A 3D Collaborative Environment for Planning Support

With a Case Study in Usseler Es, Enschede

Johanna Elisabeth van Rosmalen Farias

March, 2008

Course Title: Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation for Environmental Modelling and Management

Level: Master of Science (Msc)

Course Duration: September 2006 - March 2008

Consortium partners: University of Southampton (UK)

Lund University (Sweden) University of Warsaw (Poland) International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (I.T.C) (The Netherlands)

GEM thesis number: 2006-11

A 3D Collaborative Environment for Planning Support.

With a Case Study in Usseler Es, Enschede

by

Johanna Elisabeth van Rosmalen Farias Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Science and Earth Observation for Environmental Modelling and Management Thesis Assessment Board Chairperson: Profr. Dr. Anne van der Veen External examiner: Profr. Petter Pilesjö Internal examiner: Drs. Henk Kloosterman Supervisor: Dr. Javier Martinez Supervisor: Ms. MSc. Monika Kuffer

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede, The Netherlands

Disclaimer This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

i

Abstract

In traditional urban planning methods, disagreement with new projects and disapproval of results are often caused by limited integration of spatial information and insufficient communication between planners and community. The aim of this study was to provide a framework for better visualisation and data integration assisting participation with the use of 3D collaborative environments and planning support systems. First, the relationship between information technologies and participation in planning and their recent evolution were examined. Second, the traditional methods of participation and of technologies used in planning were studied through attendance to meetings and interviews with planners, focusing on three recent projects in Enschede that were compared: De Wonne, the Muziekkwartier, and the Usseler Es. Third, a 3D G.I.S. environment and a simple planning support system for decision-making were constructed with the Usseler Es project. Three different 3D G.I.S. models were made using CommunityViz and ArcGIS. They were compared in terms of portability, requirements of set-up and easiness of use. The 3D Google Earth model was the most compact in size, the easiest to set up and to navigate. The model made in ArcScene proved to be usable for spatial analysis added to 3D visualisation. The model made in SiteBuilder3D had the largest number of options for navigation and customisation of environmental effects that make it more realistic. CommunityViz was then used for assessing build-out possibilities in the Usseler Es project. Two options for possible Floor Area Ratios were generated. Three scenarios of the project were created: 55 Ha of built industrial area, 65 Ha of the same use, and current agricultural use scenario. Build-out was performed for each scenario and impact on air quality was tested using indicators for emission of NOx, CO, CO2, and energy consumption both from residential and commercial uses. The results showed that the industrial use scenarios will have an important impact on air quality compared to current use scenario. This study enabled the evaluation of the 3D G.I.S. models and of diverse spatial analysis functions as part of a planning support system in terms of feasibility, possibilities of implementation, benefits and limitations. Their potential in engaging the community and planners in the planning process and bringing them closer to a participatory planning system is further elaborated and referred to current cases. The overall impact of using these techniques added to traditional methods is to aid in understanding the plans and in facilitating the decision-making process in urban planning.

ii

Acknowledgements

iii

Table of contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................7 1.1. Background and Justification...............................................................................................7 1.2. Research problem..............................................................................................................10 1.3. General objective...............................................................................................................11

1.3.1. Specific objectives and research questions ..................................................................11 1.4. Research approach.............................................................................................................12 1.5. Materials and methods.......................................................................................................13

2. Information technologies and participation in urban planning........................................................14 2.1. The role of participation in urban planning........................................................................14 2.2. I.T. and participation in the development of planning views ............................................16 2.3. Visualisation, network and online participation in urban planning ....................................18 2.4. Benefits and limitations of P.S.S. and collaborative online environments ........................25 2.5. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................28

3. Urban planning methods and current projects in Enschede ............................................................29 3.1. Data collection for analysis of the projects ........................................................................29 3.2. Current planning projects in Enschede ..............................................................................30

3.2.1. The Muziekkwartier: Building the new while preserving the old ................................31 3.2.2. Roombeek: Design you own house..............................................................................36

3.3. The Usseler Es: Project description ...................................................................................38 3.3.1. Background of the project............................................................................................39 3.3.2. Project layout...............................................................................................................41 3.3.3. Participation and meetings...........................................................................................44 3.3.4. Stakeholders’ interests.................................................................................................46 3.3.5. I.T. in the project .........................................................................................................49

3.4. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................51 4. Construction of a Collaborative 3D Environment of the Usseler Es...............................................53

4.1. Data collection for construction of the 3D environment ....................................................54 4.2. Data preparation and difficulties encountered ...................................................................56 4.3. Building the 3D G.I.S. model of the Usseler Es project.....................................................57

4.3.1. Building the 3D model in SiteBuilder 3D....................................................................58 4.3.2. Building the 3D model in Google Earth.......................................................................61 4.3.3. Building the 3D model in ArcScene ............................................................................62

4.4. Conclusions about the 3D modelling options ....................................................................65 4.5. Conclusions about the 3D model of the Usseler Es ...........................................................66

5. Scenarios for spatial analysis and evaluation of alternatives ..........................................................67 5.1. Analysis of building density ..............................................................................................67 5.2. Analysis features and scenarios .........................................................................................75 5.3. Conclusions about building scenarios and using analysis features.....................................81

6. Discussion......................................................................................................................................83 7. Conclusions....................................................................................................................................92 8. Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................94 9. References......................................................................................................................................96

iv

List of figures

Figure 1.1. As technical complexity increases, the possibilities of interaction also increase.......................9 Figure 1.2. Research approach ..................................................................................................................12 Figure 2.1 Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation ................................................................................15 Figure 2.2. Vision and city models in the perception of the environment.................................................19 Figure 2.3. E-participation ladder..............................................................................................................22 Figure 2.4. Traditional and emerging planning support systems ...............................................................24 Figure 3.1. Location of the projects to be studied......................................................................................30 Figure 3.4. Meeting at the city hall of Enschede, Sept. 11, 2007...............................................................33 Figure 3.5. Printout of the designs for De Wonne project, handed out during the meeting .......................33 Figure 3.6. Details of one of the proposed designs. Images presented as slides during the presentation. ..34 Figure 3.9. Location of the Usseler Es, construction site...........................................................................39 Figure 3.10. Topographical characteristics of the terrain (contour lines) ..................................................40 Figure 3.11. Path across the bolling ..........................................................................................................40 Figure 3.12. Distribution of hectares to be constructed in the Usseler Es..................................................41 Figure 3.13. Plan layout of October 2007 (55 ha) .....................................................................................43 Figure 3.14. Building style projected for the Es ........................................................................................43 Figure 3.15. Building style projected for the Western circle. ....................................................................43 Figure 3.16. Building style projected for south of Eastern circle...............................................................43 Figure 3.17. Meetings held at old school in the Usseler Es (Oct. 3rd, 8th)................................................45 Figure 3.18. Model of the Usseler Es project ..........................................................................................45 Figure 3.19. Posters of the project on the walls during the meetings.........................................................45 Figure 3.20. Diagram of the observed process for planning a new business complex ...............................48 Figure 3.21. Slide showing viewpoints (red marks) from which a 3D scene was presented in a following slide (below). Scene of the northernmost viewpoint..................................................................................49 Figure 3.22. Viewpoint showing the corresponding 3D scene ..................................................................50 Figure 4.1. Plan of the Usseler Es project .................................................................................................57 Figure 4.2. Snapshots of the 3D G.I.S. model of Usseler Es project as seen on the 3D Viewer ................60 Figure 4.3. Snapshot of 3D model of the Usseler Es project in Google Earth format................................64 Figure 4.4. Snapshot of the 3D model of the Usseler Es project in ArcScene ...........................................64 Figure 5.1. Designing the parcel layout for the Usseler Es project............................................................68 Figure 5.2. Parcels and allowed building heights ....................................................................................69 Figure 5.3. Build-out results shown in graphs and on the map as building symbols..................................72 Figure 5.4. Snapshot of the project’s different scenarios (top) and assumption sliders (below) ................80 Figure 5.5. Summarising the results and applications of the P.S.S. and 3D environments ........................82

v

List of tables

Table 2.1 Behaviours of people in their concern for planning issues .....................................14 Table 2.2. Levels of participation in Arnstein’s ladder. ..........................................................15 Table 2.3 General evolution of approaches in planning and concerns of I.T...........................17 Table 2.4. Stakeholders’ interests in city models ....................................................................20 Table 2.5. Non-Digital, Digital and Digital-Networked methods for public participation in planning using Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation......................................................23 Table 2.6. Advantages and limitations of I.T. in planning ......................................................26 Table 2.7. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of CommunityViz.............................27 Table 3.1. Interests of the actors in the Usseler Es project ......................................................47 Table 4.1. Examples of simulation, scenario construction and visualisation softwares for planning support......................................................................................................................53 Table 4.2. Features of different 3D visualisation tools usable with CommunityViz ...............58 Table 5.1. Classification of parcels of the Usseler Es project..................................................69 Table 5.2. Two FAR options considered for the Usseler Es project........................................70 Table 5.3. Build-out results from software compared to build-out from the plan of October 2007..........73 Table 5.4. Floor Area with archaeological area treated as constraint ......................................75 Table 5.5. Settings used for Build-out of Current use scenario ..............................................77 Table 5.6. Build-out results of floor area and buildable area...................................................77 Table 5.7. Assumptions and values of the common impacts ...................................................78 Table 5.8. Results from Common Impacts calculations for all scenarios................................79

7

1. Introduction

The development of new information technologies (I.T.)1 has contributed to the shaping of new trends in the process of urban planning. Traditionally, urban planning involves the physical structure of development, generally following a master plan. However, when considering urban planning as a community decision-making process, participation and communication are fundamental to the process. Public participation in the decisions taken about the projects is many times insufficiently promoted and excludes some community groups (Innes and Booher, 2004, Kingston, et al., 2000). In this process, public meetings are usually the way to communicate new plans to the people. It is not uncommon that difficulties arise in understanding the environmental impacts and spatial relationships when plans are presented on 2-D maps or artists’ impressions. The generally limited feedback among all parts involved (authorities, developers, citizens, stakeholders) may result in disapproval of the results. Therefore, planning can be enhanced with the use of planning support systems (P.S.S.) and collaborative environments. The application of I.T. allows interactivity through 3D G.I.S. visualisation and web-based participation platforms, where users can actively take part in the decision-making process. A collaborative environment can help bridging the gap between designing and communicating the projects.

1.1. Background and Justification

The recent development of I.T. has brought an increasing use of Computer Aided Design (C.A.D.) and 3D modelling to planning. Models of buildings and urban landscapes, together with virtual environments, are used for decision-making processes in urban planning, leading to much research on 3D city models (Horne, et

al., 2007). The C.A.D. applications are modelling and design tools suitable for 2D and 3D visualisation, but have no capabilities for handling spatial relationships or analyses for planning (van Dipten and van Klaveren, 1996). Geographic Information Systems (G.I.S.) are a set of computer hardware, software and geographical data used to perform analyses of spatial relationships, manage spatial information and model processes. A G.I.S. provides a system for organising

1 See also definition of terms in Appendix A.

8

spatial data and related information for its analysis and visualisation (Heywood, et

al., 2006). The use of G.I.S. in regional and urban planning has also been greatly developed, however, its use with 3D modelling tools such as C.A.D. has been only partially integrated, hence diminishing the full development of their combined potential (Suen and Borich, 2004). The 1990s brought an expansion in the use of G.I.S. and C.A.D. tools, together with the exploration of their use for virtual environments. An example of research regarding the use of G.I.S. and C.A.D. tools in urban planning in the Netherlands is discussed by Germs, et al. (1999). They identified three main design stages in the planning of infra-structural projects: Orientation (plan study), modelling (plan development) and presentation (decision-making). In each of the stages, there is a different use of G.I.S. In the orientation stage, G.I.S. is limited to creation, manipulation and analysis of geographic objects in 2D. In the modelling stage, G.I.S. systems are used in shifting to 3D modelling and analysis. In the presentation stage, models, C.A.D. renderings and drawings are used to visualise and present the designs. The use of virtual reality enhances the visualisation in all stages. Virtual reality is “the direct coupling of the virtual viewing position (used to generate the

image on the display) with the real head position and viewing direction of the user.

