, ethnography, grounded
theory, case studies, phenomenological research and narrative research.
The case study strategy fits best in my research.
Creswell (2009) describes a case study as: “a qualitative strategy in which
the researcher explores in depth a program, event, process or one or more
individuals. The cases are bound by time and activity, and researchers
collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures over
a sustained period of time”.
The explored process will be participatory processes done by landscape
architects.
I will research the perceived changes, believes and skills of landscape
architects and designers dealing with participatory processes. The landscape
architects and designers are the cases to be studied by the researcher.
The research focuses on the present developments and experiences with
participatory processes, so they are bound by time and activity. I will do a
literature study, interviews and a design assignment to gather a variety of
data.
2.3
The purpose statement
The purpose of this study will be to discover the role of landscape architects
and designers in participatory processes. At this stage in the research,
participatory processes will be generally defined as: A process where all
relevant parties interact openly to prepare, determine or execute a plan or
policy (Pröpper & Steenbeek, 2001). This study reacts on the scientific lack
of information and knowledge about the position of landscape architects in
19
2.4
Research questions
To reach the purpose a central question is created that will be answered with
the help of several sub questions.
2.4.1 The central question
The main question of this research is:
What is the role of landscape architects within participatory design
processes?
This research is very broad as well as the main question, it includes all
different topics related to participatory processes and landscape architects.
The sub questions address several topics, related to the method to answer
them.
2.4.2 The sub questions
Questions related to the development of participatory processes in the
Netherlands.
• Where does the need for participatory processes comes from?
• How did the use of participatory processes develop within the field of
landscape architecture in the Netherlands?
• How are participatory processes used by landscape architects at this
moment?
Some of those questions are partly answered in chapter one. The answers
can be found through a literature study.
Questions related to the topic: participatory processes.
• What is a participatory process?
• What levels of participation exist?
• What are the goals of participatory processes?
• Which parties participate and what is their role?
• What knowledge and skills do landscape architects need?
The answers to those questions are found by doing a literature study,
interviews with landscape architects and a case study.
Method related questions.
• What is interviewing?
• What kind of interviews are possible?
• What are the procedures of interviewing?
The answers of those questions were found by doing a literature research.
20
2.5
Relation theory and practice
2.6
Role of the researcher
2.7
Group work
The theory provides basic information about methods, techniques and the
main topic; participatory processes. The interviews with the landscape
architects are the first step between theory and practice. The interview
questions are derived from literature and conversations with experts. The
landscape architects answer the questions and provide information about
their experiences in the professional field. The information from the literature
and the interviews are incorporated in the case study in Zutphen. Some topics
related to participatory processes will occur in the literature, the interviews
and the case study or in two of the three methods. This is triangulation
between the different methods of research. The information from one method
can be cross checked and compared with the information provided by the
other methods. This information will be used to draw the final conclusions
and recommendations.
The role of the researcher differs per method and phase of the research. By
interviewing landscape architects about their work I gather stories about their
experiences, believes and skills influenced by participatory processes. By
creating a semi structured interview I create the opportunity for the interviewed
person to shape the conversation without me losing track. I determine the
topics and start question. The respondent has the space to speak about the
topics in what way and order they want. During the analysis of the data, the
interviews will be compared and interpret by myself. The final story about the
results of the interviews is the one created by the researcher.
During the participatory design process I will take different positions. I will
deliver input, help organizing and guiding workshops and process the data
gathered during the workshops. The results of the workshops will lead to a
design. Every step in the participatory design process will be evaluated on
several topics, for example the role of the landscape architect.
Some parts of the participatory process in Zutphen will contain group work.
An other master student landscape architecture, Madeleen Brouwer is also
involved in this project. We will work on the same assignment in Zutphen
but with different focus points, interests and purposes. My focus lies with the
participatory process. Madeleen is more focused on the implementation of
spatial adaptations along the riverfront. In order to solve present challenges,
like the need for more water discharge capacity, recreational space and
spatial quality increase. Despite this difference, we can work together on this
assignment. The inventory, analysis and vision will be partly done together.
The design phase will be done separately.
Madeleen will use the outcomes from the interviews as an inventory of ideas
and wishes while I use them as an input for the first workshop. Madeleen
will support and deliver input for the workshops as an expert; she will gain
knowledge about the green-blue developments, river policies and river
21
transformations by doing reference studies. Madeleen will use the workshops
and related processes in her design process. Some of the information of our
thesis will be used in the final report for the commissioner.
2.8
Supervisors
2.9
Language
There are two supervisors involved with this thesis. The first supervisor
involved is Ingrid Duchhart. Ingrid is a landscape architect and assistant
professor at the university of Wageningen and is involved in the process
and content of my thesis. The second supervisor is Jeroen Kruit. He is a
landscape architect working at Alterra. The research institute connected to
the university of Wageningen. Madeleen and I work closely together with
Jeroen on the participatory design assignment in Zutphen. For the green
light presentation and my final presentation I would like to invite one or more
teachers that are not that closely involved and known with the content of my
thesis. I would like to hear the opinion of outsiders to see if they understand
my work and presentation.
This thesis is mainly written in English. This makes this thesis also accessible
for foreign teachers and students. Some parts related to the interviews or
participatory design assignment will be in Dutch. Those parts can be found in
boxes or appendixes. The interviews are done in Dutch and some explanatory
sentences are in Dutch to keep their meaning. Besides this the participatory
design process is also done in Dutch. Some in between products that can
be found in the appendixes are in Dutch. The Dutch parts give additional
information and examples.
2.10 Summary
This thesis will answer the following main question: What is the role of
landscape architects within participatory design processes? The research
will have a qualitative approach to inquiry. Different methods will be used to
answer the main and sub questions, like literature study, interviews and a
practical case study in Zutphen. The role of the researcher differs per method
and phase of the research. The case study in Zutphen contains parts of
group work with another master student. The main language of this thesis is
English, some side information or appendixes are in Dutch.
22
23
3 Participatory processes
This chapter provides general information about participatory processes.
It explains the definition of participatory processes, the development in the
Dutch context, the different levels of participation, the goals of participation
and the different parties involved during participatory processes.
3.1
What is a participatory process
3.2
Participatory processes in the Netherlands
A participatory process can be described as a process where all relevant
parties interact from the start or early stage of a project, openly to prepare,
determine or execute a plan or policy (Pröpper & Steenbeek, 2001).
Participatory processes are processes in which citizens, action groups
and NGO’s can address problems, put them on the agenda and search for
solutions together. It also means that unorganized citizens can express their
opinion about plans or policies created by the government. This is related to
the shift from government to governance and the wish for more responsibility
and involvement of citizens (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001).
A participatory or interactive process can involve different parties. It can
include citizens, stakeholders, experts, governmental and non governmental
organizations. Those parties can take different positions in a project. Some
positions are; the commissioner, the project leader, experts, communication
advisors and people that contribute to the content of the process (Nieuwe
Gracht, 2008). A characteristic of participatory processes is that all the
involved parties are able to influence the project or process (Pröpper &
Steenbeek, 2001).
The Dutch political system was tested during the eighties, organized citizens
were seen as troublesome and retardant. The politics start to worry about
the way they operate during the nineties, they wanted active participation
and increase democracy (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001); (Pröpper &
Steenbeek, 2001). One of the reasons for this was the low attendance during
the local elections in 1990. This led to a discussion about the support for and
legitimacy of local politics. The local politics were supposed to be closest near
the citizens but they were experienced as unapproachable. The politicians
were unaware of the local issues. This led to a discussion about the gap
between government and citizens and how it should be solved. To close the
gap politicians look for new processes in which citizens and other parties
meet frequent or on a regular base (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001).
The development of the interactive and participatory approach can also be
seen as a reaction on the failure of public hearings. The participatory process
can be seen as a proactive style while public hearing is more a reactive style
(Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001). Public hearing means that people can only
react on finished plans in the end of a process, when decisions are already
made and it is difficult or impossible to make big changes. An other point
of critique is the lack of discussion possibilities. People can express their
opinion but there is little space for dialogue. It is often unclear what happens
24
with the input and opinions expressed during public hearings (Edelenbos &
Monnikhof, 2001).
This participative and interactive approach fits within the Dutch tradition of
consultation, cooperation and consensus. This model provides opportunities
for parties to be heard and to participate. In this way it is useful for citizens
to be a member of NGO’s or action groups. The amount of citizens that are
member of an NGO or action group in the Netherlands is quite high, while
only three percent is member of an political party (Edelenbos & Monnikhof,
2001).
There are also some reasons why participatory processes in the Netherlands
Edelenbos &
Monnikhof,
2001
No participation
Pröpper &
Steenbeek,
2001
Closed
authoritarian
style
Open authoritarian
style
Consultative
style
Role parties
Role management
No role at all
Independent policy,
no information to
others
Inform
The target group
Independent policy,
gets information no information to
input from them
others
Consult
Consulted
Determines policy,
conversation
consults parties but
partner
their input has no
direct
consequences
Advise
Participatory Advise
Determines policy
style
but is willing to take
other solutions and
ideas in account
Co-production Delegating
Joint decision
Decides about the
style
making within the
policy taking the
preconditions
preconditions in
account
Co-operative Co-operate with
Management works
style
equal rights
and decides
together with the
participants on an
equal base
Joint decision Facilitating
Initiator
Management gives
making
style
support, the
participants make
the decision
Fig 2: Levels of participation. (DLG, 2009).
25
are not so successful (Enserink & Monnikhof, 2003); (Edelenbos &
Monnikhof, 2001). Some reasons why the results of participatory processes
are disappointing are; the lack of concreteness, political weight and a good
report on both design and participatory process. Processes focus too much
on creating support and the process itself instead of high quality results.
The creativity of participants is not stimulated and creative ideas of individuals
get lost in a group process. Innovative ideas are often not understood or
missed by other participants or facilitators (Enserink & Monnikhof, 2003);
(Pröpper & Steenbeek 2001).
3.3
Levels of participation
There are different ways parties can be involved in contributing to the content
of a process. There influence is often described using the participatory ladder
(Pröpper & Steenbeek, 2001) (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001). There are
several participatory ladders. Figure 2 describes two different participatory
ladders, the role of the participants and management (DLG, 2009).
When we look at the definition of a participatory process: A process where all
relevant parties interact from the start or early stage of a project, open minded
to prepare, determine or execute a plan or policy (Pröpper & Steenbeek,
2001). We can conclude that the first three of the scheme, no participation,
inform and consult are definitely no participatory processes. Participants
are involved in the end of a process or not at all. They can not influence
the outcome of the process. The management decides. The other levels
of participation could be called participatory processes. The participants
can influence the results of the process or can be involved in the decision
making.
3.4
Goals of participatory processes
There are different reasons to organise a participatory process or for
participants to participate. Some reasons to involve participants are; to prevent
resistance, improve the image of the government, to get local knowledge,
to help participants to execute plans or policy or to increase democracy
(Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001). Some reasons for participants to participate
are; to influence the process, to guard their personal values, because they
are interested, involved or to influence local politics (Edelenbos & Monnikhof,
2001).
The success of a participatory process depends among other things on the
connection between the goal of the initiator and the motives participants
have to participate. It is difficult to determine the success of a participatory
process based on the process design. Other factors like; the willingness
to participate, the quality of the input or the available resources to shape
the process, influence the quality of the process. However a good process
design is required to start and finish a participatory process well (Edelenbos
& Monnikhof, 2001).
26
A goal often mentioned is to increase support for policy and plans. Support is
necessary to lessen resistance and to increase the speed and smoothness
of the implementation. When people agree with the measurements and
the quality, they will not object and for instance go to court to object. A trial
can slow down and increases the costs of a project (Enserink & Monnikhof,
2003).
It is also possible that participatory processes cause resistance, more
communication does not mean that it will convince the participants (Pröpper
& Steenbeek 2001). Participatory process can increase awareness among
opponents, let sleeping dogs lie (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001).
An other goal can be to increase the quality of a process or project. There
is the quality of the product: Is the product supported by others? Do all the
participants support the result? And what is the opinion of experts about
the results? And there is the quality of the process: Are the different goals
intertwined and are the solutions relevant for more parties (Edelenbos &
Monnikhof, 2001)? Interaction can lead to the enrichment of the content.
Plans are thought over by several parties and are connected to the needs
of the society (Pröpper & Steenbeek 2001). Participatory processes are
integrative, make ideas more concrete and create a common language among
the participants (Condon, 2008). Participatory process function as catalyst
and umbrella for the project, the results of the process can be surprising and
beautiful solutions (Nieuwe Gracht, 2008).
A participatory process does not per definition lead to better results. By
satisfying all participants, less smart solutions are applied. Compromises
have to be made while some of them are not optimal or do not work on
the long term. Governmental organizations struggle to develop plans of
high quality and that increase the efficiency of the process (Jonge, 2010);
(Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001); (Pröpper & Steenbeek 2001).
Other goals mentioned are decreasing the process time and costs (Condon,
2008). Points of contrast and discussion are solved during an early stage
in the process. This lessens resistance and increases the efficiency of the
process (Jonge, 2010). On the other hand it can lead to longer processes
and more expensive solutions when dealing with a lot of communication,
interests and wishes.
3.5
Roles in participatory processes
Participatory processes involve different parties in a process or project.
Some types of participants are; citizens, users, action groups, NGO’s,
organizations, independent experts, media or other governments (Pröpper
& Steenbeek, 2001).The amount of participants, the different groups or the
role they play differ each process and project. The selection of participants
depends on; the reliance of the policy, the authority, experience or expertise
of the participants, the interests of the participants or the positive or negative
experience with the participants. The variety of participants depends on
27
the amount of diversity in opinions and interests wished for (Pröpper &
Steenbeek, 2001). It is necessary to assemble the actors that are in the
position to influence the project in such a way that they can work together
towards a favorable outcome (Condon, 2008).
Interactive and participatory processes influence the daily routine of
participants. The way of working can add new roles and tasks or changes
the existing roles (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001).
3.5.1 The role of citizens
Initiatives taken by citizens all have in common that they think it can be
different and better. They think it is important to protect, improve, or develop
the landscape. Personal passion and drive are important factors for citizen
initiators (Dam et al, 2010). Citizens are often involved because they are the
future users or can contribute with the local knowledge they have.
3.5.2 The role of action groups and NGO’s
A lot of people are member of an action group or NGO as mentioned
before (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001). The Dutch tradition of consultation,
cooperation and consensus led to action groups and NGO’s that operate
very professional, especially the ones involved in spatial development and
planning (Nieuwe Gracht, 2008). Action groups and NGO’s form a link between
citizens and governmental organizations. They try to influence governmental
policies and projects (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001).
3.5.3 The role of politicians
Politicians can have different roles in participatory processes. They can
provide the constrains and framework of a process, they can participate during
a process and they have to process the results of the process (Edelenbos
& Monnikhof, 2001). Civil servants can also have different roles, they can
be the expert, the negotiator or someone who tries to connect all different
parties together (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001).
Politicians and governmental organizations want to implement a participatory
way of working in theory. In practice they often see participation as a threat
for their position. Politicians and civil servants are insecure and withdraw
when it comes to finding new ways to play a role in participatory processes
(Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001). The involvement of politicians and civil
servants is important because they are empowered to approve, develop or
provide input on side development plans. When you not involve them it is
likely that there will rise implementation difficulties (Condon, 2008).
3.5.4 The role of experts
Experts can contribute to a process by stimulating innovation, show
examples, express ideas and providing specific knowledge (Edelenbos &
Monnikhof, 2001). Experts can play an important role testing and optimizing
the results of a participatory process, in this way the plans become feasible.
28
Hereby it is important that the experts use a language that is understood by
all participants (Nieuwe Gracht, 2008).
This requires an open and positive attitude of the experts (Edelenbos &
Monnikhof, 2001). Experts are not always willing to work with participants
without knowledge of their professional field. They resist against participatory
processes because they have the knowledge and the capacity to solve
problems and they are afraid of losing quality. Such a defensive attitude does
not fit in open plan processes and working with participants. Working with
participants asks for a change of attitude, when this changes participatory
processes can be more successful (Enserink & Monnikhof, 2003).
3.5.5 The role of landscape architects
Landscape architects can be involved in different ways during a participatory
process. They are not only involved to make operational designs or
administrative plans but also to support the mutual process of creative
imagination and reflective practice which is the core of design and planning
(Jonge, 2009). The landscape architect can be the professional with
knowledge about the landscape and at the same time a designer. Some
tasks described are; doing inventories, analyzing landscape systems, telling
stories about the landscape. A landscape architect is able to integrate topics,
create designs, concepts and to visualize ideas and the future (Nieuwe
Gracht, 2008); (Blerck, 2005). Designers create space for new insights, look
for solutions and look at their effectiveness and feasibility. Designers involved
in participatory processes have to be curious and open to the insights of
participants (Nieuwe Gracht, 2008).
A landscape architect can also be in a leading position and playing roles
like; the facilitator, process manager or initiator. Some tasks described are;
creating the frame work of the process, synthesize suggestions into a final
suggestion, organizing, inspire, negotiate and evaluate (Nieuwe Gracht,
2008); (Condon, 2008).
It is possible to play different roles during a participatory process. The role can
depend on the phase or context of a process. Some landscape architects are
able to switch between several roles. In other cases experts or colleagues
need to be involved to handle the other roles or handle and tasks (Blerck,
2005).
3.6
Differences in thinking
Project managers, designers and participants all have a different background,
their styles of working, communication and world views are therefore different
too. Because of this the skills and knowledge of the parties and what thy
can contribute is often unclear for the other cooperating parties. Effective
acquisition, distribution, processing, translation and structure are essential
for a cooperation between different parties in a the process and design
activities (Enserink & Monnikhof, 2003).
29
According to Enserink and Monnikhof (2003) there is a tension between
the input of participants and experts. They see this most clearly in design
activities. The lack of knowledge and skill of participants is a barrier in
understanding the process. The influence of participants in design activities
is low, rarely applied and when applied not successful. It might be possible
as that participants are not able to reason logically but act from there own
values influenced by their own experiences, relationships and events.
Important in participatory design activities are the alternatives. The process
leads to one or more solutions for a problem. During the design activities
many decisions have to and will be made, conscious or unconscious. There
will be negotiations about preconditions and solutions to reach successful
products. This part of the process often takes place without the participants
and is done by experts. In this way the participants are excluded from the
real decision making activities and is their influence limited. The participants
should be included in the selection of alternatives to have more influence. The
influence of participants is narrowed down further by using unclear accounting
systems, multi-criteria analyses, decision support systems screenings and
evaluations of alternatives (Enserink & Monnikhof, 2003).
3.7
The importance of continuation
3.8
Summary
The use of a participatory process is not completely without risks, good
preparations and finishing off the results afterwards are essential.
Participatory processes create expectations among the participants, they
expect to taken serious and that the results are taken serious. Processes
often end without concrete plans and how they should be implemented into
policies. Presenting the results should take place quite fast after the finish
of the process. Otherwise participants feel as if there is nothing done with
their efforts. It becomes disconnected from the group and the public attention
(Nieuwe Gracht, 2008) (Condon, 2008).
parties interact from the start or early stage of a project, open minded to
prepare, determine or execute a plan or policy. Participatory processes can
close the gap between government and citizens. It is also a reaction on the
failure of public hearings. There are different levels of participation though,
defined by the position and level of influence of participants. Participatory
processes are organized for different reasons. Some of those reasons are;
to increase support, to increase the quality or to increase the speed and
to decrease the costs of projects. There is no guarantee that those effects
occur. Participatory processes involve different parties in a process or project.
Some types of participants are; citizens, users, action groups, NGO’s,
organizations, independent experts, media or other governments. Those
groups have different roles during the process. A landscape architect can
participate from a professional role and from a leading role. Communication
skills are in both cases very important.
30
31
4 Interviewing
An interview is the best way to get information about the lived experience
of a person. The interview invites and persuades people to think and talk at
both conscious and unconscious levels (Nunkoosing, 2005). An interviewer
is someone who uses conversation to obtain information from other persons.
There are similarities between conversation and interviewing but the main
goal of an interview is to obtain information (Gordon, 1975).
One of the goals of interviewing is gathering stories about events and
experiences that possible help us to generate theories. Therefore is an
interview not always the end of a research, an interview can lead to a
hypothesis or theories that need further research.
By doing an interview we want to get new information. Start the set up of an
interview by asking “what do I want to know?” Followed by the next question
“how can I know?” When we seek to find what we already know in the
interviews, we learn little to advantage our knowledge (Nunkoosing, 2005).
4.1
Qualitative interviews
Creswell (2009) defines qualitative interviews as: “interviews involving
unstructured and generally open ended questions that are few in number
and intended to extract views and opinions from the participants.” Interviews
can be face to face, by phone, in groups or by e-mail or internet.
Some positive aspects of interviewing are: the researcher can control the
questions to get the information needed and it can be applied when direct
observations are not possible. The interviewer can stimulate the respondent
to give complete and accurate information. The interviewer can explain more
about the question if unclear (Gordon, 1975). Some negative aspects of
interviews are the limits some people have in expressing themselves, groups
of people that can not express themselves at all, or people might feel limited
by the presence of the researcher (Creswell 2009); (Nunkoosing, 2005).
Gramsbergen & Molen (2007), Baarda (2001) and Gordon (1975) describe
different types of interviews: the open interview, the half structured interview
and the closed interview.
The most important distinction between the different styles is the amount
of influence allowed in the interview (Figure 3). The amount of influence
for the researcher is limited by the structure of the interview schedule. The
more the schedule is structured the more control the interviewer has. The
influence of the respondent is related to the amount of topic control used by
the interviewer. An open interview offers a lot of space for the respondent and
less space for the interviewer to control. A closed interview or questionnaire
offers a lot of space for the interviewer to control the topics and less space
for the respondent to answer. An other difference between the interview
styles is the function of the interview. Two basic functions are discovery and
measurement (Gordon, 1975). An open interview is better for discovery while
a structured interview is better for measurements.
4.1.1 Open interviews
An open interview starts with one open question related to the subject. The
32
Fig 3: Influence interviewer and respondent. (Gramsbergen & Molen 2007)
33
respondent can tell the things he thinks are important. The researcher directs
the interview by asking connecting questions. What the respondent does not
tell is apparently not relevant. The positive aspect of this kind of interview is
that the respondent has a lot of space to put forwards the topics he thinks
are most important for his story. A negative aspect is the difficulty to process
the data. Every respondent gives different answers; because of this it is
hard to compare the data (Gramsbergen & Molen, 2007). It is impossible
to statistically summarize the information or to compare the responses of
individuals (Gordon, 1975).
Questions: One open start question about one specific theme
Space for researcher: Minimal
Space for respondent: Optimal
Positive aspects: Chance of unexpected topics and answers, more
discovery
Negative aspects: Hard to process data, less measurement
4.1.2 Half structured interviews
The goal of this type of interview is to get information about a certain topic.
