Using P3DM in The Philippines. Photo courtesy of Dr.J.C.Gaillard.

Natural disasters continue to claim lives and devastate families, particularly the global South. The poor are most vulnerable as they typically live in the most hazardous locations. However, this social and geographical reality also compounds the problems, because of the gaps that exists between planners and the poor. The two groups speak different languages, have different understandings about the problems and what to do. Bridging such gaps could be a way to build greater resilience to extreme environmental events. Participatory 3 dimensional mapping is a technique that promises to do this.

The practice of participatory surveys and data collection has grown over the past two decades. By collecting new information about themselves and the places they live in poor and marginalised groups gain new skills, knowledge and confidence and can present evidence to press their needs to the powers that be. This is a field where the global North can learn from what has been happening in poorer parts of the poorer countries. Participatory 3D mapping (P3DM) is part of this pro-poor practice.

Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction

The value of community-based approaches to disaster risk reduction (DRR) is likely to grow in the face of more volatile climatic conditions and the limited capacities of governments to respond to threats. Participatory mapping is already an established part of community-based DRR. It enables local residents to draw on their past experiences to identify vulnerable areas and to focus thinking on risk reduction measures.

Meanwhile the growing sophistication of Geographical Information Systems is also being tapped by some communities, though there are obvious problems of access and know-how. In addition, the person introducing and using GIS is likely to then be in a very powerful position, and well placed to set the agenda and benefit from credibility with officials.

So how does P3DM work? Basically you build a 3 dimensional relief map. To do this you can use cheap, locally available materials, such as cardboard. You cut layers to a scaled thickness to represent verticality. These real relief maps can then be overlain with layers of information and used as a focus for new information collection and discussions.

An example from the Philippines

An article by Cadag and Gaillard, published in Area recently, describes the use of P3DM in the Philippines. Masantol is a municipality in a delta area. As well as flooding, there are tsunamis, earthquakes, storm surges and cyclones. As if that was not enough, extraction of groundwater is also resulting in land subsidence. There are 6 villages.
After a long period of building a relationship with the people, the P3DM project began in August 2008, ran for a year and cost less than US$1000.
The facilitators prepared a 1:2700 base map, using GIS and official maps. Different coloured push-pins were chosen to denote houses, schools, health centres, etc. Yarn represented linear features and different coloured paint different land uses. The people were able to map the houses where the most vulnerable members of their communities lived, and also the locations of boats and similar assets that could be used in the event of an emergency.

A critical stage of the work was the combination on the relief map of people’s own local knowledge of areas at risk (e.g. weak points along dykes), with scientific data about hazards, and information provided by government officials. In this way the capacity to anticipate and respond was increased. The researchers argue that this made disaster risk assessment, “faster, more efficient and more sustainable at community level. “

Action planning

The assessment had led to agreement that one of the villages was especially vulnerable. That village then became the focus for an action planning activity. A community-based DDR plan was drawn up through working closely with village and municipal governments. A 1:500 map of the village was built for this purpose.
Bamboo posts were painted and installed to provide early warning of rising waters. Warning and evacuation plans were formed for different types of hazards. The emergency plan was printed on a large tarpaulin sheet and hung in front of the village hall so everybody could see it.

A valuable tool

Cadag and Gaillard concluded that P3DM is a powerful tool that can be used by communities to appraise the risks of disasters in their environment. Just as important, it makes local knowledge credible to officials, and thus allows for the combination of local and scientific knowledge.

Preparing for, and coping, with disasters represents one of the greatest challenges globally to this generation of planners. We need to be alert to techniques like this that can make a difference and underpin the action planning process that is so much more relevant to the needs of the poor than the static, outdated master plans that so often represent the practice of planning in rapidly urbanising countries.

Can space be made available for healthy urban growth without sprawl?

The UN-Habitat World Urban Forum will meet in Naples in the first week in September. It is the pre-eminent meeting place for the global community of those who are actively engaged in trying to create more sustainable and equitable human settlements. It brings together mayors and grass roots activists, professionals and politicians, slum dwellers and developers, the global North and the global South. This week saw the launch of a series of on-line dialogues that will lead into the main WUF. You may not be able to get to Naples, but you can have your say on the ways you think urban planning should be used to tackle the challenges of the towns and cities.

What role for planning?

The e-Dialogue on Urban Planning starts with the premise that planning has a key role to play in making cities more sustainable, guiding development and creating prosperity. However, “traditional modes of planning have largely proved ineffective in dealing with the challenges of urbanization, e.g. slum formation, urban sprawl, and the impacts of climate change.” The central question posed is “to make space available for structured urban growth, without encouraging sprawl or inefficient land use?”
The dialogue will also address the question of how to enhance public spaces in towns and cities. “How can streets be converted into vibrant, lively public spaces? How can private and semi-private spaces be opened up and made more accessible to the urban population? How can urban planning contribute towards the creation of diverse public spaces that add value and quality to urban social and economic life?”

Productive Cities

There is a similar e-Dialogue on the theme of Productive Cities. This is exploring the links between urbanisation and job creation. This is welcome, as so much of the work of UN-Habitat itself has traditionally been rooted in concerns with housing, to the detriment of a focus on the cities as a source of jobs. Similarly, the mindsets of many planning practitioners, not just here in the UK, are dominated by concerns for consumption (of housing, space, environment) rather than by attention to the production processes that shape settlements and their residents’ livelihoods.