[...] This strong coupling of the current eye position and the image offered by the

display system gives the user the illusion of ‘immersiveness’.” (Germs, et al., 1999). This "immersiveness"2 is used in simulation to represent data in order to make it more understandable and its implications clearer. The addition of G.I.S. data in virtual environments is useful for urban planning, allowing the implementation of diverse datasets. Virtual reality also allows the visualisation of 3D G.I.S. data. The users can appreciate the changes on the landscape and walk through 3D environments to see the newly designed buildings. Germs, et al., (1999) already pointed out that the interaction with the data was usually limited to viewing, and that an interface to support policy and decision-making would be a valuable tool in presenting different scenarios and enhancing interactivity. The methods for presenting urban planning projects can have varying degrees of user interaction. An effective way is animated 3D graphics where the user can choose the direction of the viewing position (Hanzl, 2007). An example of a popular computer language used to render this kind of presentations is VRML (Virtual Reality Modelling Language). The developing and integration of I.T. tools in virtual environments where interactivity is made easier has lead to increasingly complex systems for visualisation and data analysis. Participatory Planning G.I.S. (P.P.G.I.S.) is an

2 Sensory-rich, personal perception of exposure to surroundings created in a virtual environment

9

example of such systems that serve spatial data to the public through internet. The data include statistics, property, investment areas, master plans, natural and cultural themes, and can integrate diverse tools such as VRML scenes, photographs or videos (Hanzl, 2007). The participatory function lies on the ability that users have to interact with the data, for example, manipulate it, combine layers, extract indicators, and pose questions. Collaborative environments are also I.T. systems that make possible the participation of users in a digital environment that emphasises visualisation (vid. Manoharan, et al.,2001). Further development of complex systems for planning allows simulation of proposed states of a site with the use of modifiable parameters, based on the current land use. These are called Planning Support Systems (P.S.S.). Their creation follows the idea that planning is a collaborative process; hence, it is important to offer more means of communication among the planners and the community. This greater involvement of the community reduces the difference in knowledge between the planners and the general public, and lets the public have an opinion in the plans (Klosterman, 1998). As technical complexity of I.T. increases, the possibilities of participation also increase. Figure 1.1 illustrates this relationship. However, user-friendliness of virtual environments is always essential; otherwise increased complexity could eventually discourage participation instead of supporting it. Figure 1.1. As technical complexity increases, the possibilities of interaction also increase.

Source: Bourdakis, 1997

Recent projects of online collaborative environments have been made in several institutions, working together with authorities, planners and community. Examples are the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, at the University College London (see. Batty, et al., 1999), the Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, at the University of Bath (see Bourdakis, 1997), and the Environmental Simulation Centre, in New York (see Bulmer, 2001).

10

In the Netherlands, the use of collaborative environments has also been increasingly developed since the past decade. One example is the virtual environment constructed for the area of IJburg, Amsterdam, in 1997, which allowed public participation by telephone (Bulmer, 2001). Sidjanin, et al., (1995) presented the Delft University’s Campus Information System as an experiment of emerging virtual environments combined with G.I.S., and pointed out the flexibility and increased analysis capabilities of such an integration. Another example is the T-XChange simulation laboratory from Twente, in Enschede, which opened in 2005. It was created for visualisation, building scenarios and using gaming to test new products and support the marketing process for industry, business, government, and research enterprises (T-XChange, 2007). The importance of using collaborative virtual environments for urban planning relies on facilitating the tasks to be done, such as the following (Lieske, et al., 2003): - communicating the plans to the public to encourage understanding and acceptance - reducing uncertainty in the development process - promoting decision-making - exploring different public policy options - increasing the public engagement in the process of planning can be also facilitated by allowing the public to manipulate the spatial data (Geertman, 2001).

1.2. Research problem

Urban planning requires the consideration of different alternatives, since there will be an impact on the landscape and on the way people perceive their environment. Simulations are important to analyse the impact of the design of a project. The decision process often lacks an integral mechanism to combine all relevant information (Broll, et al., 2004). This is why the collaborative environments aim at helping in the integration of spatial data and modelling through an interactive, user-friendly platform. The development of I.T. towards participation of the community, stakeholders and planners in the form of such environments is changing the way urban planning is carried out, “to help the planning profession abandon paternalistic models of planning for the public for new ideals of planning with the public, which involve the public more directly in the choices which help shape their communities” (Klosterman, et al., 2006). It is important to define the requirements of data, technical considerations and feasibility to produce 3D collaborative environments. These issues will be explored in the present research, taking a specific project of urban planning in Enschede.

11

1.3. General objective

To develop a methodology that integrates 3D collaborative environments to support participation in urban planning, using an example case for Enschede (Usseler Es).

1.3.1. Specific objectives and research questions

In order to reach this general objective, specific objectives were formulated as follows:

1. To explain the relationship between I.T. and participation and examine the traditional ways in which participation takes place in urban planning in Enschede.

2. To determine the benefits and limitations of combining 3D G.I.S. with C.A.D. modelling as compared to C.A.D. modelling alone in the design, evaluation and visualisation of planning projects.

3. To create a 3D G.I.S. environment of the Usseler Es and a simple planning support system for comparing alternative designs.

4. To discuss the possibilities of implementation of 3D collaborative environments considering their benefits and limitations.

Given the above research objectives, the following research questions were formulated: Sub-objective 1:

1. How have I.T. and participation been involved in the process of urban planning?

2. How is participation usually done in Enschede and what is the role of I.T. in participation?

Sub-objective 2: 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using 3D G.I.S. in

combination with C.A.D. in urban planning compared to only 3D C.A.D. models?

Sub-objective 3: 4. What are the requirements for constructing a 3D G.I.S. environment of the

Usseler Es to be used in the planning process? 5. What kind of analyses could be made with a planning support system? 6. How could it be applied to the Usseler Es project? Sub-objective 4: 7. What are the uses, benefits and limitations of P.S.S. and 3D environments

in the process of urban planning?

12

1.4. Research approach

The approach of the research can be structured in the following phases: 1. Literature review 2. Qualitative data collection from attendance to meetings and interviews (Muziekkwartier, Roombeerk, Usseler Es) quantitative data and from municipality (Usseler Es project). 3a. Building a 3D G.I.S. model of the Usseler Es project. 3b. Building scenarios with different assumptions and indicators: assess results using indicators focused on build-outs and on one aspect derived from study of the Usseler Es project. 4. Discuss uses, impact on participation, limitations and advantages of this project and of the use of P.S.S. and 3D environments. Figure 1.2 shows a sketch of the research approach. Figure 1.2. Research approach

13

1.5. Materials and methods

The role of I.T. in the evolution of urban planning and participation, as well as its benefits and limitations, has been studied in the literature review (see Hanzl, 2007, Horne, et al., 2007). The use of C.A.D. alone, without 3D G.I.S., was analysed in the current planning methods used in Enschede, as compared to interactive planning approaches, where architects and planners work with 3D G.I.S. and virtual environments (see Broll, et

al, 2004). The state of planning in Enschede was analysed through the attendance to public meetings and questions to the planners. These were regarding the modelling methods traditionally used, communication of plans to the people and ways of participation, as well as problems of communication usually encountered. Three current cases were analysed: two as reference and one for the analysis and construction of a 3D environment. One of the reference cases was the convent De Wonne and the construction of the new Muziekkwartier in the centre of Enschede. The second one was the reconstruction of Roombeek area after its destruction by firework explosions in 2000. The third case was the Usseler Es new business complex. These cases illustrated how public participation usually takes place in planning. The Usseler Es plan and the construction of a 3D collaborative environment for this project were approached as follows: Use of the ArcGIS extension CommunityViz for 3D G.I.S. modelling and creation of scenarios. The available data of the Usseler Es plan was obtained from the local authorities (C.A.D. layers and specification files). The 3D buildings and objects were modelled using CommunityViz following the rules for the project. The project of Usseler Es was used for visualisation and for a possible application of planning support systems and its value for the planning process. This example application was derived from concerns found during research of the project and relates to the impact that the industrial development of the Usseler Es would have on air quality.

14

2. Information technologies and participation in urban planning

This chapter explains the evolution of the approaches in urban planning concerning participation and involvement of people. It also discusses the use of I.T. in the process and gives the conceptual and historical framework.

2.1. The role of participation in urban planning

In the evolution of urban planning approaches, communication and participation have become an increasingly important part in the promotion of more representative decisions. In 1965, U.S. planning theorist L.W. Milbrath defined different behaviours of people in their involvement in urban planning. Table 2.1 shows that a way to define the level of involvement of people in participation is their own concern in the process.

Table 2.1 Behaviours of people in their concern for planning issues Levels Description

1 “Apathical” No concern for decisions made on local plans

2 “Spectator” Minimal interest shown by voting, taking surveys or being informed by proposals affecting the community

3“Transitional” Attendance to hearings, contact with public officials

4 “Gladiatorial” Becoming part of planning commissions/decision-making bodies or help organising community groups

Source: Adapted from Milbrath (1965)

In 1969, Sherry Arnstein developed the famous concept of “participation ladder”, which defines how institutions use citizen participation methods based on motive and effectiveness (Figure 2.1). This concept differs from Milbrath’s in that it also encompasses the way institutions deal with participation, and not only the concern of people to participate.

15

Figure 2.1 Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation

Source: Arnstein, 1969 Table 2.2 shows a description of each rung of the ladder. Table 2.2. Levels of participation in Arnstein’s ladder.

Level Description 1 Manipulation

2 Therapy

Nonparticiation levels. The institutions do not enable people to participate in planning. Instead, the powerholders aim at “educating” or “curing” the participants (thus the term Therapy). Also, it is assumed that an action is supported by the public, simply by lack of significant opposition.

3 Informing

4 Consultation Tokenism3 levels. Citizens may hear and be heard within limits set by the powerholders, but lack the power to insure that their opinions will be taken into account. A greater effort is made to inform people of future actions, but the decision lies ultimately within the powerholders.

5 Placation Higher level of tokenism, where powerholders appease the people with conciliatory gestures and keep the right to final decision-making.

6 Partnership

7 Delegated power

8 Citizen control

Citizen power levels. Citizens are enabled to negotiate trade-offs with powerholders (Partnership). In the highest levels, citizens have full managerial power. There is exchange of power through consensus building.

Sources: Adapted from Arnstein, 1969

3 Tokenism is the practice of making only a symbolic effort at something, especially in order to meet the

minimum requirements of the law (Encarta World English Dictionary, 2007)

16

The participation ladder is naturally a simplification, but it “helps to illustrate the

point that so many have missed - that there are significant gradations of citizen

participation. Knowing these gradations makes it possible to cut through the

hyperbole to understand the increasingly strident demands for participation from

the have-nots as well as the gamut of confusing responses from the powerholders” (Arnstein, 1969). This conclusion shows that the issues concerning citizen participation and institutions are complex. The process of participation should be constantly improved in view of such issues. These gradations of participation can be also defined in their role in urban planning. Innes and Booher (2004) identify five general purposes of participation: 1) Participation from public so that decision makers can know their opinions and take them into account in their decisions. 2) To take better informed decisions by integrating people’s local knowledge into the process. 3) To aim towards a fairer decision-making process, since there are different groups and needs in the society, which may only come up in an open participation process. 4) To legitimise public decisions derived from considering opinions of the people. 5) Public participation is usually required by law.

2.2. I.T. and participation in the development of planning views

Participation has evolved through different approaches in which the development of new technologies has played an important role since the onset of computers. In the 1950s and 1960s, a rational, comprehensive urban planning approach dominated (Taylor, 1998), that simply left no place for participation (Mantysalo, 2005). Computer development brought a new optimism in this scientific view of planning (Klosterman and Brail, 2002). But the assumption that planners could objectively decide what was best for the people based on indicators was criticised by theorists such as Davidoff (1973), who pointed out that social and cultural values guided people’s actions; not easily objectivised for a rational planning. In the 1960s and 1970s, the ‘public interest’ of planning brought people’s inconformity with the results (Mantysalo, 2005). It was also realised that information and technologies were inherently political. This view continued throughout the 1980s towards a more social approach of planning. Although collection of information and its analysis is an essential part in planning, there is also a more social side involving how planners communicate their ideas to others (Harris, 1989, Klosterman, 1987). When only quantitative approaches are used, often procedures become too technical and incomprehensible for the non-expert and planners become less capable of learning

17

from the public (Forester, 1989). This is why a more communicative approach evolved, departing from the view of the decision process as abstract, to become a more open and subjective exercise of collective design in which planners help the community to decide together (Klosterman and Brail, 2002). Table 2.3 summarises the dominating visions in planning and the concerns of I.T. over the last decades. Table 2.3 General evolution of approaches in planning and concerns of I.T.

Approach Concern

of I.T. Description

1 9

6 0

s

System optimisation/ rational design

D a

t a

“Planning as applied science” I.T. viewed as providing the information needed for a value-and politically neutral process of rational planning. Emerging I.T. used for processing data, conversion from manual to computerised procedures to improve routine operations. Objective analysis of society, prediction of long-term development by quantifiable variables.

1 9

7 0

s

Politics

I n f

o r

m a

t I

o n

“Planning as politics” I.T. seen as inherently political, reinforcing existing structures of influence, hiding fundamental political choices, and transforming the policy-making process. I.T. concern changed to management information systems, structuring and synthesis of data to serve management needs. Planning has values involved, not a neutral process. Short-term planning more realistic and results more feasible than long-term. Participation necessary to guarantee consideration of different society groups. Participation through negotiation and bargaining of opposing interests in the political arena (Lindblom’s approach).