The topic consists of a couple of sub topics that needs to be handled during
the interview. The sub topics define a certain scope and borders of the topic
(Gordon, 1975).
The respondent can not choose the topics but he is free in his answers. The
researcher can choose the subjects and the order in which he asks them. All
topics should be addressed (Gramsbergen & Molen, 2007) (Gordon, 1975).
Questions: One open start question and a couple of topics to be
addressed
Space for researcher and respondent: Both have influence
Positive aspects: Control on topics and space for the interviewed
person to answer, discovery and measurement
4.1.3 Closed interviews
This type of interview is a questionnaire or poll, all questions and order are
determined in advance. The interviewed person is bound to answer the
specific question. This type of interview is used to collect information about
specific categories from several respondents (Gordon, 1975).
A positive aspect of this kind of interview is that the researcher can process
the data easily. A negative aspect is that there is not a lot of space for the
respondent to express opinions, ideas or experiences (Gramsbergen &
Molen, 2007).
Questions: All questions and order determined in advance
Space for researcher: Optimal
Space for respondent: Minimal
Positive aspects: Easy to process data, more measurement
Negative aspects: Little space for the interviewed person to express
himself, less discovery
34
4.2
Roles interviewer, respondent and reader
4.3
Selection of the respondents
4.4
Ethics and the validity of interviewing
An interviewer makes use of his skills to encourage the respondent to tell
stories about experiences or events. Without the interview those stories
would remain untold. It is important that the interviewer addresses the way
the stories are told. As a researcher you need to retell the respondents story
but at the same time your own story (Nunkoosing, 2005) (Figure 4).
Besides interviewing a respondent the interviewer has to take care of three
objectives: relevance, validity and reliability. The answers to the questions
have to meet those objectives (Gordon, 1975). To obtain relevant information
the interviewer has to understand the purpose of the interview. The interviewer
needs to ask questions that support the purpose and detect and correct
misunderstandings about the questions. The interviewer has to stimulate the
respondent to give clear and relevant information, and to avoid irrelevant
information. To obtain valid and reliable information the interviewer has to be
aware of the reasons why a respondent is unwilling to give information and
look for symptoms of resistance. The interviewer has to communicate to the
respondent so he is able and willing to give you information. It is important
that the respondent gives the information voluntary, you can not pressure the
respondent to give information he is not willing or able to give it (Nunkoosing,
2005); (Gordon, 1975). The interviewer has the task to analyze and interpret
the interviews, the results will be available to others. The readers have to
interpret the results again and create their own story (Nunkoosing, 2005).
I did several interviews, nine for the research and seven for the design
assignment. More than one interview makes it possible to gather detailed
information and in this way we had the possibility to cross check the given
information. The choice for respondents depends on the information you
need. Some criteria and questions for selecting the right respondents are:
“Who has the right information?”, “Who of them is physically and socially
accessible?”, “Who of them is most willing to give the information?” And
“Who of them is most able to give accurate information?” (Gordon, 1975).
The selection of respondents was different for my research and the design
assignment.
As interviewer it is important to take the ethics in account. A respondent
tells personal stories about private thoughts and behavior. The results of
the interviews and therefore the private thoughts of the respondent become
Fig 4: The reconstruction of stories
35
public. Because of this anonymity is important (Nunkoosing, 2005).
During an interview the respondent uses words to create a story, hereby
chooses the respondent which stories are relevant or available. It is obvious
that stories change when they are retold. Respondents have a choice about
the information they want to tell or keep to themselves. As an interviewer
you can not force respondents to tell you what the don’t want or able to
tell you (Nunkoosing, 2005). The transcript of an interview is often send to
the respondent afterwards. This gives the respondent a chance to remove,
change or add something to the interview. In this way they have a chance to
determine what will be included and what will be excluded during the analysis
and interpretation of the interview. In this way we acknowledge that people are
not always in control about what they say during an interview (Nunkoosing,
2005). Because of the ethical reasons we always ask for consent to take an
interview and to use the data for the research.
4.5
Strategies for validating findings
4.6
Procedures of the interview
According to Creswell (2009) qualitative validity means that the researcher
checks for the accuracy of the findings by employing certain procedures.
One of these procedures is called ‘member checking’. This means that
the researcher gives some products back to the participants, they have to
determine if the information is accurate. In case of the research I did send a
transcript of the interview by e-mail to the respondent. In case of the design
assignment we send back a summary of the interview. In some cases the
respondents changed or added things.
The interviewer has to offer some explanation about the interview, the
procedures and the respondents rights. Gordon (1975) gives the following
guidelines for the introduction.
First you need to introduce yourself. Secondly you need to explain the purpose
of the interview. If it is relevant you have to explain the sponsorship of the
research. You can explain why the respondent is chosen. If the interview
is anonymous you can explain why this is the case. If there is a reward for
participating I can be mentioned. If the interview is recorded you have to
explain why and ask permission. Than you can start with the first question.
If you approach the end of the interview the interviewer has to tell the
respondent that the interview is nearly finished. Before you end the interview
the interviewer can ask the respondent if there are more topics that are not
addressed yet but might be relevant or if there are questions the interviewer
needs to answer.
When the interviewer is finished the interviewer will let the respondent know
when the data are processed and when he can expect a transcript or summary.
It is polite to thank the respondent for his time and effort in participating.
36
4.7
Language
4.8
Summary
The interviews are done in Dutch, the native language of all respondents.
To enable the respondents to express themselves and to prevent
miscommunication. The analysis of the interviews is also in Dutch. The
transcripts of the interviews (as well as the analysis) are included in the
appendixes. The final conclusions are written in English and are included in
the report.
Creswell (2009) defines qualitative interviews as: “interviews involving
unstructured and generally open ended questions that are few in number
and intended to extract views and opinions from the participants.” Literature
describes different types of interviews: the open interview, the half structured
interview and the closed interview. The most important distinction between
the different styles is the amount of influence allowed in the interview. There
are open interviews, half structured interviews and closed interviews. The
interviewer has the task to analyze and interpret the interviews, the results
will be available to others. The readers have to interpret the results again
and create their own story. Ethics like anonymity are necessary to protect the
personal information provided during the interview. Strategies like member
checking are used to validate the findings of the interviews.
37
5 Landscape architects narratives
The information about interviewing gathered in the previous chapter formed
the base for the lay-out of the interviews, the interviews and the analysis
of the interviews. This chapter describes the procedures and results of
the interviews with nine landscape architects about their experiences with
5.1
Type of interview
5.2
Selection of the respondents
5.3
Procedures of the interview
For this research I did half open interviews with landscape architects who
have experience with participatory processes and designing. The interviews
I did focussed on the focussed on the perception of landscape architects and
their role in participatory processes. I chose the half open interview to profit
from the freedom that respondents than have to talk about their experiences
and to give their opinions. Controlling the main topics of the interviews made
it possible for me to gather the data and to compare the given answers.
As mentioned earlier I needed landscape architects that have experience
with participatory processes and designing. Because there is not a lot of
information available yet I chose to take a broad range in respondents as
well as a variety of interview questions. To get a diverse range of experiences
and stories I created three sub groups. The groups are divided by their
organizational level and position. The three levels I distinguished are: the
governmental level, the knowledge institutes and landscape architecture
offices. From each group I wanted to have three landscape architects to
interview. Three persons is enough to compare their answers within the
organizational level. Those answers can be compared with the other groups
to see if there are differences and similarities. A total of nine interviews was,
considered the time of the thesis, the limit.
I found respondents by reading articles, talking to experts, through the
university and contacts given by other respondents. I tried to create as much
diversity as possible within the sub groups. Some landscape architects within
offices focus on detailed plans and citizen participation and others on planning
assignments on a large scale. The landscape architects within knowledge
institutes have different backgrounds and focus. Within the governmental
organizations I tried to find landscape architects within different governmental
levels, one landscape architect from the state, one at provincial level and
one from a municipality level. On the next page is a scheme presenting the
position of the respondents within the different sub groups (Figure 5).
I approached the respondents by e-mail, phone call or in most cases both. In
this first moment of contact with the possible respondent I introduced myself,
the purpose and subject of the interview, why I selected this person and the
time the interview would approximately take, then I asked if they wanted to
participate. If possible an appointment was made at the same time. There
was no sponsorship for my research nor a reward for participating.
38
Landscape architects within offices
R1:Experience with long term strategic planning assignments
R2: Various experiences
R3: Experience with local small scale design assignments
Landscape architects within knowledge Institutes
R4: Experience abroad
R5: Various experiences
R6: Experience with participatory processes and experts
Landscape architects within governmental organizations
R7: Experience on a governmental level
R8: Experience on a municipality level
R9: Experience on a provincial level
Fig 5: The selection of respondents
Before I started the interview I explained once more the purpose of the
interview and the time it would take. Furthermore I explained the structure of
the interview with the different topics and subtopics. I asked if it was all right
if I recorded the interview. This enabled me to write a reliable transcript and I
could listen more carefully because I didn’t need to take lots of notes. Next to
that I explained that the interview would be anonymous and that the results
would only be used for this research.
I decided to keep the respondents of the interviews anonymous because
I wanted that they felt free to express themselves. It is more important
that they give information without changing a lot because their name and
organization will be connected with it than giving the name and organization
of the landscape architect. The name of the landscape architect is secondary
to the validity of the information.
I had a start question and a finishing question, before asking the final question
I announced that it would be the last question. After that question I asked if
there were any extra topics, issues or questions they wanted to address.
In the end I explained that I would make a transcript based on the recorded
interview and that I would send that back within a week by e-mail.
Within a week I returned the transcript. In the e-mail I explained again the
anonymity of the research and invited people to look at the transcript and
add, change or remove things if necessary.
Also I thanked them again for cooperating.
5.4
Questions and content interviews
In preparation of my thesis proposal and research I talked to different people
and gathered literature about the topic. Based on this information I wrote my
thesis proposal and determined the main and sub questions of the research.
39
Because I am looking for the experiences of landscape architects it seemed
logic to talk with landscape architects and take an interview to find out their
opinions, thoughts and experiences about participation.
The start question of the interview is about the influence of participation
landscape architects experience during their job. The sub topics are about
roles, tasks, skills, results, positive and negative aspects and about expected
future developments. Every sub topic had a few specific questions. Most of
those questions come forth from discussions and interviews with people.
To test the topics and estimate the time an interview will take I did one test
interview. I asked a classmate with working experience to cooperate with
this test interview. This interview was important to test my own skills, the
questions and the answers given. The results of this interview will not be
used for my research.
5.5
Processing the data of the interviews
The processing of the data was done in three different phases. A transcript
with the complete interview literally, an analysis based on the subtopics and
last an overview of the sub topics. The first and second phase focus on the
information given by the nine respondents, the third phase focuses more
on giving an overview of the answers and compare them between the nine
respondents. I describe the three different phases below.
It started with the transcript of the interview. I recorded the interviews so I
could make a truthful transcript. The transcript includes the spoken words
during the interview. Those transcripts were send back to the respondents,
they could add, adapt and change things if they thought it was needed. This
‘member checking’ is used to check the accuracy of the data (Creswell, 2009).
When approved I used the transcript for analyzing the interview. I numbered
the lines so I could find back all the notes I made during the analysis. This is
the story of the respondent.
During the second phase I extracted the relevant information from the
transcripts. I created several sub topics based on my questions and some
extra topics which were mentioned in several interviews without asking for
it. I introduced this phase because I am not experienced enough to code
directly from the transcript. This phase helped me to separate the relevant
from the less relevant information.
In this phase I selected relevant information without loosing the nuances
expressed by the respondents. Categorizing the information was the first
step towards comparing the answers.
During the last stage the categorized answers and comments were reduced
to a code consisting of a few words. In this way I had an overview of the given
answers and was able to compare the answers between all the respondents.
“Coding means categorizing segments of data with a short name that
40
Phase 1: the transcript
“En mijn tweede grote ervaring was toen ik bij de provincie B werkte,
projectleider was van het streekplan, dat is het grote, wat nu de
provinciale structuurvisie heet, bij de nieuwe wet ruimtelijke ordening.
Dat was toch eigenlijk ook nog heel erg top down, maar wel met een
wettelijke inspraakprocedure en ja dat plan dat bracht zo ontzettend
veel maatschappelijk protest teweeg. Dat, het was in de tijd dat de
ecologische hoofdstructuur voor het eerst werd uitgerold en ook in
ruimtelijke plannen verankerd moest worden, B was de eerste provincie
die dat ook werkelijk in een streekplan ging gieten.” Respondent 1, R
9-15
Phase 2: selection sub topics
Respondent 1
Ervaringen 12) inspraak procedure bracht veel maatschappelijk
protest teweeg
20) constatering: zoals het nu gaat, gaat het niet goed
25) constatering: onvoldoende rekening gehouden met
sociale waarden
32) dat was voor mij een leerpunt
Phase 3: overview sub topics per respondent
Respondent
Gevarieerd
Inspirerend
Verrijking
Inspraak
negatieve
ervaringen
Ervaring
belangen
groepen
Ervaring
lokale
bevolking
Ervaring
overheids
instellingen
Ervaring
experts
1
2
3
4
2
5
6
7
8
9
*/9
2
2
2
5
5/9
1/9
1/9
2/9
7
6
2
4
12
9
15
9
5
4
2
5
3/9
4
12
13
7
4/9
4/9
4
3/9
Fig 6: Example of the different phases
41
simultaneously summarizes and accounts for each piece of data. The codes
show how you select, separate and sort data to begin an analytic accounting
of them (Charmaz, 2006).” Coding is a link between collecting data and the
development of theory explaining the data (Charmaz, 2006).
I compared the answers given by those nine respondents, all answers are
valued equally. In qualitative researches we often talk about generalization
of the content and not statistical (Baarda, 2001). The results of this research
might be applicable to similar situations. We have to take in account that the
opinions expressed during the interviews are personal and are not necessary
the opinion of all landscape architects. The stories created here are the
stories of the interviewer.
By numbering the lines in the transcript and using those numbers during
phase two and three it is easy to look up and find back the information.
The different stages of analyzing the interviews are connected by the
corresponding numbers of the lines. The first phase contains the transcript
with the complete story of the respondent, than there is the extraction of the
relevant information from the transcript and the last phase the interpretation
and categorizing of the information. An overview of the different phases is
shown in figure 6.
5.6
Results of the interviews
I categorized the answers based on the topics asked during the interviews. I
will show the results per category connected to the questions asked.
5.6.1 Experiences of landscape architects
The start question of the interview was: What are your experiences as a
landscape architect with participatory processes? The goal of this question
was to create an opening in the conversation and find connections to the
other questions.
Most landscape architects mentioned the diversity and variety of their
experiences with participatory processes (5/9). Other words mentioned were
inspiring and enrichment (1/9). The diversity landscapes mentioned is related
to the different parties they have experience with. Mentioned are: action
groups (3/9), local inhabitants (4/9), governmental organizations (4/9) and
experts (3/9). Other landscape architects explain their work and experiences
chronological. Two of them talk about public hearing and how unsuccessful
it was (2/9). After the failure of hearing they looked for other ways to involve
other parties during the process.
“Inspraak: echt sprake van interactie was er niet, het was vooral zenden,
luisteren en dat weer verwerken in de volgende slag.” Respondent 1,
R17
“Inspraak: ze probeerden dat links of rechtsom maar het liefst
middendoor voor elkaar te krijgen.” Respondent 2, R10
42
5.6.2 Roles and tasks of the landscape architect
One of the questions was about the task of the landscape architect during a
participatory process. A lot of different answers were given to this question,
underneath I will categorize the different answers.
Despite all the other tasks a landscape architect seems to fulfil during a
participation process most respondents mention their role as a landscape
architect (7/9). It is important to have a phase during a participatory process
where the landscape architect is the professional with their specific knowledge.
The respondents mention tasks like; looking for patterns and systems in the
landscape (1/9), creating cohesion (2/9), integration (1/9) and flexibility (1/9)
in plans. Set the legal context of a project (1/9), to tell the story (1/9) or to
think about the future (1/9). But the most mentioned is the task to visualize
and create images (6/9).
“Dat is gewoon een vak. Dat moet je niet aan de kant schuiven, dat
moet je altijd wel koesteren.” Respondent 3, R278
“Elke rol hoort in een bepaalde fase thuis maar soms ben je ook gewoon
puur ontwerper.” Respondent 8, R373
Some landscape architects intentionally separate their professional
contribution from other tasks (2/9). They cooperate with external parties
or companies to take care of the other issues so that they as a landscape
architect can focus on the content of the design.
“Een proces manager zorgt dat je met de goede vragen en mensen
bezig bent, zodat je als landschapsarchitect vooral inhoudelijk kan
werken.” Respondent 2, R119
“Dat is een hele fijne rolverdeling: dat ik het presenteer maar niet de
discussieleider ben. Dan kun je altijd in je rol blijven als ontwerper.”
Respondent 3, R17
A second important role is to support and guide lay people during the
process (5/9). Tasks mentioned are; inspire (2/9), stimulate creativity (3/9)
and imagination (4/9), provide tools (2/9) and overviews (1/9). During a
participatory process a landscape architect can educate people (4/9) and
show people other options (2/9). You can help people to discover opportunities
(4/9).
“Je brengt zelf een stuk verbeelding in maar wat belangrijker is dat je
mensen uitdaagt om ook zelf verbeelding te gebruiken.” Respondent 1,
R220
43
“Mensen hebben die deskundigheid niet, die moet je dus van dienst
zijn, die moet je betrekken.” Respondent 3, R34
“Dan moet je ze laten tekenen en daar moet je ze bij helpen.” Respondent
4, R237
“De rol van de landschapsarchitect is toch wel om de ideeën van
mensen op kaart en gebiedsspecifiek te krijgen.” Respondent 6, R143
An other aspect of participatory processes is the role of process manager
(1/9), chairman (2/9) and facilitating side (2/9). Important tasks are; explore the
assignment (2/9), find issues that are relevant for participants (2/9), explore
the sphere of an area (1/9), to connect to the expectations of participants
(4/9) and manage those expectations (1/9). Reflection on the process is also
mentioned (1/9).
Some tasks are related to the quality of the design, the responsibility to create
something beautiful (1/9) and to guard the values of an area (1/9).
“Aansluiten bij de verwachtingen van de mensen in de zaal is natuurlijk
cruciaal.” Respondent 2, R144
“Je moet altijd beginnen met de zaken die de mensen zelf aangaan.”
Respondent 4, R10
“Ik blijf me toch altijd zorgen maken, ik wil dat er iets moois komt. Dat is
mijn belangrijkste doel en daarbij hoort ook dat er mensen bij betrokken
zijn.” Respondent 3, R269
It is important to ensure the continuity and after care of an area (2/9). Creating
energy (1/9) and stimulate social connections (1/9) can help to reach that.
Inform and communication are also mentioned (3/9), striking is that this is
mentioned by the three respondents from governmental organisations.
It is not always necessary to handle all the tasks yourself, it is possible to work
in a team (2/9). The task you handle can depend on the personal preferences
of the landscape architect (4/9) or phase in the process (3/9).
In general, it is important to keep your promises (5/9).
“Misschien moet je het samen met andere mensen. Wij hebben
veel gehad aan het samenwerken met experts op het gebied van
voorlichting.” Respondent 4, R82
“Ik vind dat je in een ruimtelijke ontwerpen bewust moet omgaan met
de sociale verbanden in een gebied en het liefst versterken.” Respondent
7, R223
44
“De een is een prater de ander een tekenaar en de ander is een
onderzoeker.” Respondent 8, R388
“Participeren betekent ook dat je daarna goed moet blijven informeren,
communiceren naar de burger toe en dat je, je afspraken na moet
komen.” Respondent 7, R98
“Je moet er heel keen op zijn dat je geen verwachtingen wekt die niet
waargemaakt kunnen worden. Dat kan zich uiteindelijk tegen je keren.”
Respondent 9, R178
5.6.3 Knowledge and skills
I asked the landscape architects about the knowledge and skills they need
to fulfil their roles during a participatory process. And how they learned
those skills. There are two main points when talking to landscape architects
about their knowledge and skills. The skills and knowledge are connected
to the task the landscape architect, the two main roles mentioned are; the
landscape architect as a professional and the landscape architect involved
with the management of the process.
“Ik heb moeten afleren dat je een plan maakt wat helemaal tot op de
detail doorgerekend, door getekend, ontworpen en vormgegeven is.”
Respondent 4, R230
Knowledge and skills connected to the landscape architect as a professional
are important (6/9). As a landscape architect you have to be creative (4/9),
you must be able to visualize ideas and create images (4/9). You have to
adapt your design language to the group of participants (1/9). Knowledge of
vegetation (1/9), materials (1/9) and knowing examples (1/9) are necessary.
A landscape architect must be able to think about the future (1/9) and through
different scales (2/9). Landscape architects have to think and work integral
(1/9) and be able to connect different systems and functions (2/9). These
skills and knowledge are provided by the educational programs available in
the Netherlands (3/9). The study provides a good basis for different tasks the
landscape architect can do (1/9).
“De inhoudelijke kennis die je als landschapsarchitect mee krijgt in je
opleiding breng je in en gebruik je.” Respondent 9, R68
Other knowledge and skills are connected to communication (4/9). As
a landscape architect you have to work people oriented (1/9). During a
participatory process a landscape architect have to deal with group dynamics
(1/9). A landscape architect has to name what is going on during the process
(1/9), detect tension and take it away (1/9), have empathy (1/9), listen (1/9),
observe (1/9), stimulate participants (4/9) and have feeling for economic
relationships (1/9). Those skills are not learned during the study (1/9) unless
45
you choose specific courses (1/9), classes or do literature studies (3/9).
Communication skills are gained by experience (5/9).
“Vooral communicatieve vaardigheden, die worden steeds belangrijker.”
Respondent 1, R331
“Je moet je in kunnen leven in wat de behoeften van de andere partijen
zijn, dat is erg belangrijk.” Respondent 6, R331
As a landscape architect it is essential that you are able to let go (3/9) and
that you accept that you don’t know everything (2/9).
“En dan denk je goh, had dat niet iets mooier gekund? Maar dat hoort
er dan bij,” Respondent 3, R126
“Je moet proberen mensen het zelf te laten ontdekken, je moet ze niet
zoveel vertellen.” Respondent 4, R243
5.6.4 Positive and negative aspects of participatory processes
One of the topics I asked questions about was the difference between
participatory processes and non-participatory processes. And what they
considered the positive and negative aspects of participatory processes.
Positive aspects
The most mentioned positive aspect of participatory processes is gaining
support (7/9). By involving interested groups from the start you gain support.