Of course, economic growth does not directly equate with job growth, so one key concern for this dialogue must be to explore ways to make conventional economic development much more inclusive, and to be clear on what are ends and what are means.

A set of preliminary questions have been floated for this dialogue:
• Do regulations kill jobs or create them? Are they the cause of or solution to informality?
• How can cities assess the employment impacts of economic policies and ensure that productivity gains are translated into job creation rather than into more unemployment?
• What economic sectors have the greatest potential for creating decent jobs in cities?
• How can cities better assess and harness infrastructure investments for job creation?
• What are the linkages between slum upgrading and job creation?

Sustainable cities

There is also a dialogue on sustainable cities. It has a strong focus on mobility and energy systems and the ways these concerns can support achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

“The benefits of improving access to modern energy services in urban and peri-urban areas are transformational: lighting for schools, functioning health clinics, pumps for water and sanitation, cleaner indoor air, faster food-processing and more income-generating opportunities, among others.” It is sobering to be reminded that ‘kitchen smoke’ kills 2 million people, mostly women and children, every year.

The challenge set down to planners is to make “urban mobility an integral part of urban planning in order to create a ‘city of short distances’, with “intelligent transportation systems with intermodal transport offers that connect mass transit solutions to cycle networks and pedestrian areas.” If your work is delivering on this ideal, why not tell the world about it by joining the e-Dialogue?

Equity and inclusion

Planners still tend to view concerns for equity and inclusion as secondary matters, well behind more technical and statutory aspects of the job. However, to UN-Habitat and many of the NGOs who will be present in Naples, these are things that really matter. There is an e-Dialogue to prepare the ground. It starts by recognising that “An equitable city reduces poverty and inequality by ensuring a systematic re-distribution of the economic benefits of development. An inclusive city protects the rights of all its residents, particularly the most vulnerable and marginalized groups, and it takes steps to promote gender equality, minority rights, etc.”

Furthermore it argues that equity and inclusion are integral to self-sustaining prosperity for any city. Participation and involvement of residents and other stakeholders is seen as an important issue for discussion in this dialogue.

Making planning work

Since 2006 the World Urban Forum has been a major focus for attempts by planners to rethink the nature of their practice, particularly in the context of a rapidly urbanising world where poverty is becoming increasingly an urban phenomenon. Similarly, climate change mitigation and adaptation have pushed the planning profession into looking beyond its traditional parochial institutions, legislation and procedures.

The book that I co-authored with Pat Wakely, Julie Crispin and Chris Jasko for the 2006 WUF tried, through the use of practical examples, to explore ways in which planning could be made to work in a world very different than that in which European countries developed their planning legislation a century ago. A concerted effort has been made by RTPI and the Commonwealth Association of Planners at WUFs since 2006 to raise the global profile of the profession and to show that it has a vital role to play in the quest for sustainable urbanism. The e-Dialogues ahead of the 2012 WUF give you a chance to have your say.

Cliff Hague, 1972

This week Planning magazine celebrates its 40th birthday. At this critical juncture, the point where mid-life crisis is supposed to kick in with a vengeance, I thought that I should look back to where I was in 1972, while still taking a “World View”. So back we go to a time when my hair was long and curly, I wore red flared trousers, and the post-war world was on the cusp of changing fundamentally.

In 1972 I was a Lecturer in the Department of Town and Country Planning at Edinburgh College of Art / Heriot-Watt University. I was “yearmaster” to the 5th year undergraduates, a group of about 15 students. We had RTPI-accredited BSc, MSc and part-time post-graduate Diploma courses that were all strongly UK-focused. The only real international element was the overseas “field trip” that the BSc and MSc students went on (the part-time, postgrads’ who used to come in for classes in the evenings, did not go).

The foreign field trip
Looking back, the “foreign field trip” was a rather arbitrary part of the programme. It was not really backed by any preparatory teaching or particularly focused. There were no “aims” or “learning outcomes” written down for it, as far as I can recall, no assessment required. It was all a bit ad hoc, with different staff on different trips to different European countries in different years. I had been on the ground-breaking visit to Poland in 1970 (probably the first by a UK planning school to go behind the Iron Curtain), then to the Netherlands in 1971, but did not go on the trip to Germany in 1972.

Such trips were enjoyable and a rich learning experiences, certainly for me and hopefully for students too (feel free to comment!). I had never been outside the UK until I went to Amsterdam on a similar study visit as a final year Planning post-graduate from Manchester University in 1968, at the age of 23. I saw the visit, indeed all my time at university, as a privilege which I had been extraordinarily lucky to experience.

Later in my teaching career, when it came to the study visit, the savvy students had seen it all before, while others cried off due to financial difficulties or family responsibilities. We lost a lot once the trip, in effect, became optional. A UK-centric outlook became more embedded still with the significance given to centralisation of planning practice through national “guidance”.

Planning as a tool of exclusion

How exposed was I (and through me, my students) to the world of planning outside the UK? I subscribed to the Journal of the American Planning Association, and my teaching drew quite substantially on the articles that appeared there. There were few other journals anyway, and the US was clearly the place at the cutting edge of planning debate, it seemed.