1 9

8 0

s

Discourse

K n

o w

l e

d g

e

“Planning as communication” I.T. and the content of planners’ technical analyses are seen as often less important than the ways in which planners transmit this information to others. I.T. concern shifts towards understanding based on information, leading to decision support systems to facilitate semi-structured decision making

1 9

9 0

s

Collective design

I n t

e l l

i g

e n

c e

“Planning as reasoning together” I.T. seen as providing the information infrastructure that facilitates social interaction, interpersonal communication, and debate that attempts to achieve collective goals and deal with common concerns. I.T. concern on dealing with new situations and problems, applying knowledge from learned experiences, and planning support systems to promote interaction and collective design.

Sources: Klosterman and Brail, 2002, Klosterman, 1987, Taylor, 1998, Mantysalo, 2005, Lindblom, 1965, Harris and Batty, 1993.

18

In the 1980s, planning incorporated the need of using not only information, but also knowledge derived from experience. The development of this view brought the Decision Support Systems (D.S.S.), composed of a database, an interface and a model base. They integrate information from different sources, analytical and statistical modelling tools, and a graphical interface for decision makers to use the information. Also, D.S.S. help dealing with poorly structured decisions that come from real problems that are partly qualitative or require value judgements (Timmermans, 1996). The approach of collective design has brought many ideas of participation from past decades together. The collectiveness as management of conflicts tends towards a more context-sensitive approach of participatory planning to legitimise the decision-making process (Mantysalo, 2005). P.S.S. are not to be seen as a new technology that will replace tools traditionally used by planners. It is rather an “information framework” (Klosterman and Brail, 2002) that integrates new I.T. The process of planning should still make use of all available tools adequate for its needs in different areas.

2.3. Visualisation, network and online participation in urban planning

The development of I.T. has been involved in the participation tasks and planning views, now focusing more on consensus and interaction. The concern that these tools are ineffective if they are too complex and technical to be understood, and that they are often translated into a language not clear enough to grasp the designers’ ideas (e.g. technical drawings) has brought the need of using a better visual language of the plans. It is not only in public participation where difficulties in understanding may arise due to ineffective communication means, but also in design phases. Manoharan, et

al. (2001) point out two main processes: 1) the preparation of the development plans and 2) the development control. A development plan is a layout of the policies applied when planning permissions are considered. The development control refers to the procedures that allow permits to be issued so that urban developments adhere to specific guidelines. In Western Europe, many planning officers play the role of development control officers in local councils, or as private planning consultants advising clients that seek planning permission. Together with the planning committee, the planning officers are the main participants in urban development control process (Allmendinger, et al. 2000). The committees evaluate many applications for new projects. These are analysed by the planning officers to determine the impact on its environment. After this, a report is presented to the committee, who can reject or grant planning permission. There are also visits to the sites of the proposals. The

19

committee relies on the reports and visits by the planning officers to make a final decision (Manoharan, et al, 2001). In this process, maquettes, technical reports and images are used for assessing the proposals. However, maquettes may be difficult to view from different angles, and are usually isolated from their surroundings, making it hard to grasp the possible relationships within the environment. Similarly, plans by architects might be difficult to interpret and photographs or drawings of a single viewpoint insufficient to get the whole picture for making final decisions. The use of 3D visualisations can help in this respect. It is also important to consider that the vision of the city in the individuals’ minds plays an important part in the perception of changes made to the environment. The mental images depend largely on the real image of the city and of information gathered from different sources (Hanzl, 2007). The way contemporary planning theories have evolved towards collective design, and the role of the I.T. in the creation of models and visualisation also contribute to shaping the vision of the urban environment (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Vision and city models in the perception of the environment

Source: Hanzl, 2007 The I.T. are integrated into planning in the way of 3D models and virtual reality that use C.A.D. and/or G.I.S. G.I.S. allow the storage of large volumes of spatial data, selection of information, spatial analysis, modelling and simulation of different types of data. C.A.D. is traditionally used to plot and draw designs of new projects. Virtual reality enables the creation of environments in which direct interaction is possible,

20

facilitating the visualisation and assessment of proposals in real time. It is also supported by online environments, so it is potentially available for a wider public (Manoharan, et al, 2001). However, these tools used separately do not offer the capability to support interactivity among different users and parts involved in the process. G.I.S. does not offer all the range of sketching and designing tools that C.A.D. does. C.A.D. tools have neither the spatial nor analysis possibilities that G.I.S. have. Therefore, development of planning support systems that integrate capabilities of G.I.S., C.A.D. and virtual reality provide an interactive environment where collaboration, visualisation and simulation can be supported. Its use can be extended not only among planners and specialists, but also to the people affected. The use of P.S.S. can bring together all parts in the decision-making process for better informed decisions (Manoharan, et al, 2001, Simoff and Maher, 2000). The different actors involved in planning have their own interests in 3D models. The unique structure of a city is complex and requires realistic modelling when using digital environments. These interests in 3D models are summarised in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4. Stakeholders’ interests in city models Planning and design activities Urban planning scenarios

Planning and decision support Spatial analysis What if scenarios G.I.S. applications Development control Planning permission applications Contextual modelling Traffic simulations Transportation modelling Public participation Environmental impact assessments Visual impact analysis

Infrastructure and Facility Services Climate, air quality, fire propagate, public safety studies Emergency planning Facilities and utilities management Property management

Commercial Sector and Marketing Marketing and advertising E-commerce

A u

t h

o r

I t I

e s

Promotion of Cities

Tourism and entertainment City portals

Continued.

21

Table 2.4 Continued.

Base data resource

Architectural, Planning Landscape architecture and planning Construction Surveying Real Estate etc. companies

Maintenance and development plans Gas, Electricity Phone, internet, broadband, TV

B u

I l t

e

n v

I r o

n m

e n

t

s e

c t o

r

Marketing and advertising

Teaching and learning Use and creation of city models City models for students projects Context analysis, mass analysis

Research, Consultancy

A c

a d

e m

I a

Archiving

C I

t I z

e n

s Education, research, interest, awareness

of environmental and local issues Use, creation and/or exploration of models

Source: Adapted from Horne, et al, 2007 In the current context of I.T. development, internet and networked systems are becoming an important part of the process of communication and use of planning models. The different interests in models lead to diverse levels of involvement of the public and the stakeholders in the planning process. Traditional methods of involving the public in the planning process are usually limited in their scope and effect and are often determined by the organisational structures within a local planning authority (Forester, 1999). The use of internet and online consultation can increase the gathering of opinions and participation in addition to the traditional methods of participation such as public meetings, focus groups and consultation surveys (Kingston, 2002, Hanzl, 2007). Online participation will vary according to the levels of implementation of online tools of public participation in the process. Therefore, a ladder of online participation can also be defined (Figure 2.3). It reminds of Arnstein’s ladder because the different rungs of the ladder also correspond to the involvement of public in participation and to how the designers and planners deal with information and participation.

22

Figure 2.3. E-participation ladder

Source: Kingston, 2002

The lowest rungs correspond to online information given to public but with no opportunity to obtain feedback from them. If this communication barrier is overcome, a 2-way communication process with different levels of participation will be reached. The top rung, as in Arnstein’s ladder, would be citizen’s power to make decisions online. Communication in planning is the factor that needs to be modified to move up the ladder of participation (Hudson-Smith, 2007). The move towards the use of networked technologies gives this opportunity. Table 2.5 shows methods that planners can use to achieve higher levels of communication. This table draws on participation levels derived from Arnstein’s ladder and methods used without using I.T. (non-digital), using I.T. but not online (digital), and using networks/online I.T. (digital networked). The main difference between digital and non-digital methods is that community participation is central in non-digital public access, e.g. on group activities, however, in terms of digital methods, the individual has more importance (Hudson-Smith, 2007, Hudson-Smith, et al, 2002)

23

Table 2.5. Non-Digital, Digital and Digital-Networked methods for public participation in planning using Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation

Levels Non-Digital Digital Digital Networked

Citizen control Delegated Power Partnership

Public decision-making groups Planning for groups Citizen consultation

‘Non-fixed’ computer aided visualisation

- Collaborative virtual design studios - On-line interactive ‘what-if?’ visualisation - Community networks

Placation Consultation

Public surveys Public meetings Presentation of design information

‘Fly-through’ computer aided visualisation

- Internet-based questionnaires - E-mail - Online discussion forums

Informing Therapy Manipulation

Individual letters of notification Exhibitions Explanatory leaflets Newspaper articles Posters Distribution of plans to libraries

Static computer aided visualisation

- Website - Online visualisation

Sources: adapted from Hudson-Smith, 2007, Hanzl, 2007, Kingston, 2002 Figure 2.4 integrates the planning process in traditional and emerging planning support systems. The left side shows the processes in urban planning and the use of I.T. in the different phases. The middle row shows the traditional planning support systems as used by experts, and the right side shows the emerging planning support systems when networked resources are implemented for use of the community. This part would correspond to the top rungs of the ladder of e-participation and citizen control.

24

Figure 2.4. Traditional and emerging planning support systems

Source: Hudson-Smith, 2007

25

2.4. Benefits and limitations of P.S.S. and collaborative online environments

The change of focus from information-based planning to knowledge-based planning in the 1980s brought the development of D.S.S. and a large range of applications (Klosterman, 1998, Klosterman and Brail, 2002). P.S.S. and online environments are some of the most recent developments of I.T. for planning (Klosterman and Brail, 2002, Saarloos, 2006). They include geo-information technology and visualisation to support different aspects such as forecasting, analysis and evaluation of alternatives (Geertman, et al., 2004, Klosterman, 1998). The public has become an important user group and requires different type of support than the one offered to planning professionals. P.S.S. are being developed as flexible, user-friendly tools for facilitating participation, but are increasingly complex in technical processes and requirements. This complexity need not be known by the public, and still be implemented through a simple interface through which planners’ needs can be communicated. P.S.S. have different user modes in which tools are presented according to the requirements and purposes of the users. An example is a simple interface of clickable buttons designed for the citizens, but to which the planners and designers have access to the parameters linked (Saarloos, 2006). P.S.S. respond to the need of trying out different proposals. This need comes from the variables of a project which can have different degrees of unpredictability (Xiang and Clarke, 2003). P.S.S. support the development of alternatives to explore different possible outcomes through the modelling and modification of parameters (Harris and Batty, 1993, Klosterman and Brail, 2002). This flexibility of P.S.S. also allows the selection of data and models, thus of different types of planning. Although P.S.S. have a great potential in facilitation of the tasks, many decisions are in practice badly informed because planners show critical or sceptical attitudes toward new I.T. (Geertman, 2001, Klosterman and Brail, 2002). User willingness and acceptance are essential in the development of successful P.S.S.. This brings the attention to the limitations that these new I.T. have. Some barriers of participation such as attendance to meetings could be eliminated by online environments which can be accessed anytime. However, web-based technologies are also dependable on the available access to them. Not everyone is comfortable using computers nor is familiar with I.T., which could make some users avoid these tools in the decision-making. This could reduce instead of promote public participation. Therefore, ease of use is essential in the design of P.S.S. tools to minimise alienation of community groups (Kingston, 2002).

26

Another limitation is that high-quality data is required to produce better results. It is costly to develop site-specific data, which could be a drawback of implementing D.S.S for planning. Other costs are also considerable: specialised software, hardware and start-up costs, especially if additional personnel’s training is required. Furthermore, there might be distrust of outside institutions that may be guiding the use of P.S.S. for decision-making. The community might not rely on external entities that are not aware enough of the local problems. Also, there may be concern in the transparency of the data offered and in the process. Hence, the political groups and stakeholders within the community need to be sensitive to all groups of the community not to produce a decreased participation (Aggett and McColl, 2006b, Kingston, 2002). Another drawback is that often these tools remain for the most part in the academic environments, where prototypes are usually developed (Klosterman, 1998, Hudson-Smith, 2007). In practice, qualified planners do not normally use specialist software such as G.I.S. and 3D G.I.S. (Klosterman, 1998). Although increasing, the inclusion of these technologies in practice is still not extensive (Klosterman and Brail, 2002, Hanzl, 2007). Table 2.6 summarises these advantages and limitations.

