Att planera med landskapsperspektiv – reflektioner kring aktuella planeringsmetoder M Sc Wu Chia Jung Fil Dr Karolina Isaksson.

En presentation över ämnet: "Att planera med landskapsperspektiv – reflektioner kring aktuella planeringsmetoder M Sc Wu Chia Jung Fil Dr Karolina Isaksson."— Presentationens avskrift:

1 Att planera med landskapsperspektiv – reflektioner kring aktuella planeringsmetoder
M Sc Wu Chia Jung Fil Dr Karolina Isaksson

2 Presentationens upplägg
Problembild Teoretiska utgångspunkter Fallstudie Resultat och avslutande reflektioner

3 Teoretiska utgångspunkter
Landskap ur ett sociokulturellt perspektiv: Landskap är både en fysisk materialitet och en mental konstruktion (upplevelser, identitet, minnen, framtidsvisioner) Parallella tolkningar samtidigt Inte bara expertkunskap

4 Problembild Landskapsanalyser i planeringen –
ofta fokus endast på det visuella eller på enstaka objekt Ofta endast tillbakablickande Nya krav på sk medborgarperspektiv (bl a ELC) Behov av metodutveckling!

5 Två fallstudier Participatory Mapping i järnvägsutredningen för Ostlänken (Virtual Reality i planeringen av E6 genom Tanum)

6 Ostlänken – en del av Götalandsbanan
Stockholm – Linköping 150 km höghastighetsjärnväg Mycket oklart om projektet blir av Ostl’anken is a highspeed railway currently in plan which will be built between Stockholm and Link;ping. The railway is 150 km long and aims to reduce the travel time within one hr.

7 Participatory mapping
En global rörelse Handlar ofta om att skapa kartor för inventeringssyften eller ”local empowerment” I fallet Ostlänken - en pilotstudie som skulle ge input till kulturmiljöanalys i MKB (Beckman-Thoor et al 2003) Pilotstudien kom dock inte att användas i den fortsatta planeringen

8 “traditionell” vetenskaplig kartering Participatory mapping
Syfte Att presentera “verkligheten” “Local empowerment” Metod Urval, klassificering, mätbara data Skisser naturrunda workshop etc The purpose of SM is to present the physical reality, that means all the details of the visible objects. whereas the aim of PM is to empower local by mapping out what they consider important, exciting, special, disgusting, etc in the landscape. PM is made by the local and owned by the local. Since the traditional map tend to show the physical environment in detail, they tend to select certain themes to show on a map, for instance vegetation, housing, topography, etc. and classify them by different colors or symbols. However, there is no standard way of doing PM. It varies by different approaches of participation, for example, the map can be based on sketch made by individual or by group discussion, etc. When it comes to the contents of a traditional scientific map are often based on a list of sites or monuments, while the main information carried by the PM is about experiences and knowledge. The objects in sicentific map are static no matter how the mapping technology improves, but there is no single version of PM, which is dynamic and creative according to the local people!! PM traces more the transformation of landscape, landscape is a concept more transformative rather than fixed!!! SM: To present the reality, to convince the decision maker; PM: to empower local in planning process, it can be initiated by local people themselves as part of activity of community movement. It can be also initiated by government such as in a natural reserve which will affect the indigenous people living there, etc. The map is done by the local people and often owned by the local people. SM: Sites and monumnets, objects-based; PM: to visualize how people experienced the transformation of landscape, what are their special acitivities which may not be understood by the outsiders and whether there are some traditional knolwedge handed over generation, etc. SM: classification, churches, graveyards, or carving stone, etc.and to show their precise location; PM: it’s more about the form of the map. it can be done by individual sketch or group discussion. There is a new trend called participatory GIS where experts put map drawn by the local people into GIS to make it more understandable or clarify their position in the official map. Focus: the result should be the most accurate, or you can say there is only single verwhereas PM focuses more on whether mapping is made by a right form so that the result is legitimate. Usually it’s a series of process and cooperation of local and experts In planning there used to be difficulty to take in local perspective of cultural landscape than the expert perspective. Why? Because expert perspectives can be easily grasp by the map. But not the local perspectives. Traditionally maps are produced in the way to conform the scientific values, that is classification and precision. But when you do classification and precision, such as how different types of housing are located, or how vegetations change over time, you disregard the human interaction in the landscape. You don’t see how people act to the landscape, move in the landscape and think about these visible landscape. Participatory map is a sort of counteraction to such kind of mapping strategy or ideology. It is a trend that rose in the 1990s and often used as tool to empower local. In the participatory map, you don’t map the objects, but peoples experience and knowledge in the landscape. Or you can say the map departs from human perspective, instead of objective perspective which excludes human beings. For instance, it is applied in many natural reserves where the indigenous people live in order to look for their hunting routes or migration routes or certain spiritual sites which are often neglected in the official map. But participatory map also has a strong development along with community development in urban context. The purpose of the map is to create a map based on local people’s knowledge and experineces. And through these processes, the local become more aware of their own enviornment or they can act proactively if there is any infrastructure coming outside that do not meet their requirements. Innehåll Platser och objekt Erfarenhet, lokal kunskap, minnen resultat statiskt dynamiskt