The bitter US conflicts over urban renewal as a means of shifting poor and black residents out of their homes to make way for motorways and prime development sites, and the rise of advocacy planning, struck a chord as the UK’s slum clearance programme began to face similar challenges. The image of a planning as a practice of benevolent, enlightened government action – the post-1945 settlement in Western Europe at least –became tarnished.

The Global South

As to the global South, we had an occasional student from Nigeria, but I do not recall that we ever addressed the issue of planning in such countries. Of course, most of those countries were still overwhelmingly rural. I first began to read about and get interested in what was then called “third world urbanization” a year or so later when teaching the Open University’s course on “Urban development”. However, the modernist planning model was being rolled out in master plans in the capital cities, with scant regard to local situations and cultures.

The environmental crisis

However, 1972 was a significant turning point. It was the year that the UN Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm. For the first time issues about the environment were on the global political agenda. The consensus on the goal of everlasting economic growth was being challenged. Pollution was seen as the main issue, but the Stockholm conference built the foundations for the 1992 follow-up in Rio, which will be revisited at the start of June. Similarly, the basis for the Human Settlements summits at Vancouver in 1976, then at Istanbul 20 years later, and the creation of what is now UN-Habitat can be traced back to Stockholm.

1972 also saw the publication of “The Limits to Growth”, which I began to use in my teaching. It modelled the inter-relation between population, industrial growth, food, pollution and resources, arguing that there were finite limits that on current trends the earth would overshoot. The oil crisis the following year gave the book an added resonance, and made a generation much more aware of the fragility of the normality with which we had grown up.

One memory I have from that time was of going across to Glasgow to hear a lecture by Lowdon Wingo Junior, who was en route to the Stockholm conference. Since my student days I had treasured the 1963 book “Cities and Space” that he had edited. I remember being bemused by his presentation about the environmental crisis. He argued that the solution to all the problems lay in a focus on land values as conceived in abstract by neo-classical economics, bid rent curves and all that stuff. Little did I know back then how this rather strange view of the world would come to dominate so much of urban policy thinking and practice across the globe.

Data modeling, Image courtesy ULI

Scenario planning tools are increasingly being used in North America as means of community engagement. The state of the art is reviewed in a new publication that attracted attention at the recent American Planning Association conference in Los Angeles. The development of web-based GIS and mobile phone technologies opens the prospect of a rapid emergence of new techniques that could fundamentally change the way we do planning.

Once, long ago…

Use of scenarios to help focus thinking on long term trends has been around for 50 years, but never really become mainstream in planning practice. In those distant days back in 1969 when I painstakingly wrote out my lecture notes in longhand, I did actually teach about long range forecasting methods, including scenario writing. One example I used was Herman Khan’s epic book, The Year 2000, which was published in 1967. With a moon landing imminent, it gushed with enthusiasm for the potential of technology, and amongst its predictions were the widespread use of computers, the possibility of universal, real time banking systems and what it called “pocket phones”.

So why didn’t my graduating students start using scenarios as a practical planning tool? Were they simply bored by my lectures? Maybe, but the way statutory planning practice operated then did not encourage speculative thinking. The development plan was a statement of what the council wanted to happen, not how a way of thinking about how a place might adapt to an uncertain future. Public participation meant telling people about the plan and why it was good for them.

From “Predict-and-Plan” to Adapting to Uncertainty

In contrast, the new Lincoln Foundation booklet observes that “Decisions about the future are often controversial due to competing economic interests, different cultural values, and divergent views about property rights and the role of government. Broader and more effective civic engagement is needed to ensure community support for decisions about development and other land-related policies and public investments. The traditional predict-and-plan paradigm is inadequate to address all of these challenges. We need to move toward developing and implementing planning tools and processes that foster anticipation and adaptation.”

While these sentiments may be especially pertinent in the USA, they should have some resonance for planners in other parts of the globe. It is in this context that the authors review the state of the art. They argue that “Scenario planning is a valuable method to help regions and communities understand and plan for their futures under highly complex and uncertain conditions.”

In this perspective, planning practice is urged to develop as a form of “anticipatory governance” which considers “a range of possible futures, prepares strategies to respond to one or more of these futures, and then adapts to those changes as the future unfolds over time.” In today’s world of climate change and economic shocks, such sentiments are sound. They chime well with ideas about planning for resilience that I have discussed previously. Three basic steps are recommended:

1. Use foresight and futures analysis;
2. Anticipate adaptation;
3. Monitor and adapt.

Tools currently in use

A number of scenario tools currently in use are described. Most use GIS; some are relatively simple, others much more sophisticated; some focus down to a plot or even a building, others operate largely at regional or sub-regional scale. They can be used in urban design or as tools for creating strategic plans on a larger scale.

One that I have seen something of is the Urban Land Institute Reality Check, This has been used in regional visioning projects in Maryland, Arizona, North Texas, and the Puget Sound area. It works like a board game, using LEGO® bricks to allocate future growth on a map, and is “played” at public workshops across the region. Proposed allocations of development are collated by computer in an iterative way as more and more groups take part. The result is an ensemble of future urban form scenarios that can reflect “business as usual” or shifts to more sustainable forms of growth. Through synthesis guiding principles and policy recommendations can be derived.

What’s next? Open source and web-GIS

This is now, but what of the near future? So far the tools have mainly been developed independently from each other by different companies who can control the use of their software. However, as we move towards open source software systems that could all change. It should be possible to link up different models from different parts of the world and link them to advanced visualization engines. Access via web-based GIS should become easier, bringing use of the methods within the scope of more people, professionals and non-professionals. Such applications could make use of crowd-sourcing to build up data collected by people on their mobile phones from their neighbourhood or about their journey to work.