Table 2.6. Advantages and limitations of I.T. in planning Advantages Limitations - Enhanced communication and easiness to explore urban context - Freedom of movement between scales and levels of detail - Different levels of immersiveness - Ability to attach qualitative data to the models - Portability - Formally and informally sharing data with diverse stakeholders - Ability to involve diverse disciplines together - Communication with different actors of the planning process not restricted to a certain time and place

- Technical issues (software, hardware compatibility, updating, etc.) - Organisational issues (management of shared resources, data copyright, ownership issues, etc.) - Ownership of models - Privacy and security - Visual images may look too attractive - Accessibility to technology - Complexity level of tools used - Trust and response legitimacy

Sources: adapted from Horne, et al, 2007, Kingston, 2002

The issues of cost and expertise barriers can be tackled by associations with different institutions. Aggett and McColl (2006b) explain how partnerships of authorities with G.I.S. development agencies have helped providing training and data for community projects. The people chosen to be trained for using the P.S.S. can be volunteer members from the community, who have knowledge of the local problems and

27

greater sensitivity towards different groups, in order to preserve the interests of the community and the sense of ownership of the decision-making process. Further discussion of limitations and benefits of I.T. is the example of P.S.S. software used in this work, CommunityViz. It can be used to model scenarios. For example, in public meetings, the attending individuals can suggest modifications to the 2D models and observe the changes almost immediately. This is a very flexible tool, albeit hard to use without assistance. SiteBuilder3D is another module of the software designed to represent in 3D the 2D options created in Scenario360. It allows navigation around all angles of the model so that the impact of each alternative can be visualised in 3D. However, both modules require practical knowledge of ArcGIS and of supporting modelling software for complex and more realistic environments (Aggett and McColl, 2006a, Geertman, 2001). Table 2.7 summarises these benefits and limitations. Table 2.7. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of CommunityViz

Advantages Disadvantages CommunityViz modules: - Scenario360 - SiteBuilder

- Enables visualisation of impacts on landscape on real time - Dynamic attributes allow modification of indicators and automatic updating of results in visualisation - Allows representation of 2D and 3D and real-time update of modifications done to models - Allows building realistic virtual landscapes and viewing them in different angles, speeds and heights - Enables promotion of real-time information exchange

- Practical knowledge of ArcGIS required - Steep learning curve to set up basic scenario and options - Time consuming experimentation of available options - Very detailed foundational data required to fully use all possibilities offered by the tool and to produce more realistic outcomes - Support modelling software required for modelling complex, more realistic 3D models - Relatively high costs: ArcGIS software required - It was made in the U.S. and uses local-based indicators; needs customisation for other regions.

Sources: adapted from Aggett and McColl, 2006b, Geertman, 2001

28

2.5. Conclusions

Participation in planning has evolved along with the different approaches to the process of decision making. I.T. has been involved in the process and nowadays has an important influence in the communication and creation of projects. Traditional tools used in planning such as slides, sketches, maps and graphs can present difficulties in communicating all the implications and results to the citizens (Wissen, 2007, Appleton and Lovett, 2005), who cannot be expected to be planning experts. Compared to these tools, 3D G.I.S. visualisations have a high potential for contributing to better understanding of the plans (Hanzl, 2007, Wissen, 2007). They also integrate indicators in 3D visualisations, making it possible to link visual and non-visual factors affecting the landscape to perceive their impact. Shiffer (1995) explained methods to bring collaborative environments to public through access to a computer-based planning system. He concluded that by having more access to information under a collaborative environment there was a greater communication among participants, with a positive effect on the quality of plans and decisions taken by authorities (Shiffer, 1995, Kingston, 2002). These environments offer the possibility of allowing the public to be better informed and have a better idea of the spatial relationships of new proposals, which in turn will allow making more informed decisions. However, they should not be regarded as replacements to traditional methods of participation, since the objective of using I.T. is to complement them and to facilitate the communication with all parts. These tools would work only if the planners, authorities, stakeholders and public are willing to participate and if they trust that their opinions will be regarded by the authorities in the ultimate decisions (Kingston, 2002). The quality of the decision-making process results from availability, reliability of information, and the ability to collaborate and visualise the ideas of other parties.

29

3. Urban planning methods and current projects in Enschede

This chapter explains the collection of data for this research and gives an overview of the use of I.T. in urban planning and the extent of participation in Enschede. Three current projects are examined: two as reference cases, the Muziekkwartier and Roombeek. The third is the Usseler Es project, which will be used to create a 3D environment and is explained with more detail. Participation and use of I.T. are discussed in reference to the theoretical framework given in the last chapter.

3.1. Data collection for analysis of the projects

The data collection has been both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative data was collected from attendance to public meetings with authorities and interviews with planners. The quantitative data are the public documents and files obtained from the municipality to build the 3D G.I.S. environment, and are treated in the next chapter. The next part of this chapter deals with the examination of the qualitative data obtained from meetings and the presentation of three current projects. Non-participant observation was used for this purpose. This research method is used for collection of primary data as a selective way of watching and listening to behaviours and interactions of participants, without direct involvement in the actions taking place (Kumar, 2005). The objectives of attending the meetings were to observe: - what methods are used to present information to people, especially of visualisation - who attends the meetings (e.g. community members, politicians, age groups) - what is the organisation and order of the agenda - what kind of information is given - how do attendants participate and what is the level of participation - what kind of questions are asked Another part of qualitative data collection was done through unstructured interviews with three planners working at the municipality of Enschede. This type of interview was chosen because it allows flexibility of content and of issues that may come up during the interview (Kumar, 2005). They were focused on the kind of I.T. used for design of projects, the ways of participation of the community and the opinion of the planners about the use of G.I.S. and collaborative environments. Their answers have been reported in relation to the three projects studied.

30

3.2. Current planning projects in Enschede

The projects analysed were selected from an interview with an architect and project manager from the municipality, who was interviewed mainly because he was aware of the use of 3D modelling for some current projects in Enschede. The research for this thesis was then focused on visualisation methods used for these projects and how participation took place. This was related to the levels of participation and theoretical framework. Figure 3.1 shows the location of the projects studied: Muziekkwartier, Roombeek and Usseler Es. Figure 3.1. Location of the projects to be studied

Source: Google Maps (http://maps.google.com)

USSELER ES

ROOMBEEK

MUZIEKKWARTIER

31

3.2.1. The Muziekkwartier: Building the new while preserving the old

The Muziekkwartier is an ambitious project currently under construction in the north of the city centre (Figure 3.1). It consists of a new music hall that will join together six cultural and musical venues. The location was chosen next to the existing music centre to promote collaboration between both facilities. The municipality wishes to establish in Enschede more cultural venues of high quality to make the city and the region more attractive to visitors and inhabitants (Gem. Enschede, 2006d).

However, a large part of an existing old building is located partly in the same area where the Muziekkwartier is being built. This building belongs to the Larinkstichting, or Larink foundation, and consists of a community house called De Wonne. This building was formerly a cloister founded in 1868, and is nowadays considered a typical building from the region. Due to land use regulations, and to preserve the characteristics of the building and its function, the municipality decided to keep it. Nevertheless, since part of the land where De Wonne stands

now is overlapping with the Muziekkwartier’s area and project, the authorities decided to redesign part of the community house and the pedestrian paths in the area (Figures 3.2,3.3). The authorities held a series of meetings with the Larinkstichting to reach an agreement regarding the renovation of the property. From an aesthetic perspective of the music hall’s front, and the restrictions on the part of

Figure 3.3. De Wonne seen from Noordhagen (opposite side of music hall)

Source: Gem. Enschede, 2006d

Figure 3.2. De Wonne (left) and new music hall under construction (right)

Source: Gem. Enschede, 2006d

32

land belonging to the Larinkstichting, it was decided to tear down the northern wing of De Wonne and cede part of the freed ground to the government (Gem. Enschede, 2006d). As a result, the northern part of the house would have to be rebuilt within the premises of De Wonne or in an adjacent terrain. The debate whether these buildings should be demolished is still active (see TC Tubantia, 13/08/07). The negotiations with the Larinkstichting led to selling this part to the government. For the reconstruction of the house, five different layouts were proposed. There have been several meetings in the last two years to reach agreements regarding costs and designs for the final projects. These meetings are held usually at the city hall in the centre. They are meant for members of the municipality, representatives of political parties and private investors involved in the project. However, they are usually public, and because of transparency policies of the municipality, most meetings regarding public affairs are published online on their website (http://www.enschede.nl). A meeting regarding the Larinkstichting and other current issues in the city centre was attended on Sept. 11, 2007. The authorities presiding this meeting were the alderman and the project leader of the city centre commission, the moderator and secretaries. The meetings are usually held in the same room of the city hall, which has a large round table and space in the middle for maquettes of the projects. This spatial arrangement of the seats is helpful so that members can face each other and have a good view of the models and of the several screens around the room to show slides and videos (Figure 3.4). The meeting of Sept. 11th began with a presentation of the Larinkstichting case and five design proposals for the new community building. The presentation was done by Mr. Ton Schaap, architectural and project designer, who showed slides as he explained the alternatives. The presentation was done in 2D drawings, followed by slides of 3D scenes for each design, and a photo of each maquette (Figure 3.6) During the pause that followed, the attendants could walk around the centre of the room and see the maquette, which had each of the five designs made in removable blocks (Figure 3.4). Additionally, a printout of the alternatives was handed out to the attendants (Figure 3.5).

33

Figure 3.4. Meeting at the city hall of Enschede, Sept. 11, 2007

Figure 3.5. Printout of the designs for De Wonne project, handed out during the meeting

34

Figure 3.6. Details of one of the proposed designs. Images presented as slides during the presentation.

A session of questions followed, mostly made by political party representatives to the alderman regarding financial issues, implications of the design on the preservation of the part of the old convent, and impact on the future of the De Wonne as a community house. There was a preference expressed by several attendants for one of the designs, called “Kloostertuin” (Fig. 3.5), because it offered an enclosed garden and more privacy to the house. The garden in the other designs was open to the street and the passers-by could look into the building. This meeting

35

was not decisive about the final design, since there are still other issues to be arranged with the Laringkstichting.

Conclusions from the observations It was clear from this meeting that its purpose was mostly informative, with little participation possible from the attendants. Anyone who had something to say or to ask could send a request before the meeting was held. However, it followed the guidelines of a predominantly informative session, in which the authorities tell the parties what is going to be done. Participation to a certain extent is possible, by making these meetings public and allowing questions, but after decisions already taken. This, as explained in the previous chapter, can be defined as participation in the tokenism levels of Arnstein’s participation ladder. Moreover, this is a very specific project in which mainly the Larinkstichting is affected by the construction of the new music hall. Therefore, it was reasonable to expect little interest of local inhabitants who are not directly influenced by the consequences of the project. Accordingly, this would place them in the “apathical” level of Milbrath’s participation behaviours. In the “transitional” level we would find the Larinkstichting members and people directly affected. Another aspect is the use of I.T. in the making of the plans and in the decision-making process. From the interviews and from the meeting, it was gathered that C.A.D., 3D C.A.D. and maquettes are the main tools used in the design and visualisation of plans. In this case no G.I.S. had been used. When designing new projects, in the preparation of plans, visualisation and in the development control (see Chapter 2, Manoharan, et al., 2001) G.I.S. and 3D G.I.S. are relatively little used in Enschede. The visualisation techniques generally used are the ones presented in the meeting. From the case of De Wonne, it is possible to notice that there were some difficulties in understanding the spatial relationships and impact on the surroundings. The presentation of each design option in slides with static screenshots of the model made it hard to assimilate the impact of each design on this part of the city centre. Additionally, the model in the centre of the room was made with white foam and cardboard, no colours, and the buildings were roughly all square blocks. The people could remove the blocks with the different designs. This way they could get a general idea of how would the access to the streets and to the garden of the community house would look like, but all in plain white. In fact, four of the designs looked quite similar when presented this way, and only the “Kloostertuin” option was noticeably different because of the wall around the garden.

36

The vision of the project in the people’s mind is influenced by the way information is presented and how an inner perception of the world is created (see Chapter 2, Hanzl, 2007). It is hence the idea of this research that the use of I.T. could aid in the visualisation of projects and in understanding the spatial relationships of each design. In the Larinkstichting case, the use of navigable 3D environments could help having a better visualisation of these relationships. The user would be able to move around each project and have a better perception of the impact on the surrounding buildings. The project could be made available online to the stakeholders and members of the Larinkstichting to obtain their feedback, or even to make modifications to the designs themselves. In the e-participation ladder (Chapter 2), attaining this level would mean having online participation forums and a collaborative virtual design made with different opinions, towards a partnership level in Arnstein’s ladder. However, in Enschede the level of e-participation is predominantly one-way (websites, online survey) and the communication barrier has been crossed only to some extent by setting up online discussion forums about the planning projects occurring in the city (see http://www.enschede-stad.nl).