Landscape architects can test and filter their ideas, in this way they have
more security about their ideas meeting the wishes of the interested parties
(4/9). This can lead to less resistance (1/9) and protests afterwards (2/9)
because people feel heard (2/9). Also mentioned is a better connection with
the practice (1/9).
“De zekerheid dat je dingen doet, maakt of bedenkt die er voor de
mensen toe doen. Dat vind ik één van de fijnste dingen die ik dan
persoonlijk mee krijg.” Respondent 4, R297
“Draagvlak betekent niet automatisch dat de mensen in een gebied het
eens zijn met de gekozen oplossingsrichting, maar wel dat je mensen in
een gebied betrekt bij het proces en ze op de hoogte houdt.” Respondent
9, R115
A second point has to do with the responsibility of inhabitants towards their
environment. Involving interested parties creates a sense of responsibility
and involvement (4/9). By creating a sense of responsibility landscape
architects hope that people change their mentality (2/9). People that care for
a place will take care of it (3/9). If people take care a plan is more sustainable
46
and can withstand time better (2/9). In this way participatory processes are a
long term investment (1/9).
“Mijn doel is wel altijd dat je probeert een verandering in gang probeert
te zetten.” Respondent 4, R16
“De omgeving wordt weer onderdeel van de maatschappij.” Respondent
4, R331
An other aspect is the advantage of getting local knowledge from interested
parties (4/9). In this way it is possible to discover local values and facts (1/9).
Landscape architects get access to knowledge that otherwise would remain
inaccessible.
Furthermore, participatory processes can lead to new links between parties
and professional fields (1/9). This can lead to new insights (1/9).
Negative aspects
Some of the negative aspects are connected with the success or failure of a
process. If a process fails, you will loose a lot of energy (2/9). It can also lead
to more resistance (2/9).
Participatory processes are associated with interference and fuss (1/9). It
takes a lot of time to prepare participatory processes (2/9).
Discussion points
Some of the topics are mentioned in both categories, positive as well as
negative. Those topics seem to be discussion points. The first topics are time
and costs, the second topic is the quality of the process and design.
Time and costs seems to be connected, it a process takes longer it will cost
more. Two respondents say a participatory process is faster (2/9). Four
respondents claim it is cheaper to do a participatory process (4/9). On the
other hand there are other respondents who say participatory processes are
time consuming (5/9) and are more expensive (3/9). Every respondent has a
different point of view on this discussion, there are varied reasons why they
think so, some examples are written down below.
Participatory processes can be faster because you involve people and take
in account their wishes. In this way they will not interfere and block the
process. Participatory processes can be time consuming because of all sorts
of meetings, workshops, preparations and communication issues.
A participatory process can be cheaper because of the involvement of local
people, it might be possible that local parties are willing to take responsibility
for costs or for example the maintenance of an area. It can be more expensive
because of all the professionals you need to hire to guide workshops.
47
“Een wethouder die moet bezuinigen heeft geen geld om zelf een plan
te realiseren, die zegt; nee we gaan inspelen op initiatieven van de
burgers en bedrijven in het gebied.” Respondent 3, R228
An other discussion is the quality of the plan or design. Some respondents
admit that they don’t know themselves if it improves the quality or not. Most
respondents say that the quality of a design decreases by doing a participatory
process (4/9). A participatory process leads to compromises (2/9). And when
the implementation is done by participants it is hard or impossible to control
the execution (1/9). Only two respondents are positive about the influence of
participatory processes on the quality (2/9) and are convinced that it will lead
to a better plan (1/9).
“Hoe meer mensen dat worden, hoe meer rekening je moet houden
en hoe meer, in negatieve zin gezegd, het een compromis zou kunnen
zijn.” Respondent 2, R188
“Het gaat er toch vooral om dat die mensen blij zijn met wat daar is
gerealiseerd en dat ze iets hebben waar ze zich prettig bij voelen.”
Respondent 5, R246
“Wanneer wordt een ontwerp beter? Als iedereen zijn plasje erover
gedaan heeft of als een ontwerper in zijn bubbel zit en het ontwerp
maakt?” Respondent 8, R226
5.6.5 Commissioning
One of the questions is about the role of the commissioner. Who decides if
a process will be executed participatory? There are different opinions about
the question who decides and why, ill give an overview underneath.
Some respondents say it is your own decision to start a participatory process
(3/9) and that it is your own responsibility to see if it is appropriate or not
(3/9), some landscape architects prefer to work participatory (1/9). An other
option is to make the decision together with the commissioner (2/9). Some
respondents say that participatory processes are always necessary because
you are never autonomic (2/9). Participation can be determined on different
ways, it can be the assignment (2/9), in the approach of the office or institution
(3/9) or determined by protocols (1/9).
“Uiteindelijk is je opdrachtgever ook iemand die participeert in je
proces.” Respondent 2, R185
“Ik vind in principe dat het altijd moet.” Respondent 3, R156
48
“Als je de vraag krijgt om daar in mee te doen, dat je dan de
verantwoordelijkheid hebt om er diep over na te denken, dit heeft zin of
dit heeft geen zin.” Respondent 4, R179
There are different reasons to work participatory, some landscape architects
prefer to work participatory (1/9), offices or institutions have a social assignment
(3/9). It is also possible that the reason for participation is unclear (1/9).
“Zodra je op een plek komt waar mensen moeten wonen, werken of
leven, moet je daar ook iets met die mensen doen” Respondent 3, R149
It happens that landscape architects have to convince the commissioner
of the use of participatory processes (3/9). Sometimes commissioners are
unfamiliar with participatory processes (1/9). Commissioners have to take
participatory processes serious (1/9). If they have no intention to use the
results of a participatory process, it is useless to set up a participatory process.
(1/9). Other commissioners are familiar with participatory processes and are
willing to cooperate (1/9). The support of the commissioner can be essential
for a successful process (1/9).
“Daar hebben we geluk gehad met onze bestuurlijke opdrachtgever.
Die wel zelf een visie hadden en wilde sturen maar ook in staat waren
om ruimte te geven waar dat nodig was.” Respondent 1, R378
Some commissioners feel responsibility to make a plan for an area (1/9). It is
also possible that a commissioner is afraid to open up a process (1/9).
5.6.6 Different approaches participants
For this research I take the term participatory processes in a wide sense.
It includes processes in different countries, on different scales and with
different people. I asked the landscape architects about the different parties
that can participate and their attitude. I distinguished three different groups
of participants. Experts, organizations and inhabitants.
“Je kunt geen landschap maken zonder andere partijen.” Respondent 7,
R173
A participatory process is never the same, the people are always different
(1/9). It is important to adapt to the group of people (1/9). You have to make
information accessible and easy (1/9). People can join from different wishes
but with the same goal (1/9). People join to gain some sort of profit from it
(1/9).
49
“Bij een heleboel mensen speelt dat, hoe word ik er beter van?”
Respondent 9, R87
Experts are people with special knowledge about one or more topics.
Experts are independent (1/9) and bring facts and scientific information into
the process (1/9). They can give very specific information (1/9). Experts are
more formal and objective (1/9). Bringing different experts together can create
more integration among the different subjects (1/9). Problems with experts
can occur when experts limit their view to their own expertise (1/9). It can be
hard to trace and understand the specific information given by the experts
(1/9). Because of this it is possible that the information will be misinterpret
(1/9). Experts think in models (1/9), they don’t think about the spatial impact
of a measure (2/9).
It is the task of a landscape architect to make sure that all the experts have
a possibility to give input (1/9).
“Hoe
het
eruit ziet is een soort uitkomst van technische
randvoorwaarden.” Respondent 6, R151
An organization is a collective of people (1/9) that represent a specific interest
or value (2/9). People from an organization often join voluntary and in their
own time (1/9). Organizations are often used to cooperate in participatory
processes (2/9). They can work more integrated (1/9), are able to think about
long term solutions (1/9) and on a larger scale (1/9).
Inhabitants are people who live in the plan area. Most of the time they are
individuals (1/9), who join a process voluntary in their own time (2/9). They
join from their personal interests (1/9). They are focused on their environment
(1/9) and speak from their personal experiences (3/9). Therefore it can be
difficult for inhabitants to work on a larger scale (1/9).
It is the task of a landscape architect to stimulate and motivate inhabitants
to join and deliver input (1/9). To make that possible it is necessary to let
inhabitants look further than their own environment (1/9).
“Mensen kunnen heel goed meepraten over wat in hun omgeving
gebeurt maar zodra het over een groot schaalniveau gaat wordt dat
lastig.” Respondent 8, R234
5.6.7 Selection participants
You make no selection if you really want to do a process participatory (1/9). It
is impossible and not necessary to reach everyone so a selection is required.
In that case the selection of the participants depends on the goal of the
process (1/9). You have to think about what questions do I ask to who (1/9). It
is important that all the participants have a participatory attitude (1/9). People
must be motivated to create something new (1/9). You need people who can
50
provide valuable input into the process (1/9). People often tell each other
about meetings and bring relatives, friends or neighbours to the workshops
(2/9). In this way a process can start with a few people but end with a large
group.
“Je kunt natuurlijk nooit zeggen; dit is een afspiegeling van het gebied.”
Respondent 3, R325
5.6.8 Role of governmental organizations and politics
As a landscape architect it is necessary to speak the language of the politicians,
you depend on their support for the process or plan (3/9). Therefore it is
necessary to inform politicians and convince them of the use of participatory
processes or the results of the process (1/9). You have to offer politicians
topics they can score with, politicians go for their personal gain (3/9). It
happens that politicians do their own business and work around participatory
processes (1/9). Governmental organizations should choose more often and
in an early stage of a project a participatory attitude (1/9). Governmental
organizations must learn to let go and give some power away (1/9). People
are often angry with governmental organizations and politicians (1/9).
“Ik denk dat ons politieke bestel, in de samenleving, echt aan
verandering toe is.” Respondent 1, R451
“Het zou handiger zijn als ze toch wat eerder een participatieve houding
zouden kiezen.” Respondent 3, R201
“Participatie betekent dat mensen invloed kunnen uitoefenen wat
betekent dat je als overheid een beetje invloed moet inleveren.”
Respondent 5, R334
5.6.9 Influence history participatory process
A participatory process is often a long term process. An area always has a
history (1/9). One of the questions was about the influence of happenings in
the past on the participatory process.
History plays often an important role during a participatory process (1/9)
which can be very frustrating (1/9). Miscommunication can cause problems
during a process (2/9). A landscape architect needs to change the critique
into something positive (2/9) and give it a place during the process (1/9). The
three respondents from the governmental organizations say it is their job to
take away resistance (3/9). If there is a lot of resistance it might be possible
to start all over again (1/9), you have to take two steps back to move one
step forwards (1/9).
“Dat er hevige emoties ontstaan in een proces vind ik een goed teken,
zeker als je in staat bent om dat een plek te geven.” Respondent 2, R208
51
“Je moet proberen om die weerstand om te draaien naar iets positiefs.”
Respondent 8, R314
“Als het goed gaat dan hoor je het niet, maar als er weerstand is dan
hoor je het wel.” Respondent 8, R319
5.6.10 Future developments in participatory processes
The final question was about future developments concerning landscape
architects and participatory processes. What needs to be changed to
improve participatory processes? And how did they see the future role of the
landscape architect?
Landscape architects should be more aware of the different roles they can
play during processes. (3/9). Awareness of the role helps to communicate
more clear (1/9). The landscape architect should function as a translator
between experts and practice (1/9). Landscape architects should be more
adventurous and be able to let go protocols and procedures (1/9).
“Planning, inrichting en beheer, dat is helemaal niet zo’n logisch traject.”
Respondent 5, R284
The government took a lot of responsibility concerning the environment,
citizens should take more responsibility for their surroundings (2/9).
Participatory processes will become more important because citizens will no
longer accept top-down plans (1/9). To improve the processes our political
system should change (2/9) so the results of the processes could be taken
in account or even implemented (2/9). The process can also improve by
preparing more carefully (3/9) and to consider the need of a participatory
process (2/9). The after care should be better (1/9).
Landscapes should be profitable (1/9) and area development
(gebiedsontwikkeling) needs to be improved (1/9).
“Wat we nu doen, en om me heen zie, dat iedereen altijd hetzelfde voor
iedere doelgroep doet. Maar dat die doelgroep veel beter onderzocht
moet worden voor je een activiteit ontwikkelt.” Respondent 4, R45
“Er worden kansen gemist doordat er niet in een vroeg stadium mensen
bij gehaald worden, of dat er te weinig partijen bij gehaald worden of
dat het op een onhandige manier gebeurt.” Respondent 2, R278
5.7
Summary
This chapter describes the procedures and results of the half open interviews
with nine landscape architects about their experiences with participatory
processes. The goal of the research and the interviews is to get a broad view
on the landscape architects and participatory processes. Because of this I
52
selected nine different landscape architects from three different categories,
landscape architects within offices, landscape architects within knowledge
institutes and landscape architects within governmental organizations. I asked
questions about their experiences, roles, skills, results, positive and negative
aspects and their expectations for the future. The results of the interviews
were analysed in three different phases. The first phase is the transcript, the
second phase is the selection of topics and the third phase is coding and give
an overview of all the topics expressed by the nine respondents. The results
are divided in several sub topics mentioned during the interviews. The most
important are: The experiences, roles and tasks, knowledge and skills and
the positive and negative aspects.
Experiences
The first question concerned the experiences of the landscape architect.
Mentioned is the diversity of experiences, related to the different target
groups involved in participatory processes. Inspiring and enrichment were two
other words mentioned. Some landscape architects described participatory
processes as a counter reaction on public hearing which was not always
successful.
Roles and tasks
An important part of this research is about the role of the landscape architect
within participatory processes. They described three different directions,
first the landscape architect with their professional knowledge, second the
supporting role and third the process management side of processes. Tasks
mentioned are: The landscape architect as an expert, create cohesion and
integration, create flexibility, tell the story, sketch the future or to set the
legal context. But the most mentioned is the task to visualize and create
images. A second important role is to support and guide lay people during the
process. Tasks mentioned are: Inspire, stimulate creativity and imagination,
provide tools and overviews, educate people show other options or help
people to discover opportunities. The third role described is the role of
process manager, chairman or facilitator. Tasks described are: exploring the
assignment, find issues that are relevant for participants, explore the sphere
of an area, create energy, stimulate social connections, ensure the continuity
and after care, to connect to the expectations of participants and manage
those expectations and to reflect on the process. Some general tasks are:
informing and communicating. It is not always necessary to handle all the
roles and tasks yourself, it is possible to work in a team. The task you handle
can depend on the personal preferences of the landscape architect or phase
in the process.
Knowledge and skills
A landscape architect needs knowledge and skills to play certain roles.
Knowledge and skills mentioned are: A landscape architect has to be creative,
able to visualize ideas and create images, adapt the design language to
53
the group of participants, knowledge of vegetation, materials and examples.
A landscape architect must be able to think about the future and through
different scales. Landscape architects have to think and work integral. Other
skills and knowledge are connected to communication. Knowledge and skills
mentioned are: Work people oriented, dealing with group dynamics, detect
tension and take it away, empathy, listen and observe.
Positive and negative aspects
Positive aspects mentioned are: Gaining support, lessen resistance and
protest afterwards, people feel heard, better connection with the practice and
landscape architects filter and test their ideas. Positive aspects that has to do
with the responsibility of inhabitants towards their environment are: Create a
sense of responsibility and involvement, mentality change, people will take
care and you get sustainable plans. Other aspects is are the advantage of
getting local knowledge and to discover local values and facts.
Some of the negative aspects are connected with the success or in this case
failure of a process. If a process fails, you will loose a lot of energy. It can
also lead to more resistance. Participatory processes are associated with
interference and fuss.
There are some topics that are mentioned by some respondent as positive
while others think they are negative aspects. Those discussion points are:
Time, costs and the quality of the design. Some say a participatory process is
faster and cheaper while other think they are time consuming and expensive.
Some respondents think a participatory process improves the quality, some
say that it leads to compromised plans and others think it lessens the quality
of the plans.
54
55
Part one, lessons learned
This part describes the most important lessons learned from the literature
study and interviews described in chapter three and five.
The way participatory processes are approached is very divers, a participatory
process is never the same. Different landscape architects and offices develop
approaches to involve inhabitants or other parties in a design or plan process.
It seems that landscape architects need new methods and develop them with
the help of their experience and improve them by trial and error.
The way Landscape architects approach and think about participatory
processes seems not determined by their work environment, but by personal
experiences and preferences. The analysis of the interviews made it clear that
comparable answers during the interviews were rarely given by landscape
architects of the same group of respondents.
Landscape architects play different roles during a participatory process.
The first role is the landscape architect as an expert. Important tasks are
designing, visualizing, design through different scales and time. It is important
to tell the story of the landscape using knowledge from different aspects of
the landscape. The landscape architect has to create cohesion, flexibility and
multi-functionality within the plans and designs.
The second role is the landscape architect as a leading figure like; a
process manager, chairman or facilitator. Important tasks are; exploring the
assignment and context, find issues that are relevant for participants and
reflect on the process. A very important part of the leading role is to deal with
group dynamics and communication. You have to guide participants during a
process, this means you have to stimulate, inspire and educate them.
As described above the landscape architect is able to play different roles
during a participatory process. The role can depend on the different stages
in a participatory process. Some landscape architects prefer certain roles
or cooperate with other landscape architects and professionals during a
participatory process.
56
57
Part two, practice
58
59
6 Zutphen De Mars
To experience the practice I joined a participatory process in Zutphen. This
case made it possible to compare the results from the theory and the interviews
with the practice. This chapter describes the assignment and context of the
assignment. Chapter seven will contain the process and evaluations.
6.1
The Assignment
6.2
The location
De Wetenschapswinkel related to the University Wageningen is a link
between research and society. Organizations, action groups, clubs or other
organizations with a research question can apply to the Wetenschapswinkel
(www.wetenschapswinkel.wur.nl).
ISALA is a row and sail club in
Zutphen
that
applied
to
the
Wetenschapswinkel. They have the following research question; how
can ISALA contribute to the green-blue developments taking place in the
floodplains and to the recreational use of the harbours along the river IJssel
in cooperation with other water sport related parties?
The Mars is an old business area that will be restructured and transformed
in the coming years. Several developments will take place. The Historical
IJsselfront will be extended, a living area called Noorderhaven will be
developed, the infrastructure will be restructured and improved and there will
be more space for recreational functions.
Just like the slow movements the parties in this area are worried about the
future of the existing values. ISALA one of those worried parties wants to
develop a vision for the future together with other interested parties in the
area. There are two different design assignments connected to this project.
One design assignment focuses on the developments on the waterside,
space for the river and nature. The other focuses on the waterfront and the
connection between the water side and the developments happening on the
land side involving local parties.
Alterra the research institute connected to Wageningen University has
accepted this assignment and will execute this project. Jeroen Kruit
from Alterra will be the project leader during this process. Students from
Wageningen University will be involved in this project and will contribute from
the context of their individual thesis subject. The students will be supervised
by members of the university, Jeroen Kruit and the guidance committee.
Madeleen Brouwer is the second student involved in this project. She will
look to the broader context, ‘space for the river’, urban and spatial quality
challenges along the riverfront of Zutphen. Abel Coenen is a third student
involved, He will focus on the reconstruction of the Mars. Abel got involved
quite late during the process, therefore I worked mostly together with
Madeleen.
The project area is situated north of the historical city centre of Zutphen
(Figure 7). It includes a business area called the Mars and the floodplains
west of the Mars. The area is confined in the north by the Twente kanaal,
on the south east by the railway and on the west by the river IJssel. This
60
0
100
200
300
400
500
Meters
Fig 7: Project area; Zutphen de Mars
61
thesis will focus on the area between the Mars and the floodplains of the
river IJssel.
The Mars will be restructured as mentioned before (Figure 8). The Mars needs
restructuring and clustering of functions to be more functional in the future.
There are several plans for the Mars in different stages of development. The
southern part will become a living area. This plan, called Noorderhaven,
is ready to be executed (Figure 10). Main features of this plan are a new
IJssel boulevard and a new harbour. The area north of the Noorderhaven
will be developed into a business area sector 2-3. This includes functions
like; stores, storage and transport. The main feature of this area is a cluster
of furniture shops (woonboulevard). There is a wish to connect this part with
the river side and centre of Zutphen. The northern part of the Mars, north
of the Industiehaven, will become an area for heavy industrial businesses.
Businesses like the treatment of polluted water and the processing of sludge.
The plans for those areas are not very defined yet, there is a global vision for
the whole Mars that includes those two area’s.
The west side of the Mars exist of floodplains and different harbours.
The floodplains are used in different ways. The southern floodplains are
used for extensive recreation and by a farmer. The floodplains north of
the Industriehaven are designated as Natura 2000, this means nature
development. This area is not accessible except for the farmer who maintains
the area. The floodplains are separated by different existing harbours, The
Houthaven, the Marshaven and the Industriehaven. The harbours are used
by different parties in different ways.
Fig 8: Different developments de Mars
Fig 9: Locations differnt participating parties
(1) Development Fort de Pol, heavy industry, (2) Development Industrie haven, businesses,
(3) Development De Achtermars, businesses, (4) Development Noorderhaven, living
area, (5) Connecting the N348, (6) New bicycle path, (7) Development IJsselboulevard,
(8) Relocate roads De Mars, (9) Development Mars centre, (10) Location Noorderhaven.
62
6.3
The actors
6.4
Guiding commission
There are several harbours as described above, those harbours
accommodate several water related clubs and parties (Figure 9). One of
those clubs is the initiator of this process; ISALA. The Houthaven is used
by people who live on historical ships. The ships together form a historical
harbour. The Marshaven is used by different water sport related clubs. There
is a canoe club; Anax, a row and sail club; ISALA and a water sport club; WSV
de Mars. The Industriehaven is used by river ships to load and unload their
cargo. Some houseboats use the harbour illegal. The sea scouts; Nautilus
use the harbour for their ships and activities as well.
The parties above are not included in the developments of the Mars. The
intention of ISALA is to look for the possibilities to work together with the
other water related parties and see how they can connect and contribute to
the developments on the Mars. One of the goals of this project is to bring the
different parties together and to find out if it is possible that they can work
together in the future.
The guidance committee is a commission that overlooks the project. This
commission exists out of; the commissioner, researchers, supervisors, the
project leader, the coordinator of the Wetenschapswinkel and if needed
external advisors. This commission makes sure that the research answers
the question of the commissioner and that the research will be executed
scientifically. They give advice and evaluate the project. This commission will
meet once in the two or three months to discuss and talk about the content
and progress of the project.