In short, there is more to planning than fretting about the National Planning Policy Framework or yet another review of how to reduce the “burden” of planning on businesses. Techniques discussed in this blog are being used in practice. Furthermore, a small INTERREG project in the Baltic Sea Region, called Trans-in-Form, that I have worked with, has produced an on-line,, downloadable step-by-step guide to using scenarios for its partners (almost all of whom are small municipalities with few professional planning staff) to use within the project. Ten years from now, will such approaches have become mainstream, or will this blog still sound unrealistic and academic, just like those old lecture notes of mine were 40 years ago?

Twenty years ago there were few examples of architecture policies issued by national governments, though now a number of governments, mainly in northern Europe, have them. A quick search for the history points up the Dutch as key movers. Their first architecture policy appeared in 1991 (‘Space for Architecture’) that was followed in 1996 by ‘Architecture for Space’. These were produced by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Cultural Affairs, but the Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Ministry was also involved.
The first report led to the creation of a number of significant new institutions. Architectuur Lokaal  was set up. It describes itself as “an independent national centre of expertise devoted to building culture”. “Building culture” means a fusion of construction, culture and architecture, which “encompasses spatial planning, urban design, infrastructural works by engineers, and especially architectural design and art in public space.”

Another outcome was the establishment of the Netherlands Architecture Institute in Rotterdam. I used to take students there on our study visits, though it was a tough call for some after a night partying on the ferry across the North Sea the night before. As a museum cum information centre it remains a good place to get started. Following the 1991 policy a number of local architecture centres sprang up across the Netherlands.

An inter-ministerial working group was also set up, and by 1996 other Ministries, notably Transport and Public Works, were also associated with the policy. The 1996 version was also notable for addressing the growing importance of the private sector in Dutch development. This followed the identification in the Vinex National Spatial Planning Report of areas for large scale residential development. Thus the reversal of words in the title from the first policy represented an attempt to upscale the messages.

Shaping the Netherlands followed in 2001. It anticipated the dramatic change in the trajectory of the country in the past decade. “Our system of norms and values is shifting” it observed, noting that multi-culturalism was a “hot issue” and the rise of individualism and the network society. However, there was still an emphasis on major government-funded infrastructure projects. There was also a repetition of earlier calls to break down departmental silos and for designers to be given opportunities to use their creative powers. A budgeted programme of support for activities, institutions and events was also provided. Thus over a decade the Dutch architecture policy developed from a concentration on buildings to an action plan that encompassed concerns with landscape, planning and cultural history.

The European Forum for Architectural Policies
The Netherlands held the EU Presidency during 1997. Architecture policy was one issue that the Dutch Presidency put on the table. One result was the formation of the European Forum for Architecture Policies. The Forum has worked with MEPs and stages discussions in the European Parliament, as well as liaising in the cause of architecture and urbanism with the European Commission.

Yvette Masson-Zanussi from the French Ministry of Culture is one of the driving forces of EFAP. During the French EU Presidency in 2008 she played an important role in getting the contribution of architecture recognised in the Conclusions of the Council of the European Union (2008 / C 319/05). The result was a call to Member States to “have architecture play an integrating and innovative role in the sustainable development process, beginning with the design stage of architecture, urban planning, landscaping and rehabilitation projects.” They were also called to support education and training of for architecture, heritage and planning as part of the creative industries. There was also a mandate to the EFAP to work on dissemination and consultation.

Latest from the Dutch
A new Dutch architecture policy was launched just a couple of weeks ago. It is tuned to the new economic times and reflects the political shifts that have seen the Netherlands become increasingly Euro-sceptic and deregulationist. The Dutch ESPON Contact Point, Dave Evers, speaking at the ESPON INTERSTRAT conference in Edinburgh last Friday summed up the mood of today’s Dutch government in a pithy one-liner: “If it’s none of your business, stay out”.

One area being cut back is spending on culture, and the architecture policy still sits within the cultural ministry. There is a new Foundation for Creative Industries that aims to make culture less dependent on state subsidies. The new architecture policy thus makes it clear that it is up to architects and other organisations to make the people of the Netherlands aware of their responsibilities for places. There is a strong emphasis in the new policy on training “patrons”. Architectuur Lokaal will have a key role in providing this support. This builds on its existing role of providing advice on procurement procedures and competitions.

In other words, the role of policy becomes to give information to private commissioners of buildings to enable them to make informed choices about architecture and design. The days when the publicly funded social housing associations were major commissioners of innovatively designed developments are over.

Issues
So is an architecture policy really helpful in today’s world? There are a number of issues that need to be addressed if such policy is to be more than a set of vague exhortations about “good design”. Perhaps the first is to be clear about what the scope of such a policy is meant to be. Is it “just” about design of buildings, or does it encompass the wider place-making agenda, and if so, what is its relation to planning policy in particular, but also to other areas of related policy such as regeneration or countryside management. How does an architecture policy link to energy conservation and promotion of renewables?

While I am very aware that Aaron Wildavsky famously quipped that “If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing”, a broader base is preferable in my view. If the policy is only about architecture as narrowly defined, and concerned with nuts and bolts issues about registration, procurement etc, then it is only likely to speak to architects. Even as things stand in Scotland, where there has been an architecture policy in existence for a decade or more, it is not an essential reference point for developers or planners, for example.