3.2.2. Roombeek: Design you own house

The second project that was studied is the reconstruction of Roombeek, a quarter of the city that lies north of the city centre (Figure3.1). On May 13th, 2000, a firework warehouse located in this area exploded, devastating entire blocks of buildings, around 42 hectares in total (Figure 3.7). Over 1000 people were injured, 23 killed, some 1450 lost their homes, and 123 businesses lost their properties (Lutjenhuis, 2006). After the disaster, a painstaking reconstruction of the neighbourhood began, with the purpose of bringing the affected people back to the area and making it a new, prosperous quarter. Participation of the people was essential in this project, since the government had lost credibility and wanted to regain the people’s trust. Participation was carried out through surveys, interviews and gatherings, where people could have their say about the reconstruction. 3000 opinions on paper were

Figure 3.7 Aerial image of Roombeek after the fireworks disaster

Source: http://www.kei-centrum.nl

37

collected for making the guiding plan (Pool, 2007, Lutjenhuis, 2006). Collaborative sessions were organised by the municipality so that people of all ages, backgrounds and different times of living in the area, could express their opinions on designs for new buildings, what they wanted to keep and what not. Even families with their children could participate with clay and Lego blocks (van Snellenberg, 2007, Pool, 2007). The opinions were reflected in the first plans that were produced. Taking into account the people’s opinions into the plans signifies a step further up in the ladder of participation, from tokenism to the direction of the citizen power levels. In the new plans for Roombeek, there has also been emphasis on bringing out the variety of cultural aspects of the area before the disaster and even from a more distant past, during the textile era of the region. It is clear that the municipality has given to this project much more space for participation than usual in similar developments, and right from the beginning of the development process (Vogelij, et al., 2001). This implies, as would be expected, a greater investment of funds, time, and human resources in the process. Nonetheless, the resources invested have so far resulted in a valuable experience of public participation. I.T. has been used in this project in the form of several websites promoted by the authorities, where people can post their own comments and opinions. With the use of GPS, photos and personal stories, the website Droombeek4 (droom means “dream”) aims at bringing together the cultural threads of the area from the inhabitants of different times. The local people can post their memories and stories related to diverse locations in Roombeek. Artists have added small films to the stories. This website helps in creating a collective history, promoting the new image of this quarter of the city, and making future plans, without focusing only on the catastrophe. Additionally, audible guides have been recorded as tours and can be rented from the Rijksmuseum Twente to walk around the neighbourhood while listening on a PDA and locating the sites on a GPS (Figure 3.8). Rengersen (2006) mentions and shows screenshots of an interactive timeline, a navigable 3D model of Roombeek and the website available for PDA as special features, so that people could use them to build their own houses; however, they are no longer available in the official 4 See http://www.droombeek.nl and http://test.droombeek.nl

Figure 3.8. Walking around Roombeek with a PDA tour

Source: Altena, 2006

38

website5. Other websites related to the reconstruction of Roombeek were created, in order to integrate online assistance before, during and after the renovation. There has been use of virtual reality, 3D and forms of collaborative environments in different phases of this project, bringing it up along the e-participation ladder. This participative approach of Roombeek’s renovation, that allowed former residents to acquire a parcel and design their own house, has been successful in many aspects. By 2006, around 40% of the former residents from rented housing had returned and were satisfied with the prospect of turning Roombeek into a new district (Lutjenhuis, 2006). This project has used a planning system that has integrated participation with I.T., although no G.I.S.were used (Van Snellenberg, 2007). The 3D environment has already been removed from the website, but it is still to be seen whether other features will be kept in the future and used as guidelines for new projects, especially from the bottom-top approach of planning. Other cities in the Netherlands have already plans of using the same participation scheme for building new neighbourhoods, for example, Almere (van Lieshout, 2006). This project is contrasting with the one of Larinkstichting and shows that the nature of the project and the interests of authorities, stakeholders and community influence the approach taken on participation. It also shows that participation levels vary and that I.T. could be used in different stages, from the beginning to the feedback obtainable at the end.

3.3. The Usseler Es: Project description

Another recent planning project in Enschede is the Usseler Es new industrial complex. This project has been chosen for this work because it has not yet been constructed and offers the possibility of using 3D visualisation for prospective buildings and layouts. Also, it is a controversial project where social, land use and environmental issues are involved. The idea is that having the data organised in a P.S.S. could be useful for spatial analysis of scenarios and detection of possible conflicts, as opposed to using only C.A.D. Additionally, the 3D G.I.S. visualisation could be useful for sharing the plans and concerns with the people affected and obtaining their opinions, for example, through an online environment. This project will modify substantially the current landscape which offers an agreeable panorama of green agricultural fields with the city skyline in the background. Some sectors of the local community are in favour and some against the project, a debate that has lasted several years (Westerink, 2004). The intention of using I.T. would be to make the decision-making process more collaborative and less conflictive.

5 The official website is http://www.roombeek.nl.

39

3.3.1. Background of the project

In 1999, the municipality of Enschede selected the Usseler Es Noord area as the potential site for building a modern industrial complex. After a series of referenda, its definitive status was approved in 2003 (Gem. Enschede, 2006a). It is located in the southwest of the centre (Figures 3.1, 3.9). Figure 3.9. Location of the Usseler Es, construction site

Source: Google Earth

The Usseler Es is connected to other industrial neighbouring areas, namely Marssteden, Josink Es, Havengebied and Grolschterrein. The project consists of building a modern complex of mixed companies covering in total 55 hectares. The business types would include wholesale trading, production, building, and logistics, in plots between 500 m2 and 2 hectares (Gem. Enschede, 2006a). The main reasons for selecting the Usseler Es as construction site for this project are mainly related to its convenient location (Gem. Enschede, 2006b): - The northern side of the Usseler Es is right next to the A35 highway and close to an upcoming connection with the A18/15 which are important intercity roads. - It is close to the city centre and to other business terrains (Marssteden, Josink Es). - It lies within jurisdiction and boundaries of the same municipality. The planning of the project has integrated several aspects: geographical structure and land uses, landscape and ecological matters, cultural, historical and archaeological studies, transport and traffic, living conditions, soils and water (Gem. Enschede, 2006c).

40

It is worth noting that an es or escomplex refers not only to a round geomorphologic structure, but also to agricultural systems linked in an area, with a circle of farmhouses and their cultivation lands in the middle. Throughout the centuries, the production of fertilisers has contributed to the round shaping of the Usseler Es (Gem. Enschede, 2006b). The es has an elevation in the middle (called bolling), with an altitude of 36.5 m.a.s.l., which gradually flattens out to the rest of the terrain and reaches 29 m (Figure 3.10). The bolling is currently crossed by a path used by cyclists and passers-by, a feature that is wished to be conserved in the plans (Figure 3.11). Figure 3.10. Topographical characteristics of the terrain (contour lines)

Figure 3.11. Path across the bolling

The municipality has carried out extensive research on the environmental impact of the project. In October, 2005, the first round of meetings with the affected people, mainly local inhabitants, took place. During 2006, the results of environmental research and archaeological findings in the area were presented to the authorities to be considered in the design. In October 2007 there was a second round of meetings concerning the final layout and the

building quality, as well as the decisions to be taken regarding archaeological findings.

Source:Gem. Enschede, 2007b

41

The current state of affairs is in general the following (van ‘t Erve, 2007): - Finalisation of project layout and building quality decisions - Preparation for development into land use allocation plan (bestemmingsplan) - Finalisation of environmental impact report and decisions taken accordingly (in Dutch, MER, milieu effect rapportage)

3.3.2. Project layout

The plan divides the terrain into three main parts: the Es and the Eastern and Western rings. The distribution of the parcels was based on the topography of the terrain around the bolling and on the existing rings of farms and tree lines on the western and eastern sides (Figure 3.12). The initial objective was to offer 60 Ha of built industrial area, out of the 155 Ha that the whole area covers. During the first designs of the project three alternatives with different built areas were considered: 50 Ha, 65 Ha, and 53 Ha with possible growth to 60 Ha (see Gem. Enschede, 2006c for details). The distribution of hectares from one alternative to the other mostly affected the Es. The 65 Ha proposal implied a bigger area of the Es built towards the Western circle, hence more pressure on the existing landscape of this part. For the final project, a compromise of all alternatives was made and a project of 55 Ha was designed to fit the industrial area in the Usseler Es with its contrasting landscape conditions. The parcelling was divided as shown in Figure 3.12 and 3.13. Figure 3.12. Distribution of hectares to be constructed in the Usseler Es

Source: Gem. Enschede, 2007b

42

The design was made so that new parcels were built in the side rings surrounded by new lines of trees, to maintain the green areas that characterise the circles. These areas will have smaller parcels and buildings. In contrast, the Es would be more densely built, with small lanes between them. New paths and vehicle roads will surround the Es and go around the side rings to connect them with the existing main roads. Also, a bus stop, carpool and truck stop will be installed. The design of the project has taken into consideration several factors and difficulties that uniquely affect this terrain. First, the contrasting difference of landscape and topography between the Es and the circles influenced the building designs, materials and colours. The materials and style of building on the Western circle will be more rustic, farm-like traditional buildings (Figure 3.15), while the Es will have more block-style buildings with glass, concrete and wood (Figure 3.14). The southern part of the Eastern circle will have the largest block-style buildings, referred to as “mammoths” (Gem. Enschede, 2007b) (Figure 3.16). The ground on the Eastern ring is, besides, more suitable for building larger structures. A second important aspect in the design is the existing cables and conducts running over and under the ground. The terrain is surrounded by main motorways, especially the A35 to the south. Also, a high voltage power line runs across the northern part of the terrain, and a natural gas pipeline runs from east to west. A third factor is the fact that the area is rich in archaeological remains, especially under the bolling. This has been taken into account for the regulations of the future buildings, but has not been a reason per se to abort the project. The archaeological issue will be retaken further in this chapter. A fourth factor is the existence of salt extraction points in the Western circle. These are currently granted to a company called AKZO. The extraction of salt had to be considered in the plan in order to reach an agreement with the company and find a balance regarding the pressure exercised on the ground both from building and from mining, hence to prevent possible collapsing (van ‘t Erve, 2007). A fifth factor is the historical and cultural value of this type of rural landscape. The plan has considered the inclusion of new vegetation rows and the “filling” of the Eastern and Western rings, adapting to the existing farms and traditional buildings. A large part of green areas will be left in these sides to preserve as much as possible the typical es landscape. This, logically, has not come without opposition from local farmers, ecologists and other groups in favour of preserving the es untouched, or that advocate alternative uses, such as agro-touristic, cultural landscape (Kuit, 2007).

43

Figure 3.13. Plan layout of October 2007 (55 ha)

Source: Gem. Enschede, 2007b

Figure 3.14. Building style projected for the Es

Figure 3.15. Building style projected for the Western circle.

Figure 3.16. Building style projected for south of Eastern circle.

Source: Gem. Enschede, 2007b

44

3.3.3. Participation and meetings

There were in total three public meetings about the Usseler Es project during October 2007 (3rd, 8th, and 24th), all of them held at the Old Usseler School located in the Usseler Es. From attendance to all of them and from two interviews with one of the planners involved in the design of the Usseler Es project, the general participation scheme of this project was devised. The first two meetings were organised specifically for the directly affected people who have properties or that live around the area. People were invited personally with letters and these meetings were not advertised elsewhere. The content of both meetings was on the whole the same. The main speakers were the project manager, Mrs. Sigrid Hafkenscheid, who presented the project design, and Mr. Rene Isarin from a private enterprise (Archeologic) who presented the archaeological findings and status of the researches. First, an overview of the project status from October 2005 was given. This was followed by a slide presentation of the final project layout of 55 Ha, showing which would be the built areas, the new roads and paths, and particularly, the building quality and materials to be used (Figure 3.17). This was the first time that the final plans were being presented in public. Participation during this meeting followed generally the same pattern perceived at the meeting of the Larinkstichting. After the slide presentation, there was a pause in which people could take coffee and look around the model and posters with the sketches and rules of the building designs (Figure 3.19) and discuss among themselves. Another presentation followed the pause, concerning the archaeological findings and the decisions to be taken about this issue. A round of questions and an invitation to the next meeting followed. On the second meeting, the content was roughly the same, with some more detail on the explanation of road sections and types of buildings for each parcel. The third and last meeting of this round was held on the 24th. This one was public and had been announced on media so that members of press and anyone interested could attend. There was indeed more attendance, but the audience was not significantly larger and many of the people were the same that had been there on the previous meetings. The alderman, Mr. Eric Helder, was present to answer questions. The first part of the meeting had the same content as the previous ones. The second part showed the archaeological findings with some more detail than previously. In this meeting, there was a longer round of questions to the alderman, to the archaeology researchers and to the project manager, as expected. Throughout all the

45

meetings and questions, there was a moderator walking around the tables to give the word to the person who had a question.

Figure 3.17. Meetings held at old school in the Usseler Es (Oct. 3rd, 8th)

There was also a small maquette in the room (Figure 3.18)

Figure 3.18. Model of the Usseler Es project

Figure 3.19. Posters of the project on the walls during the meetings.

46

The questions posed by the audience, mostly local inhabitants, were related to diverse aspects of the design of the project, costs, environment, land use, and archaeological issues. There was much concern about the increase in vehicle transit on the surrounding roads and possible traffic jams due to the new industrial site, to which the authorities responded that possible solutions were being considered. The archaeological discoveries were still under research for taking final decisions. The municipality’s position was to adhere to national regulations regarding archaeological findings. There were three possibilities in this respect: in situ preservation of the remains, partial excavation, and in situ preservation through raising the terrain to create a protective ground layer. This last option was the one being considered for this project, since excavation procedures were too costly. Other questions were related to the building quality and materials to be used, with reference to the scenes presented in the slides (e.g. Figures 3.14, 3.15) and different viewpoints of these scenes. It was clear from these questions that there were difficulties in getting a good idea of the design of the buildings. Some questions referred to the future of the existing farmhouses, but it is contemplated that these will be preserved and small parcels for industrial use will be built in the circles. After this last gathering, it was announced that there would be individual meetings with people who had specific issues to discuss, during October and November, and that the next phase of archaeological research would continue throughout the following months. The next section discusses the interests of stakeholders and actors in the project.

