‘Deep engagement’ and urban regeneration: tea, trust, and the quest for co-design at precinct scale

Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

‘Deep engagement’ and urban regeneration: tea, trust, and the quest for co-design at precinct scale Stephen Glackin a,∗ , Maria Rita Dionisio b a Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, EW (Engineering West) Building, PO Box 218 Hawthorn, 3122 Melbourne, Australia b University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 10 June 2015 Received in revised form 21 December 2015 Accepted 5 January 2016 Keywords: Community engagement Urban redevelopment Regeneration Precinct scale Greyfields

a b s t r a c t This research paper focuses a new methodology for community engagement: ‘deep engagement’, comprising a range of formal and colloquial actions to support community engagement in urban regeneration, and examine the responses of communities to redevelopment. The conceptualisation of ‘deep engagement’ emerged from ‘deep play’ (Geertz, 1973), arguing that our role, as researchers, is to endeavour to access to community perspectives-towards socially sustainable redevelopment. For this, ‘deep engagement’ comprises nurturing dependability among involved communities, to better embed socio-cultural diversities and local know-how in the processes of urban regeneration. This paper presents two case studies in Victoria (Australia), where the proposed methodology was tested in mid-suburban regeneration, at precinct scale. In result, ‘deep engagement’ clarified the diversity of community concerns towards urban redevelopment. Additionally, this research demonstrates the importance of developing ‘deep engagement’ methodologies, integrating casual actions with communities, to enable the identification of opportunities for urban regeneration, and to encompass the diversity of socio-cultural needs at local scale. ‘Deep engagement’ can support a better embededness of local know-how in urban design, planning processes, enhancing the quality of regeneration outcomes while reinforcing the participation of communities in the processes of decision-making. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Globally, Increasing urbanisation is forcing planners to think creatively about how to solve issues related to urban sprawl, densification and infrastructural supply. With individual private ownership comprising the vast majority of urban land, questions arise about how to acquire the space necessary for increased densification and the optimised infrastructural retrofitting of existing residential areas. Though a legally available option, compulsory acquisition is a rarely used and politically dangerous option. It is therefore necessary to being exploring methods that engage with private landowners to find solutions that can, cumulatively, and from a grass roots level, begin to address metropolitan scale issues. This paper presents research into this arena, illustrating how, what will be referred as “deep engagement”, can be used to develop

∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +61 9 9819 5349. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Glackin), [email protected] (M.R. Dionisio). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.001 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

mutually beneficial redevelopment solutions for landowners, local residents and governments. Population and urbanisation are increasing globally (OECD, 2012), placing considerable pressure on cities to accommodate new housing demands (UN Habitat, 2003). In previous decades, suburbanisation was the typical response, but the recent awareness on the disadvantages of urban sprawl (Trubka et al., 2010a; Trubka et al., 2010b; Trubka et al., 2010c) has illustrated the need for the densification of already established residential land (Landis et al., 2006; McConnell and Wiley, 2010; Murray et al., 2011; Phan et al., 2008; SGS, 2011). Designated ‘infill’, this process refers to the replacement of existing housing stock with new types of (typically denser) housing. The two main models of infill are ‘lot-by-lot’ and ‘brownfield’, referring to single lot redevelopments and utilising former-industrial land for residential use, respectively. The benefits of brownfield projects are broadly related to their size and feasibility; industrial land is generally large, under single ownership and allows projects of a scale that larger developers are attracted to. This in turn generates economies of scale, allowing the potential of significant sustainable infrastructural investment. The down-side is

364

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

that brownfields are reasonably rare, and infrequently redeveloped in comparison to lot-by-lot infill. Lot-by-lot infill is far more prevalent in contemporary cities (Newton, 2010). Across greater Melbourne, this form of infill produced 65% of new dwellings between 2004-2012 (Newton and Glackin, 2014). Unlike brownfield, lot-by-lot infill comprises smaller land parcels, each with separate ownership, so acquiring sites of strategic scale requires developing consensus amongst landowners (Newton, 2010; Newton and Glackin, 2014; Newton et al., 2012). Additionally, regeneration typically breeds community resistance, resulting in building permits being refused or delayed, adding significant costs to redevelopment. These challenges have largely prevented state and local governments from strategically engaging in this area, which, given its scale, and opportunity to significantly improve the quality of urban form, is problematic. However, current practise (Glackin and Newton, 2015) indicates that through effectively engaging with community and key stakeholders, effective narratives can be developed so as to actually encourage urban regeneration, particularly through utilising the concept of ‘precinct’ regeneration. Precinct regeneration involves land amalgamation (Fig. 1), which guarantees a larger scale of residential redevelopment and which can arguably sustain the basis for a strategic regeneration; allowing state and local governments the opportunity to: • Achieve greater densities, through the construction of denser housing typologies. • Provide a greater diversity of housing, targeting a wider variety of housing submarkets. • Provide additional urban amenities, such as walkways, parks and services. • Reduce infrastructural redundancy, e.g. construction of driveways, canopy trees, and turning circles. • Implement better stormwater management, through the construction of more permeable surfaces. • Retrofit larger areas with sustainable infrastructure, such as water capture, distributed energy systems, and composting (Newton et al., 2011; Murray et al., 2015). Despite the difficulties, when the benefits of precinct regeneration are taken into account, the opportunities are too significant to be overlooked. Community and stakeholder participation are considered critical condition for this form of sustainable urban regeneration (Glackin, 2013; Newton et al., 2012; Dionisio et al., 2015). The diversity and complexity of factors influencing community participation in response to housing redevelopment (Newton et al., 2011; Newton et al., 2012), established the need for an improved research methodology, aiming to capture qualitative and ‘deep’ information on community values and responses. This article presents ‘deep engagement’ as an applied methodology for community participation in urban regeneration, and the main outcomes of the observations conducted in our research. 1.1. ‘Deep engagement’ background ‘Engagement’ refers to the formalised set of methodologies that grew from the citizen/public participation theories of the late sixties (Arnstein, 1969), the application of these theories to governance (Bergeron, 1977; Fagence, 1977) and problem-solving more broadly (Godbout, 1991; Coit, 1984; Ortecho et al., 1984; Skinner, 1984). In this instance we will be explicitly using ‘engagement’ to address urban redevelopment (see Brody et al., 2003), which, through involving communities, has been shown to overcome significant obstacles and provide far greater levels of success than projects that fail to do so (Godschalk and Mills, 1966; Burke, 1979;