Given the economic situation, now more than ever an architecture policy needs to address the conservation and management of existing environments. It needs to celebrate creativity certainly, but also to make a case for the mundane and the value of using expertise to increase energy efficiency and find viable new uses for buildings that have become redundant. These are areas where multi-professional working and community engagement could bring some real innovations, and governments have a role in promoting and supporting such initiatives.

There is an obvious risk that high-minded exhortations about the role of design will simply wash over procurement managers or the volume house builders. Given the extent to which they are the agencies shaping new development, an architecture policy needs to confront these realities if it is to have any value. Issues of risk and incentives have to be addressed with new propositions that would begin to change mindsets, and some of these could involve changes to the way that development management currently operates.
Last but not least, a policy needs to spell out how architecture can contribute to preventative spending, using real examples. Then we would have some firm base on which to make the case to other government agencies and departments that design really does matter. In short, an architecture policy needs to be thought through in terms of what it is trying to achieve, who it is directed to, and what levers there are to pull.

Surveys of local businesses in Sweden provide a source of informatin for policy makers

If planning is to become a means of supporting growth and economic recovery, then planners, economic development specialists and others working with Cohesion Funds will need a better understanding of the local business environment and accessibility. A new ESPON report includes a description of indicators that are used in Sweden to monitor these concerns, and inform local policy and practice.

Monitoring the local business climate

The Foretagsklimat index combines national and local data to give a picture of the business climate in each Swedish municipality. The results are published openly on the web site of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Naringsliv). Some of the data that goes into building the index comes from the Swedish National Statistics Institute. Statistics that are used are: earned household income (from the private sector), local municipal tax rates, the share of local municipal budgeted activities that are outsourced to private organisations, the employment rate, the share of private sector employers per 1000 inhabitants, and the proportion of new business starts that succeeded in the past year.
This information is then supplemented with the local findings from an annual national survey of employers, which asks about local infrastructure, labour force skills, public services, application of laws and regulations, attitudes towards business and private sector competition.

Findings are weighted and combined into an index – a score for each municipality. The details are less important than the general approach, which is to recognise the significance of spatial variations in the business climate, and that local businesses are best placed to understand their current situations and prospects, while the municipalities also need this information to build a local strategy for business development. Publishing the results for each municipality makes some form of benchmarking comparison inevitable. Is this the kind of thing that the Local Economic Partnerships in England might find useful?

It is also interesting to find that every two years a survey is done to find out how local politicians see the economic situation of their municipality.

A Regional Accessibility Atlas

Although a region in general may enjoy good accessibility, there can be significant differences between different places within a region and by mode of transport used. Few readers of this blog would be surprised that this is the case. However the Skane Region in the south-west of Sweden has worked with the Swedish statistics agency to produce an Atlas of accessibility within the region. It involves dividing the area into 500×500 meter cells. Accessibility is then measured in 30, 45 and 60 minutes time bands to a range of key facilities and locations – e.g. stations, hospitals, schools and workplaces.

Plans and Cohesion Funds

Use of such data gives a clearer picture of what can often be complex patterns within an administrative area. At a time when austerity measures are reshaping the capacity of local governments in many parts of Europe, better information will be seen by many as an unaffordable indulgence. In fact the reverse is the case. Hard times make it more important to base decisions on evidence.

The new round of EU Cohesion Funds that begins after 2014 will place more emphasis on the Europe 2020 priorities of Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. There is to be a strengthened focus on partnership working, cities and more integrated local development and planning. The more a package of integrated actions can be put together that sits within EU and national priorities but demonstrably meets local needs the better. If places are to move towards recovery and medium term repositioning to become more competitive and inclusive, then we need to look around at the kind of information that can underpin a strategy and shape decisions of politicians and investors. A scoping of how successful and inclusive European economies plan for growth at local and regional level would be an obvious starting point.

Although Oslo is the largest urban centre in Norway, regional policy supports businesses and communities in less favoured regions

“One of Norwegian society’s strengths lies in the fact that we have economic development spread all over the country. This enables us to get the most out of our natural, cultural and human resources, and is how we have laid the foundation of our prosperity and welfare.” This statement opens an official commentary on Rural and Regional Policy published by the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development.  In contrast, as I write this blog, the UK government is announcing a kind of regional policy in reverse: it will take money out of weaker regional economies by holding down the pay of public sector employees working in such regions. So is the left of centre Norwegian government’s regional policy a dinosaur?

The geography

Any regional policy is shaped by geography. Norway has plenty of sparsely populated regions that are remote from Oslo. The distance from the far north to the capital is the same as that from Oslo to Rome. The topography of mountains and fjords exacerbates the challenges. The Oslo conurbation has become one of the most attractive in Europe, with high wages and an exceptional quality of life. It is a magnet for young people.

So far, so consistent with the New Economic Geography that stresses the economic benefits of agglomerations. Nobody could seriously question the significance of the capital to Norway’s economy. The Greater Oslo population is around 1.2 M in a country of just under 5M. However, the Ministry asserts that more centralisation will not mean greater prosperity. Therefore the grants made through regional policy have increased by 55% since 2006.