3.3.4. Stakeholders’ interests

The Usseler Es project involves a deep transformation of land use and of the landscape, involving conflicting interests from the different parties. These are summarised in Table 3.1:

47

Table 3.1. Interests of the actors in the Usseler Es project Actor Interest

Municipality

Varying according to the political party/coalition: -Taxes from industry -Employment and business opportunities -Cheap industrial site development -New industrial sites out of the city centre to avoid congestion and industrial sites in town -Attract new investors/businesss to the region

Project developers

-Buy land from farmers before municipality regulations prohibits speculation sales - Most of the area in the Usseler Es is now in hands of project developers, some in hands of municipality - Conditional contracts with farmers: pre-payment, plus extra money if industrial development is taking place

Farmers/ individual landowners

- Some keen on selling in view of non-promising future of agricultural use - Few inclined to sustainable agriculture, agro-tourism - Some would prefer to continue as usual, although 50% will disappear

Nature/landscape conservationists

- Keep a green belt around Enschede - Improve ecological quality of green area (agriculture, nature) - Keep areas with valuable and typical historical characteristics - Conservation of the es landscape

Sources: made with information from Dopheide, 2007, VROM, 2001

The decision of establishing a new business complex here is already taken, and the current actions involve negotiations with the land owners who have some of the lands left. Most of the land has been sold to the private companies and to the government. The sharing of information has been through meetings and private visits to people living in the area. People had the opportunity to express their concerns and opinions through these means. The authorities proceeded to negotiate with the farmers and land owners to buy their lands, and although most land has been sold, there are still negotiations pending. The ecologist and opposition groups were expected to come to the last public meeting. This did not occur, although some people expressed their reluctance when directing questions to the authorities.6 Once the plans and arrangements are finalised, the project will be taken to legal

6 For example, one of the attendants expressed his disapproval by saying that of course it would be better

if nothing was built at all, but that it had been democratically decided.

48

procedures to modify the allocation of the land use for the area. Figure 3.20 summarises the decision making process for this case. Figure 3.20. Diagram of the observed process for planning a new business complex

Source: Made with information from meetings and Gem. Enschede, 2006c. The diagram is a simplification to show that the participation in the scheme is restricted to informative and negotiation guidelines. This can be explained by the conflictive nature of the project. The authorities and planners are not prepared in this case to allow bottom-top participation in the design, since the implied land use change itself is originating a conflict. The nature of the project and the interests of the actors are utterly different from those in the Roombeek case, hence, the participation scheme is limited. The amount of information about the plans given to the people varies from one project to another. This was confirmed when addressing this issue to the planners interviewed. The case of De Wonne had also limited participation possibilities. The layout alternatives were submitted to public opinion once chosen by the planners. The many political and private interests make it difficult to allow people’s participation from the beginning. However, P.S.S. could be used in making decisions and assessing different alternatives. The next section discusses the use of I.T. in the project and its significance.

49

3.3.5. I.T. in the project

I.T. in this project has been used as traditionally, with plans drawn in C.A.D., slide presentations of 3D views and maquettes. During the meetings, the slides had a mark of certain viewpoints, followed by another slide of a 3D scene of what the landscape would look like from that viewpoint (Figure 3.21). Figure 3.21. Slide showing viewpoints (red marks) from which a 3D scene was presented in a following slide (below). Scene of the northernmost viewpoint.

50

It was clear that these viewpoints and the 3D scenes were difficult to grasp: they were many times referred to during the round of questions and more than once asked to be shown again. Also, some of the slides did not have the viewpoint mark from which the 3D was shown, and some others were not shown in the corresponding order, making it confusing. Figure 3.22. Viewpoint showing the corresponding 3D scene

The difficulties in perceiving a general impression of the impact on the landscape can emerge when there is a use of isolated scenes. Therefore, a 3D environment could be more appropriate for this purpose, both in presentations to the people, and also for the

planners during the making of the project. Not only in the final visualisation, but during the entire planning process, this project offers a valuable application of 3D models that involve G.I.S. and C.A.D. and its use could be extended to other projects. Stohr (2007) has presented a pilot experimental project based on 3D modelling for planning regarding features of the terrain below the ground, e.g. pipelines, conducts, wells. The Usseler Es project was taken as an ideal case because of this. One of these features is the salt openings that are located in diverse points

51

beneath the soil. Also, the archaeological discoveries and the pipes running under the ground make this project of particular interest to 3D modelling. A part of the Usseler Es has been recognised as archaeological zone, with remains dating back to the Iron Age. The es is rich in remains, gradually uncovered as it acquired its shape over the centuries. The intention is to preserve them undisturbed by the drilling, dragging and groundwork from the constructions. 3D modelling can be useful in assessing the maximum depths possible for building and making decisions about the design of the plans and situation of buildings (Stohr, 2007, VROM, 2007a). 3D modelling in G.I.S. for land use allocation projects (bestemmingsplan) and planning are a more useful tool in terms of visualisation of data and analysis of spatial relationships than 3D C.A.D. alone (Stohr, 2007, VROM, 2007b). Using 3D G.I.S. from the beginning of the plan could aid in a better visualisation of possible obstacles under the ground and making decisions when modification of land use and suitability issues are involved.

3.4. Conclusions

From the observations made form the meetings attended and the questions to project leaders, it is noticeable that urban planning communication is still predominantly informative. It is important to remember that Arnstein’s participation ladder is an over-simplification, meant to analyse the participation level regarding a new project and the attitude of the authorities. Hence, it would not be appropriate to generalise the participation level to all projects carried out in Enschede. The cases of De Wonne and the Usseler Es have shown that participation was done once decisions were made. In the Roombeek case, there was more room for participation in the design stages, due to the diverse interests of the actors and the nature of the project. The meetings were attended by political representatives and people only closely related to the project. This suggests that there is lack of interest in attending meetings. This could be related to little promotion made by the authorities, little involvement or knowledge of the project, or apathy. The meetings, additionally, are usually held in the evenings after 19:00 and may last a couple of hours or longer. Attendance will always be affected by time and locations constraints, since not everybody is able, nor willing, to attend. The I.T. used in the design and visualisation of the projects was C.A.D. and 3D modelling. However, the visualisation was suboptimal for giving a good idea of the entire project. This could be gathered from the questions raised during the meetings, which suggested that there were difficulties in understanding the spatial relationships and implications of the project designs on the landscape.

52

There was practically no use of G.I.S. in these projects. Some G.I.S. is used in planning in Enschede, especially in projects where designers and stakeholders require cadastral data of parcels from the allocation land use plans. A G.I.S. database is available online since May 2007 for this purpose (http://www.geobrowser.enschede.nl). The cadastral G.I.S. of Enschede is a step on the way to the integration of spatial data to G.I.S. and online environments, but it is not intended yet to be used for public participation, thus remains in the informative level. The use of I.T. for allowing participation online is minimal, especially in the design phases. It was experienced only in the Roombeek case. This suggests that the nature of the project has a great influence on the approach that authorities are willing to take regarding participation. Each project is the starting point for integration of collaborative planning and I.T. The use of P.S.S. could be generalised in the urban planning process, but each project would have different user levels and requirements depending on its specific conditions.

53

4. Construction of a Collaborative 3D Environment of the Usseler Es

This chapter is dedicated to the construction of a 3D G.I.S. environment of the Usseler Es project to incorporate into a P.S.S.. The aim of integrating G.I.S. and 3D modelling is to obtain a project that can be visualised and dynamically analysed. Two main components for building the P.S.S. are the 3D G.I.S. modelling and the module for assessment of alternatives. This chapter explains the procedure for building the 3D G.I.S. model for visualisation. Three different options for creating the model were tried and compared. For the construction of a 3D G.I.S. environment and P.S.S., the use of specialised software is required. These software have been developed by academic and private institutions. Table 4.1 compares some commercial planning support software. It shows that there is a large variety regarding costs, uses and technical requirements. Some are primarily designed for simulation and scenario construction; others integrate visualisation techniques and are aimed at collaborative planning. Table 4.1. Examples of simulation, scenario construction and visualisation softwares for planning support

Name Modules Uses Technical overview Price for a single user license (a)

INDEX, by Criterion Planners, USA (introduced in 1994)

PlanBuilder Paint the Region

Real-time scenario construction, assessment of performance indicators, sketch and evaluation of land use and transportation scenarios, monitoring implementation of adopted plans

Requires ESRI software. No 3D modelling software associated, but can be used in 3D with ArcScene and Google Earth

1900 USD

What If?, by What If? Inc. lead by R. Klosterman, USA (introduced in 1996)

Suitability, Growth, Allocation

Construction and evaluation of scenarios, land use suitability analysis, land use allocation, population growth estimations, public policy alternatives

Requires ESRI software. No 3D modelling software associated

2950 USD (1 year technical support included)

Continued.

54

Table 4.1. Continued.

CommunityViz, by Orton Family Foundation, USA (first released in 2001)

SiteBuilder 3D, Scenario 360

Construction and evaluation of land use scenarios, suitability analysis, real-time visualisation of indicators linkable to 3D visualisations, 3D G.I.S. modelling of scenarios

Requires ESRI software. 3D G.I.S. modelling software associated. 3D modelling module sold separately (ModelBuilder)

279 USD

UrbanSim, by University of Washington (introduced in 1990s)

Opus/ UrbanSim

Land use, transportation, and air quality modelling for urban planning, based on behavioural approach and land simulation processes, designed for web distribution

Uses Python and MySQL. Platform-independent. No 3D visualisation associated. Primarily meant for indicator and policy modelling.

Open source (free)

MapTalk, by Wageningen Software Labs

MapTalk Multiple user real-time data sharing, construction and modification of G.I.S. data, coordinated by a server.

Supported by MapInfo. No 3D modelling software associated.

N/A

(a) Prices at the time of writing. Technical support, extra modules and multiple user licenses not included. Sources: Klosterman and Brail, 2002, Criterion Planners, 2007, Orton Family Foundation, 2007, UrbanSim, 2007, WhatIf Inc, 2007, W!SL, 2007

Many P.S.S. are being developed by academic sectors and are used experimentally. The P.S.S. software used in this work is CommunityViz, which was purchased by the ITC in mid 2007. Both modules of this software will be used for the project of the Usseler Es. The module Scenario 360 is for assessing the impact of actions taken on different land uses. The module SiteBuilder 3D is the 3D G.I.S. modelling part of the software, both for three-dimensional display and for animation. Many rural and urban planning projects, especially in the U.S.A., have used CommunityViz (Lieske, et al., 2003, vid Orton Family Foundation, 2007). The environments produced with CommunityViz or any other similar applications are intended for different user levels, planners and community.

4.1. Data collection for construction of the 3D environment

The following list of required data for construction of a 3D G.I.S. model was compiled after studying other models and reviewing the requirements in manuals, tutorials, cases and demos pertaining the ArcGIS and CommunityViz software, which are available both with the software and online (vid. ESRI, 2007, Orton Family Foundation, 2007):

55

Required data for building the 3D G.I.S. model of the Usseler Es: - Height data of terrain (as either DEM, feature layer with elevation points/lines or TIN). - Project layout of buildings and proposed features - Specifications of buildings: height, floor area, no. of floors, orientation, land use, length, type of building, dwelling units, minimum separation distances, materials used (any format) - Water and sewage - Electricity lines - Roads (planned and existing, type, width) - Paths (bicycles, footpaths) - Parcels (with land use, area) - Aerial image (photo or satellite) - Trees (existing and planned) - Soil (type, depth, suitability for building) - Archaeological sites (location) -Ecological aspects (e.g. nesting sites, protected zones, natural monuments) - Monuments and cultural sites - Any other constraint layers (areas of prohibition to build because of soil type, wetland, floodplain, right-of-way, archaeology, ecology, conservation, etc) The data required was obtained from the municipality. Most plans are designed and made in C.A.D. software, so the files obtained had been made in AutoCAD. Three C.A.D. files were obtained: 1) the project’s layout which contained proposed buildings, trees, roads, constraints, parcels, power lines and water and sewage conducts, 2) topographical data for the complete city (polyline) of 1 m, and 3) topographical data of the Usseler Es (points) of 0.5 m. The aerial image and data about specification of building regulations, archaeological sites, water and sewage and building materials were contained in PowerPoint and Pdf files. Not all of the data abovementioned was available in layers (e.g. soil/geological data) and some data was not applicable to this case (e.g. building restriction due to nesting sites). The model and analyses can still be performed without strictly having all of the above data, depending on the desired analyses to be done. In this case the model was made to visualise the final project design of the Usseler Es.