Fig 10: Development Noorderhaven. (KCAPArchitects&Planners 2010)
63
6.5
Summary
The Mars, an old business area north of the historical city of Zutphen will
be developed in the coming years. The floodplains west of the Mars and
the harbours accommodate different water related sport clubs. Those sport
clubs are not involved in the development of the Mars. ISALA a local row
and sail club tries to unite the local water related clubs together. The goal is
to develop a vision shared by the different clubs. This vision can be used to
open up a discussion with the municipality or developers. ISALA applied to
the Wetenschapswinkel, an organization that supports local initiatives. The
Wetenschapswinkel commissioned the assignment to Alterra, the research
centre of the University Wageningen. Alterra will execute the process with
the help of students from Wageningen University. The guidance committee
will guide the processes.
64
65
7 Participatory process Zutphen
This chapter will describe the participatory process in Zutphen. Every
paragraph handles a phase in the process. The paragraphs describe; the
goal, the content and the results of the phase. Every phase concludes with
an evaluation of the phase using the same topics as the interviews, described
in chapter five. The scheme (Figure 11) shows the different phases, their
relation and the planning.
7.1
Interviews actors
One of the goals of the process was that ISALA would look at the possibilities
together with the other actors in the area. ISALA had a meeting with some
of the parties before the start of this project and maintained contact with the
other parties. Before we started the process we wanted to know more of
those different parties.
7.1.1 Objective of the interviews
To get to know the different parties we decided to do several interviews. Our
goal was to get information and opinions from the different parties about the
area and the way they looked towards the initiative of ISALA. We used the
meeting as well to inform the parties about the initiative and asked if they
were willing and interested to cooperate during the further process.
7.1.2 Interview questions
We interviewed seven parties, including the municipality and the sport council.
We created a list of topics with some questions. We talked about all topics
during a conversation; we created some questions in case the respondent
would fall silent. The questions can be found in appendix 3We asked them
their opinion about the process, their appreciation of the area, about ownership
and use of the area and their connection and cooperation with other parties.
I asked the questions and kept the conversation going, Madeleen was taking
notes and asked extra questions or asked for clarification. We recorded
the interviews and summarized them, those summaries were send back to
the respondent. Corrections or additions could be made, nobody used the
possibility to do so.
7.1.3 Results of the interviews
The interviews gave us a good view of the participants and their visions. We
used the summaries of the interviews to find some common topics addressed
in the five interview. The interviews with the municipality and the sport council
were to different to compare them with the interviews of the clubs. We put
those common topics in a scheme, one scheme for every party. The schemes
can me found in appendix 4. From those schemes we could draw some
general conclusions (Figure 12). The schemes and the general conclusions
were input for the first workshop. In this way the different parties got to know
the information and opinions from the other parties.
66
2010
ISALA
Jan
Wetenschapswinkel
Feb
Assignment
Mar
Alterra
Apr
Students
Project design
May
BC1
Interviews
Jun
Analysis policy
First workshop
Introduction
clubs
Proud of and
worries
Supplements
interviews
Development
direction
Mind maps
Jul
Vision
BC2
Aug
Design alternative 1
Second workshop
Sep
Okt
Preferences
Changes
Supplements
Nov
Complementary
inventory and
analysis
BC3
Complementary design
Dec
2011
Design
BC4
Jan
Maps
Reference images
Feb
Sphere impressions
Article
Final report
BC5
May
Short version report
Apr
Hand over the report
Fig 11: Participatory process Zutphen
67
Topics
General conclusion
Use of the area All parties except one make use of the Mars harbour,
without disturbing each other. The Mars harbour is big
enough for the current parties.
Flexibility of
All parties say that they are very happy with their
location
current location, at the same time they are prepared
to move to another location if necessary and under
certain conditions.
Contacts with
All parties have different contacts, some cooperate
others
while others prefer to operate alone.
Possibilities to All parties see a possibility to cooperate; the way they
cooperate
want to cooperate is different. Some see possibilities
with other clubs or commercial parties, others on a
management level.
Influence of the All parties see that the development of the ‘Noorderplans
haven’ and an ‘IJsselboulevard’ will create possibilities
and opportunities for the area. Their opinion about the
future functions is different.
Wishes for the All parties have wishes for the future. Most wishes are
future
little interventions for there own club.
Possibility to
The clubs that want to grow see possibilities to do that
grow
on their current location. Other clubs have reached
their capacity or don’t want to grow. The growth of the
clubs can put more pressure on the area.
Fig 12: General conclusions interviews
In this paragraph I will reflect on the role of the landscape architect and the
lessons learned.
In this paragraph I will reflect on the role of the landscape architect, the
procedures and content of the interviews.
The process
We wanted to start with the interviews when it became clear that people were
not informed about the project started by ISALA. We decided that ISALA
would send an e-mail to the representatives of the other clubs to inform them
about the project and that students of Wageningen University would call for
an interview. We called and made an appointment at a location suggested by
the respondent. We tried to make cooperation to the interview as comfortable
as possible for the respondent.
68
Results of the interviews
The interviews were a good way to get a picture of the different participants.
The information we got was global and broad. It gave us a view of the different
clubs and their activities. Wishes for the future were most of the time small
scale interventions. The answers and information we got was really focused
on their own club and in lesser extend to the area. The information we got
from the municipality and the sport committee were valuable because we
found out some businesses that we would not have known otherwise, like
the competition for subsidies.
Role of the landscape architect
During this phase the landscape architects were the researchers looking for
local knowledge and information. We determined what information we were
missing and what we wanted to know, created interview questions and did
the interviews. During the interview we tried to make things place specific
and spatial.
We got a list from ISALA with the contact information, based on that list
we contacted several parties. Most parties were willing to cooperate and to
give the information. One of parties rejected the interview mentioning several
reasons like; no time, it was not their project, they had plans of their own
and that they could not participate in every project. We tried several times
to involve them in the project, without success. It was difficult to motivate
unwilling people to join the process.
It was also difficult to get things place specific and spatial. We brought an
aerial picture of the area to every interview so respondents could draw on it
and use it to point out places and area’s. The respondents seemed to like to
see the area on an aerial picture and where everything was. But they seemed
to have some difficulties to use it during the conversation and to draw on it.
Interviewing was quite new for us, we had some help from Jeroen with the
interview questions. The interviews were informal more like a conversation.
Recording the interviews helped us during the interviews because we did
not have to write everything down. It helped also during the creation of the
summaries.
More difficult was handling and persuading people to cooperate with
the interview or the process. There were two parties that did not want to
cooperate, we tried to persuade them by explaining why it would be useful for
them to join but we could not convince them. Jeroen tried it later as well as
the initiator from ISALA without success. We kept the parties informed during
the rest of the process in the hope that they would join later.
Different approaches participants
We had seven interviews, five with local parties, one interview with the
municipality and one with the sports council. Most of the people reacted
69
open to our questions and were willing to answer the questions and to give
information. The parties that did not want to cooperate were drawn back,
defensive and careful in their answers. The municipality and the sport council
provided us with different information, less place specific. The municipality
provided more information about the developments on the Mars and
subsidies. It turned out that ISALA and one of the parties that did not want to
cooperate were actual competitors for subsidy. It might be possible that this
was a reason why they not wanted to cooperate.
Selection participants
We got a contact list from ISALA with several parties. We started with the
contacts provided, but we learned during the interviews that there were other
parties involved that were not on the list. We interviewed the board of the
historical harbour and learned that there were people living on the historical
ships and that they would be interested. We contacted them but they had no
time to do an interview on a short term. They joined the process later. We
learned that you have to be critical to the information you get provided.
Role of politics
The municipality cooperated in the interview but decided to leave the further
process to the local parties. The wanted to keep informed and were interested
in the end results. The project leader of the development of the Mars was
involved during the guidance committee meetings. There were no people
from the municipality present during the rest of the process.
Influence history participatory process
Some things that happened before we started this process might have
influenced the start of the process. We discovered that ISALA tried to gather
the different parties before the start of this process for a meeting about the
developments on the Mars. It seems that there were no concrete results from
that meeting. The lack of results during that first meeting might have set of
some of the parties, it would not change anything. It might explain the remark
of one of the parties that they could not attend every meeting. And the other
party that didn’t want to cooperate was sceptical about the results of the
process based on that first meeting.
7.2
The first workshop
The first workshop was planned in June 2010. We prepared the workshop
using the information from the interviews, the analysis of the area, the policy
and input from the guidance committee.
The goal of the workshop was to introduce the project and the different
parties. To inform them about the ongoing developments and the results of
the interviews. And to get more information about their thoughts and wishes
for the future and the area. We tried to get more information about the area
70
and less information about their own specific club.
7.2.2 Lay out of the workshop
The workshop contained several activities. The initiator from ISALA started
with a word of welcome and a short introduction of the project. After that
we started with an introduction of the different parties present. We asked
everyone to say their name and what club they belonged to. We asked them to
show their location on an areal map. In this way everyone got introduced.
After that we asked the participants to name one thing in the area they were
proud of and one thing they were worried about (Figure 14). This gave us
more information about their thoughts about the area.
We informed the participants about the results of the interviews and showed
the overview schemes. We asked them to look at the schemes during the
break and to add information when they missed something. Madeleen gave
a short presentation about the developments taking place in the area. We
created a matrix with different future development directions on the axes.
We asked the participants to put a mark in the matrix at the spot they saw as
the direction for future developments
(Figure 13).
After the short break we continued
with the mind maps in words. We
prepared six themes related to the
area and the future developments.
We started with the theme;
water recreation followed by; the
IJsselboulevard,
cooperation,
Nature, hotel and catering industry
and shared land use. We started with
a theme and asked the participants
to name all the words that came into
their minds. The mind maps can be
found in appendix 5 We concluded Fig 13: Future direction development
Proud of
Worried about
Tranquillity
Light, sun
Freedom
Freedom
The water
Nature
Nature panorama
IJsselfront
Initiatives to cooperate
Motorized water vehicles
Busy activities
Constrains
Afraid to loose location
Future location
Limited access
Connection developments water-land
Connect sport and developments
-
Fig 14: Results introduction rounds
71
the meeting by mentioning the steps following on this meeting and our plans
for a second workshop.
The results of the workshop were input for the vision. We had information
from the items they were proud of and worried about, the matrix with the
future development directions and the mind maps. Below the schemes with
the answers given to the question where are you proud of and where are you
worried about. The matrix showed that people wanted to develop but keep the
area quiet and green. This matches the things said during the round of proud
en worries. The results of the mind maps can be found in the appendixes.
The words gave us an impression of their thoughts about the future.
procedures and content of the first workshop.
The process
We planned all the activities described above in two hours, we planned to
start at 19:30 and finish at 21:30. Most people came in around 20:00, because
of this we lost 30 minutes. The break halfway was really necessary. The boat
house of ISALA was quite hot and people needed a drink and the possibility
to go outside for some fresh air. We planned almost 40 minutes for the mind
maps. We were determined to finish at 21:30 despite of the delayed start. We
planned the most important themes first. We did the first three themes that
took ten to fifteen minutes per theme. After this we noticed that people lost
their focus and started to repeat things. We finished the last three themes
faster and concluded the workshop as planned at 21:30.
Evaluation results of the first workshop
The results from the workshop were enough input for a vision. We got a lot
of information from the things they were proud of and worried about. The
people gave different answers about the things they were proud or worried
about (Figure 15). Some answers were different or additional on the answers
they gave in the interviews. One person claimed he had no worries at all.
During the break someone told me he had other worries than expressed
during the round but he did not want to express them in front of the group.
We hoped that the people by expressing the things they were proud of or
worried about would look at the whole area and not only to their own position.
Addressed own business
Addressed area business
Gave no answer
Fig 15: Evaluation introduction round
72
About Proud of
0
9
0
Worried about
3
5
1
en
After analyzing the answers given we can conclude that it partly worked out
that way. All the things they were proud of are things that count for the whole
area, The worries expressed were more directed to their own business.
The matrix seemed to be difficult. It was unclear what the different terms
mend and what it would look like. People waited very long before they putted
their mark down but as soon as one person did this they others followed soon.
Number four was first on a different spot, more to the left, on the maintaining
site. All the marks ended up in the development direction but maintaining the
quiet an spatial sphere of the area as it is now. The terms “maintaining an
recreative hotspot” might had negative associations.
The results of the matrix were not as we predicted in advance. We did not
expect all the parties to put their mark in the area of tranquillity. We predicted
the position from some parties different based on the interviews.
The mind maps gave a lot of extra input, most of the associations were positive
(Figure 16). Negative things were hardly mentioned. The first three topics
were thought of well, after that people lost their focus and kept repeating
themselves. Therefore the first three provide more information than the last
three. A negative aspect is that the mentioned things are open to different
interpretations. I had to interpret their words and use them according to my
interpretation in the vision. I personally thought it was a pity that the things
stayed so abstract and in words, I would have liked it if we had tried to get
more visual results.
The process
We planned all the activities above in two hours, we planned to start at 19:30
and finish at 21:30. Most people came in around 20:00, because of this we
lost 30 minutes. The break halfway was really necessary. The boat house
of ISALA was quite hot and people needed a drink and the possibility to
vlotten
sanitair
restaurant
Subtopic
waterfietsen
nautisch centrum
Voldoende Water
eke Botenhelling
Voor iedereen
Voor iedereen
functies
voorwaarden
voorzieningen
toegankelijkheid
waterscooters
natuur
antenligplaatsen
veiligheid
e en netheid
onderlinge verdraagzaamheid
2010 - Mindjet
schoonheid
waterskiër
Waterrecreatie
de wal
roeien
Varen
afval
zeilen
inspanning
sporten
zon zitten
levendigheid
in de wind zijn
Zwemmen
activiteiten
sfeer
sloepverhuur
vissen
samen sporten
kijken
Ontspannen
rust
Fig 16: Mind maps
73
go outside for some fresh air. We planned almost 40 minutes for the mind
maps. We were determined to finish at 12:30 despite of the delayed start. We
planned the most important themes first. We did the first three themes that
took ten to fifteen minutes per theme. After this we noticed that people lost
their focus and started to repeat things. We finished the last three themes
faster and concluded the workshop as planned at 21:30.
During the planning and the creation of the lay out of the workshop the
landscape architects functioned like process managers. We had to set
goals and ways to reach those goals. Communication and information
was very important. Inviting people, persuading them to come, asking for
confirmations and remind them of the meeting. During the workshop the
landscape architects fulfilled several roles. Jeroen led the workshop and the
discussions. Madeleen and I presented some of our work and made notes
during the workshops.
The lay out of the workshop was created during several brainstorms. We all
delivered input and decided what would be best way to do it. We got some
valuable feed back from the guidance committee to improve the lay-out. Most
of the communication before and during the workshop was done by Jeroen.
Presenting our work is a basic skill thought during the study. The information
we presented were basic analysis and the results of the interviews.
We invited the same people as we contacted for the interviews. We also
asked the people that did not wanted to cooperate in case they changed
their minds. We asked the people if they wanted to come with two persons to
get more diversity during the workshop. We got twelve confirmations for the
workshop, from that twelve only nine showed up. Four different clubs were
represented by two or three people. The amount of people and the diversity
in clubs was disappointing. It raises the question about the validity of the
results and if they are representing all the clubs in the area.
Role of politics
The municipality had the intention to send a representative to the workshop
but changed their point of view at the last minute. As mentioned before the
municipality decided to stay aside and to give the participants a chance to
express their opinions not influenced by the presence of the municipality.
The overview scheme from the interview with the municipality was present at
the workshop. It was the most looked over scheme during the break. People
were very interested in the opinion of the municipality and what they said
about things.
74
Influence history participatory process
The party that refused to participate with the interview did not change their
mind. The club that participated during the interview but behaved very sceptic
did not participate during the workshop. We were not able to convince them
of the utility of the process for them.
7.3
Vision
The vision contains information derived from the interviews and the first
workshop supplemented by input from Jeroen, Madeleen and myself. The
vision was the basis for three design alternatives. The vision as presented to
the clubs can be found in appendix 6
7.3.1 Objective of the vision
The vision had to be a document representing the ideas of the clubs about the
future development of the Mars, harbours and floodplains. The vision should
be the basis for further steps during the process. A second goal of the vision
is to create a dialogue with the municipality and other parties. The vision had
to be a compact and clear document easy accessible for all parties.
7.3.2 The vision
The vision contains different paragraphs. The first paragraph is an introduction
and explains the goal of the vision and on what information the vision is
based. As mentioned before it is based on the interviews, the first workshop
interpret and supplemented by Jeroen, Madeleen and myself. The second
and third paragraph explains the developments taking place on the Mars.
Those developments are described in paragraph 6.2 of this thesis. The fourth
paragraph describes the values of the area, based on the things they were
proud of mentioned during the first workshop. The fifth paragraph describes
the relation between the IJsselfront of the historical city centre and the new
IJsselfront along the Mars. The new IJsselfront should have a different sphere
and function than the historical IJsselfront. The new IJsselfront should go
further on than only the Noorderhaven. A new boulevard makes the clubs
accessible and the clubs add liveliness to the area. Paragraph six describes
the importance of the IJsselboulevard to connect the historical city and the
Mars. The IJsselboulevard will also an important role in the routing. The
IJsselboulevard will be only accessible for slow transport. The main routes
and slow traffic will be separated on the Mars. The IJsselboulevard will be
accessible from the Mars because of transport and supplies. This is described
in paragraph seven. Paragraph eight describes the location of the clubs
and their wish to stay at that location. However most clubs mentioned that
moving would not be a problem if that was necessary. The next paragraph
explores the possibilities for the hotel and restaurant businesses. It could be
combined with the clubs or separated. Important things mentioned were that
it should be versatile and approachable. Paragraph ten describes the wishes
and needs of the water related clubs. Wishes like facilities and combination
of functions. Some of the clubs want to grow, this might put pressure on the
75
area. Therefore possibilities for expanding the water surface will be explored.
Paragraph eleven describes the accessibility of natural areas. The northern
floodplain is part of the Natura 2000 legislation. The area is not accessible for
the public. The clubs think that the area should be accessible or accessible
under certain circumstances. The twelfth paragraph describes the importance
of cooperation and the combination of functions. The vision concludes with a
description of the steps following on this vision.
7.3.3 Evaluation vision
procedures and content of the vision.
The process
We started by categorizing the different sources of information into several
topics as described above. Some information was clear and easy to use like
the things they were proud of and worried about, wile other sources were
more unclear and had to be interpret by us like the words from the mind
maps. This interpretation together with the low amount of participants from
the workshop raises the question if this vision represents all the clubs. This
was also one of the remarks from the guidance committee. An other remark
was that there was no chapter about the economic situation of the area.
The vision as result
The vision became an in-between document for the commissioner and the
different participants. The commissioner was happy with the result and saw
possibilities to use this document to open up the discussion. As described
above they missed a part about the economic situation and asked us to add
that in a paragraph to the vision.
The role of the landscape architect was to translate the abstract information
from the interviews and workshops to a more concrete document that could
be a base for the further project. We interpret the information to make it more
concrete and after that tried to visualize the information by creating maps
and using photographs.
We used our skills to create a story from little pieces of information and our
visualization skills to crate images to support the story.
7.4
Design alternatives
The vision was the base for three design alternatives. The design alternatives
show three possible ways to interpret the vision. The different topics described
in the vision will be incorporated in different ways in the design alternatives.
The design alternatives are the first step towards a concrete design and
important input for the second workshop.
76
7.4.1 Objective of the design alternatives
The design alternatives are a way to explore the design possibilities and
directions based on the vision. At the same time it is a way to check our
interpretation of the information by the participants during the second
workshop. The design alternatives can be found in appendix 7.
7.4.2 The design alternatives
There was not a lot of spatial information available from the interviews and
first workshop. The first step towards the visualization was made in the
vision. An additional step had to be made during the design alternatives.
The vision was the base for the design alternatives supplemented by ideas
from Jeroen, Madeleen and myself. We started with three different concepts
that we developed into three alternative designs. The alternative designs
are described below. Every design alternative contains an introduction, a
paragraph about the spatial impact and a paragraph about the functional
impact, a map and several reference images. The document including the
design alternatives presented to the commissioner, clubs and guidance
committee can be found in appendix 7.
Design alternative 1: Green IJsselfront
The first design alternative is called green IJssefront (Figure 17). The key
words for this alternative are: nature, natural views, sustainable and tranquillity.
The IJsselfront of the Mars will be the green IJsselfront of Zutphen. The Mars
boulevard will have a green character with a natural look and dynamics. The
green and natural characteristics are derived from the workshop and vision.
The sustainable and environment friendly measures are added.
The floodplains are natural areas where strolling is allowed, also in the
northern part outside the breeding season. The boulevard adapts to the
green character of the floodplains. Green elements, green walls and roofs
will add to the green character of the boulevard. Green zones on the Mars
will connect the boulevard and floodplains with the rest of Zutphen. Different
functions can be found spread along the boulevard. It is important to develop
the boulevard taking in account the different scales on the Mars. The green
connection zones on the Mars provide room for the slow as well as the fast
traffic streams.
Design alternative 2: Pearl necklace
The second design alternative is called the pearl necklace (Figure 18). The
key words for this alternative are: cooperation, interaction with the river,
connection between land and water and the creation of possibilities to stroll
around. The IJsselfront is 2.5 kilometers long. Instead of developing the
whole boulevard we develop some strategic points. There are two different
points. Urban points and natural points. The urban points offer a place for
intensive used facilities like restaurants, hotels, offices and other facilities.
The points are located at the new harbour in the Noorderhaven, at the
Marshaven and at the old garbage dump in the north. The Noorderhaven
77
will become an dense urban area, the Marshaven will be a point focused on
the water recreation and the old garbage dump will provide views over the
river and the natural areas along it. The natural points can be found in the
floodplains. They are accessible when the water is low. The natural points
are small areas with benches and information about the local flora and fauna.
It will become possible to cross the mounts of the harbours by small bridges
or small ferries. In this way it will become possible to walk rounds.
Living area
Business area
Industrial area
New functions
Strolling area
Water
Railway
Dike
Roads
Routes for slow traffic
Routes for strolling
Green IJsselfront
Trees
Location parties
Windmills
Bicycle path
Footpath
Fig 17. Design alternative 1: Green IJsselfront
78
Design alternative 3: Transition from countryside to city
The third design alternative is called the transition from countryside to city
(Figure 19). The key words for this alternative are: soften the border between
countryside and the city, transitions and multifunctional land use. The hard
border between the Mars and the floodplains was one of the issues addressed
during the mind maps. This design alternative creates a transition from the
natural areas along the IJssel and north of the Twentekanaal to the urban
characteristic of the Mars. The area’s in between like the new IJssel boulevard
Living area
Business area
Industrial area
New functions
Public floodplains
Water
Railway
Dike
Roads
Bridges
Ferries
Platforms
Location parties
Location public harbour
Windmills
Viewing point
Parking place
Bicycle path
Footpath
Fig 18. Design alternative 2: Pearl necklace
79
will be a combination of urban and natural functions in the form of an urban
park. The intensity of the use of the boulevard and the floodplains decreases
towards the north. The areas and floodplains around the Noorderhaven will
be intensively used, the areas north of the Industriehaven will be extensively
used.