Fainstein and Fainstein, 1985; Day, 1997). While ‘deep’ refers to Geertz (1973) ‘deep play’, or the ethnographic tradition of cultural emersion, for both developing trust within the community and effectively understanding specific cultural motivations from the perspective of the observed culture. Effectively this equates to spending significant time with communities so as not only hear their concerns, but to understand the rationale behind these fear, hopefully placing researchers in a better position to address these concerns and potentially turn them into opportunities. Used together, ‘deep engagement’ attempts to solve problems using public participation, seeking to place the researchers/practitioners within the community, where they can both develop trust as well as develop an understanding of their lived reality regarding the regeneration issue critical to the future of sustainable cities. Public participation (or engagement) has been discussed as fundamental to generate dependability, trust, and assurance towards the implementation of urban policies and the development of social capital (Innes et al., 1994; Innes, 1996; Burby, 2003). Further, Forester (1999), and Moore (1995) expand the debate, arguing that public participation adds important value to plans through the integration of local knowledge and community perspectives. Conversely, public participation guarantees rightful and long-lasting urban planning results, securing the interests of communities and stakeholders more efficiently. In the past four decades, relevant research has been developed in the scope of community engagement. Citizen participation, the conceptual antecessor of community engagement, had its roots in the 50s and broader expansion in the late 60s with the recognition of collaborative citizen participation in decision-making for urban development (Brody et al., 2003). More recently, relevant research has placed focus on the methods and policy frameworks to implement public participation and attain better collaboration outcomes (Brody et al., 2003; Cavaye, 2004; Aulich, 2009; King and Cruickshank, 2012). This latest research has placed emphasis on the need to develop clear methodological frameworks to attain sustainability governance (Hartz-Karp and Newman, 2006) within the processes of decisionmaking in urban planning. Public participation events in Australia and New Zealand are often organised referring to the ‘spectrum of engagement’, as defined by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), where different levels of engagement are considered in relation to distinct objectives. The spectrum comprises five levels of engagement: informing, consulting, involving, collaborating, and empowering (IAP2, 2015). The objective of ‘Informing’ is to keep the public informed of government-led decisions, to grow community’s awareness of problems, solutions, and opportunities. Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum, ‘empowering’ implies that communities have the final decision on a solution to a specific problem; with governmental agencies only responsible for implementation. Thus, different methodologies to implement public participation are available, in relation to different levels of community engagement targeted for the process of decisionmaking. Despite these developments in public participation, sustaining policy frameworks to integrate community engagement with redevelopment, while incorporating achievements from co-design (Sanders and Stappers, 2014; Howard and Somerville, 2014), are still necessary. Similarly, given the multiple complex socio-cultural composition of cities (Zukin, 1996; Sandercock, 2000) methodologies for effectively capturing this diversity of local know-how are lacking (Ameyaw, 2000). It is these factors which the methodology attempts to address. As such, ‘deep engagement’ is a novel methodology for community engagement in the context of urban regeneration that attempts to address these challenges by nurturing the trust, dependability, and empathy of researchers, planners, and designers among the communities involved. The complexity

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

365

Fig. 1. The different models of urban infill: Brownfield, Lot-by-lot, and Greyfield.

of different perspectives in city-making, together with a multiplicity of fears and intercultural dynamics (Sandercock, 2000) comprise challenges that require a significant upgrade of the current modus operandi of community engagement for urban regeneration, especially to operationalise precinct redevelopment. ‘Deep engagement’ aims to develop formal and informal procedures within pre-engagement, engagement, and post-engagement stages, to facilitate the commitment and collaboration of urban communities in the processes of redevelopment at precinct scale.

1.2. Research outline The research objective was to examine community responses to residential redevelopment at precinct scale, and simultaneously analyse the suitability of ‘deep engagement’ to capture the multiplicity of local know-how and socio-cultural diversities to be integrated into the localised urban planning decision-making. A successful engagement would see residents indicate the level or rate of development at which they would oppose it and the acceptable trade-offs for levels greater than this. Taking place in two urban communities in Victoria (Australia), the primary aim was to identify the acceptable and unacceptable levels of urban development, as well as the elements that were open to negotiation. Effectively engagement was focused on exploring the appetite for a variety of precinct-scale regeneration schemes, each of which provided community benefit, to ascertain what trade-offs were palatable and viable for urban redevelopment into the future. Residents would firstly be presented with a number of local precinct designs which they would comment on, followed by a workshop to discuss the specifics of the locale and broadly the opportunities and limitations for regeneration in the area. The level of engagement was two fold. Firstly it was to be a form of inquiry, to determine localised socio-cultural and geographical variants to redevelopment opportunity/resistance, providing information to explain the increase of formal complaints against redevelopment. Secondly it was to work collaboratively to address locale specific issues which may bring forth points for negotiation, providing researchers with the appropriate knowledge to develop local design solutions for mutual benefit and thus reduce resistance to regeneration. The focus on engagement comes from identified bottlenecks to the strategic management of precinct scale residential infill, which requires collaboration with communities (Newton et al., 2012). Therefore, landowners and residents who are active in their community must be part of the decision-making processes and co-design of precinct redevelopment projects. In this process, the key issue is to efficiently articulate the perspectives of local

communities into urban policy, sustaining the importance of accurate and timely data collection.