56

4.2. Data preparation and difficulties encountered

Preparation of the data consisted on the following parts: 1) Check structure of C.A.D. files to know how many layers were contained. This was done in ArcGIS, 2) Separate layers by theme, using selection functions 3) Export each layer’s features into a new shapefile. 4) Check features of each layer for errors (e.g. extra features not corresponding to the same theme layer). 5) Transform feature layers of one type into the type required for the model. This means that some feature layers such as trees were included in the C.A.D. file as polygons, but for the 3D model it is preferred to have them in points. This way, each tree will be rendered as an individual 3D object, which adds more realism and flexibility to choosing the desired type of trees for the model. Also, the roads were polygon type, but for the 3D model it needs to be line type to be properly rendered. 6) Edit attribute table of each layer and add required attributes obtained from specification documents given in Pdf and Power Point files, since C.A.D. format does not support spatial attributes. The first problems encountered were in the conversion of C.A.D. into to shapefiles. C.A.D. layers are all bundled together in the same file (Figure 4.1). Although ArcGIS is capable of opening this format, each layer had to be re-exported into a new shapefile to work with it and add its attributes. The C.A.D. file of the Usseler Es project contained 23 layers, but some of these were extra data not necessary for the model, and others were layers of the same theme (e.g. trees). All features of each layer were selected by layer name and exported to shapefile both in polygon and polyline formats. This part of the process is time-consuming as the layers have to be in the proper feature type to build the model.

57

Figure 4.1. Plan of the Usseler Es project

All the layers were projected in the coordinate system Rijksdriehoekstelsel (double stereographic projection), Amersfoort datum. This was the original projection of the C.A.D. files and is commonly used for the Netherlands. The aerial image was given in a Pdf document. To extract the image from this file format into a TIFF it was selected and saved in a graphic editor software. Then it was georeferenced in ArcGIS to use it as a texture of the terrain. When extracting it from the Pdf file the original resolution could not be kept, but for the purpose of this project a high resolution image was not required.

4.3. Building the 3D G.I.S. model of the Usseler Es project

The use of software that supports 3D modelling derived from G.I.S. data in feature layers is required for constructing the model. CommunityViz has this functionality in the SiteBuilder 3D module. It is possible to use it in combination with additional 3D (non-G.I.S.) modelling software such as 3Ds Max, ModelBuilder or Google SketchUp for more detailed models of features such as buildings. There are three options for 3D visualisation and modelling available in combination with CommunityViz: 1) SiteBuilder 3D, 2) ArcScene, a module of ArcGIS, which can be used together with Scenario360, and 3) Google Earth, to which features can be exported from CommunityViz. Table 4.2 compares some features of each option.

58

Table 4.2. Features of different 3D visualisation tools usable with CommunityViz Feature ArcScene SiteBuilder 3D Google

Earth

Allows visualisation of features (e.g. not yet built) using a timeline

Yes No Yes

Some features of Scenario360 can be used within it

Yes No No

Allows different navigation modes around the model (e.g. walk, fly, drive)

No Yes No

Source of 3D models 3D model library , via 3D symbology wizard (OpenFlight (.flt), 3DStudio (.3ds), SketchUp (.skp), VRML).

3D model library , using drag and drop (OpenFlight format)

.kmz or

.dae models

Portability of model Requires ArcGIS, model cannot be executed independently

Model can be exported with associated files and executed independently of other software

Requires Google Earth software

Sources: made with information from ESRI, 2007b, Orton Family Foundation, 2007b

These options were explored in this work, particularly SiteBuilder 3D and Google Earth because of the greater portability of the resulting model.

4.3.1. Building the 3D model in SiteBuilder 3D

The basic terrain for the 3D scene in SiteBuilder 3D was made from the height data, which needs to be either in a grid format (DEM), TIN or a feature layer (contour lines or points). The data obtained from the municipality in C.A.D. files contained height data in contour lines (1 m) for the whole city and points (0.5 m) for the area of the Usseler Es. To add texture to the terrain, an aerial photo or satellite image was required. High resolutions are not necessary, as the image would be in most cases treated as a texture only for giving a more realistic appearance to the terrain. Although the satellite image or aerial photo can be treated as an image, with its original resolution, a high-resolution image will consume more memory and time during the rendering of the scene. For this model the image was treated as texture. The process for building the model is summarised below:

1. Create terrain from contour lines.

59

2. Drape terrain texture (aerial image) 3. Add feature layers 4. Import 3D models and textures for each layer 5. Run 3D navigable model

Difficulties encountered When experimenting with a DEM from Enschede (obtained from the ITC map database) to create a terrain of the whole city, the software hung indefinitely and could not render the grid terrain. This was a consistent problem found when trying to use different DEMs with SiteBuilder3D, which suggests that using rasters for creating the base terrain is not optimal. Creating a TIN with ArcGIS tools to test this method generated some unexpected errors. The contour lines with heights was the method that worked best. SiteBuilder 3D generated sometimes unknowns errors and had to be restarted several times during the edition of the model.

Results The resulting model was a navigable 3D environment made entirely with G.I.S. data and 3D models or textures substituting point, line or polygon features. Each one was customised using the layers’ attributes. This model can be exported in a folder which contains the 3D Viewer executable file and all the associated files of the model. The purpose is to make it easily distributable This 3D environment has several advantages: - Navigation modes: the user can choose navigation at different speeds and height viewpoints, e.g. walking between buildings or flying over the whole scene. - Different options to modify the lighting, fog effects and cloud styles. - 3D models can be imported from other software/sources, as well as textures - Each feature is customisable with different 3D models, using attributes. - Options for creating a virtual tour and a movie - Creation of a sharable 3D scene, which is the model exported with the executable viewer so that it can be navigated without installing any other software These last two options are particularly interesting regarding visualisation and options for participation, since the model can be distributed through a website or a CD and navigated so that the user can get a better impression of the project rather than having e.g. only static images available. The main disadvantages of this model are:

60

-Navigation is not so easy, requires adjusting and learning some of the tools to use it -Detailed and complex scenes require large space disk hence reducing portability -The software’s model library is limited. 3D models can be imported but need to be in OpenFlight format (.flt) and converting them needs separate software -Some features show overlaps and small errors when rendering (e.g. road edges) which reduces realism to the scene, especially when navigating it. A snapshot of the model created in SiteBuilder 3D is shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2. Snapshots of the 3D G.I.S. model of Usseler Es project as seen on the 3D Viewer

61

4.3.2. Building the 3D model in Google Earth

The model can be visualised in Google Earth by exporting the feature layers from CommunityViz. The built-in tool for this is customisable to export attributes such as height for polygons and 3D models associated for points. It also allows exporting scenarios each which its own set of layers, and features not yet built, that can be seen over a slider bar representing time. The 3D models can be made in Google Sketchup in the KMZ native format or downloaded from the 3D Warehouse of Google Earth. The result is a single KMZ file that contains all the layers and settings chosen for exporting.

Difficulties encountered The main difficulty for creating the project in Google Earth was that the coordinates of the exported layers had to be transformed to those of Google Earth (i.e., WGS84), which requires a third party software (e.g. ArcGIS). On-the-fly transformations do not work, since the exporting tool takes the coordinates from the source layer. Therefore, all layers had to be permanently transformed. Also, ready-made 3D models downloaded from 3D Warehouse were hard to adapt to the scene due to different proportions with the rest of the objects. These difficulties are encountered when the project is not originally made for publishing in Google Earth, like this one. They can be avoided by creating the model from the beginning in the WGS84 coordinates and making or customising the 3D models.

Results The KMZ file contained all layers selected for exporting, together with specified attributes such as height for polygons and 3D models for points. They were easily viewed in Google Earth. The advantages of this 3D model are: -Practical: A single KMZ file of small size contains all layers and can be easily transported -Allows scenarios with its own layers and charts to be exported and viewed on Google Earth -Layers with features built over time can be shown with a slider bar -Easiness to zoom in and pan around the model -Option to create a virtual tour

62

-Increasingly popular format and tool used worldwide; makes it more attractive and accessible Disadvantages found: -Model created is not as realistic as in SiteBuilder 3D -No customisable environmental effects (e.g. daylight, fog) -Navigation modes are not possible -Scaling of 3D models when exporting the layers is not possible, it has to be done when creating or editing the model itself (e.g. in Google Sketchup), hence making it much harder to obtain the right proportions when importing models -3D models of point features may appear flat when moving around the model -Quality of terrain texture depends on quality of available Google Earth images of the region of interest, as well as topographical data available The 3D model created in Google Earth was easier to navigate than the one made in SiteBuilder 3D. An important consideration is that the increasing use of Google Earth worldwide as a tool to visualise customisable spatial data may outweigh its disadvantages when considering it as an option for project visualisation. The snapshot of the 3D G.I.S. model created for Google Earth is shown in Figure 4.3. Only buildings and parcels have been rendered for this snapshot.

4.3.3. Building the 3D model in ArcScene

The third option provided by CommunityViz for 3D visualisation is ArcScene, a component of ArcGIS. ArcScene provides 3D visualisation and analysis tools by itself; however, CommunityViz adds analysis capabilities which make it possible to see dynamically the changes made to the features.

Difficulties encountered Setting up the 3D model in ArcScene requires a TIN, so it had to be created from the existing height layer. The main problem encountered was in getting ArcScene to render 3D models adequately, as they are imported using tools from CommunityViz and the layers need an attribute that specifies the model’s location on the disk.

63

Results The model created in ArcScene allows visualisation of modifications made to features. After working with this method, the following advantages and disadvantages were found. Some advantages of using this method for creating a 3D model are: -Several analysis tools of CommunityViz can be used in ArcScene, making it useful not only for 3D visualisation but also for data analysis -Modifications made to the feature layers can be viewed in 3D using the dynamic attribute capabilities of CommunityViz -Allows showing features over time (e.g. not yet built) through a slider bar Some disadvantages of this option are: -The height feature layer (points or lines) cannot be used for topography of terrain, it must be a TIN -3D models must be attached to the feature layers as a field of attributes specifying route of 3D model location, hence reducing easiness of setup -Navigation may be difficult and no navigation modes are available -Requires ArcGIS and CommunityViz installed, thus reducing the potential number of users that could access it, and portability The main advantage of this option is the possibility to use it in combination with analysis features of CommunityViz, however it is not usable independently of the software. This could make it more suitable for some groups of users over other ones, for example, the planners could benefit from this option during the creation stage of the project. However, this method would be the least appropriate in terms of easiness of use and distribution to users in order to navigate or view the project. A snapshot of the model in ArcScene is shown in Figure 4.4.

64

Figure 4.3. Snapshot of 3D model of the Usseler Es project in Google Earth format

Figure 4.4. Snapshot of the 3D model of the Usseler Es project in ArcScene

65

4.4. Conclusions about the 3D modelling options

After exploring the three options, it is possible to say that the choice for one or another method depends largely on the following considerations: - who will be the user - what is the purpose of the model (i.e. only visualisation or visualisation attached to modification possibilities of features) - what are the resources most probably available for the users, in terms of hardware and software - availability of data and easiness of setup The user of the model would be a criterion to define which characteristics the model should have. For example, a model aimed for the community would be more accessible in the Google Earth format or in the SiteBuilder 3D version by e.g. uploading the files on a website. The ArcScene model would be more suitable for conference presentations from the planners to the community, than for its distribution. Using more than one option at the same time is not recommendable because it reduces the performance of the computer. Regarding the easiness of setup, all three options require the use of 3D models found ready-to-use in the respective libraries of the software or from internet 3D warehouses. However, if wanting to customise the models, the use of separate software is needed. The easiest model to setup was Google Earth, as CommunityViz offers a tool for setting the layers to be exported and for creating the KMZ file. The most realistic model was obtained with SiteBuilder 3D, which was also the one with the most navigation options. The difference of 3D G.I.S. models, like the ones constructed, with 3D C.A.D. ones is that G.I.S. offers the possibility of attaching attributes to each feature on the terrain. This enables analysis capabilities that can be rendered in 3D, even timelines and dynamic updates. Once having the data organised in G.I.S. layers it is easier to select the most appropriate 3D construction tool of a model for different purposes and audiences. These capabilities are not offered by the use of 3D C.A.D. models. However, 3D C.A.D. provides more tools for designing, giving texture and rendering of realistic scenes. By using both methods it is possible to combine their potentials and produce photorealistic, navigable environments where spatial analysis is also possible.

66

4.5. Conclusions about the 3D model of the Usseler Es

The 3D G.I.S. model of the Usseler Es was built in the three visualisation tools. Based on the attendance to meetings about the project and the presentation techniques that were used, it would be sensible to make use of such 3D visualisations. Showing a navigable model like the one made in SiteBuilder 3D could make the project easier to visualise and to understand. The presentation of such models as ‘life-demos’ could be done in the same kind of meetings with the community, where the planners show different navigation angles as they explain the ideas and implications of the project. The Google Earth model would be more useful in the cases where the authorities and planners decided to make their projects available online from the municipality’s or other official websites. The purpose of this would be then to make it accessible to people even if they cannot attend meetings but they still want to know the project and give their feedback about it. The use of the ArcScene model would require the CommunityViz software running during the meetings or presentations, and could be used more adequately in earlier stages of the project, during the planning. The final project of the Usseler Es has already been chosen and, at the current stage of its development, a 3D visualisation model such as the ones built in SiteBuilder 3D or Google Earth could be useful in further meetings with the community and with the stakeholders to navigate around it and obtain a better image of the results and of the impact on the landscape.