Living area
Business area
Industrial area
New functions
Nature area
Strolling area
Public floodplains
Water
Railway
Dike
Roads
Routes for strolling
Platforms
Trees
Location parties
Location public harbour
Viewing point
Bicycle path
Footpath
Fig 19. Design alternative 3: Transition from countryside to city
80
Overview design alternatives
The scheme below will address the main points of the three design alternatives
(Figure 20). This makes it easy to compare the different alternatives per
theme.
7.4.3 Evaluation design alternatives
procedures and content of the design alternatives.
The process
Our original idea was to develop one possible design. But one of the
Floodplains
Boulevard
Alternative 1
Northern
floodplains
limited
accessibility,
rest strolling
Continuous line
with a green
character
Alternative 2
Areas to stroll
around with
Alternative 3
Divided in three
parts, park, area
to stroll, nature
area
Intensive use
and extensive
use vary
Intensive used in
the south,
extensive used
in the north
The Mars
Green zones
Clusters, easy to Striking buildings
with infrastrucreach, with
in a park
ture
different facilities landscape
Functions
Spread along
Functions
More functions
the whole
clustered along in the south, less
boulevard
the boulevard
functions in the
north
Industriehaven Route around
A bridge over
Route around
the
the
the
industriehaven
Industriehaven
industriehaven
Location public
In the Mars
Noorderhaven
harbour
haven
Enlarge water Enlarge the
Excavate part of
surface
water surface by the floodplains
connecting the
northern lake to
the Marshaven
Special
Green walls,
Ferries, viewing Viewing points,
elements
green roofs,
points, characcity park and
solar panels and teristic bridges
skyline
windmills
and routes
Fig 20. Overview design alternatives
81
respondents during the interviews with the landscape architects mentioned
that you have to give participants something to choose from. When there
is nothing to choose than there is no participation. I thought about that
remark and decided to create several possible designs. We started with the
development of three concepts that would form the base for the three design
alternatives. We tried to create concepts that would fit the vision and the
characteristics of the area.
The design alternatives as result
The design alternatives were presented together with the vision. First to the
commissioners and the guidance committee and later to the clubs during
the second workshop. There was some discussion about the need of three
design alternatives. The differences between the design alternatives are very
small. On the other hand two design alternatives would become a black and
white story wile three design alternatives offered more nuances. We decided
to keep the three alternatives.
The creation of design alternatives was a logic step after the creation of the
vision. We created three different concepts supported by maps and reference
images. The landscape architects had the same sort roles like the vision.
Interpret information and visualizing ideas.
The creation of the concepts and content of the alternatives asked for more
creativity and imagination. It was important to think of the target group while
creating the images and maps. They had to be understandable for everyone.
Clear legends and subscriptions helped to make the maps and images more
clear and to tell the story.
7.5
The second workshop
The second workshop was originally planned at the end of August. We had
problems reaching the respondents because of the holidays, little people
responded to our request to participate. The results of the last workshop
were disappointing because the lack of diversity and amount of participants.
Because of this we decided during the guidance committee meeting to
postpone the second workshop. We decided to keep the second workshop
end of September and to do things different to increase the amount and
diversity of the participants. We started informing and inviting people three
weeks in advance and called them later to remind them of the workshop. We
decided to send them the vision and design alternatives in advance, hoping
it would make people curious and convince them to come. We decided to
plan the second workshop on a Saturday afternoon. Most of the participants
are volunteers and have no time to attend meetings during the week and we
wanted more time to organise an activity after the workshop. Besides that the
chairman of ISALA wrote an article in a local newspaper about the initiative,
process and the upcoming workshop (Appendix 8).
82
The goal of the second workshop was to inform the participants about the
vision and design alternatives. To discuss the design alternatives and to
check if our interpretation of the first workshops and the interviews was right.
We discussed the design alternatives and wanted to know which design
alternative or aspects they liked, disliked or missed. The results of that were
input for one possible design.
7.5.2 Lay-out of the workshop
The chairman of ISALA opened the meeting with a short introduction, he
explained the process and the goal of the meeting. After that I explained in
short the different design alternatives. There were little questions about the
design alternatives but more questions about the meeting and the selection
of participants. The article in the local newspaper reached some new parties
that were not present at the previous meetings. They wondered why they were
not invited earlier. After answering the questions we divided the group into
three small groups guided by Jeroen, Madeleen and myself. We discussed
the different alternative and determined what they liked, disliked and missed
(Appendix 9). The groups presented their results in a short presentation
to the other groups. We concluded the workshop by explaining the steps
following on this workshop. After this there was the opportunity to row in a
boat of ISALA or to go on a boat of the Hanzestedensloep and make a trip
around the Mars harbour and the IJssel.
One of the first results was the presence of two new parties to the workshops.
We were unable to reach those parties before and their presence added extra
information to the workshops. The results of the discussions were gathered
in three schemes (Figure 21, 22, 23). The results of the discussions were
used to construct one possible design.
One of the results from the gathering was a discussion on the end of the
workshop. Several parties embraced the idea to continue together and work
together in the future. By cooperating together under one name they could
be a strong partner in future discussions and plan processes.
procedures and content of the second workshop.
The process
The process started rather chaotic because all of the new participants not
familiar with the project. As soon as their questions were answered we
could proceed with the workshop as planned. The discussion of the design
alternatives took longer than planned. The new participants added more
and new information to the discussion. This distracted us from discussing
the design alternatives. The workshop ended well with the wish to continue
83
together.
The article written by ISALA appeared to be very useful tool to reach a larger
group of participants. Because of the article we reached two groups of people
we were not able to reach before.
Evaluation results of the first workshop
It took extra time to listen to the new information provided by the new
participants. Because of this we had less time to discuss the design
alternatives. More discussion or better structured discussions might had
improved the results.
The landscape architects had different roles just like during the first workshop.
The preparation took a lot of time because we wanted to do a better job at
reaching the people than at the first workshop. Jeroen and the chairman of
ISALA took care of the communication towards the participants. We had to
present our design alternatives and inform the participants. After that we had
to lead the discussions about the design alternatives and to summarize the
results.
Design alternative 1 Positive
aspects
Floodplains
Northern floodplains
limited accessibility,
rest strolling
Boulevard
Continuous line with
a green character
The Mars
Green zones with
infrastructure
Functions
Spread along the
whole boulevard
Industriehaven Route around the
industriehaven
Enlarge water Enlarge the water
Enlarge
surface
surface by
the water
connecting the
surface
northern lake to the
Marshaven
Special
Green walls, green
elements
roofs, solar panels
and windmills
Missed
Routes to stroll around
Ferries
Fig 21. Comments on design alternative 1 green IJsselfront
84
Negative
aspects
Priorities
North-South
Don’t spread
the functions
This way of
doing it is not
possible
No windmills,
they are ugly
and noisy
As mentioned before the presenting skills are part of the educational
program and no problem to us at all. The communication skills needed
for the discussion were more difficult. I had some troubles in guiding the
participants during the discussion. The new participants in my group had a
lot of interesting information to add about all sorts of topics. It was useful but
distracted the group from the design alternatives. I lacked the skills to lead
the discussion.
We invited the same people as were invited for the first workshop. Extra
people showed up because of the article in the local newspaper. There were
thirteen participants at the second workshop. Four of them were completely
new to the process. It was the landowner and three people from one of the
clubs that refused to cooperate. We had contacted the chairman of the club
who didn’t responded to our request to participate. The three people that
showed up were members of the board that had read the article and were
Floodplains
Boulevard
The Mars
Functions
Industriehaven
aspects
Area to stroll
around with routes
Intensive use and
Clustering
extensive use vary functions
wished
Clusters, easy to
Clustering
reach, with different functions
facilities
wished
Functions clustered
along the boulevard
A bridge over the
Industriehaven
Enlarge water Excavate part of the Good solution
surface
floodplains
to enlarge the
water surface
Special
Ferries, viewing
The routes
elements
points,
Ferries
characteristic
bridges and routes
Missed
A cluster with water functions
Enclose the area towards the north
Negative
aspects
Has to be a
high bridge to
let pass the
ships
Good solution
to enlarge the
water surface
The ferries with
ropes are not
possible
Fig 22. Comments on design alternative 2 pearl necklace
85
willing to participate. They wondered why they weren’t invited from the start.
We explained our communication towards their chairman. The landowner
who also responded to the article was also wondering why he wasn’t invited
because we talked about his land or the land he rented. We tried to find out
the owner of the land and cows but we stopped inquiring after the interviews.
We should have tried harder to find the landowner but we focussed to much
on the parties on the water.
Four other persons were involved with the interviews but were not able to
attend the first workshop. Therefore the information was new to them also.
And than there was an outsider to the process. The Wetenschapswinkel is
also working on a project to a village north of the Mars. One of the initiative
takers from that project was present at this workshop to see what we were
doing.
This means that from the thirteen people present only four of them attended
the first workshop. This created the diversity of people and they provided us
Floodplains
Boulevard
The Mars
Functions
aspects
Divided in three
Easy to realise
parts, park, area to according the
stroll, nature area
land owner
Intensive used in
the south,
extensive used in
the north
Striking buildings in
a park landscape
ore functions in the
south, less
functions in the
north
Industriehaven Route around the
industriehaven
Special
Viewing points, city
elements
park and skyline
Missed
Negative
aspects
Keep the
floodplains as
natural as
possible
The gradation
of functions is
good
Suitable for the
south
Buildings in the
middle
focussing on
recreation
Clustering
functions
wished
Park in the
north not
relevant for the
businesses
No high rise
buildings
Cluster of water functions
Extend harbour along the Mars haven
Fig 23. Comments on design alternative 3 transition from countryside to city
86
The complementary design
After the participative meetings
we had the feeling we missed a
design scale. The participants
were focussed on the small
scale interventions during the
workshop. The larger scale
interventions on the Mars offered
during the second workshop were
ignored or not addressed during
the meetings.
Therefore I did an additional
schematic design on the scale
of the Mars that could function
as a context for the smaller
interventions along the water
side. An analysis on the scale of
Zutphen formed the basis for the
design on the Mars.
Analysis
The analysis was done according
the layer approach. The analysis
showed a consistency in the
green- and infrastructure in and
along the city of Zutphen. This
structure did not continued on the
Mars. The Mars is separated form
the rest of Zutphen by the railroad.
The plan for the Noorderhaven will
solve part of this isolation in the
south by the creation of several
passes underneath the railroad.
The complementary design
The complementary design forms
a framework for the Mars to which
smaller interventions can be
connected.
87
with valuable information. But it also created some chaos during the workshop
and as said before it distracted us from discussing the design alternatives.
7.6
The design
Based on the second workshop and the design alternatives we had a lot of
input for one possible design. The participatory process in Zutphen guided
by Alterra ended with processing the design alternatives into one alternative.
The design is to meet the requirements of the university for graduating. It
is possible that the steps towards the design might be helpful during the
continuation of the process.
This design is to show the possibilities for the area. It is mend to enable the
discussion. Because of this the design is a schematic design with sphere
impressions and perspectives.
7.6.1 Objective of the design
The design, as described before, is a way to show the possibilities for the
area and to enable discussions. The design is not mend to be executed or
implemented. Therefore the design is illustrated by schematic maps, sphere
impressions and reference images.
210000
210500
211000
464000
463500
463000
462500
462000
462000
462500
463000
463500
464000
464500
209500
464500
209000
Fig 24. The present situation
Fig 25. Continuous route withe nodes
461500
461500
88
0
100
200
300
400
500
Meters
209000
209500
210000
210500
211000
Fig 26. Conceptual design with the red dots indicating the location of the perspectives
89
7.6.2 Design of the IJssel boulevard
Important for the participants was the creation of a continuous line from the city
centre of Zutphen towards the north. This line will be the connection between
the river area and the Mars. It makes the harbours and present parties more
visible and accessible. The area is divided in three different zones graduating
from intensive use in the south to extensive use in the north. The southern
part is the area around the Noorderhaven, connected to the Noorderhaven
is the historical harbour. The historical ships can be viewed from the dike or
from the landing stage. The old crane becomes a landmark along the route.
The are in the middle will focus on the presence and developments for water
recreation. Several water recreation clubs like ISALA, WSV de Mars and
Anax are already present. They add liveliness and activity in the area. The
Mars harbour becomes more crowded when the clubs want to grow and with
the relocation of Nautilus in the Mars harbour more water surface is needed.
The floodplains will be partly excavated to create room for Nautilus and
the WSV. The route will connect to the main traffic routes on the Mars. The
IJsselboulevard continues around the Industriehaven in the form of a smaller
bicycle path. The Northern part of the floodplains will be a natural area. The
area is protected by several laws and will not be accessible. The route along
it is a touristic route towards the north where it will become possible to cross
the canal in the future.
Fig 27. The dike north of Noorderhaven towards the Houthaven nearby the park
It is important that the route between the nodes is recognizable as a dike. In this way you
experience the river landscape. This dike is located north of the new living area Noorderhaven.
Left in the image is the park, surrounding the Noorderhaven and connected to the old defence
works around Zutphen.
90
Fig 28. The Houthaven, the historical ships become the eye catcher of this area
The southern part with the new living area Noorderhaven and the Houthaven will be culture
oriented. This is the route along the Houthaven with the historical ships. The historical harbour
will be easy accessible by the decks and visible from the view points. The old crane becomes
part of the historical harbour.
Fig 29. The Marshaven, a place to sit and look at the water sport activities
The Marshaven will become a node water sport oriented. There are several water sport clubs
present in this area. The Marshaven will be a lively place where you can enjoy watching people
sailing and rowing. The buildings along the Marshaven need to accommodate functions that fit
and contribute to the liveliness and water sport.
91
Fig 30. The new harbours,space for the water sport clubs a public harbour and Nautilus
Some of the water sport clubs want to increase their amount of members. Because of this the
water surface have to be enlarged. Some parts of the floodplains will be excavated to create
two new harbours. One harbour offer space for a public harbour and a water sports club. The
other harbour will offer space for Nautilus.
Fig 31. A bicycle path along the northern natural floodplains
The northern area will be extensively used. The floodplains are not accessible to the public
and have a natural function. A bicycle route will connect the southern part with the villages and
natural areas north of the Twente canal. The dike and some viewing points will provide views
over the river and the floodplains.
92
7.7
Continuation of the process
7.8
Summary
The process will be continued with the help of another organization. Alterra will
conclude this project in May 2011. The KNHM (Royal Dutch Heath Company)
will proceed with the group of participants. The participants were enthusiastic
about the cooperation and expressed their wish to continue together in the
future. The continuation will focus on profiling the different parties with their
own culture as one group towards the municipality and developers.
This chapter describes and evaluates the different phases of the participatory
process. We did several interviews with interested parties in the area,
in this way we discovered their needs and wishes. The interviews and a
general analysis was the input for the first workshop were we introduced the
project and parties. The result was disappointing because of small amount
of participants and concrete results. The results of the firs workshop were
interpret and formed input for the vision. The vision was used to create three
different design alternatives, Green IJsselfront, Pearl necklace and Transition
from countryside to city. We used the design alternatives during the second
workshop to check if our interpretations were right and to create a discussion.
The result of the participatory process was one design alternative. The design
was created to enable a discussion in the future. It might be used during the
continuation of the process by the KNHM in the future.
93
Part two, lessons learned
This part describes the most important lessons learned from the case study
Zutphen de Mars described and evaluated in chapter six and seven.
The landscape architects were in a leading role during this participatory
process. Besides organizing and communicating an important task was to
guide the participants. In this case we tried to inspire and stimulate creativity
during the workshops. It was a challenge to make them look at the bigger
picture instead of only focussing on their own small location.
One of the objectives of the process was to bring together the different
parties and their visions. Competition for subsidies between participants
influenced the group dynamics and the attitude of some of the parties.
Because of this managing the group dynamics was an important issue
during the participatory process. Influencing and managing group dynamics
was exciting. Unfortunately we did not always succeeded in our attempts
to involve unmotivated participants. Nevertheless the participatory process
created a lot of energy and was a success.
94
95
8 Conclusion
The main question of this research, described in chapter two was: What is
the role of landscape architects within participatory design processes?
parties interact from the start or early stage of a project, openly to prepare,
determine or execute a plan or policy.
To answer the main and sub questions I used several methods. I did literature
studies to find information about global issues, participatory processes and
landscape architects. To get more information about landscape architects
and participatory processes I interviewed several landscape architects to get
their narratives and experiences about the practice. To get more information
about the practice I did a case study in Zutphen. Because I used three different
research methods: literature, interviews and a case study, it is possible to
use triangulation between the methods.
Global changes like globalization, individualization, the shift from government
to governance and the increased complexity of spatial problems influence
the position of the landscape architects. Landscape architects react on
those changes, one of the reactions is to involve citizens and other parties in
participatory plan and design processes.
A participatory process is never the same and the variety in approaches
seem endless. Participatory processes differ for example in the level of
participation, amount and sort of participants, the objective of a participatory
process and the available resources.
The role of landscape architects is just as varied as participatory processes.
One of the roles a landscape architect can have is the role of the expert. A
landscape architect is trained to design and create images of future plans.
The design and images can make things that are not there visible and
concrete. Participatory processes help landscape architects to be concrete,
plans and designs are presented to future users and interested parties. This
gives the landscape architect an impression whether the plans and designs
fit the wishes of the relevant parties.
An other task of the landscape architect is to integrate different professional
fields, scales and time. A landscape architect has some knowledge of different
professional field and is able to connect those different fields and parties. A
landscape architect is also able to contribute to the different professional
fields. An other thing a landscape architect does is planning and designing
through the scales. Participants are focused on their own interests, wishes
and location. A landscape architect makes sure that the plans fit a larger
context or are detailed enough to be executed. As mentioned before a
landscape architect is able to make future plans visible and concrete. A
landscape architect can show and use the history of a place, explain the
96
present situation and visualize the possible future and thereby also integrate
through time.
The ability to design, make things concrete, integrate different professional
fields and design through the different scales enables a landscape architect to
educate, guide and help other participants. Those are also tasks a landscape
architect can have using the qualities described above. A landscape architect
can stimulate the participants to be creative, think integral, through the
sales and to look to the future. Because their education and experience
a landscape sees certain relations in the landscape, it can be their job to
educate participants and give them insight in those relations. By educating
and guiding participant you enable them to understand the ideas behind
plans and designs. This should create more meaning for the participants and
might lead to less resistance, more support, care and responsibility for the
landscape.
The design, integrating and guiding skills makes a landscape architect suitable
for a leading role during a participatory process. Landscape architects can
lead if they are curious and interested in the participants, their motives,
and interests. An important aspect of the leading role is managing the group
dynamics and communication. The ability to manage a group depends on
personal skills and experience. A landscape architect will lead and plan a
participatory process with in mind issues like designing, concreteness,
integration and education. Sometimes it is necessary for a landscape
architect to develop a new method or way to implement those topics during
a participatory process.
The main question is about the role of landscape architects within participatory
processes. Because of the great variety in participatory processes and the
way landscape architects approach them there is not one answer to the
question. We must conclude that there is no such thing as “the role”. The role
of the landscape architect can depend on the sort of participatory process,
the phase of a project and the personal preference a landscape has.
97
9 Discussion
This chapter brings forward some discussion points about some topics and
methods described in this report. New questions can be raised based on this
report, as mentioned before this research is very broad and orientating. More
specific questions could be the input for further research.
9.1
About the this research
This paragraph mentions several discussion points about the research. There
are more possibilities than described below, this is only a selection.
9.1.1 Participatory processes abroad
This research is about landscape architects in the Netherlands. It would be
interesting to research what landscape architects do abroad. How do they
approach participatory processes, what methods do they use and what are
the results?
9.1.2 The results of the participatory process in Zutphen
Discussed in chapter seven was the validity of the participatory process
in Zutphen. The amount and variety of the participants that attended the
first workshop was rather low. The results of that workshop were open for
interpretation, not concrete and spatial. The vision based on the first workshop
might not represent all the parties in the area. The intention of the second
workshop was to check the interpretation and the design alternatives. The
amount and variety of participants during the second workshop was good.
But the new participants had new information that they wanted to contribute.
Because of this we lacked time to discuss the design alternatives well. The
success of this participatory process is not the content but more the process
itself. The meetings made clear that there is a shared wish of the parties to
cooperate together in the future. This wish and the planned continuation of
the process made it an success.
This research raises the question about the influence of participatory
processes on the quality of the results. Literature as well as the interviews
provide no clear answer to this question. More studies and evaluations should
be done about the quality of participatory processes.
9.1.3 Different levels of participation
This research handles the different levels of participation very quick and
superficial. More research could be done about the different levels of
participation used in the Netherlands or abroad. Are there examples of
processes where the participants are involved in the decision making and
not only conversation partners. How do they work and how does it influences
the process and results?
9.2
About the methodology of this research
This paragraph discusses some aspects of the used methods during this
thesis.
98
9.2.1 The interviews
I selected nine respondents from different work environments to collect their
stories and experiences. I selected them because they were landscape
architects that had experience with participatory processes. In most cases
the landscape architects preferred to work participatory for several, mainly
personal reasons. There are also landscape architects who don’t like to work
participatory, their stories are not incorporated in this research. Therefore
the chapter about the landscape architects narratives is a one sided, mainly
positive view on participatory processes.
More research could be done about the landscape architects who don’t do
participatory processes and their reasons therefore. It would also be interesting
to see if there are specific offices that promote themselves with certain
qualities like; a participatory approach, strategic planning or designing and
the influence of that on the preferences and roles of landscape architects.
9.2.2 The case study
This research describes only one case study, a case I was closely involved
with. More case studies would have made the results stronger and more
objective. The participatory process and the interviews were done at the
same time. The results from the participatory process might have influenced
the interviews and visa versa.
More cases of participatory processes should be studied to get a better
impression of the different roles landscape architects can have. It would be
interesting to do more inventories, analysis and evaluations about participatory
processes. In this way we could get more information about the approaches
landscape architects develop or the influence of participatory processes on
the quality of the results.
99
Literature list
Books and articles
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
100
Assche, v. K. (2004). Signs in time; an interpretive account of urban
planning and design, the people and their histories. Wageningen:
Baarda, D. et al (2001). Kwalitatief onderzoek: praktische handleiding
voor het opzetten en uitvoeren kwalitatief onderzoek. Groningen:
Stenfert Kroese
Blerck, v. H. (2004), Het landschap wordt weer van de mensen.
Architectuur lokaal, 46: 5-6
Blerck, v. H. (2005). Ceci n’est pas un plan!: de landschapsarchitect is
medium in een communicatieproces. Topos, 2: 28-31
Castels, M. (2004). The information age: economy, society and culture,
volume II: The power of identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide
through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publications
Condon, P. (2008). Design Charettes: for Sustainable Communities.