2. ‘Deep engagement’ methodology Community engagement and public participation have been identified as critical for contemporary governance (Kernaghan, 2009). However it also brings benefits for project implementation, enhancing public acceptance, sense of belonging, and civic pride (Lawson and Kearns, 2010; Jarvis et al., 2012) as well as improving the quality of urban planning projects (McAfee, 2013; Jarvis et al., 2012), all of which has been proved repeatedly (Abbott, 1996; Agger, 2012; Bond and Thompson-Fawcett, 2007; Ghose, 2005; Innes and Booher, 2004). These success have led to all Australian State and local governments developing guidelines on the subject (Department of Communities, 2011; Department of Planning, 2003; Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005; Local Government Association of South Australia, 2008), but regardless, Australian efforts are not yet achieving the success that community engagement is achieving overseas (Kelly, 2010). This is arguably due to the perfunctory methods used to promote public participation, as well as the lack of embededness within local communities, and the lack of efficient communication to report feedback obtained from previous engagement events (Reddel and Woolcock, 2004; Mowbray, 2005), which this paper aims to address. In practice, engagement and participatory associations typically refer to a ladder (Arnstein, 1969) or spectrum of engagement (IAP2, 2015) where different forms of engagement refer to distinct aims, ranging broadly from informing, consulting, involving, collaborating, to empowering communities. Given that the greater project is to use existing land to redevelop sustainable urban precincts, the land owners and community members are already empowered; landowners can withhold their land and the community can resist development—both of which will stifle the project. As such the aim was to work ‘collaboratively’ with these groups; using the engagements to examine how all parties could benefit from urban regeneration. To encapsulate the diversity of socio-demographic contexts that may influence community response to residential redevelopment, as well as develop appropriate built environment responses, two areas with distinct socio-demographic profiles were selected. The first (North area) represented a low socio-demographic suburb with high levels of mixed ethnicity, reasonable public transport accessibility, but poor access to shops and amenities. In this neighbourhood, median house prices were low and public space was largely underutilised. Conversely, the second neighbourhood

366

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

(South Area) had better public transport accessibility, high sociodemographics with high median house prices and well serviced utilities and open space. The activities comprised of two workshops where redevelopment scenarios would be considered and the opportunities for regeneration discussed and ranked. Inclusion of an architecture school in the project provided significant resources to both perform pre-engagement work with locals (to explore built environment and opportunities) and draft detailed regeneration scenarios that, for example, utilised local parks, provided additional walkways and used local existing degraded amenities. Each redevelopment scenario focused the utilisation and revitalisation of some aspect of the existing built environment, while striving for novelty in land use solutions, such as off-site parking, diversity of dwelling typologies, and shared communal spaces. Broadly, the workshops aimed to obtain information on the thresholds of community response to urban regeneration (limits to urban density, neighbourhood change, parking restrictions) and how novel urban design could mitigate negative response from communities. The preparation for the engagement events required significant pre-engagement work, not only to guarantee turnout, but to encourage attendees to collaborate, rather than taking the opportunity to be adversarial. This process required research into the existing social networks and organisations operating in the areas, after which significant time was spent with these groups; not only educating communities as to the project, but more so simply socialising with them, so as to begin understanding local issues and perspectives. While this level of interaction is critical for deep engagement, on its own it does not have the methodological rigour to produce results. In combination with social network analysis and pre-engagement work, other facts, such as developing artefacts to prompt discussion, and data capture methods must be formalised. These will all be expanded on in the following sections. 2.1. Prototypes and artefacts: urban design exemplars as generative and discursive tools A generative artefact is an object that stimulates debate towards the creation of a specific product. Applied in a variety of design led research methodologies, such as co-design (Bratteteig and Wagner, 2012; Sanders and Stappers, 2014; Visser et al., 2005), and AGILE software development (Beck et al., 2001), the concepts of generative artefacts and prototypes are used to encourage discussion and to create products that are well accepted by end-users (Sanders and Stappers, 2014). There are several advantages of applying generative artefacts in the process of collaboration with communities. Firstly, generative artefacts allow clearer visualisation, which is critical to enable a well-focused debate. Secondly, these tools also allow the report of measurable variables which is critical for the establishment of standards to moderate debates. Moreover, well-designed prototypes of urban design should enable broad information collection, through including the range of variables to be assessed within them. Good prototypes increase clarity of the terms being debated, by allowing attendees to directly visualise them. Additionally, well developed prototypes reduce unpredictability by providing limits to what can be discussed in a community engagement session. Finally, prototypes demonstrate engagement from participating researchers and designers, which can help to generate reciprocal responses from community participants. This last point is often overlooked, and many times community engagement participants show up to empty rooms, are asked to respond to surveys, compromising the quality of the outcomes. Conversely, a prototype provides the participants with a tangible object which limits scope, shows forethought and can be iterated for the development of final urban design projects, agreed upon with the communities.

Due to the specific data requirements of the research, the generative artefacts in our research consist of urban design projects at a precinct scale. These projects of urban design integrated features of the existing built environment, to provide context; but also to improve the urban quality of these areas while exploring the thresholds of redevelopment innovation, focusing urban density, parking, shared open public space, and other critical redevelopment issues. Two examples of urban design projects, used as generative artefacts, illustrate a regeneration scenario focused on ‘local shops’ (Fig. 2), and a regeneration scenario focused on ‘the park fringe’ (Fig. 3). 2.2. Existing community networks: exploring what’s already there Community development, as a discourse for social equity, was developed largely through the lack of funding to support disenfranchised communities (Hester, 1987; Hester, 1999; Francis, 1999; Juarez and Brown, 2008; Sanoff, 2008). As a result, many communities developed informal capabilities to access and utilise resources already existing (Eversole, 2012; King and Cruickshank, 2012; Sampson, 1999). Given that every community comprises its own social networks, centres of community congregation, and established cultural norms (as community assets), it is efficient to access these socio-cultural mechanisms for communication and service provision, instead of attempting to establish new ones. Thus, methodologies of community engagement should integrate access to such resources, as well as reinforcing community capability to identify, access, and use different types of resources that may already be available to the community. Of course there will be instances where the existing networks largely disempower aspects of the community, as such researchers need to balance ethics and efficiency (Gilchrist, 2009: p146) by making judgement calls on over or under representation of specific groups. As applied to this project, researchers identified community organisations, and gained access to existing social networks by establishing contact with them. This was a critical step in our research to enable the broadcasting of project information. No social housing organisation existed in South Area, so specific attention was paid to acquiring local social housing residents. Moreover, the access and use of existing community relationships allowed researchers to gain deeper understanding of local issues, increase trust and raise awareness of local cultural norms (for example see Ha, 2001; Jarvis et al., 2012; Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2010). The non-integration of community organisations and community leaders in engagement actions presents many risks to the quality of engagement outcomes. The results may show poor local context, poor narrative, an unreceptive audience or low attendance, as occurred in our engagement case of the South Area. 2.3. Data capture: its necessity and its implications Decisions regarding data capture are central in establishing the format of the community engagement events, as the requirements of the engagement outputs should largely dictate its form. This is not to suggest a top-down, or overly bureaucratic approach, but to ensure that the engagement has effect. Engagement processes can be time and resource intensive, and organisations who are investing these resources, as well as community members who are investing time and energy in the process, should gain benefit from it. Therefore it is critical that researchers know what data is required, what form of data will best suit the research and how this data will be used prior to going into the field. In other words the outcomes of the engagement should fill a gap in existing research, and researchers should know what that gap is and what is needed to fill it. So, without shutting down a potentially informative discussion, or overly regulating the debate, the rationale behind hosting engagements