Investing in regions

Norwegian rural and regional policy supports innovation, entrepreneurship and municipal business development funds. The funds are mainly channelled through elected county and municipal authorities. Activities under the programme include grants and loans to businesses, start-up grants for entrepreneurs, incubators, support for clusters and innovation and also local community development.

The country is divided into four categories for regional aid. The northern most part of Norway gets the most favourable support package. Since 1975 there has been no social security tax on companies there, whereas in Oslo the rate is currently 14.1%.  Residents also have a reduced rate of income tax. Also important is the remission granted for repayment on loans for higher education. Child benefit rates are also more generous in “Action Zone North”; electricity is cheaper there, and the investment tax on new construction is also reduced.

Evaluations have shown that these measures have helped slow depopulation – and, just as important, stem the “brain drain”, thus sustaining skills levels in the workforce.

Institutions to promote growth and innovation

Fundamentally, Norway’s approach combines welfare measures with a business development strategy that has a spatial dimension. For example, one part of the policy is a programme called “Merkur” that seeks to stem the loss of small grocery stores in rural areas. The argument is that such enterprises are vital anchors for the residents: once they close people are more likely to move away. The programme tries to make these stores more attractive, in particular through seeing them as centres for social activity.

SIVA is the Industrial Development Corporation of Norway. It is a small agency that oversees, and channels seed grants and venture funds into, a business parks programme.  Its headquarters are not in Oslo, but in a small town in a rural region. It operates a “Business Gardens” programme that seeks to foster new jobs in knowledge-based industries in rural areas. This is an initiative that has been running for more than a decade, and has built networks connecting small towns outside the capital city region. SIVA was set up in 1968 – a measure of longevity unthinkable for any public agency in the UK! It now has some ownership in 150 companies.

Another important public sector partner in delivery of regional development is Innovation Norway. This has the capacity to connect local knowledge into international networks. There is also a centre for rural development, which has offices in three small peripheral towns.  It actively supports local development initiatives.

Another arm to Norway’s regional policy is a special fund for ventures that seek to make use of natural and cultural resources in a sustainable manner. There is also strong support for training of young entrepreneurs, which begins in the schools. As noted in my recent book, over 9% of Norway’s adult population are involved in early stage entrepreneurial activity – compared with less than 6% in UK. There is also mentoring scheme for young entrepreneurs and a programme that targets entrepreneurship amongst women.

It is also worth noting that while Norway’s flagship cluster programme “Centres of Expertise” does not have a regional dimension, in practice there is a good geographical spread of the 12 centres, with six of them based in towns on the west coast, with one as far north as Bodo that is focused on aquaculture.

Sustaining communities

What we see in Norway is a sophisticated and inclusive approach to regional development. While there are certainly subsidies from the taxpayer to businesses and residents in less favoured regions, there is also acceptance that the cities, and Oslo region in particular, play a crucial role in innovation and development.

This is not an old-style attempt to shift jobs from the centre to the periphery. Rather it is a national policy that seeks to play to the strengths of different places through putting innovation and entrepreneurship at the heart of regional development. However, that does not mean withdrawing public investment so that the private sector is not “crowded out”. Quite the reverse: Norway is increasing its regional policy spend so that profitable new businesses will grow and places far from the capital will still be able to offer residents and immigrants good jobs, while companies will be able to access a skilled labour force.

However, the policy is not just about businesses. It recognises that to have successful businesses in peripheral regions you also need adequate provision of services and open, inclusive communities that can access and share culture and leisure activities. Not surprisingly, this also means that the country councils and municipal councils have a central role in the design and delivery of regional development actions in their areas. Norway is still a very decentralised country with 429 municipal councils, the smallest of which has only 216 residents.

The Barcelona Olympics created new expectations about the role of sports events in regneration. Photo courtesy of Tom Bendall.

There is global competition to attract high profile sports events, most notably the football World Cup and the Olympics. This has hyped the development proposals of the bidders. As the scale of the specifications has increased, so has the investment and the development impact in the host cities. With this has come a concern to demonstrate sustainability (in its mutable guises) and legacy. Experience shows that viable uses for stadia once the main show is over are often anti-climactic, if not downright problematic. To give an example, the SuperDome, a 21,000 seat venue built for the basketball and gymnastics at the Sydney Olympics went into receivership in 2004 (leaving the taxpayers with the bills) before re-opening in 2009 as a conference and events centre. Don’t even begin to ponder how the 1.5 million people of Qatar will use the stadia from the 2022 World Cup.

All of this means that planning and design have come to play an increasing role in bidding for and delivering these 21st century global circuses. Professional skills are showcased, and investment is injected into the built environment of places on a scale that would not otherwise be possible. In this process huge areas of cities can be transformed in terms of their land uses, imagery, residents and functions. There are jobs in the construction phase, while service jobs gain a boost during the main event itself. Other post-event benefits are less tangible and harder to demonstrate, but usually relate to a boost to tourism and the capacity to host other similar, but less significant events in the future, along with an improved transport system.

Displacement and opposition

Set against these benefits are the cries of the dispossessed. This week the New York Times carries a report on opposition from slum dwellers to developments for the 2016 Olympics. The plan to create “a new piece of the city” in Rio de Janeiro means demolition of a long-established area of informal housing that is home to 4,000 people. The article has triggered some feisty comments for and against the scheme and the right of the poor to occupy land for which they have no legal right.
The issue of displacement by sporting events was reviewed in an issue of Planning Theory and Practice a couple of years back. Libby Porter from Glasgow University was critical of the failure of the planning profession to really grasp just what displacement means to those on the receiving end. The journal then carried short pieces about the experience of residents forced to move by the London Olympics, the Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014 and the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. As Porter wrote, they are accounts of “what it feels like to be on the receiving end… human stories of loss, marginalisation and injustice”. Beyond those directly affected there is usually a reduction in the stock of affordable housing.