Washington: Islandpress
Cruisen, C. (2009). Participation Processes within Landscape
Architecture: Creativity in Practice. Wageningen: Propress
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches. London: SAGE Publications
Dam, v. R. & Salverda, I. (2008). Burgers en landschap deel 1:
voorbeelden van burgerparticipatie en maatschappelijk initiatief.
Wageningen: Alterra
Dam, v. R. et al (2008) Burgers en landschap deel 2: trends en
theorieën over betrokkenheid van burgers. Wageningen: Alterra
Dam, v. R. et al (2010) Burgers en landschap deel 3: strategieën van
burgerinitiatieven. Wageningen: Alterra
Dam, v. R. et al (2010) Burgers en landschap deel 4: the importance of
being nimby. Wageningen: Alterra
Devane, T. & Holman, P. (1999). The Change Handbook: group
methods for shaping the future. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler
publishers, Inc
Dienst Landelijk Gebied (2009). Burgerparticipatie. Utrecht: Print DLG
Centraal
Doorewaard, H. & Verschuren, P. (2005). Het ontwerpen van een
onderzoek. Utrecht: Uitgeverij LEMMA
Edelenbos, J. & Monnikhof, R. (2001). Lokale interactieve
beleidsvorming. Utrecht: LEMMA
Enserink, B. & Monnikhof, R. (2003). Information management for
public participation in co-design processes: Evaluation of a Dutch
example. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46: 3,
315-344
Forester, J. (1999) The liberative practitioner: encouraging Participatory
Planning Processes. London: The MIT Press
Gordon, R, (1975). Interviewing: strategy, techniques, and tactics.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press
Gramsbergen, Y. & Molen, van der, H. (2007). Gesprekken in
organisaties. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff
Groothedde, M. & Krijnen, J. (2008). Vestingstad Zutphen; Elf eeuwen
versterken en verdedigen. Zutphen: Walburg Pers
Hajer, M. et al (2006). Een plan dat werkt: ontwerp en politiek in de
regionale planvorming. Rotterdam: Nai Uitgevers
Ham, v.d. T. & Meij, v.d. G. (1974). Gereedschap voor inspraak in de
ruimtelijke ordening. Baarn: Het Wereldvenster
Herzele, van A. (2004). Local knowledge in action: valuing nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of planning
education and research 24: 197-212. Published by Sage
Jonge, de J. (2009). Landscape Architecture between Politics and
Science: An integrative perspective on landscape planning and design
in the network society.
Jonge, de J. (2010). Van participatie naar co-productie: Nieuwe
ruimtelijke planningsprocessen in een Wikipedia samenleving.
KCAPArchitects&Planners (2007). De Mars, de ontdekking van
Zutphen; Zutphen, stedenbouwkundige visie. Rotterdam
KCAPArchitects&Planners (2010). Noorderhaven, DO
stedenbouwkundig plan. Rotterdam
Kruit, J. (2011). Zutphens verscholen havengebied; Participatieve
planontwikkeling voor de ‘Marsuiterwaarden’, een groenblauwe oase in
de stad. Wageningen: Grafisch Service Centrum
Lodewijk Baljon Landschapsarchitecten (2010). Zutphen de Mars;
Landschapsplan. Amsterdam
Nieuwe Gracht, stad milieu landschap (2008) Ateliers aan de praat;
Handreiking voor ontwerpateliers met specifieke aandacht voor
cultuurhistorie. In opdracht van Ministerie VROM en het projectbureau
Belvedere
Nunkoosing, K. (2005). The problems with interviews. Qualitative Health
Research 15: 698. Published by Sage
Pretty, J. et al (1995). Participatory Learning and Action: a trainer’s
guide. London: Published by the international institute for environment
and Development
Pröpper, I. & Steenbeek, D. (2001). De aanpak van interactief beleid:
elke situatie is anders. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho
Websites
• www.planetizen.com, viewed 20-04-2010, Can the US learn from the
slow city movement? P. Knox & H. Mayer
• www.lochem.nl, viewed 31-05-2010 (LOP)
• www.mars-zutphen.nl, viewed 31-05-2010
• www.slowfood.com, viewed 20-04-2010
• www.wetenschapswinkel.wur.nl, viewed 17-06-2010
• www.zutphen.nl, viewed 31-05-2010
101
Appendixes
Appendix 1: Interview questions landscape architects
Appendix 2: Analysis interviews landscape architects phase 1; transcript
Appendix 3: Interview questions participants Zutphen
Appendix 4: Results of the interviews Zutphen
Appendix 5: Mind maps from the first workshop
Appendix 6: Vision
Appendix 7: Design alternatives
Appendix 8: Article in the Stentor, ISALA
Appendix 9: Posters design alternatives second workshop
Appendix 10: Article landwerk
102
Inleiding:
• Doel, omgang landschapsarchitecten, ervaringen, participatie processen
• Tijdsduur, +/- 45 min
• Procedure gesprek, opnames, onderwerp met subthema’s
• Procedure gegevens, anoniem, alleen voor dit onderzoek
Hoofdthema:
• Hoe ervaren landschapsarchitecten de invloed van participatie op hun dagelijkse werk?
Startvraag:
Wat zijn uw ervaringen als landschapsarchitect met participatie processen?
Verschil met non- participatieve processen
• Wat is volgens u het grootste verschil tussen participatieve processen en non-participatieve
processen?
• Wat zijn de positieve aspecten van participatieve processen?
• Wat zijn de negatieve aspecten van participatieve processen?
De rol van de landschapsarchitect, participant en ontwerp
• Wat is uw rol als landschapsarchitect tijdens een participatie proces?
• Hoe verhoudt de landschapsarchitect zich tot de participant?
• Wat is de rol van de landschapsarchitect ten aanzien van ontwerp?
• Wat is de rol van de participant ten aanzien van ontwerp?
De rol van de opdrachtgever
• Wie bepaald of een opdracht participatief uitgevoerd moet worden?
• Worden er argumenten voor dit besluit gegeven?
• Heeft u daar als landschapsarchitect invloed op?
• Is de geschiedenis tussen belanghebbende en de opdrachtgever van belang voor het proces?
Kennis en vaardigheden
• Welke vaardigheden heeft u nodig tijdens een participatie proces?
• Hoe / waar heeft u die vaardigheden geleerd?
De resultaten van een participatie proces
• Wat voor een resultaten komen er uit een participatie proces?
• Zijn deze resultaten van tevoren bepaald?
• Wat doet de landschapsarchitect met de resultaten?
• voegt een participatie proces extra kwaliteit toe?
De ontwikkeling van participatie
• Wat moet er in de toekomst veranderen om participatie processen te verbeteren?
• Hoe ziet u de toekomstige rol van Landschapsarchitecten voor zich?
• Hoe belangrijk is participatie in de toekomst?
Afsluiting:
• Einde aankondigen
• Vragen of er nog zaken niet genoemd zijn, die volgens de geïnterviewde wel van belang zijn
• Eventuele vragen beantwoorden
• Aangeven wanneer de gegevens verwerkt en terug gekoppeld worden, samenvatting
• Bedanken voor de tijd en moeite die de geïnterviewde heeft genomen
103
104
Respondent 1
08-07-2010
DW_B0078.wav
Landschapsarchitect bij een bureau
I: Interviewer
R: Respondent
I: Wat zijn je ervaringen als landschapsarchitect met participatie processen tot zo ver?
R: Ik ben begonnen te werken bij een gemeente, eind jaren 80, de gemeente A. In die tijd was inspraak wel
een issue maar dat was echt nog inspraak en geen echte participatie. Dat hield in dat je bij, ik heb gewerkt
aan een structuurvisie en een landschapsbeleidsplan en ook wel bestemmingsplannen, kleinere plannetjes,
nou dan werden er inspraak avonden gehouden en dan gaf je een presentatie van hoe ver je dan was op dat
punt. Dan kreeg je allerlei vragen en opmerkingen uit de zaal maar echt sprake van interactie was er niet,
het was vooral zenden, luisteren en dat weer verwerken in de volgende slag.
En mijn tweede grote ervaring was toen ik bij de provincie B werkte, projectleider was van het streekplan, dat
is het grote, wat nu de provinciale structuurvisie heet, bij de nieuwe wet ruimtelijke ordening. Dat was toch
eigenlijk ook nog heel erg top down, maar wel met een wettelijke inspraakprocedure en ja dat plan dat bracht
zo ontzettend veel maatschappelijk protest teweeg. Dat, het was in de tijd dat de ecologische hoofdstructuur
voor het eerst werd uitgerold en ook in ruimtelijke plannen verankerd moest worden, B was de eerste
provincie die dat ook werkelijk in een streekplan ging gieten. Nou toen zijn er echt grote boeren opstanden
geweest, en naja, ik heb de eieren voor de gedeputeerde op moeten vangen,echt heel heftig. Met hele grote
inspraak bijeenkomsten, want mensen hebben dan wettelijk het recht om in te spreken en daar hadden ze
massaal gebruik van gemaakt. De hallen werden afgehuurd en echt nou ja honderden vaak gelijkluidende
inspraakreacties aan te horen als een soort massa volksopstand, vaak vanuit het groene vlak, boeren enz.
En dat bracht bij mij wel een reactie van ja dit zoals het gaat, het gaat eigenlijk niet goed. Want het gaat
over fundamentele vragen die eigenlijk in zo’n inspraakronde niet goed aan de orde komen. Je bent niet in
staat om het gesprek te voeren, op het niveau dat het gevoerd moet worden. Het is geen werkelijke dialoog
waar de onderliggende waarden die hier spelen aan bod komen. En de manier van planning, ja, was toch
tamelijk technocratisch, ecologische structuur op zich een goed gedachtegoed, maar er is bij het ontwerpen,
waar en hoe dan, onvoldoende rekening gehouden met allerlei andere, ja, ook toch sociale waarde die er
spelen, dus daar vanuit die kant dat we eigenlijk als ontwerpers en experts onvoldoende geluisterd hadden,
en als we wel eerder die werkelijke dialoog waren aangegaan, en dat kan natuurlijk niet met al die inwoners,
maar als je selectief een aantal goed ingevoerde mensen betrokken had bij dat ontwerp proces dan had je
aangevoeld waar je beter op moest letten, dat je niet door de begrenzing van een ecologische hoofdstructuur
hele gemeenschappen, echt, de voeten onder hun weg slaat. Omdat een te groot deel van de agrarische
sector in te korte tijd het heel ergens anders zou moeten zoeken bij wijze van spreken. Dus, dat was voor
mezelf een leerpunt, van nou we hebben echt met name de sociale aspecten over het hoofd gezien. Sociaal
cultureel, sociaal economisch, dat is een beetje een vaag overgangsveld. Maar tegelijkertijd wist ik ook wel
van ja die burgers roepen ook maar wat omdat hun voormannen dat zo roepen. En die weten ook niet echt
waar het om gaat, dus we zijn ook niet in staat geweest om goed uit te leggen wat nou de bedoeling van
zo’n streekplan is. Dat als daar een groene vlek staat dat, dat niet overmorgen opeens van functie veranderd
maar dat, dat dus als je het hebt over weloverwogen oordeel, dan was daar bij die burgers absoluut geen
sprake van. Want ze riepen maar wat. En ze praten elkaar na, er komt een soort hysterie op gang. Maar er
was ons zelf ook veel te verwijten.
I: Dus het kwam van twee kanten, dat ontwerpers niet hadden geluisterd naar de stemmen en de meningen
van de lokale bevolking en dat jullie niet……..
R: Nou ja eigenlijk een veel te smalle invulling van wat is nou kwaliteit en dat een technocratische kijk op wat
is ruimtelijke kwaliteit waarbij wel allerlei ecologisch onderzoek, water, bodem etc. dat was allemaal keurig
bedacht, maar de hele, sociaal maatschappelijke component, die was er niet bij betrokken. Als je kijkt naar
people, profit, planet, dan was er goed gekeken naar profit en planet maar people was vergeten.
Dat is ook mijn, wel een drijfveer geweest die, die werkbank ruimtelijke kwaliteit die gaat uit van een brede
invulling van ruimtelijke kwaliteit waarbij gezegd wordt je hebt, belevingswaarden, toekomstwaarden, dat
kennen jullie natuurlijk, maar economische belangen sociale belangen, ecologische belangen, culturele
belangen die kun je daar weer in onderverdelen, met name deze kolom is heel lang vergeten (sociale
belangen), en deze kolom werd dan wel ingebracht door de architecten en de cultuurhistorici ofzo (culturele
belangen) maar ja, en dit en heel veel inspraak reacties gaan over economie, dat het de private sector is die
wel voor zijn belang opkomt. Nou en hier heb je dan de actiegroepen (ecologisch belangen) die opkomen
voor zachte waarden van natuur, maar vaak ook heel erg op behoud gericht en weinig toekomst gericht. Het
is heel erg op dat bovenste vakje. Terwijl het nadenken over wat is ecologie nou op de lange termijn wat is
een gezond ecologisch systeem, dat zat er toen in die tijd nog weinig in bij die actiegroepen. Het nadenken
over veerkracht in processen etc., dat is eigenlijk pas later op gang gekomen.
Ik vind dit als denkraam en ook om te kijken van hebben we in een proces de kennis, vaardigheden en
gevoeligheden die hier in deze vakjes zitten, hebben we die ook vertegenwoordigd in de mensen die mee
doen? Dat is voor mij altijd heel handig….
I: Een soort checklist
R: Een soort checklist ja
I: En dan samen met dat denkniveau, de kennis, het praktische
R: Die B ervaring die was wel heel heftig, en dat was ook in een tijd, de jaren 90, dat er inspraak was
wettelijk geregeld maar langzamer tijd werd de samenleving steeds mondiger en kreeg ook steeds meer de
mogelijkheid om zelf kennis te vergaren.
Toen ik naar C ging in 97-98 ofzo, toen had ik ook het gevoel ja, dat wil ik eigenlijk verder onderzoeken,
uitwerken en zo is langzaam het idee voor mijn proefschrift gerijpt. En ja toen kwam ik in een onderzoekswereld
waar ik ontwerpend onderzoek op de agenda moest zetten. En dan kom je uit zo’n beleidswereld waar je te
maken hebt met bestuurders die vooral voor hun politieke gewin gaan en ook maar wat roepen en burgers
die te hoop lopen tegen een plan, ook een beetje als kip zonder kop allerlei beleid, wel heel erg een beetje
plat, beleidsmakers die vooral gedreven zijn door hun eigen hobby, en ik had het gevoel, ja, dat dialoog loopt
gewoon niet goed.
I: Twee hele verschillende werelden die niet……
R: En dan kom je in die onderzoekswereld en dan heb je weer met die gasten met oogkleppen te maken, die
alleen maar hun eigen expertise, daar heel erg in excelleren. Ook nauwelijks binding hebben met wat speelt
er nou in de samenleving en voor wie doen we dat onderzoek nu. Daar had ik ook het gevoel, we moeten dat
onderzoek ook meer op een participatieve manier doen. En daar is toen ook het idee van regiodialogen uit
voort gekomen. Binnen C zijn we met een groep aan de slag gegaan, omdat we hele fundamentele vragen
bij de kop wilden pakken. Maar dat wel samen met allerlei maatschappelijke organisaties. Bijvoorbeeld
in D hebben we dat gedaan rond E. waar we met ik geloof 17 organisaties of zoiets, zowel overheden en
kennisinstellingen toch heel diepgaand zijn gaan kijken naar veehouderij, stad - land relaties, functies van
infrastructuur en transport, en dat is veel meer een dialoog geweest zoals ik m eigenlijk wilde, waarbij je met
elkaar in een leerproces stapt. Met een gemotiveerde en toch wel geselecteerde groep betrokken mensen
die niet alleen vanuit hun eigen perspectief zitten te praten, vanuit hun belang maar ook echt gemotiveerd
waren om samen nieuwe concepten neer te zetten
I: Had je het idee dat, dat echt werkte?
R: Ja dat heeft ook, daar zijn ook een aantal belangrijke dingen uit gekomen. Het feit dat de F daar nu plaats
vind en dat, dat op toch ook, dat daar een heleboel nieuwe elementen inzitten, dat is een uitvloeisel van die
regio dialoog.
I: Toch echt duidelijke resultaten die daar uitgekomen zijn?
R: Ik weet niet of het G je wat zegt? Naja dat is een groot, heel groot project wat ook in de nota ruimte
als sleutelproject is aangewezen. Het gaat over E als knooppunt van logistiek en, agro logistiek maar ook
hoe je daar op een innovatieve manier mee om gaat. Dat is ook een uitvloeisel van die regio dialoog is.
Ook de experimenten die daar lopen om de intensieve veehouderij veel meer op een integrale manier met
combinatie van glastuinbouw en veehouderij.
I: Wanneer was die regio dialoog?
R: Dat is rond 2000 geweest?
I: Dus je mag dan wel zeggen dat zo´n regiodialoog ook effecten heeft gewoon, op een hele lange toekomst,
een lange termijn investering?
R: Precies
I: Wat nog steeds werkt?
R: Ja dat is ook eigenlijk de boodschap van mijn proefschrift, dat we heel erg geneigd zijn korte termijn
plannen te maken en dat moet je ook blijven doen, ik bedoel je hebt ook rationele plannen nodig om uit te
voeren wat je bedacht hebt. Maar daaronder loopt eigenlijk een continu proces, van dialoog, en dat is een
105
strategisch dialoog, niet gericht op directe uitvoering en niet instrumenteel operationeel. En in die dialoog,
daar ontdek je welke issues misschien over tien jaar interessant zijn waar je nu al aan moet werken. Dat
is veel meer anticiperend op de toekomst en al dingen in de week leggen, het echte gesprek aangaan en
ontdekken waar de pijnpunten zitten. En onderzoekend ontwerpen daar eigenlijk, of verkennend ontwerpen,
dat zit veel meer in die strategische continue onderstroom, en daar komen dan, wanneer de tijd rijp is,
komen daar wel projecten uit die in de uitvoering komen. Want dan zijn er groepen in de samenleving die
zeggen, hey, daar zien wij wel wat in.
I: Een soort voedingsbodem?
R: Exact een voedingsbodem voor operationele ontwerpprocessen, daar zet je dan ook wel weer een
participatief project op, maar als die voedingsbodem niet goed is dan loop je eigenlijk voortdurend achter
de feiten aan.
I: Dat is wel interessant dat gewoon het proces op zich is al een resultaat dat is gewoon al een investering
voor de toekomst. Uit die resultaten komen dan de concrete resultaten, wanneer dat dan nodig is, wanneer
de tijd er rijp voor is.
R: Precies, en dat is iets wat ik in mijn proefschrift ook aangeef, naja, wij kennen maar één begrip van tijd,
dat is de chronologische tijd, die je op de klok kan zien terwijl, als je terug gaat naar de Griekse filosofen, die
hadden ook nog een ander tijdsbegrip en dat was de tijd van kans, de opportuniteit, wanneer is de tijd rijp
voor iets. Als je bij, een mooi voorbeeld vind ik, ja waar boeren mee te maken hebben, je kan zeggen nou
het is zomer en ik moet gaan oogsten maar je kan niet voorspellen dat op 22 juli het graan rijp is ofzo. Je
moet wachten tot de tijd rijp is dat jij kan oogsten. Nou eigenlijk is dat strategisch plannen gaat, werkt, met
zo’n tijdsbegrip, je moet voorbereid zijn op, en ongeveer weten wanneer iets eraan kan komen, daar moet je
op voor bereid zijn, maar je moet ook het moment afwachten dat je de bal in kan koppen.
I: Had je van tevoren bedacht dat zoiets zou gebeuren? Als het zo’n groot dialoog is, wat je aan het uitproberen
bent? Had je verwacht dat het zover in de tijd door zou duren? Met zulke concrete plannen?
R: Daar hoop je natuurlijk op, en ook de opzet die we gekozen hadden dat je, we hadden gezegd dat we
streven in dit project van anderhalf – twee jaar naar tien aansprekende, naja dat noemde we wel projecten,
eigenlijk tien aansprekende concepten, waar omheen we een enthousiaste groep willen hebben die er ook
mee door wil. Nou, er zijn er niet echt tien doorgegaan, maar toch wel de helft. Maar dat zijn ook dingen die
kun je niet helemaal voorspellen natuurlijk. Want er komen later ook nog dingen op duiken waar van je denkt,
hey, heeft dat zijn voedingsboden daar gehad.
I: Vooral omdat het zo lang duurt?
R: Er spelen vaak natuurlijk ook andere dingen, van dwarsverbanden die toevallig gelegd worden.
I: Wat is jou rol als een landschapsarchitect in dat proces geweest? Dat proces duurt tien jaar ben je er dan
tien jaar bij betrokken?
R: Nee
I: Of alleen bij het begin?
R: Nou, ik ben vooral bij die concrete dialoog betrokken geweest, ik ben bij het uitzetten van de lijnen
van F even betrokken geweest, ben later nog weer ingevlogen bij een van de andere concepten wat te
maken had met groen – grijze kruisingen noemden we dat. Grootschalige infrastructuur waar ecologische
structuren overheen liepen. Naja, wellicht dat ik komende tijd weer betrokken ga worden omdat rond E ook
een krimpdialoog speelt, maargoed.
I: Je bent in het begin heel erg betrokken geweest, en naarmate de tijd vordert kunnen ze je vinden als ze
je nodig hebben voor bepaalde…
R: Ja, je bent toch onderdeel geworden van dat netwerk. Weliswaar extern, maar het is wel heel belangrijk
in die strategische dialoogstroom dat, een van de belangrijke dingen die gebeurt, is dat mensen elkaar leren
kennen, en mensen elkaar weten te vinden. En daar moet eigenlijk ook continuïteit in zitten.
I: In dit geval kun je dus wel zeggen dat participatie in dit proces extra kwaliteit heeft toegevoegd in dat
gebied en….
R: Ja, ja dat er nieuwe dwarsverbanden zijn ontstaan. Vooral ook tussen stad en land want dat waren ook
heel erg gescheiden werelden. En tussen milieu en ruimte en tussen landbouw en infrastructuur bijvoorbeeld.
Want dat waren werelden die kenden elkaar niet echt van tevoren.
I: Dat klinkt allemaal super positief allemaal, wat zijn dan de negatieve aspecten in zo’n proces?
R: Ja weet je, of iets positief of negatief vind hangt af van de verwachtingen die je hebt. Heel veel
bestuurders en planners die hebben een verwachtingspatroon van een project, en dat moet uitgevoerd
worden en meetbaar zijn in twee jaar ofzo. Ik heb me ontdaan van die verwachting, ik weet gewoon dat als je
fundamentele dingen wil veranderen dan moet je denken in termijnen van tien – twintig jaar. En daar moet je
106
gewoon gestaag aan werken en je moet blijven zeggen, elkaar blijven opzoeken. Dus als je niet zulke irreële
verwachtingen hebt dan zie je hoe dingen lopen en dan denk je, nou dat is een mooi ding.