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

367

Fig. 2. Exemplar of generative artefacts: urban design project based on a regeneration scenario focusing ‘local-shops’ (Murray et al., 2015).

should at least guide the format of the event. This presumes of course that researchers are well provisioned to ask the right questions and have done the necessary field work/research beforehand, which further supports significant pre-engagement work, covered below. Ideally data should be captured in quantitative and qualitative forms. The combination of quantitative and qualitative provides a better context to define the analysis, and for interpretation of outputs. Similarly, it is also critical to collect data from individuals and the group collectively, as this can vary significantly and provide insight into the community perception of the issue as opposed to the individual perception. Current methodologies relying exclusively on post-engagement surveys indicate a lack of expertise in this field. Moreover, there is a general lack of awareness regarding the variety of resources already available, much of

which can provide far more enlightening information than surveys. The International Association for Public Participation provides significant information on data capturing techniques (IAP2, 2015) and many methods exist for example (Strauss and Corbin, 1988; Ely et al., 1991; Silverman, 2000; Denzin and Lincoln, 2003), which can improve significantly the quality of data obtained in engagement meetings. As an example, given that the research engagement aimed to examine community reactions, it was critical to capture data on specific design responses and redevelopment ‘tipping points’ (when redevelopment becomes problematic). It was also relevant to enquire as to the acceptance levels of specific urban regeneration features in the artefacts. Despite the need to obtain this data, it was equally relevant to establish an environment for collaborative work.

368

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

Fig. 3. Exemplar of generative artefacts: urban design project based on a regeneration scenario focusing the park fringe area (Murray et al., 2015).

These data requirements determined that the engagement events would attain optimal outcomes if conducted as a workshop in each locale. The workshops comprised of a brief introduction, an individual review of each project review and a group discussion, finishing with surveys to capture quantitative data. In addition to pre-engagement work used to determine regeneration opportunities in each locale (to create the generative artefacts or prototypes), the data capture required four specific instruments: 1. Written individual responses to each urban design project. This data capture instrument allowed both the capture of qualitative and quantitative data on individual perspectives. 2. Recording of the group discussion for qualitative review of collective perspectives and context. 3. Survey data asking participants to choose a set of “top 5” redevelopment issues (both most preferred and most disliked) to

quantify the relevance of a number of regeneration issues (e.g. urban density, local amenities, parking restrictions) within the community concerns. This data capture instrument enabled the capture of quantitative data on individual perspectives. 4. Post engagement interviews with designers and facilitators were also critical to validate the data collected during the workshops, and obtain information on conversations and opinions of participants throughout the events. This comprised of qualitative data, on individual perspectives and was also used for data validation.

These four data capture points provide qualitative and quantitative data, from individual and group perspectives and on broad issues/opportunities as well as the individual issue explored in each artefact and ensure that all aspects of the engagement have significant and relevant outputs.

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

2.4. Pre-engagement, immersion and workshop preparations Community immersion is critical to deep engagement; as it is this which largely defines the quality of responses and data, as well as the relevance of generative artefacts. In complex urban environments, the composition of community (Delanty, 2003), as well as where best to obtain information from, have been open to significant debate; which largely centres on the most effective form of representation. Concepts such as random, systematic and stratified polling (Crano et al., 2015), sortation (Dowlen, 2009), and deliberative democracy (Carson, 2011) all speak to these methodologies. However, given that this project was largely based on the ‘community development’ philosophy of utilising what already exists locally, community group were chosen as the most effective spaces for initial immersion. This simultaneously addressed issues of ‘convenience’ (community groups are pre-established), ‘transferability’ (they can be found in all urban environments) and ‘judgement’ (researchers can focus on the groups they deep most pertinent to the research question) (Marshall, 1996). Initial areas of immersion should therefore flow from a review of the existing community networks. Once the territory has been socially mapped researchers should begin a process of finding where, when and how often these groups meet. Interaction should begin with these groups at least one month prior to planned events, or so that researches can experience at least two meetings with each group, the first as a presentation, the second to answer questions, socialise and build trust. Simultaneously, locals should be asked about the issue so that relevant artefacts can be generated for any discussion. Finally, local business and community centres should be approached to acquire workshop space or to put up posters. These events will quickly place researchers at the heart of the community where they will, first-hand, learn of most issues and opportunities prior to the planned engagement activities. With regard to the undertaken urban precinct research, due to its secondary aim, of developing and testing community engagement procedures, immersion was only undertaken in one of the two areas. The following will show the difference in outcomes. In North Area, the municipal government was contacted regarding the project and asked to provide information on social and community groups operating locally. This activity provided a number of housing organisations, a progress group, a community house and other local organisations which were contacted. Researchers presented to these groups (if appropriate), advertised the forthcoming events and inquired of other groups operating locally. This resulted in some 20 short presentations combined with followup attendances and informal meetings with locals. Simultaneously local business and community organisations were asked to provide space for the workshop. This resulted in the acquisition of the local rugby club for one week. As a note, this space had no pedestrian or drive-by traffic and was on the periphery of the municipality, however still performed better than the well-provisioned site of the second area; which, as will be covered below, highlights the importance of significant pre-workshop engagement. Designers also began integrating themselves into the community, observing areas of high and low amenity, as well as speaking to locals regarding the opportunities for increasing amenity in the locale. Designers worked in situ (at the rugby club) for one week prior to the workshop, developing precinct scenarios for a number of conditions, including the park side, revitalisation of old shops, reactivation of abandoned parkland, regenerating public transport areas, offsite parking spaces, and additional walkability (see Murray et al., 2015). In South Area, a shopfront in the centre of a local shopping village, effectively the heart of community, was rented. This had significant pedestrian and drive-by traffic and designers could be seen working in-situ for the week before the event. Community groups