It was a similar story at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi. The politicians saw the Games as an opportunity to present New Delhi to the world as “a world-class city”. However, this involved extensive slum clearance, with residents being either relocated to new housing far away, or simply left to find another plot somewhere else.

A personal note

I remember that about 10 years ago I was invited to be a member of the jury for the design of the Olympic yachting venue at Qingdao in China. When we arrived we were taken on a site visit, which included a walk around what was then a working shipyard. I asked the officials what was to happen to the shipyard, the workers and their families and was told they were all being relocated to another site along the coast. “What if they don’t want to go?” I asked, only to be reassured that they would all move.
So was I complicit in the forced displacement of low income households and businesses to make way for a mega sporting event? Yes, I guess I was. Similarly, all those years ago I worked as a planner on the comprehensive redevelopment of Glasgow. Then much later in my career I was part of a research team that researched “low demand housing and unpopular neighbourhoods” for what I think was then the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. We argued that in some situations demolition would be necessary. I still see powers of compulsory purchase – or as the Americans call it “eminent domain” – as a necessary tool of urban planning. I discussed the issue at greater length in a recent book.

The right to the city

So how do you square the circle between the rights of residents and the wider public interest when it comes to the use of land for slums of “higher end” uses? It’s not easy but here are a few propositions. Firstly, the “public interest” case needs to be carefully scrutinised: what interests are defining “the public interest” and what do they stand to gain from it? Private gain from which the original residents are excluded should not be equated with the public interest.
We need to look beyond a utilitarian view of the public interest, a totting up of costs and benefits. Instead the discussion needs to recognise what has come to be known as “the right to the city”. This means amongst other things that the poor and landless have a right to be in the city and to have access to the facilities and advantages that cities can offer. Any relocation needs to be negotiated and equitable, even where those people do not have formal title to land, as is often the case in rapidly urbanising societies.

Furthermore, I would endorse the points that Porter made. Beware a planning process that treats citizens as if they were invisible. She wrote of “the ethos that the poor, homeless and marginalised are simply objects to be removed.” In contrast she argues that planners should see such people as “citizens who matter. They deserve respect for their homes, livelihoods and wellbeing, and to be treated with dignity and care.”

A top-down tradition

Japanese planning was seen as a means of creating functional modern cities to catch up with the West. The system has been top-down and technocratic, focused only on the physical aspects of development. It has been described as “authoritarian”, very hierarchical, and dominated by central government. Statutory plans are quite rigid and detailed. Administration of regulations was the means to achieve these ends.

Machizukuri began in the 1960s as a protest against this type of planning. It literally translates as “town building” but carries the nuance of community planning and design. In the 1960s environmental legislation was weak and there were protests against pollution and new development. In response, local authorities began to create stronger planning guidelines.

A new localism

During the 1990s the Japanese economy was depressed. In that period Machizukuri morphed into a more general system of local governance. There was a notable upsurge in local citizens’ movements which seek to enhance their local environments. John Friedmann, the distinguished US planning academic, says that while Machizukuri is “not a precise term and has multiple and contested meanings. What is beyond dispute is its importance for the ways Japanese cities are being governed today, no longer exclusively at a distance from central ministries, but more frequently through the synergies of local effort.”

Professor Yukio Nishimura from the University of Tokyo has commented how Machizukuri developed in an experimental way with public and private sector co-operation at local level for projects like the creation of new “vest-pocket parks”, conservation of historic houses and even the drafting of local master plans.

As the on-going economic depression debilitated local and central government, local communities came to play an ever more significant role. The result is summarised by the professor as follows: “The question has been changed from how to make the local community participate in planning process to how to enable the local community to become major actor to play a central role for the community business. Machizukuri, therefore, has become a burning issue for planning.”

Legislation

Legislation in 2000 gave local governments new planning powers. Nishimura says this amounted to “an end of hierarchical to-down planning system in japan for the first time.” Further legislation in 2003 allowed non-profit organisations to participate in the management of public assets. This further strengthened the Machizukuri system.

However, others are not so sure that that the centralised nature of Japanese planning has been superceded. Dr.Kuniko Shibata pointed to cases where attempts by local authorities to set more stringent standards than in national legislation had been overruled by the courts. She commented “it seems all but impossible for local planning authorities to use legally binding planning tools to ensure that land-use is in line with local interests.”

Voluntary agreements, weak consultation

Local bodies have used voluntary development agreements. These request developers to contribute towards the costs of public facilities such as schools and nurseries; or to provide roads and parks, for example. However, these agreements are not part of the planning legislation and can be challenged through the courts. Rulings indicate that “the practice has been interpreted as only acceptable as far as local authorities ask developers for ‘voluntary cooperation’”.

Furthermore Japan’s courts do not recognise amenity and environment as legitimate concerns in planning decisions. The public interest is only conceived in national terms. Dr.Shibata summed up the situation as follows: “public administrations in Japan are not obliged to inform and consult citizens about proposed plans, nor do local ordinances and guidance have adequate enforcement power to make developers comply with controls.”