9 Participatory mapping (PM) - kartor över levd erfarenhet
This is the participatory map showing lived expeirence and utility values. (here I pass over the map so you can get read more details in the map) It was two experts working as EIA consultatns who made this map. They sent out questionnaries to the local and asked them draw out the places important or special for them on an official map which was attached to the questionnaire. They also did some interview and asked people directly to draw these places on the map. At the end, they sorted out all the information from the questionnaries and interview and redraw this map. In a way, you can say the mapping process was partly indirect public participation. And there was no meeting to discuss with the local people after the map was made since they only hade three months to finish this task. One important motivation to make the local perpsective the same weight as scientifc view. They think if there are just words describing local perspective, they can be put in to the appendix. But decision making is very much based on map. If there is a map showing local perspective, then the decision will not just be based on the map of hisotircla sites. However, there you can see that there is a huge difference from the previous one. Although they are both called maps, but it is clear to see they have essentially different qualities and way of presenting. Since the map showing archaological site is very simple that point out the location to be protected. But this map is full of texts directly quoted from the intervies and questionaires. It cover lots of things, like old train station, forest, farmlands. And some of these landscape are exisitng but some oftem disappeared already which are just local memories! There are a few interesitng Area Svärta - Masugnssjön (Beckman-Thoor et al 2003)

10 Reaktioner från myndigheter och experter
Intressant men svårt att förstå Ingen substans En massa disparata åsikter För mycket detaljer Ett samtida lokalt ”arkiv” From Banverket and experts from RAA It can serve as a kind of modern archive instead of traditional archive that only points of the ancient things. There are two problems aroused by the participatory map: One is how experts look at local perspective. They think local perspective does not have that quality to compete with traditional knolwedge. The second is how local perspectives are visualized on the map. They think it is not that easy to understand as a map.

11 Ytterligare bearbetning av materialet visar stor potental
Dåtid Nutid Framtid Gruvor: det är gammal gruvbygd. Sedan känner man till mycket om gårdarnas historia Gammal friskvattenkälla “Därifrån har dom fått vatten sedan 1500-talet. Men när de byggde andra motorvägshalvan, då hände någonting” Bär och Svampskog: helt plötsligt springer jag på en gammal torpgrund och då börjar jag fantisera om dom som bott där och vad dom haft för liv Vid Riksettan: Jag är lantlig från början och har bott här i hela mitt liv och vill kunna ge mina barn samma sak I was thinking to do an experiement: how can I use the current content in the participaotry maps and make them more meaningful and helpful for decision making. Also how to make them easier to compare with scientific map. First I make categorization of all these detailed contents mentioned by the local people. And I divide them into past, now and future.