369

were not approached. Instead flyers were printed and inserted into two local newspapers as well as through letter box drops. Designers however engaged the locals regarding redevelopment opportunities, which largely focused on acquiring information about problematic spaces locally, as well as cataloguing areas lacking amenity: such as precincts of aged, under-performing dwellings, lack of quality open space, low walkability scores, lack of services and so forth. Due to a vastly reduced amount of pre-engagement work, this engagement would largely rely on advertising material and the high volume of foot-traffic past the working space to attract attendees. As with North Area, designers developed precinct scale regeneration scenarios based on novel use of existing space, or regenerating underutilised space. Each workshop was run over two hours, comprising three stages. Each stage corresponded to a specific data capture instrument. The first stage included the analysis and discussion of the urban design projects (generative artefacts/prototypes), in which eight urban design projects were developed to enhance the debate in each area. In this stage, participants were also asked to provide feedback on each urban design project, with comments written onto sticky note paper. The second stage comprised a collective debate around a model of the area, which contained all the urban design projects in their corresponding location. This discussion was recorded and aimed to highlight collective consensus around the location and appropriateness of each design feature. The final stage included a survey in which the participants were asked to rank their concerns and visions for the area in a ‘top 5’ ranking scale. Following each workshop, the designers and research team discussed the details of the urban design projects considering the feedback received from the community. In these debates, it was also critical to analyse the community interpretation of each urban design project, their acceptance for development, and the implications for local regeneration as captured throughout the workshops.

3. Engagement outcomes Instead of highlighting concerns usually publicized by the press, such as parking, congestion, and the erosion of neighbourhood character, the concerns of the community were far more locale specific and more negotiable than initially expected. As will be presented, the outcomes of the workshops largely reflected that residents were willing to consider significant redevelopment if tackled intelligently and if the community received some form of contextually appropriate benefit.

3.1. North Area The participants of engagement workshop held in the North Area were predominately from the community groups that had been engaged before the event, and were therefore well-placed in relation to the workshop objectives; providing significant commentary on the urban design projects. Every efforts was made to obtain a representative sample from the community, resulting in pre-engagement work with local youth groups, school organisations, progress societies, resident associations, ethnic groups, sporting organisations and aged care facilities. Specific attention was placed on ensuring good representation across age, gender, income brackets, and ethnicity. Though representative coverage cannot be fully achieved, local government officers indicated that the turnout for this event adequately defined the socio-cultural demographic profile of the area, and, due to having attracted many of those who were openly vocal on the topic of redevelopment, had successfully captured a representative sample. Furthermore, bias was also addressed through the data capture methods (below),

370

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

which were implemented as much to prevent conversational domination as to acquire information. The three data capture instruments (written comments, recorded open debate and ‘top 5’ development issues) conducted during the event, combined with the individual post-engagement interviews, provided the following information. The key issue in this area related to the lack of urban amenities and services. Although the area comprises significant amount of open space and commercial activities close to it, the residential area itself was poorly serviced. Residents noted that while they liked living in the area, they felt as if they had been ignored by the surrounding suburbs and felt cut off from activities occurring immediately adjacent to them. Increased heights, alternative planning schemes, and the increase of parking and housing density were not considered problematic, particularly if these features could enhance community access to additional services and amenities (a full overview of the engagement, including the style and details on pratice can be found in Murray et al., 2015) Should a precinct plan for this area be considered, the plan would gain relevance, and potentially community support, by providing places to meet or stop en-route and connecting the residential area to existing services. Similarly, the resulting effects of population increase in the area due to the increase of urban density were balanced with the possibility of activating the area. This was a particularly favourable trade-off in areas that may constitute a new centre of community life, such as sporting areas, parks, abandoned shops and medical/civic centres. The favourability of these sites was related with the strong desire for a localised sense of place, which could potentially articulate existing (though neglected) locations as a basis for place-making and urban reactivation scenarios. In the perspective of the community, this positive trade-off was also related to the desire to avoid the degradation of the existing urban fabric. Instead, residents wanted to preserve the existing character and enhancing its features, through integration of the locales existing form and proposed future form. In relation to demographic changes, the community had concerns regarding gentrification and exclusion from the regenerative process. However, the benefits of urban regeneration were also considered preferable in relation to the deterioration of the area, particularly if the local community was allowed to provide input into the regeneration projects. Safety was also relevant on the community agenda, in which better walkability, more urban activities, and passive surveillance were seen as potential solutions. The key community concerns regarding public space, access to transport and services, safety, and community amenities were far more relevant than parking, traffic congestion or building height limits. In short, the majority of regeneration schemes presented to locals were seen as appropriate and viable, when considering better access to local services and amenities, walkable destinations, reactivation of areas through the increase of urban density, and the increase of passive surveillance. 3.2. South Area The most noticeable aspect of this workshop was the reduced number or participants and the lack of awareness on the project’s rationale amongst attendees. The lack of pre-engagement work before the engagement workshop resulted in attendees being far less aware of the nuances of the research and was arguably a product of the friction occurring early in the event. Deprived of pre-engagement procedures, the community responses in the South Area were initially limited and the participants were initially less cooperative in providing feedback during the event. However, despite the lower attendance, attendees largely defined the socio-demographic makeup of the locale (evenly mixed gender, reasonably even age distribution, lower, middle and upper-middle