Conclusion

Japan has seen a significant rise in a form of localism. This can take different forms but has a strong focus on developing co-operation between public and private sectors to deliver local environmental improvements. John Friedmann sites this as an example of how “places can be ‘taken back’ neighborhood by neighborhood, through collaborative people-centered planning.” However, it appears that central government remains the key player in the statutory planning system in Japan, and that the courts still uphold this national supremacy. Thus, to succeed in practice, Japanese localism depends on voluntary agreements with developers.

First the bad news
With a few honourable exceptions, the economic crisis has drained what little willpower existed amongst the governments of the rich countries to tackle environmental degradation, poverty and climate change. Europe, that at least made some of the right noises in the past, is now engrossed in austerity policies that are nominally aimed at debt reduction, yet which (as Keynes knew long ago) actually produce greater debts. The Greek economy is now in its fifth year of decline.

Canada has declined to renew its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol for 2013-17. Their government talks of the need to “balance” environment with jobs and economic growth, and to align their climate change policies with those of the USA. Meanwhile, in the USA itself, the Republican Party has decided that Agenda 21 from Rio 192 is “insidious” and “destructive”, while Tea Party activists now realise what none of us had previously suspected – that bike lanes, public transport and urban open space are part of a UN plot. A Fox News commentator has also revealed that there is “a U.N. plan called Agenda 21, where a centralized planning agency would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives.”

Many will dismiss such talk as the ravings of a fringe disconnected with reality. However, this would be to overlook the role being played by powerful and immensely wealthy lobby groups in attempting to shape public opinion. Fox News, for example can command resources and attention on a scale beyond many nation states.

Furthermore, it’s not just the economy that has changed since 1992, national politics has also been remodelled along consumerist lines, as parties and their pollsters compete for the votes of the middle ground. OK, I admit that this does not seem to be the case with the Republicans in the US just now, but in general fewer and fewer national politicians are willing to stick their necks out for causes that may prove unpopular in the short term with middle income voters. Green dressing may be permitted, even desired, but don’t expect any substance. David Cameron, those huskies, and his bicycle ride seem a long time ago.

Plan Verde

In contrast, across Latin America, the mayors of big cities are powerful figures whose politics more are tuned to their local residents and the state of their city. As a generalisation they tend to be left of centre, attracted to public involvement, and prepared to make exactly the local/global connections at the core of Agenda 21. Other examples are for another time: let’s look at Mexico City, because it is widely recognised to be a leader.

By the 1990s the city’s environmental problems were causing increasing concern. Air pollution was bad: more often than not it was not possible to see the famous Popocateptl and Iztacicihuatl volcanoes from the city. Growth and sprawl were adding to the problems: water supply became an issue. at 2300 meters and surrounded by mountains water has to be pumped in.

Mayor Marcelo Ebrard introduced his Plan Verde (“Green Plan” – I got A level Spanish in 1962!) in 2007. It’s a 15 year strategy with $1 billion-per-year investment to develop new transport, water, waste, land conservation and alternative energy programs for the city. Climate change is a central concern, and a $5.4 billion Climate Action Program aims to reduce the city’s carbon dioxide emissions by 7 million tons—about 12 %—from 2008 to 2012.

Other Plan Verde initiatives include urban gardens and compost piles for 15 middle-class apartment complexes. Collection centres are planned where residents can sort, clean and resell recyclable materials to local industries. A staggering 59 per cent of the total land area of the Federal District of Mexico City is designated a conservation area. However, there has long been a problem with illegal development, logging and fires, In response, the City has created a special police unit of 1,500 officers to enforce environmental regulations in the land conservation areas.

The Climate Action Program

There are five key areas of focus in the Climate Action Program – transport, water, energy, waste and adaptation. Thus, as part of a “Travel by Bike” initiative 300 kms of bike routes are being created in “corridors for non-motorized transport”. There are also nine bus rapid transport corridors with 200km of restricted lanes. Traditional taxis are being replaced by electric cars to cut emissions. A new 16.5 mile subway line is due to open in April. In the waste sector there is an ambitious project to capture biogas from a landfill site.

These are mitigation actions: however, adaptation is also built into the programme. For example, one notable element is work on urban ravines to reduce the impacts of heavy rain. This is likely to benefit vulnerable low income groups who live in such locations. There is also reforestation and soil conservation on the urban fringe.

Implementation Gap?

While the programme is not yet complete, some critical voices are being raised. José Luis Lezama, director of the Center for Demographic, Urban and Environmental Studies (CEDUA) at El Colegio de México, says that not all the projects are being put into practice. He also notes that much of the Climate Action Program is focused on mitigating the effects of global warming, rather than help higher-risk populations, such as lower-income families displaced by heavy flooding in outlying neighborhoods, adjust to the effects of climate change.

Deep inequalities persist. People live on landfill sites, and some poor areas of the city can receive a water supply on only 4 days a week. The mayor has conceded that there are difficulties. He is quoted as saying that “Many Mexican cities grew in a disorderly fashion, and so, even if you wanted to do things now, you have to first solve previously created problems. You have to dedicate time and resources to fix these issues…and that delays the delivery of good [climate] projects.” That’s the thing about planning: you don’t realise you need it until you see the problems created by unplanned development.