12 PM kan fånga fler tidsdimensioner
Now Past Future Pre-historical sites Medieval monuments Legends memories wishes fears Life activities Knowledge values (scientific map) Lived experience & utility values (participatory map) Geological movements After the categorization of local opinions by the timeperiod, I also found it easier to see what are different poentials carried by the sicnetific map and the participatory map in the report made for Ostl’nken. The former is very much concentrated on the ancient time such as geological movement. And later covers a large time span. But there are overlapping parts between these two kinds of map. Th map shows local knowldge about the archeaological sites like carving stone from viking time, but also their own ’historical sites’ For instance, the the mining sites from 16th century which are pointed out important for local identity. In a way, this can help decision making to find out the priority in historical sites. On the other hand, the participatory map describes what are the important cultural landscape in moder time which are neglected or not appreciated by the scinetific map. Such as the old train station, cafe built in the 1920s ects which connect to their memories. Also the map shows a bit where they don’t want the landscape be destroyed. This analysis can be further developed and contribute to the tool to evalute the landscape value. Of course, landscape changes over time and all the time. But each landscape that nowadays to be seen is particularly characterized by certain time period. For instance, ming sites which developed since 16th century in the case study are indicated to be symbol of local history and identity. By undersatnding how different time span that expert and local tend to cast in referring landscape, we can exploit the expert view and local view at an early planning stage to find out what elements / time period characterize the landscape most and with what! Since sometimes it can be that there are sparsely populated in certain area so that prehistorical time can represent the landscape value. On the other hand, sometimes it can be a new born suburban area so that the contemporary time can best represent the landscape value, even water tower or chimes, etc. But I personally think that in EIA where the best route is to be chose, there should be one specific value highlited and investigated, instead of listing all kind of possible values coz they are not the same important!! These elements can be developed into index to evaluate cultural landscape. That means, instead of defining each cultural landscape species, like carving stone or church, we can have a broader concept what can be considered as culture. That means we can create different maps for each index. Then we can see the area is mostly chracterized by which time period.

13 Slutsatser av PM i Ostlänken
+ Stor potential med denna metod! Kan vara ett bra sätt att fånga upp lokala perspektiv på kulturmliljö och landskapsvärden Kompatibelt med en socio-kulturellalandskaps- och kulturmiljödefinition Har potential att identifiera inte bara dåtidens värden utan också framtidsvisioner - Formen behöver dock bearbetas Metoden för datainsamling viktig Dessutom tänka igenom NÄR I planeringsprocessen det ger störst input Experternas attityder avgörande för hur resultatet används Compared to the partifcipatory map devloped abroad, the ones made for OStlanken is quite special. The aim is to create another map based on local perspective and by doing this to make local perspective as important as the scientific view. Also it tries to make a bridge for the local perspective and scientific perspective to communicate to each other. On the other hand, public participation is not important. This is different from the cases developed in other countries. (one is to empower local, map is like a window for people to talk or a process. The other – natural resources management aims to use local knowledge to correct the sceintific knowledge where is the eoclogicla sensitive area located.) What are the potentials – it shows what kind of historical monuments connect to local identity which may contribute to the priority of which monument we should protect, also it adds the cultural values in modern time and people’s wish for future. However, there is also a risk of pm when it has to be integrated with scientific map. The participatory map cannot be single version with everything. And this can be achieved by two ways. One is to make the questions more specific when they perform mapping, or to screen the results obtained from the local and show some specific theme on the map! The participatory map is top down. It’s handled by the experts. Also the maps are not made in the aim to involve public participation, but to find a better way for the decision maker to understand local persepcitves. It is a challenging tool coz it challenges the way people use map! What’s the story of the contents mentioned by the participatory map??? How do we know what’s significant in the map? It’s just a map, it’s not a tool! (from Tim)

14 Tack!