class Australians, social housing representatives, homeowners and renters), with attendees publicly voicing that this was the first time they had engaged with such a diverse mix from the locale. Similar to North Area, characteristics of the local geography and socio-demographic mix had a significant impact on the outcomes of the workshop. However, similar issues arose, indicating that ‘typical’ redevelopment issues (i.e. parking, congestion, building heights) were secondary in the concerns of both communities. Participants debated that the area was almost entirely comprised of single story, three bedroom houses and recognised that the lack of housing diversity was a significant negative factor, particularly for younger and elderly demographic groups. Though this feature (homogenised detached dwellings) generated much of the local character, it restricted market opportunities for elder residents to downsize or for young families to start living in the area. So, in response to community concerns regarding medium density housing, the protectionist nature of the local government has largely been responsible for the lack of housing diversity. Regarding amenities and services, the participants claimed that the area was already well provisioned. Conversely, the community identified that existing open spaces are almost exclusively used by sports clubs, claiming the potential to enhance other activities in open spaces. This became a key issue for the community during the workshop; some participants stated that greater provision of communal and civic space would be desirable for non-traditional sporting and civic groups; as cricket and football, both with shrinking attendances, took priority in existing parks. Additionally, one of the urban design proposals included a library, which residents claimed was surplus to demand. Instead, the community argued for rentable office spaces, places to hire for informal social groups, and Information Technology centres that were fitted out for part-time small businesses. These points reflected the needs of relatively privileged socio-demographic groups living in the area, many of whom worked from home. Residential and environmental sustainability were also significant issues for the participants, which may be related to better access to higher education, and higher population literacy in the South Area. Urban design proposals (the generative artefacts) featuring renewable energy, water capture and sustainable building materials were considered favourably. Additionally, the community pointed out that innovative architectural design would indicate higher quality and modernization, which would reflect positively upon the area. Similar to the community in the North Area, which was willing to reactivate existing cultural spaces to generate a sense of place, the community in the South Area was enthusiastic to see redevelopment contribute to the cultural identity of the area, in opposition to ‘typical’ medium-density redevelopment. Contrarily to the North Area, which recognised the reactivation of parkland areas as relevant, there was a strong sense of protectionism for local parks. However, there were some comments about the potential of some parkland for other sports, recreational function and shared space proximate ot redevelopment. The participants were also open to urban design projects featuring green space as corner stones of redevelopment, such as increasing pedestrian walkways connecting parks, privileging environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to parklands, or utilising parkland for open space strategies. The ‘top 5’ redevelopment issues in the South Area were markedly different to the North Area. The main concerns reflected how redevelopment could contribute to the area, as opposed to parking, building height and overshadowing, which were considered largely non-problematic if properly planned (a full overview of the engagement, including the style and details on pratice can be found in Murray et al. 2015)

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

4. Discussion The above illustrates a number of points. Firstly, community concerns are significantly influenced by the day-to-day reality of residents, which will vary per location and demographic makeup. Secondly, to have any meaningful impact on the sustainable redevelopment of cities the assumptions regarding development resistance need to be questioned and communities need to be properly engaged regarding their actual concerns. Thirdly, it is possible to turn ‘development’ into ‘regeneration’ through identifying the needs of the community and how best redevelopment can improve an environment. Finally, without deep engagement (including significant energy being devoted to network mapping, artefact development and pre-engagement work) there is the likelihood that residents may not understand or trust the process and retreat to a reactive and antagonistic position. To bring this back to housing needs, population increase, changes in household size, and the growing unsustainability of Greenfield development is leading to increased pressure to accommodate more dwellings in mid suburban areas (Newton and Meyer, 2010; Newton et al., 2012). The fragmentary modus operandi featuring this type of regeneration processes jeopardises the potential for land use optimisation or the effective retrofitting of sustainable infrastructure. Consequently, it is necessary to develop new methodologies to enhance the potential of precinct regeneration. Community resistance and social tensions in response to urban redevelopment is one of the most challenging areas in the scope of urban regeneration (Lawson and Kearns, 2010; Jarvis et al., 2012; McAfee, 2013). The development of a ‘deep engagement’ methodology, as explored in this paper, demonstrated that communities can be critical collaborative partners in the decision-making and design processes of precinct redevelopment. Similar outcomes can be attained by local governments, urban planning authorities, or other stakeholders involved in regeneration processes, who, through spending significant time with local communities, and identifying opportunities for precinct scale regeneration, can deliver regenerative strategies. However, in order to gain support for the process, and begin to work collaboratively with communities, it is critical to develop a good level of trust through casual and informal pre-engagement interactions. This is the importance of having ‘tea’ (as an allegory for informal socialisation) with community members, as suggested by the article title. Good collaborative work requires colloquial interaction with communities; to reach them, listen to their concerns, and incorporate them as central core of redevelopment processes. As proof, instead of straight opposition, participants of both engagement workshops identified critical, and yet negotiable, issues that required special management in the process of urban redevelopment, such as parking and overshadowing. Participants also suggested that regeneration would be welcome if the features of the surrounding area were incorporated and improved upon or altered to improve contextually appropriate liveability. Davison et al. (2013) argued that the real reason for community objections to affordable housing projects was related to the fear of attracting disruptive social groups; and not issues relating to parking, building heights and overdevelopment, which are often the issues presented to administrative tribunals. Similarly, this research showed that the community concerns regarding redevelopment were not necessarily parking, overdevelopment or building heights. Conversely, the key concerns shown by communities in response to urban redevelopment were related to urban amenities and services, open space, housing diversity, and street life. This ‘deep engagement’ assisted communities in expressing their real concerns associated to urban redevelopment, leveraging the potential of the regeneration outcomes but also reinforcing the community understanding of local aspirations, opportunities, and