I: Zo’n proces is ook niet echt meetbaar.
R: Nee, je kan geen resultaat verplichting afspreken, van dit leveren wij op. Je bent heel erg afhankelijk van
toch wel, van de toevallige kliks die er ontstaan, maar je kan wel je best doen om de omstandigheden, om
die kliks te laten ontstaan, om die zo gunstig mogelijk te maken en dat is ook iets waar ik in mijn onderzoek
naar gezocht heb. Aan welke knop kun je draaien en dat zit heel erg in, ja toch in de goede chemie en de
goede ingrediënten, waar, als het gaat om personen, dat je zowel mensen hebt die de diepte in kunnen en
echt kennis van bepaalde zaken hebben als mensen die vanuit het gebied, heel goed weten hoe ook die
sociale structuur, die waarde structuur in mekaar zit. Wat je eigenlijk van wijze politici verwacht, maar onze
politiek is zo plat geworden eigenlijk. Dat je eigenlijk al een oud burgemeester moet hebben die echt boven
partijen staat, en vanuit die rol kan mee praten. Nouja, de mensen dus als ingrediënten, wat heel belangrijk
is. Tijd, je hebt wel soms tijdsdruk nodig om even iets te condenseren, ja maar gaat het nu hier om? Zijn we
in staat om iets goed, op een goede manier met de kennis van nu de verwoording te verbeelden? Dan is
tijdsdruk wel goed. Maar over het geheel genomen moet je een soort vrijheid voelen, vrije ruimte in je hoofd
voelen, om, los van de waan van de dag, en van beslissingen die morgen genomen moeten worden. Na te
denken over de toekomst. Dus het maken van een sfeer waar mensen zich vrij voelen om na te denken, ja
dat is heel belangrijk en daar kun je ze wel ook allerlei tools bij aanreiken dat ze, naja, allerlei creativiteits
tips enzo.
I: Het is niet zo dat je mensen verplicht om over één week met ideeën te komen of dat dan en dan dat eruit
moet komen. Maar dat je mensen de tijd gunt, totdat de tijd rijp is en dat mensen denken van o, nu is dit
handig, en nu is dit handig.
R: Ja, je moet natuurlijk iets organiseren dat mensen bij elkaar zijn, dus dat zijn de momenten die je heel erg
goed moet benutten, maar je moet ze dan niet pressen om met een project te komen wat ook zo realistisch
is en morgen uitgevoerd kan worden. Je daagt ze uit om verder te kijken, en zo’n idee moet dan rijpen, en
dan na een poosje kom je weer bij elkaar en dan kijk je er op terug van nou die concepten die we hebben,
stel nu dat je daar stapsgewijs naar toe wil gaan, welke stappen zou je nu dan kunnen zetten. Het is een hele
andere manier van, het is eigenlijk naar de toekomst springen en dan weer terug naar het heden in plaats
vanuit het heden, welke problemen hebben we nu en hoe gaan we die oplossen.
I: Je zegt dus, dit willen we in de toekomst bereiken, en dan ga je terug kijken welke stappen vanaf nu
moeten we dan nemen
R: Ja, of welke verschillende routes zijn er mogelijk. Want vaak is het ook, je ziet een stip aan de horizon
maar je weet dat er allerlei obstakels in de weg kunnen zitten en vaak zijn er meerdere alternatieven om
ergens te komen, of eigenlijk de goede richting in te gaan. En daar gevoel voor krijgen met elkaar, zeg maar
de goede richting weten te vinden en tegelijkertijd iets van energie creëren dat er ook tempo ontstaat dat zijn
eigenlijk belangrijkere doelen dan dat je precies weet waar je uitkomt en welke weg je dan te gaan hebt. Die
illusie heb ik niet meer, dat planning op die manier werkt.
I: Wat is nou concreet jou rol als landschapsarchitect, wat neem jij dan voor een taken op je?
R: Ja dat is een goede vraag want dat hangt heel erg af, denk ik van ook hoe je persoonlijk in elkaar
zit. Je hebt natuurlijk, waar je toch als ontwerper, als architect, stedenbouwer, ontwerpend denken is een
bepaalde vaardigheid die anders is dan onderzoeken, dan wetenschappelijk denken. Daar zijn ook allerlei
onderzoekjes naar gedaan, dat je, als je, je traint in het ontwerpen dat je dan een manier ontwikkeld van iets
uitproberen, kijken hoe het werkt, en daar je conclusie uit trekken.
I: Trial and error?
R: Ja, terwijl vanuit een veel meer lineaire wetenschappelijke benadering wil je eerst weten van naja, welke
mechanisme werken er, welke criteria heb ik, en dan ga je een pad uitzetten. Dat trial and error principe, dat
zit in de manier waarop je naar ontwikkelingen kijkt, dus je zegt van nou, laten we nu eens bedenken hoe
het zou kunnen worden, toch de verbeelding. Je brengt zelf een stuk verbeelding in maar wat belangrijker
is dat je mensen uitdaagt om ook zelf verbeelding te gebruiken. En mijn ervaring is dat creativiteit net zo
goed bij allerlei deelnemers aan zo’n proces zit en dat ontwerpers niet per definitie creatiever zijn dan de
deelnemers aan zo’n proces. Dus die verbeelding gebruiken is belangrijk maar het vervolgens daar op
kunnen reflecteren van hoe zinvol is dat wat zijn de, toch de criteria waar we aan afmeten of iets goed is,
ja dat, die systematische reflectie op dingen. Ik denk dat ik dat ook wel in zo’n proces breng. En dat is vaak
veel lastiger voor deelnemers aan zo’n proces, want ja, je hebt toch als ontwerper bepaalde patronen en
structuren in je denken meegekregen, bijvoorbeeld over de relatie, als je kijkt naar fysiek het landschap over
de relatie tussen ondergrond en netwerk laag enzo, dat je dan ook in de reflectie op die voorstellen dat soort
107
patronen en structuren al mee neemt.
I: Op basis van je professionele kennis en ervaring maak je in je hoofd al een soort van beslissingen, daar
stel je criteria op, over dat kan wel en dat kan niet.
R: Is dat wel consistent? En daar merk je ook, ik heb ook wel een onderzoekje gedaan, bij een proces in H bij
K, waar ik gekeken heb, daar waren eerst, dat staat hier ook heel kort beschreven (hier= essay in belvedère
publicatie). Daar waren eerst sessies geweest met de, met alleen de mensen uit het gebied, burgers. Daar
was een enorme creativiteit en rijkdom aan ideeën uitgekomen, maar wel allemaal van die ideeën waar je
uit kon selecteren, niet met zoveel samenhang. Goh ja die watertaxi is leuk, owja en ja die, weet ik wat,
paardendorp enzo, allemaal leuke ideeën. En een half jaar later hadden we nog weer een meerdaags
atelier, daar stonden ontwerpers echt aan het roer van elke groep, daar kon je merken dat de oogst daarvan
dat daar meer interne consistentie inzat, en dat je veel moeilijker kon zeggen, nou als we dit er uit slopen
dan kunnen we dat combineren ofzo.
I: Veel samenhang dus?
R: Veel meer samenhang.
I: Allemaal met elkaar verweven?
R: Ja, en allemaal een veel logischer verhaal, ja, waarbij lange termijn werken aan dingen die met ondergrond
en met veiligheid, met infrastructuur enzo te maken hebben. En dat, als dat dan maar goed is dan, ja dan
maakt hen niet heel erg veel uit of dat recreatie dorpje of dat dan een rode of een gele baksteen heeft.
I: Je kon in die tweede bijeenkomst echt de hand van de ontwerper herkennen in de ideeën die door zo’n
groep werden bijgedragen?
R: Ja, vooral in de consistentie van het resultaat. En ook de beoordeling van die ontwerpvoorstellen, daar
zat veel meer samenhang in. Dus ik denk dat, dat een hele belangrijke rol is van ontwerpers, dat ze vanuit de
logica van het landschap samenhang kunnen brengen. En ja, ook die lange termijn blik, ook op verschillende
schaalniveaus kunnen werken want het is voor mensen uit een gebied, ze kennen het gebied maar, hoe dat
samenhangt met het hogere schaalniveau dat weten ze niet. Ze hebben vaak veel minder referentie van
andere gebieden. Als ontwerper heb je ook elders op de wereld gekeken en kan je dingen afzetten tegen
hoe het daar gebeurt, dan kan je zeggen dit past hier wel of niet. Vaak zijn mensen uit het gebied toch een
beetje blind voor het goede of het slechte in hun eigen gebied. Dat is te vanzelfsprekend, te gewoon.
I: Op een bepaald moment zie je dat zelf niet meer.
R: Ja, je hebt daar juist, vanwege de combinatie een grote toegevoegde waarde.
I: Dat zijn dus echt de vaardigheden die een ontwerper dus eigenlijk al leert in principe, dat die combinaties
R: Selectie, combinaties zoeken, door de schalen heen ontwerpen, door de tijd heen ontwerpen.
I: Die vaardigheden heeft een landschapsarchitect ook tijdens participatie processen gewoon nodig?
R: Ja
I: Dus daar zit niet eens zo heel veer verschil in? De vaardigheden die een landschapsarchitect nodig heeft
in participatie processen als de vaardigheden die een landschapsarchitect nodig heeft als die gewoon een
ontwerp maakt?
R: Nou, niet als je kijkt naar puur het ontwerp proces. Maar als ik een tuin maak voor iemand dan heb ik
één opdracht gever, daar ga ik mee in gesprek en dan moet ik ook goed kunnen luisteren. Tenzij die zegt
doe maar wat. Dan probeer je ook te ontdekken wat is werkelijk belangrijk voor deze opdrachtgever en daar
bedenk ik de logische vormen bij. Als je in een gebied werkt, dan heb je niet met die ene opdrachtgever te
maken maar dan is het hele gebied jou opdrachtgever. En dan moet je dus op een andere manier ja, toch
dat gesprek aangaan, en luistern wat hebben zij in te brengen. Niet alleen wat vinden zij belangrijk, maar
ook die opdrachtgever, die heeft kennis, die jij van je leven niet kan weten. Omdat je niet op die plek bent
opgegroeid of wat dan ook, dus je wilt zowel kennis uit die groep hebben die nodig is om goed te kunnen
ontwerpen, als dat je wilt weten wat belangrijk is. Dus dat zijn dan ook weer die andere twee vleugels van
de kennis en de waarde. Facts and values die je in zo’n dialoog eruit wil hebben.
I: En om die waardes te achterhalen heb je wel andere vaardigheden nodig?
R: Ja, dat is het grote verschil toch of je vind dat jij een ontwerp moet maken, wat jij goed vind of dat je zegt
van nee, ik wil werken met co-productie, en ik ben wel door mijn ontwerpende vaardigheden in staat om te
integreren, om ook die mensen, het denkraam van die mensen op te rekken. Te laten zien hoe de verbanden
zijn tussen de dingen, landschappelijk systeem, wat de relaties met de buitenwereld zijn, dat moet je ook
over kunnen brengen.
I: Je moet ook nog kennis overdragen naar die mensen?
R: Ja, maar dat hoef je niet allemaal alleen te doen. Dat doe je meestal met een team.
I: We hadden het net al even over die opdrachtgever. Wie bepaald er of zo’n opdracht participatief moet
108
worden uitgevoerd?
R: Als ik principieel naar deze vraag kijk dan zou ik zeggen dat bepaal jij als ontwerper.
I: In de praktijk?
R: Nou ja, ook in de praktijk, ik heb twee maanden terug een opdracht geweigerd omdat ik zei, in dit
proces zitten geen voorwaarden dat ik echt kan luisteren naar wat hier speelt in dit gebied. En ik ben er
alleen maar voor het toefje slagroom op de taart. Dit is geen opdracht voor mij. Dus je hebt ook je eigen
verantwoordelijkheid om te kijken dat wat een opdrachtgever van mij vraagt, vind ik dat passen in deze tijd?
Vind ik dat passen bij wat ik goed vind?
I: Dus in dat geval had de opdrachtgever beslist dat….
R: Dat het zogenaamd participatief was maar eigenlijk hadden ze het plan al liggen. De uitgangspunten
hadden ze al liggen.
I: Dan is het de verantwoordelijkheid van de landschapsarchitect om te zeggen dit is niet de manier
waarop….
R: Dit is mooipraterij maar ik kan het niet verantwoorden naar al die deelnemers aan het proces. Dat er geen
ruimte is voor werkelijke dialoog over wat voor hen belangrijk is. Dus primair ligt de verantwoordelijkheid bij
jezelf vind ik. Maar meestal is het natuurlijk zo dat een overheid ofzo, of een initiatiefnemer, een bepaalde
gebiedsontwikkelaars, projectontwikkelaars, zandwinners of wat dan ook. Dat die een bepaald beeld hebben
van hoe iets moet lopen. Bij L heeft de gemeenteraad gezegd dit moet een participatief proces worden en
daar hebben ze ook middelen voor uitgetrokken, het is veel goedkoper om een ontwerper gewoon een plan
te laten maken. En dat dan door te drukken met de middelen die je hebt.
I: maar het gebeurt dus ook soms dat er niet overwogen wordt of participatie wel nodig is of dat het nog
effectief is?
R: Ja, de meeste praktijken gaan uit van we moeten een plan maken en we doen alvast een schot voor
de boeg en dan gaan we met dat schot voor de boeg kijken wat de omgeving er van vind. En er wordt van
tevoren niet echt nagedacht over hoe kunnen we gebruikmakend van de kennis en de waarden die in dit
gebied zitten een zo goed mogelijk plan maken. Er zit nog heel erg, naja, dat is niet altijd negatief, er zit een
soort van verantwoordelijkheid gevoel bij van wij moeten dat plan maken. Als gemeente ofzo.
I: Vanuit gewoonte of doen zoals ze dat altijd doen? Of vanuit hun taakomschrijving?
Dat ze gewoon zeggen, wij hebben de verantwoordelijkheid voor dit ontwerp, dus we beginnen daar vast
aan.
R: Ja. Er zit ook vaak een soort angst, van ja, als we het teveel open gooien wat krijgen we dan, wordt het
plan er wel beter van? Dus het is ook vaak wel gemakzucht dat, of het gaat te lang duren, of het wordt te
duur, dat zijn allerlei overwegingen om het niet te doen.
I: Je hebt al die verschillende niveaus van participatie, hoe beïnvloed dat het proces of jou rol als
landschapsarchitect?
R: Hoe hoger je op die ladder zit, hoe meer die vaardigheden van doorvragen, luisteren, goed dingen
teruggeven, checken heb ik goed begrepen wat je bedoeld, kan dat ongeveer dit opleveren en die
vaardigheden om het echt samen te doen.
I: Communicatief vooral?
R: Ja, zijn vooral communicatieve vaardigheden. Die worden dan steeds belangrijker.
I: Hoe leer je dat soort vaardigheden?
R: Door te doen.
I: Ervaring?
R: Ja, en het is natuurlijk ook karakter,
I: Persoonlijkheid?
R: Ja,
I: Zit er ook veel persoonlijke drive achter dan?
R: Ja, er zijn ook ontwerpers die hebben juist dat ontwerpvak gekozen omdat ze zo graag zelf iets
neer willen zetten, wat zij zelf bedacht hebben. Dat is voor een architect wat makkelijker dan voor een
landschapsarchitect. Want wij hebben toch per definitie te maken met heel veel collectieve goederen.
I: Ja we hebben te maken met iedereen. Het laatste puntje gaat nog over de toekomstrichting, ja hoe zie je
de toekomst van landschapsarchitecten in participatie processen?
R: Wat wij ook in dat artikel 3.0 aangeven is dat het, het is een ontwikkeling die doorgaat en alleen maar
versneld, dat mensen meer invloed willen hebben op hun eigen omgeving, we hebben in de vorige eeuw
eigenlijk, naja in 1902 hadden we de woningwet en toen zijn we door die ruimtelijke ordening heen gaan
structureren en de overheid heeft dat naar zich toe getrokken en daarmee is verantwoordelijkheid bij de
109
burgers weggenomen om zorg te dragen voor hun eigen omgeving. En dat heeft twee effecten, de ene is
dat burgers zich gaan verzetten tegen wat de overheid allemaal voor ze vind, en voor ze bedenkt. Maar het
tweede is dat er ook heel veel burgers zijn die zeggen, dat is makkelijk, ik betaal belasting en doe het maar
gewoon. Dus, en die boemerang krijgen we ook terug. Zeker in het landschap krijg je die boemerang terug
want ja wie, wie voelt zich nog verantwoordelijk voor de kwaliteit van het landschap? Dat wat van iedereen
is, is tegelijkertijd van niemand.
Dus ja, die twee dingen moet je op een manier weer met elkaar gaan verenigen. En je merkt nu de discussie
over verrommeling, er zijn geluiden, dat moeten we strenger regelen, met een verbod op dit en een verbod
op dat, verbod op bouwen in de wei en een verbod op witte schimmel en ja, nou dat is één mogelijkheid.
Maar het is niet de maatregel die past bij het teruggeven van verantwoordelijkheid daar waar het hoort,
namelijk bij de mensen die hun eigen omgeving maken.
I: Dat is eigenlijk van bovenaf verboden, beperkingen opleggen.
R: Ja precies, dat is eigenlijk de effecten die voortkomen uit een bepaalde verantwoordelijkheid die de
overheid naar zich toe getrokken heeft, gaan bestrijden met de dingen waar het probleem juist door ontstaan
is. Dus daar geloof ik niet in. Ik geloof er veel meer in, zorgen dat, mensen weer verantwoordelijkheid voor
hun eigen omgeving gaan nemen. Dat betekend ook dat de overheid moet gaan loslaten, Juist, in plaats van
dingen sterker naar zich toe trekken. En dat is wel een hele uitdaging. Want aan de andere kant is er ook
de roep om de sterke leiders.
I: Worden landschapsarchitecten dan leiders in dat soort processen? Als gaat over de kwaliteit van het
landschap en dan de samenwerking met die verantwoordelijkheid van de burger? Of zie je dat er andere
partijen zijn?
R: Nou nee, ik denk dat in je rol, ik bedoel je hebt natuurlijk landschapsarchitecten die als een leider fungeren
maar gewoon, zuiver als maatschappelijke rollen gezien, denk ik dat je als landschapsarchitect wel de
vakman en de vakvrouw bent die in staat is om dingen op een goede manier, slimme manier toekomst
bestendig bij mekaar te zetten en in de wetenschap dat je daar de kennis van anderen voor nodig hebt.
Dus dat is in essentie waar je, je vakmatige vaardigheid ligt. Dat je daarmee een hele goede steun kan
geven aan een leider aan een maatschappelijk visionair die gedreven is om de samenleving vooruit te
helpen, en die kwaliteit te geven, dat is een gouden combinatie. Daar ben je ook altijd naar opzoek naar
zo’n soort opdrachtgever. Dat is ook, als je dat verhaal van L leest, dan hebben we daar geluk gehad met
onze bestuurlijke opdrachtgever. Die wel zelf een visie hadden en wilden sturen maar ook in staat waren om
ruimte te geven waar dat nodig was.
I: Ook weer een wisselwerking?
R: Ja,
I: Een vraag die ik nog vergeten ben is: wat is het verschil in participatie als je met partijen werkt, met
experts of met participatie dat je met bewoners werkt? Jij spreekt over, dat het samen moet. Dus Partijen,
verenigingen en bewoners. Maar wat is het verschil tussen hoe partijen en verenigingen denken ten opzichte
van bewoners? Hoe je met experts werkt en hoe je met bewoners werkt?
R: Ja ik maak nog een onderscheid hoor want je hebt bewoners, dat zijn individuen, nou dan heb je het
meestal over hel locale schaalniveau, wat ook hun eigen leefomgeving betreft. Dan heb je collectieven, dat
zijn die actiegroepen en we hebben ook in de vorige eeuw die allemaal geïnstitutionaliseerd en vaak zijn die
ook verbureaucratiseert zijn het eigenlijk gewoon ja werken daar ook allerlei specialisten en medewerkers
die van alles weten van ecologie ofzo. Maar ze doen dat heel erg vanuit hun opdracht om een bepaald belang
te verdedigen. En dan heb je nog de onafhankelijke experts, specialisten, die dat vanuit hun onafhankelijke
positie gewoon vanuit hun eigen kennis doen. Als je kijkt naar mijn vleugels in mijn proefschrift dan die
waarden kant die zit natuurlijk heel sterk bij die belangen organisaties, die collectieven. En op een lager
schaalniveau zit dat natuurlijk ook bij burgers die hun eigen belangen naar voren willen brengen. Terwijl
die onafhankelijke experts, die kunnen heel goed die feiten inbrengen. Die wetenschappelijke informatie
inbrengen. Maar mensen zijn er natuurlijk ook kennisdragers, ik bedoel, mensen uit een gebied weten ook
heel goed hoe bepaalde dingen echt in elkaar zitten.
I: Uit ervaring?
R: Uit ervaring, ja, een boer weet waar de natte plekken op zijn land zitten, daar heeft hij geen hydrologisch
model voor nodig. Dus in een proces is het wel heel belangrijk om die twee aspecten uit elkaar te halen. En
ik zeg ook altijd van je neemt aan zo’n proces deel op persoonlijke titel. Het individu, dat woord betekend
ongedeeld, je kan niet zeggen van nu heb je een pet op, waarbij je alleen maar kennis inbrengt en nou heb
je de pet op waarbij je een belang mag verdedigen. Maar je moet wel de, zo’n proces is juist bedoel om
zowel de kennisaspecten als die waardeaspecten met elkaar te verenigen. Als je daar dan vanuit één rol je
110
belang gaat verdedigen bijvoorbeeld, ja dan mis je een gedeelte van jezelf, en dan mist de groep daar een
gedeelte van. Dus probeer ook ….
I: Open te staan voor de andere kant?
R: Maar vergt altijd aandacht en dat
I: Dat zul je mensen ook uit moeten leggen neem ik aan?
R: Ja, en daar moet je ze ook op wijzen en teruggaan naar gewoon de, ja hoe iemand daar als persoon staat,
ja dat helpt vaak. Maar daarom, kijk, ik ben in de meest van dit soort processen meer proces begeleider dan
ontwerper. En als proces begeleider moet je juist daar op letten. Dat mensen, ja, wel vanuit die brede rol in
zo’n staan en niet alleen maar een belangetje verdedigen.