371

needs. As pointed by Geertz (1973), communities hold their own perspectives based on daily experiences in their neighbourhoods, and the role of ‘deep engagement’ is to access to these perspectives and incorporate them into shared decision-making and co-design. As examined in this paper, urban design and planning responses must be tempered by location and context. Though residents were open to regeneration, the specifics of urban design were vastly different in each location. The community of the North Area identified the need of place-making, street life reactivation and walkability, while the community in the South Area argued the need for communal spaces, workspaces and new housing submarkets. This indicates that each area has its own local responses to urban redevelopment, and that deeper engagement methodologies are required to embed local collaborative engagement in the processes of urban redevelopment at precinct scale. This is simultaneously beneficial for the quality of urban regeneration choices being made, and to boost a sense of belonging and collaboration among communities involved. Ultimately, such community involvement can be fundamental during and after the implementation of urban projects at precinct scale, triggering better acceptance and management from communities. A ‘deep engagement’ methodology enables the identification of localised opportunities for residential regeneration as well as demonstrating the diversity of regeneration needs and their interdependence with locality. Deep engagement can improve the embededness of local know-how in the design/planning processes, enhancing the quality of regeneration outcomes while reinforcing the engagement of communities. Though this methodology is still in its development stages, it highlights the necessity of multidisciplinary approaches to implement urban regeneration processes, while articulating qualitative and quantitative methods and connecting diverse scopes of social science, engineering, design, and planning. Arguably, it is critical to embed such discourses in the redevelopment narrative while negotiating the trade-offs identified by communities. Without deep engagement, such a narrative is likely to be limited or ineffective and urban land will remain largely locked into the current ineffective lot-by-lot redevelopment cycle. Although these are the outcomes from a single piece of research, this paper presents a methodology to attain improved outcomes from community engagement; enhancing collaboration in the processes of decision-making and design for urban redevelopment. It forms the basis of a working methodology that will continue to evolve as we undertake metropolitan wide engagements on urban regeneration and housing infill into the future.

Acknowledgements This research was carried out and funded on behalf of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). Many thanks to all the team members of ‘Greening the Greyfields’ research project, CRCSI (Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information), Australia. We would also like to express our gratitude for Swinburne University of Technology (Melbourne, Australia), and University of Canterbury (Christchurch, New Zealand).

References Abbott, J., 1996. Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Management. Earthscan, London. Agger, A., 2012. Towards tailor-made participation: how to involve different types of citizens in participatory governance. T. Plan. Rev. 8, 29–45. Ameyaw, S., 2000. Appreciative planning: an approach to planning with diverse ethnic and cultural groups. In: M.B (Ed.), Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society. CT: Praeger, Westport. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 35, 216–224. Aulich, C., 2009. From citizen participation to participatory governance in Australian Local Government. Commonw. J. Local Gov., 44–60.

372

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum Av. et al., 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Available at: http://agilemanifesto.org/. Bergeron, G., 1977. La gouverne politique. Mounton, Paris. Bond, S., Thompson-Fawcett, M., 2007. Public participation and new urbanism: a conflicting agenda. Plan. Theory Pract. 8, 449–472. Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I., 2012. Spaces for participatory creativity. Codesign: Int. J. Co Creat. Des. Arts 8, 105–126. Brody, S.D., Godschalk, D.R., Burby, R.J., 2003. Mandating citizen participation in plan making: six strategic planning choices. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69, 245–264. Burby, R.J., 2003. Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69, 33–49. Burke, E.M., 1979. A Participatory Approach to Urban Planning. Human Science Press, New York. Carson, L., 2011. Dilemmas, disasters and deliberative democracy. Gr. Rev. 32, 38–46. Cavaye, J., 2004. Governance and community engagement—the Australian experience. In: Lovan, W.R., Murray, M., Shaffer, R. (Eds.), Participatory Governance: Planning, Conflict Mediation and Public Decision Making in Civil Society. Ashgate, London, pp. 85–102. Coit, K., 1984. Participation, social movements and social change. Cities 1, 585–591. Crano, W.D., Brewer, M.L., Lac, A., 2015. Principles and Methods of Social Research. Routledge, New York. Day, D., 1997. Citizen participation in the planning process: an essentially contested concept? J. Plan. Lit. 11, 421–434. Davison, G., Legacy, C., Liu, E., et al., 2013. Understanding and Addressing Community Opposition to Affordable Housing Development. AHURI, Melbourne. Delanty, G., 2003. Community. Routledge., London. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., 2003. Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Sage, London, pp. 1–46. Department of Communities, 2011. Engaging Queensland: A guide to Community Engagement Methods and Techniques Brisbane. Queensland Government, Queensland. Department of Planning, 2003. Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System Sydney. NSW Government. Department of Sustainability, Environment, 2005. Effective Engagement: Building Relationships with Community and Other Stakeholders Book 2: The Engagement Planning Workbook. Victorian Government, Melbourne, Victoria. Dionisio, M.R., Kingham, S., Banwell, K., et al., 2015. The potential of geospatial tools for enhancing community engagement in the post-disaster reconstruction of Christ church. In: New Zealand International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction, Chicago. Dowlen, O., 2009. The Political Potential of Sortition. Imprint Academic, Upton Pyne. Eversole, R., 2012. Remaking participation: challenges for community development practice. Community Dev. J. 47, 29–41. Fagence, M., 1977. Citizen Participation in Planning. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Fainstein, N.I., Fainstein, S.S., 1985. Citizen Participation in local government. In: Judd, D.R. (Ed.), Public Policy Across States and Communities. CT: Jai Press, Greenwich, pp. 223–238. Forester, J., 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge. Francis, M., 1999. Proactive practice: Visionary thought and participatory action in environmental design. Places 12, 60–68. Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York. Ghose, R., 2005. The complexities of citizen participation through collagerative governance. Space and Polity 9, 61–75. Gilchrist, A., 2009. The Well-connected Community: A Networking Approach to Community Development. Polity Press, Bristol. Glackin, S., 2013. Redeveloping the greyfields with ENVISION: using participatory support systems to reduce urban sprawl in Australia. Eur. J. Geogr. 3, 6–22. Glackin, S., Newton, P., 2015. Engaging the greyfields: community engagement and co-design in residential redevelopment of public housing. In: Leshinsky, R., Legacy, C. (Eds.), Instruments of Planning: Tensions and Challenges for more Equitable and Sustainable Cities. Routlegde, New York. Godbout J.T., 1991. La participation politique J.T. G Lec¸ons des dernières décennies. Montréal: Institut Québécois de recherché sur la culture. Godschalk, D.R., Mills, W., 1966. A collaborative approach to planning through urban activities. J. Am. Inst. Plan., 86–95. Ha, S.-K., 2001. Developing a community-based approach to urban redevelopment. GeoJournal 53, 39–45. Hartz-Karp, J., Newman, P., 2006. The participative route to sustainability. In: Paulin, S. (Ed.), Community Voices: Creating sustainable spaces. University of Western Australia Press, Perth,Western Australia, pp. 28–42. Hester, R.T., 1987. Participatory design and envrionemtnal justice: pas de deux or time to change partners? J. Archit. Plann. Res. 4, 289–300. Hester, R.T., 1999. Community design today: from the inside out. Landsc. J. 8, 128–137. Howard, Z., Somerville, M.M., 2014. A comparative study of two design charrettes: implications for codesign and participatory action research. Codesign: Int. J. CoCreation Des. Arts 10, 46–62. IAP2, 2015. IAP2 official website. Available at: http://www.iap2.org.au/. Innes, J.E., Gruber, J., Nueman, M., et al., 1994. Coordinating growth and environmental management though consensus building. CPS Brief 6, 1–8.