Om met elkaar tot zo’n weloverwogen oordeel te komen, en dan zou ik zeggen, zo’n dialoog fase, is er
voor om jezelf te verrijken met alles wat in zo’n proces, kennis en ervaring, naar boven komt. Om tot zo’n
weloverwogen oordeel te komen. En dan heeft iedereen het recht om op enig moment zijn eigen oordeel
te vormen. En dan mag je ook als belangengroep zeggen van nou, ons oordeel is dit. En daar kennen we
dan het wettelijke inspraaktraject voor, dat je kan zeggen, ik ben hier voor en daar tegen. Maar dat moet je
los koppelen van de dialoog. In de dialoog neem je eigenlijk geen besluiten. De dialoog is om mensen in
staat te stellen om buiten die vrije ruimte in dat dialoog, een weloverwogen oordeel te geven over iets. Veel
overheden begrijpen dat heel slecht. Hoe je dat spel speelt.
En dan wordt er ook dus gekeken bij die deelnemers, vertegenwoordiger van dit, vertegenwoordiger van dat,
dan zeggen wij, nee, het gaat niet over vertegenwoordigers van dat belang. Het gaat erom dat je mensen
hebt die daar kennis en ervaring mee hebben. Die dat in kunnen brengen en die elkaar in staat stellen om
tot dat weloverwogen oordeel te komen.
I: Dus tijdens een dialoog ben je eigenlijk allemaal individu?
R: Ja,
I: zijn er verder nog vragen die ik niet gevraagd heb maar die je nog wel van toepassing vind? Of
belangrijk?
R: Ja wat je veel, wat veel door elkaar gehaald wordt en dat sluit hier eigenlijk bij aan, dat is participatieve
beleidsvorming en participatieve besluitvorming. Dat zijn termen die ja voor mij gaat het bij de dialoog om
het participatief ontwikkelen van nieuw gedachtegoed, van nieuwe visies. Besluitvorming is, dat is ook op
een andere manier geregeld bij ons, in ons democratisch systeem zitten we nu eenmaal met bepaalde
structuren.
I: Die politiek die toch het eind besluit neemt.
R: Ja en bij L is dat me toch ook weer heel duidelijk geworden, nou dat zo’n gemeenteraad wel heel erg
betrokken was, want na elk groot atelier hadden we een terugkoppeling naar de raad.
I: De voltallige raad of bepaalde wethouders?
R: Nee, dat was een selectie uit de raad die zich met de ruimtelijke ordening bezig hield, eigenlijk een
raadscommissie. Maar dat hadden ze heel goed gestructureerd en ze wilden ook dan weer een advies
geven over de volgende stap in het project, dus op zich zat dat, het participatieve gedeelte waar het om
ideeën ontwikkeling ging en ook de richting gevende rol die een raad daarbij kan hebben, zat goed in
mekaar. Maar waar ik dus tegen aan liep was dat, doordat zo’n raad dat niet meebeleefd heeft wat er in zo’n
atelier gebeurt is. En zich ook niet echt open stellen om te luisteren van wat is nou de essentie van wat daar
gezegd is. En dat kan je misschien ook niet overbrengen als je er niet bij geweest bent. Dat het toch heel erg
aan de oppervlakte blijft, en dat dus dat weloverwogen oordeel, dat besluit van die besluitvormende orgaan,
ja dat dat toch nog een hele zwakke plek is in ons hele participatieve werken, en dat als je vraagt wat is nu
de uitdaging voor de toekomst. Dan denk ik dat we daar toch, ja dat is natuurlijk ook de impasse waar de
politiek momenteel in zit volgens mij, dat ze de aansluiting met wat er gebeurt in de maatschappij, dat dat
niet goed zit. Dus ik denk dat ons politieke bestel, in de samenleving, en echt aan verandering toe is.
I: Dus er zit een zwak punt in die politieke besluitvorming? Dat het niet aansluit bij het hele proces wat jij
opstelt, dat ze niet mee kunnen in de participatie, en dan uiteindelijk toch…
R: Ze vervallen in een soort routine gedrag, ja maar we willen toch een parkeernorm van 2.0 ofzo.
I: Oke.
R: en dat is dan wel, als je mij vraagt naar negatieve dingen, dan denk ik van ja, die kwaliteit van onze
politieke volksvertegenwoordiging, ja daar ben ik vaak erg in teleurgesteld.
I: Dat moet ook heel teleurstellend zijn voor de mensen die mee werken aan zo’n proces. Want jij werkt naar
een visie toe en dan vervolgens, dan heb je een heel mooi proces gedaan en dan, laat maar zeggen dan
knipt de politiek het touwtje door en dan gaan ze zelf toch hun eigen besluit nemen.
R: Ja, weer dat voorbeeld in L, we hebben daar 2 jaar dat proces doorlopen en dat gaat dan over een nieuwe
111
uitbreidingswijk en een groen uitloopgebied, nou de discussie ging op het laatst alleen nog maar over de
verkoopbaarheid van de woningen in dat nieuwe uitloopgebied. En het besluit wat genomen is, dat alle
plannen voorlopig in de ijskast worden gezet, omdat de economische situatie te onzeker is om daar nu iets
aan te gaan doen. Dan denk ik van ja, dan gooi je dus alle energie die toch ontwikkeld is, gooi je weg, want
voor dat uitloopgebied, had je best een heleboel dingen kunnen doen zonder dat het überhaupt geld kost.
Maar wat nou het mooie is, daar zit dan ook weer de veerkracht van de samenleving, in L noord hadden we
het idee om de bestaande erven die daar zijn, die kan je ontwikkelen tot een soort groene kamers. Waar
ook gemeenschappelijk, het landschap eromheen beheerd wordt. Waar private initiatieven plaats kunnen
vinden. Maar wel met goede afspraken over je verantwoordelijkheid voorde ruimte en omgeving.
I: Die gaan gewoon door?
R: Het aardige is dat er een stichting is M, een vereniging ofzo, die wil dat daar dus wel uit gaan proberen.
En die gaat gewoon door. En dan denk ik van, zie je moet soms gewoon buiten de overheid om en moet
je vertrouwen op het maatschappelijk initiatief. Nou ja als dat een voorbode is van toch ook de kracht,
veerkracht van de samenleving en via allerlei communities die zich via internet enzo weten te vinden dan ja,
nou dan heb ik daar wel vertrouwen in.
112
Introductie door de interviewers
ISALA wil uitzoeken hoe zij bij kunnen dragen aan de ontwikkelingen langs de rivier, de revitalisatie van
bedrijventerrein de Mars en het recreatieve gebruik hiervan. Hierbij willen ze voor zichzelf de mogelijkheden
verkennen voor een nieuw boothuis. ISALA wil een actieve rol spelen bij het ontwikkelen van een visie en
het proces op gang brengen.
•
Denkt u dat deze ontwikkelingen voor u van belang zijn?
Het is belangrijk dat de betrokken partijen mee denken om een samenhangende visie te ontwikkelen die door
de partijen wordt gedragen. Een gedragen visie kan weer vaart brengen in de ontwikkelingen betreffende
de revitalisering van de Mars.
Open staan voor het proces
• Wat vindt u van het idee om samen een visie te ontwikkelen?
• Wat vindt u van het idee om dat met meerdere partijen te doen?
• Wat verwacht u van het resultaat?
Nu en toekomst
• Hoe waardeert u de omgeving
• Heeft u wensen voor de toekomst?
Eigendom (met een kaart erbij)
• Welk gebied gebruikt u?
• Hebt u eigendom?
• Huurt u gebieden van de gemeente of andere partijen?
• Weet u van wie de landtong waar de koeien op staan is?
• Hoe wordt de landtong gebruikt in het hoogseizoen?
Partijen en samenwerking
• Hebt u contact met andere partijen in dit gebied?
• Zo ja, met welke partijen en waarom?
Zijn er andere partijen dan de verenigingen die belang hebben bij deze ontwikkelingen?
Ontbrekende informatie
Zijn er nog punten die wij niet genoemd hebben maar waar u nog wat over wil zeggen?
Afsluiting
• Korte samenvatting (door notulist)
• Vragen of ze verder mee willen werken aan het project
• Wie hun contactpersoon(en) / vertegenwoordiger(s) zullen zijn
• Aangeven dat er een samenvatting van het interview wordt gemaakt wat ze kunnen controleren,
aanpassen of aanvullen
• Bedanken voor het interview
113
Nautilus
Gebruik gebied
Ligging: Industriehaven
Zeilen en varen: Marshaven
Aanleggen: Loskade, strandjes en uiterwaarden
Contacten andere partijen WSV De Mars: Leden van Nautilus geven zeilles bij de WSV
Anax: Eenmalige samenwerking tijdens een evenement van Anax
Mogelijkheden samenwerking
Nautilus wil wel samenwerken maar heeft daar nu geen aanleiding voor
Leden aantal
40 leden +/- 9 tot 35 jaar
Mogelijke groei
Nautilus kan niet verder groeien vanwege de capaciteit van “De Volharding”
Flexibiliteit locatie
Nautilus wil graag in de Industriehaven blijven maar als het nodig is kan een andere locatie ook mits goed bereikbaar
Wensen Nautilus
Nautilus wil een loods om in de winter aan de boten te kunnen werken
Mogelijkheden op nabij gelegen plas te varen (Natura 2000)
Aandachtspunten
De leeftijd en activiteiten van de leden van Nautilus verschilt van die van de andere verenigingen
Museumhaven
Gebruik gebied
Ligging: Houthaven
Contacten andere partijen Geen contacten met andere partijen, alleen met het projectbureau de Mars
Leden aantal
+/- 18 Boten en 2 lege plekken, +/- 15 bewoond
Mogelijke groei
De museumhaven zou kunnen groeien binnen de Houthaven
De museumhaven is tevreden met de huidige locatie maar als het nodig is kan een andere locatie ook mits de investeringen vergoed worden
Wensen Museumhaven
De museumhaven wil zichtbaarder zijn
De museumhaven wil meer levendigheid in de omgeving van de haven
Voorzieningen: Opslagruimte, fietsenstalling en brievenbussen
Invloed plannen
IJsselboulevard en de Museumhaven kunnen elkaar versterken, de haven van Noorderhaven zou een mogelijke ligplaats kunnen zijn
Eigendom
Huurt de grond van de gemeente
Aandachtspunten Mogelijk tegenstrijdige belangen bestuur en inwoners van de museumhaven
Anax
Gebruik gebied
Ligging: De Mars
Te water laten: Houthaven, Marshaven
Varen: Marshaven, IJssel, Twentekanaal en overige waterwegen
Contacten andere partijen Geen functionele samenwerking met andere partijen
Leden aantal
114
+/- 90 leden
De huidige locatie is goed, als het nodig is dan is een andere locatie ook mogelijk
Wensen Anax
Een opstapplek die bereikbaar is met hoog en laag water
Het behouden van de rust en ruimte
Invloed plannen
De komst van de IJsselboulevard is aardig voor de bereikbaarheid Anax, geen grote commerciële ontwikkelingen gewenst
De geplande nevengeul bij de Hoven is wel interessant
Eigendom
Erfpacht van de gemeente
Hanzestedensloep
Gebruik gebied
Ligplaats sloepen: In een klein haventje
Ligplaats in de winter: Loods
Opstappen: Marshaven
Varen: De IJssel en ander plaatsen waar de klant heen wil
Contacten andere partijen De Hanzestedensloep maakt momenteel gebruik van de faciliteiten en opstap
plaats bij ISALA
Samenwerking
De Hanzestedensloep ziet mogelijkheden om samen te werken met ander verenigingen of commerciële partijen
Mogelijke groei
De Hanzestedensloep wil in de toekomst groeien met het aantal vaarten en sloepen
De Hanzestedensloep is nog op zoek naar een locatie en vrij flexibel zolang het dicht bij het oude centrum van Zutphen en goed bereikbaar is
Wensen Een open afstap plek
Dicht bij het oude centrum van Zutphen
Bereikbaar met het openbaar vervoer
Invloed plannen
De IJsselboulevard zou ISALA ontsluiten en daarbij ook de Hanzestedensloep beter bereikbaar maken.
Een plek in de haven van de Noorderhaven zou ook een optie zijn
Aandachtspunten
De Hanzestedensloep wil niet afhankelijk zijn van andere partijen, goede af
spraken moeten gemaakt kunnen worden
Sportraad
Contacten andere partijen De sportraad vertegenwoordigt in het gebied: Anax, ISALA en WSV de Mars + ongeorganiseerde sport
Samenwerking
De sportraad ziet samenwerking tussen locale en nationale verenigingen.
Leden aantal
De sportraad zou willen dat de ledenaantallen worden opgenomen in de nieuwe toetskaders
Mogelijke groei
De sportraad geeft aan dat de WSV de Mars en ISALA wensen hebben om te groeien, Anax niet
Wensen De sportraad wil graag dat de sportverenigingen mee gaan in de
ontwikkelingen op de Mars
115
Invloed plannen
De sportraad wil graag dat de sportverenigingen mee gaan in de
ontwikkelingen op de Mars
Gemeente Zutphen
Gebruik gebied
Er komen veel veranderingen op het gebied af die het gebruik veranderen (zie invloed plannen)
Contacten andere partijen De gemeente heeft contact met verschillende partijen via het projectbureau de Mars
116
Samenwerking
Samenwerking kan voor een groter draagvlak zorgen waardoor het makkelijker op de politieke agenda komt.
De gemeente vindt dat ISALA en de WSV samen moeten kijken naar de mogelijkheden om samen te werken omdat ze vergelijkbare wensen hebben
Wensen Het gebied moet toegankelijk en beleefbaar worden
De gemeente wil dat de WSV en ISALA hun financiële tekort kleiner maken en dat deze partijen kijken of ze samen kunnen werken
Invloed plannen
Er zijn verschillende plannen die invloed hebben op het gebied. Stedelijke uitloopgebieden, De Noorderhaven, natura 2000, herontwikkeling industrie
sector 4-5 en 2-3, De IJsselboulevard en doorgaande recreatieve routes
Aandachtspunten
De WSV en ISALA hebben beide een aanvraag gedaan voor financiële
ondersteuning en zijn daarmee concurrenten
t
vlotten
sanitair
eten en drinken
restaurant
Subtopic
waterfietsen
nautisch centrum
Subtopic
Voldoende Water
publieke Botenhelling
voorwaarden
voorzieningen
toegankelijkheid
waterscooters
natuur
veiligheid
passantenligplaatsen
orde en netheid
Voor iedereen
Voor iedereen
functies
waterskiër
onderlinge verdraagzaamheid
schoonheid
Waterrecreatie
de wal
roeien
Varen
afval
zeilen
inspanning
sporten
zon zitten
levendigheid
in de wind zijn
Zwemmen
sloepverhuur
activiteiten
sfeer
vissen
samen sporten
kijken
Ontspannen
rust
Waterrecreatie.mmap - 23-6-2010 - Mindjet
uiterwaarden
geen bebouwing aan de andere kant
meer bebouwing mag best
geen front, maar sterke relatie
sterke interactie met het water
veiligheid
stads(ge)zicht
uiterwaarden
grens stad water wordt harder
ijsselfront
grens stad water wordt harder
ijsselfront
sterke interactie met het water
stads(ge)zicht
veiligheid
aanlegplaatsen
rondje
IJsselboulevard
waterrecreatie
hardlopers
rondje
fietsen
wandelen
scaters
ezels
bbq
paarden
ezels
recreëren
verbinding
verlichting
waterrecreatie
hardlopers
aanlegplaatsen
e
bbq
IJsselboulevard
verbinding
fietsen
zo inform
wandelen
restaurantje
recreëren
gesche
scaters
paarden zo informeel mogelijk
restaurantje
gras laten groeien
verbinding m
picnicken gescheiden stromen
verbinding met stadscentrum
picnicken
IJsselboulevard.mmap - 23-6-2010 - Mindjet
117
nautilus
commercielen
ISALA
voorwaarden
wsv
biedt kansen
oog voor elkaars belangen
Anax
Sloep
toekomst
sportraad
multifunctioneel
gebiedsontwikkeling
sociaal beleid
Samenwerken
gemeente
sportbeleid
verrijkend
wmo
bso
Contacten
kinderopvang
welzijn
partijen
bedrijven industriehaven
banken
achmea
geld
sponsoren
kinnarps
rws
reesink
jannie
hanzesport
waterschap
provincie
nocnsf
scholen
Samenwerken.mmap - 23-6-2010 - Mindjet
transport
milieubeweging
scheepvaart
toegankelijkheid
nat.organisaties
respect
afval
waterkwaliteit
wind
regelgeving
rust
Natuur.mmap - 23-6-2010 - Mindjet
118
Natuur
waterrecreatie
zonsondergang
flora en fauna
vogels
divers
bezoekerscentrum (posbank)
laagdrempelig
parkeerplaatsen
parlevinker
ijsboot
waterrecreatie
voorzieningen
Horeca
ontspannen
ambulante horeca
regels
gebiedsontwikkleing
Main Topic
toegankelijkheid
Horeca.mmap - 23-6-2010 - Mindjet
speeltuin
functies
hangplekken
ongeorganiseerde sporters
Medegebruik
samenwerken en niet tegenwerken
watertoerisme
publieke voorzieningen
collectieve voorzieningen
Medegebruik.mmap - 23-6-2010 - Mindjet
119
120
Visie en Scenario’s
September 2010
Mars Haven als recreatiecentrum van Zutphen
Datum:
Projectleider: Jeroen Kruit
Studenten:
Madeleen Brouwer
Iris Zwartkruis
Document:
Wetenschapswinkelproject: Zutphen De Mars
Mars Haven als recreatiecentrum van Zutphen
Appendix 6: Vision
1
Appendix 6: Vision
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Appendix 7:Design alternatives
Appendix 7: Design alternatives
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
PresesIsalawilschijnwerpersopZutphenshavengebied- Zutphen- Regio- Stentor
Page1 of2
Appendix 8: Article in the Stentor, ISALA
Preses Isala wil schijnwerpers op
Zutphens havengebied
Appendix 8: Article in the Stentor
door Rudi Hofman. donderdag 16 september 2010 | 07:26
ZUTPHEN - Voor het betreden van het botenhuis van de Zutphense Roei- en Zeilvereniging Isala
raadt voorzitter Wim ter Beek de verslaggever aan om eerst eens goed om zich heen te kijken en te
genieten van de fraaie omgeving. Als het aan Ter Beek (42) ligt, wordt het gebied Hout- en Marshaven
en IJssel in de nabije toekomst door veel meer ogen bewonderd dan tot nu toe het geval is. "We
liggen hier al veertig jaar verscholen.
Ik wil de schijnwerpers op dit gebied zetten en samen met andere betrokkenen meer mensen naar dit
prachtige gebied proberen te trekken."
Die andere partijen zijn onder meer kanovereniging Anax, Watersportvereniging De Mars, de waterscouts
van Nautilus, de Museumhaven en de Hanzestedensloepen.
Isala heeft de wetenschapswinkel van de Wageningen Universiteit een poos geleden gevraagd te
onderzoeken hoe zij en andere gebruikers van het havengebied kunnen bijdragen aan de 'groenblauwe'
ontwikkeling van de uiterwaarden en aan het recreatieve gebruik van de Zutphense havens en de IJssel.
In dit kader had op 23 juni bij Isala een eerste workshop plaats. De deelnemers, hoofdzakelijk Isala-leden,
konden hierbij aangeven wat in hun ogen de waarden van het havengebied zijn en over welke aspecten zij
eventueel zorgen hebben. Aanstaande zaterdag volgt een tweede workshop waarvoor alle genoemde
partijen zijn uitgenodigd.
Wim ter Beek hoopt dat zaterdag overeenstemming wordt bereikt over het gewenste scenario voor het
havengebied. In het door de wetenschapswinkel opgestelde rapport 'Mars Haven als recreatiecentrum van
Zutphen' staan drie mogelijke scenario's: 1. Groen IJsselfront, waarin de geplande IJsselboulevard een
'groene' tegenhanger moet worden van het oude 'grijze' IJsselfront van de historische stad; 2. Parelketting ,
hierin worden alleen enkele strategisch gelegen locaties - stedelijke en natuurlijke - van de IJsselboulevard
ontwikkeld en 3. Overgang van stad naar land, de bedoeling hiervan is tot een soort driedeling te komen
tussen het oude stadscentrum, de IJsselboulevard en het 'groene' havengebied.
"Als we weten wat een mooi scenario voor ons is, dan kunnen we vervolgens met behulp van Projectbureau
De Mars een slag proberen te slaan richting professionals en commerciële partijen. De gemeente kan hier
ook een rol bij spelen", aldus Ter Beek.
De voorzitter van de roeivereniging - bij Isala wordt anno 2010 niet meer aan zeilen gedaan - beseft dat de
invloed van de 'havenpartijen' op de uiteindelijke besluitvorming van de gemeente heel klein is. En ook dat
het maar zeer de vraag is of een van de scenario's werkelijkheid wordt.
Ter Beek: "De winst van dit onderzoek is dat we weten wat er in deze omgeving gebeurt en waar de andere
partijen mee bezig zijn. We willen als Isala in elk geval dat wat hier aan het water gebeurt zoveel mogelijk
intact blijft. Gemotoriseerd waterverkeer willen we weren."
Een fusie tussen de verschillende watersportverenigingen ziet Ter Beek vanwege de 'grote
cultuurverschillen' niet zitten. Hij is daarentegen een groot voorstander van intensief samenwerken.
Bijvoorbeeld bij de organisatie van open dagen.
Dat achter de door Isala aangevraagde 'omgevingsverkenning' door de wetenschapswinkel ook een eigen
140
http://www.destentor.nl/regio/zutphen/7291706/Preses-Isala-wil-schijnwerpers-op-Zut... 17-9-2010
141
Appendix 9:Posters design alternatives second workshop
Appendix 9: Posters design alternatives second workshop
142
143
144
145
146
147
Appendix 10:Article Landwerk
Appendix 10: Article Landwerk
148
Kruit, J., I. Zwartkruis, februari 2011. Zutphens verscholen havengebied, Landwerk 1, special participatie
2011.
149
Colofon
Author
Iris Zwartkruis
[email protected]
Supervisors
Ingrid Duchhart
Jeroen Kruit
Examination
Ingrid Duchhart
Jeroen Kruit
Guidance committee
150
Wim ter Beek
Edwin Koning
Jos Addink
Marlies Brinkhuijsen
Harm Luisman
Gerard Straver
Jeroen Kruit

Roles revealed - Wageningen UR

Transcription

Similar documents

CURRICULUM VITAE CURRICULUM VITAE

Renkumse buitenplaatsen in een nieuw

dakpannen leggen

Design of drinking water treatment plants

Ondergronds?

PANORAMA NLSC () - Architectuur Lokaal

May 2007

Improving the Redevelopment Process of Obsolete Industrial Sites

Nieuwe feiten - Waarnemingen uit het dieren