Innes, J.E., 1996. Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 460–472. Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2004. Reframing public participation strategies for the 21st century. Plann. Theory Pract. 5, 419–436. Jarvis, D., Berkeley, N., Broughton, K., 2012. Evidencing the impact of community engagement in neighbourhood regeneration: the case of canley, coventry. Community Dev. J. 47, 232–247. Juarez, J.A., Brown, K.D., 2008. Extracting or empowering? A critique of participatory methods for marginalized populations. Landsc. J. 27, 190–204. Kelly, J., 2010. Cities: Who decides? Grattan institute, Melbourne. Kernaghan, K., 2009. Moving towards integrated public governance: improving service delivery thugh community engagement. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 75, 239–254. King, C., Cruickshank, M., 2012. Building capacity to engage: community engagement or government engagement? Community Dev. 47, 5–28. Landis, J.D., Hood, H., Li, G., et al., 2006. The Future of Infill Housing in California: opportunities, potential, feasability and demand. Hous. Policy Debate 17, 681–726. Lawson, L., Kearns, A., 2010. Community engagement in regeneration: are we getting the point? J. Hous. Built Environ. 25, 19–36. Local Government Association of South Australia, 2008. Community Engagement Handbook: A Model Framework for Leading Practice in Local Government in South Australia. Government of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia. Marshall, M.N., 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam. Pract. 12, 522–525. McAfee, A., 2013. Tools for change: city plan vancouver’s strategic planning process. Built Environ. 39, 438–453. McConnell, V., Wiley, K., 2010. Infill development: perspectives and evidence from economics and planning. Resour. Future 10. Moore, C.N., 1995. Participation Tools for Better Land-use Planning: Techniques and Cases Studies Sacramento. Local Government Commission, CA. Mowbray, M., 2005. Community capacity building of state opportunism? Community Dev. J. 40, 255–264. Murray, S., Bertram, N., Khor, L.-A., et al, 2015. Processes for Developing Affordable and Sustainable Medium-Density Housing Models for Greyfield Precincts. AHURI, Melbourne. Murray, S., Bertram, N., Ramirez-Lovering, D., et al., 2011. Infill Opportunities melbourne. Monash Architecture Studio, Monash University. Newton, P., 2010. Beyond Greenfield and Brownfield: the challenge of regenerating Australia ’s Greyfield Suburbs. Built Environ. 36, 81–103. Newton, P., Glackin, S., 2014. Understanding Infill: Towards New Policy and Practice for Urban Regeneration in the Established Suburbs of Australia’s Cities. Urban Policy and Research In Press. Newton, P., Meyer, D., 2010. Exploring Preferences for ‘Compact City’ Versus Garden City’ Living Environments. Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. Newton, P., Murray, S., Wakefield, R., et al., 2011. Towards a New Development Model for Housing Regeneration in Greyfield Residential Precincts. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), Melbourne. Newton P. Newman P. Glackin S. et al. 2012 Greening the Greyfields: Unlocking the Redevelopment Potential of the Middle Suburbs in Australian Cities. International Conference on Urban Planning and Regional Development. Venice. OECD, 2012. Compact city policies: a comparative assessment. In: OECD Green Growth Studies. OECD Publishing. Ortecho, E., de Pipa, S.S., de Ortecho, M.C.B., 1984. Participation experiences: commentary on the UNESCO prize 1984. Cities 1, 580–584. Phan, T., Peterson, J., Chandra, S., 2008. Urban infill: extent and implications in the city of Monash. People Place 16, 23–30. Reddel, T., Woolcock, G., 2004. From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. Aust. J. Public Adm. 63, 75–87. Sampson, R., 1999. What community supplies. In: Ferguson, R., Dickens, W. (Eds.), Urban Problems and Community Development. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, pp. 241–292. Sandercock, L., 2000. When strangers become neighbours: managing cities of difference. Plann. Theory Pract. 1, 13–30. Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J., 2014. Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign: Int. J. CoCreation Des Arts 10, 5–14. Sanoff, H., 2008. Multiple views of participatory design. Int. J. Archit. Res. 2, 57–69. SGS Economics and Planning. 2011 Infill Housing Supply Investigative Panel: Discussion Paper 1 Melbourne. Silverman, D., 2000. Doing Qualitative Research. Sage, London. Skinner, R.J., 1984. Community participation in third world housing: potential and constraints. Cities 1, 564–574. Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1988. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Processes for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London. Trubka, R., Newman, P., Bilsborough, D., 2010a. The costs of urban sprawl infrastructure and transportation. Environ. Des. Guide April, 1–6. Trubka, R., Newman, P., Bilsborough, D., 2010b. The costs of urban sprawl—physical productivity links to health care costs and productivity. Environ. Des. Guide April, 1–13. Trubka, R., Newman, P., Bilsborough, D., 2010c. The costs of urban sprawl—predicting transport green hosue gases from urban form parameters. Environ. Des. Guide April, 1–16.

S. Glackin, M.R. Dionisio / Land Use Policy 52 (2016) 363–373 Habitat, U.N., 2003. The Challenge of Slums–Global Report on Human Settlements. New York, United Nations. Valencia-Sandoval, C., Flandesr, D.N., Kozak, R.A., 2010. Participatory landscape Planning and sustainable community development: methodological observations from a case study in rural Mexico. Landsc. Urban Plann. 94, 63–70.

Visser, F.S., Stappers, P.J., Van Der Lugt, R., et al., 2005. Contextmapping: Experiences from Practice. CoDesign 1, 119–149. Zukin, S., 1996. The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell, London.

373