67

5. Scenarios for spatial analysis and evaluation of alternatives

This chapter is dedicated to the creation of a simple planning support system involving different scenarios for the Usseler Es project. In the process, the limitations and technical problems encountered are reported as part of its feasibility as an instrument for urban planning. Two possible building densities for the project were generated and compared with the official project of 55 Ha. Three scenarios were also created to analyse impact of air pollution by the development of the industrial complex, which was one of the concerns raised during the meetings attended. The visualisation module is an important part of a collaborative environment. Another important component is the decision-making and analysis functions that constitute a Planning Support System. The second module of CommunityViz, Scenario360, was used for setting up a decision-making framework with the case of the Usseler Es. It works as an extension of ArcMap and ArcScene that allows interactive analysis through the use of dynamic attributes. These are attributes that are updated automatically as changes are made in the analysis (Orton Family Foundation, 2007b).

5.1. Analysis of building density

Build-out, assessment of different policies, and suitability are decision-making functions supported by a P.S.S., through diverse options that work based on land use modifications. Different build-out possibilities were tried with the data from the Usseler Es project and compared with the results obtained from the original project. Build-out is the process of estimating amount and location of potential development of an area. For this task it is necessary to make assumptions of densities, know the land use regulations and physical constraints. The build-out calculations are usually performed to know the theoretical maximum of buildings according to current regulations. Therefore, the results do not indicate the number of actual buildings to be built. Build-out is commonly performed through spreadsheet tables associating assumptions with a hard copy map (Orton Family Foundation, 2007b). Constraints for build-out and parcelling sizes are also usually done over C.A.D. plots and maps, as with the case of the Usseler Es (Figure 5.1).

68

Figure 5.1. Designing the parcel layout for the Usseler Es project

Source: Gem. Enschede, 2006c

The use of G.I.S. for this task offers the advantage of having attributes in databases associated to different land uses on the map. Moreover, automation of the build-out means that numberless re-runs with different settings to try out variations can be saved each in a separate scenario. The Usseler Es project is an industrial and office project, hence no residential use was considered, except in the already existing buildings that have dwelling units and mixed use within the same parcel. Each of the three main areas of the Usseler Es will have different building density and commercial floor area. The buildings have already been planned, however, it is possible to go back in time and perform build-outs, try out modifications in the regulations of the build out, and compare the results with the original project. To perform the build-out, each parcel of the layer was classified according to its location and kind of buildings that can be built there. The building specifications for the project were taken from Gem. Enschede, 2006a, 2006c, and 2007b, where the technical documents of the project can be found. The use of each parcel was classified according to its location and the building specifications for that location (Figure 5.2), as follows (Table 5.1):

69

Table 5.1. Classification of parcels of the Usseler Es project Location Classification

for build-out Description Average

lot size (m2)

Number of lots

Allowed heights

Industrial rural terrain

Industrial terrain in rural landscape of Eastern circle

13500 2 7 – 10 m

Industrial East small

Industrial terrains in rural landscape along Haaksbergerstraat

1000 10 7 m

Eastern circle

Industrial East large

Large industrial terrains (called “mammoths”)

13500 7 10 – 15 m

Industrial mid-Es

Medium and small industrial terrains in the centre of the Es

1800 102 7 – 15 m

Industrial Es north

Large industrial terrains in the north of the Es

16000 5 7 – 15 m

Industrial Es south

Large industrial terrains in the south of the Es

3400 17 7 – 15 m

Es

Industrial Es periphery

Medium industrial terrains in the peripheries of the Es

2800 22 7 – 12 m

Industrial small Small scale industrial terrain in rural landscape of Eastern and Western circles

1800 34 4 – 10 m Eastern and Western circles Mixed use Existing buildings in parcels

with residential and industrial use

- 19 -

Source: Combined data from Gem. Enschede, 2007b and calculation of average lot sizes from parcel layer

Figure 5.2. Parcels and allowed building heights

Source: Gem. Enschede, 2007b

70

To test the build-out with variations of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), two different FAR options were adapted from Gem. Enschede, 2006c, in which two options that were considered for the project were specified according to different lot sizes (Table 5.2). Table 5.2. Two FAR options considered for the Usseler Es project Option 1: Option 2:

Location of parcel % of lot built

Office use percentage

FAR % of lot built

Office use percentage

FAR

Industrial rural terrain (Eastern circle)

40% 33% 0.48 45% 33% 0.54

Industrial East small 35 33 0.42 40 37 0.48

Industrial East large 35 33 0.42 40 33 0.48

Industrial mid-Es 40 33 0.48 45 33 0.54

Industrial Es north 35 33 0.42 40 33 0.48

Industrial Es south 40 33 0.48 45 33 0.54

Industrial Es periphery

40 20 0.8 45 27 0.99

Industrial small (Eastern and Western circles)

35 33 0.42 40 37 0.48

Mixed use (Eastern and Western circles)

35 20% industrial 50% resident. 30% office

0.35 40 20% industrial 50% resident. 30% office

0.4

Notes: Number of floors for office use is 2 in all cases and for industrial use is 1 or 2 (2 for FAR of 0.8). The same building has one part of 2 floors for offices and another part of either 1 or 2 floors for industrial use in option 1. Option 2 considers up to 3 floors for office use and 1 or 2 for industrial use.

The build-out wizard of the software requires FAR and/or Dwelling Units to perform calculations. As this software was designed in the United States, these are the units most commonly used there. Other ways of calculating building density must be adapted to these units. A FAR calculator is included for cases where the regulations are specified in terms of lot size, open space, parking space, number of floors and building footprint area (see Appendix C). The Usseler Es project specifications were calculated in terms of lot size, built area per lot, office use percentage, number of floors for office use and for industrial use, and parking space percentage. Hence, the FAR was calculated in the specifications using these considerations, and was taken for different size lots and locations for this task. The Mixed use was a classification given in this work to existing lots where there is residential with mixed industrial use. The existing lots will be preserved, although this is an industrial and office land use project where residential development is not contemplated. Hence, the Mixed use percentages only reflect that there is a part of existing residential use, but that the build-out will not consider new mixed use

71

buildings, only industrial. The Mixed use only occurs in the Western circles and in small parts of the Eastern circle. The es, given its physical characteristics, has always been a clear terrain where the bolling dominates the landscape, and no buildings exist there currently. The build-out was run with one FAR proposal and a new scenario in the same project was built with the other proposal. In both cases efficiency of density was assumed of 100% (no density losses) except for Mixed use. For this use, efficiency density was set to 50% because, given development pressures, there is a likelihood factor of about 50% that build-out will occur in the next few years. Constraint layers and existing buildings are also considered in the build-out. The constraints include areas that for any reason cannot be built on. In the Usseler Es the main constraints are (Gem. Enschede, 2006c): - the A35 main road to the south that has gas conducts running along it under the ground - the sewage conduct running under the central part of the Es - the high voltage power lines going through the north of the Es and part of the Western circle - the salt extraction points owned by a company called AKZO, on the Western circle These constraints were taken into consideration for the design of the parcels and included in the C.A.D. files by the planners. The constraint layers were transformed for this work into polygon shapefiles to be used in the build-out. They are automatically extracted in the calculations to avoid placing buildings there. Likewise, a shapefile of points is required to represent existing buildings and extract them from the build-out. The Usseler Es has a zone rich of archaeological remains beneath the bolling. However, the authorities decided not to consider it as a constraint when designing the project. The remains will be preserved in situ and construction will take place over the area by raising the ground (see 3.3). How many buildings could be built for each of the FAR options specified?

The Build-out was run with FAR option 1 (Table 5.2) and the following specifications: - efficiency of 100% for all uses except Mixed (50%) - constraint layer - minimum separation distance of 10 m for all locations except larger lot areas (15 m for Mixed, 20 m for Industrial East large)

72

A second scenario was created changing the FAR to option 2, with the same specifications. The build-out results were generated in three ways: -Numerical: numbers of buildings and areas built, displayed in charts, HTML reports, and indicators. - Spatial: draws buildings as symbols or as building footprints -Visual: 3D build-out in ArcScene, SiteBuilder 3D or Google Earth. Figure 5.3 shows a screenshot of the numerical build-out charts, spatial build-out of building symbols on the map, and a snapshot of visual build-out in SiteBuilder 3D. Figure 5.3. Build-out results shown in graphs and on the map as building symbols

3D Build-out snapshot

73

The results of the build-outs are shown in Table 5.3. Table 5.3. Build-out results from software compared to build-out from the plan of October 2007

Result Land use designation FAR option 1 FAR option 2 Plan Oct. 2007

Industrial rural terrain 0.99 1.12 0.47

Industrial small 2.9 3.31 1.14

Industrial mid-Es 9.39 10.56 4.92

Industrial Es north 2.36 2.69 1.67

Industrial East small 0.38 0.44 0.39

Industrial East large 2.27 2.6 1.11

Industrial Es periphery 4.84 5.99 2.38

Industrial Es south 2.31 2.6 1.85

Build-out non-residential floor area (Ha)

Mixed use 1.36 1.55 Not considered

Total 26.8 30.86 13.93

Industrial rural terrain 2 2 7

Industrial small 41 41 35

Industrial mid-Es 111 111 111

Industrial Es north 5 5 5

Industrial East small 10 10 10

Industrial East large 7 7 6

Industrial Es periphery 22 22 25

Industrial Es south 8 8 8

Building units

Mixed use 17 17 91 (existing)

Total 223 223 207

The results show at least three different possible building densities for the Usseler Es, the FAR option 2 being the most densely built in terms of floor area. All options result in about the same number of buildings, but with differences in floor area. For example, the parcel use of Industrial Es periphery was tried out in both FAR options with the highest possible FAR for each case, resulting in a significant difference of built floor area (around half) compared to the current plan. The build-out can be tried with more variations, such as density transfer from constraint layers, less efficiency per land use designation, or different FAR. The Mixed use gives a build-out result although there will be no actual area built in the approved plan, because the results give potential built area, not actual. What if the archaeological zone of the Es were considered as a constraint?

How would it spatially limit the development of the area?

How would it influence the building density if efficiency was reduced for this area

(i.e. Industrial mid-Es)?

74

Although the archaeological zone was not considered as a hindrance for the Usseler Es official plan, it was traced for this work in a separate polygon layer, with the purpose running a build-out to answer these questions. The layer with the archaeological portion was added to the other constraints. The build-out removes the possibility of building on constraint areas, and gives the option to transfer densities to other buildable areas. The build-out was first re-run with the following changes: - FAR option 1 - Efficiency of 100% for all uses except Mixed A (50%) and Industrial mid- Es (60%) - Constraint layer without archaeological zone and no density transfer - Minimum separation distance of 10 m for all locations except larger lot areas (15 m for Mixed A, 20 m for Industrial East large) The density of the mid-Es was reduced because the archaeological area lies mostly under these parcels. Therefore, a likelihood factor of 60% was considered for building density loss due to, e.g. better preservation of the remains in situ. The result of this build-out was very similar to the one of FAR option 1, as expected, with all results the same except for Industrial mid-Es, which had a floor area of 5.63 Ha when reducing the building efficiency to 60%. This means that there was loss of building density for these parcels even if the number of buildings was potentially the same. This method shows one way in which build-out issues from constraints can be approached in a P.S.S. Another method is performing a build-out with the following changes: - FAR option 1 - Efficiency of 100% for all uses except Mixed (50%) - Constraint layer with archaeological zone and with density transfer applied - Minimum separation distance of 10 m for all locations except larger lot areas (15 m for Mixed A, 20 m for Industrial East large) These settings mean that there will be no loss of density due to the archaeological zone but it will be treated as an area where it cannot be built at all, hence having to transfer the potential building capacity of that zone to other areas. The results are in Table 5.4.

75

Table 5.4. Floor Area with archaeological area treated as constraint Commercial Build-Out Floor Area (Ha)

Land Use Designation With archaeological constraint FAR Option 1

Industrial rural terrain 1.3 0.99

Industrial small 3.01 2.9

Industrial mid-Es 9.34 9.39

Industrial Es north 3.36 2.36

Industrial East small 0.39 0.38

Industrial East large 3.35 2.27

Industrial Es periphery 4.84 4.84

Industrial Es south 2.31 2.31

Mixed use 1.49 1.36

Total 29.4 26.8

The results show that when transferring density to other potential building sites, there is redistribution mostly towards the Industrial Es North and Industrial East Large, which are the areas with the largest parcels. The other designations have lesser changes or even remain unaffected. These results show that the variations of building regulations and constraints affect the build out of the same area under different considerations. The results of different conditions are easily rendered using these planning support tools. It may also encourage even further questions that were not considered before and came up from the build-out results, and that can be worked out until many different variations are tested and different results are visible on the map.

5.2. Analysis features and scenarios

The integration of spatial data in a same project and the possibility to compare dynamically different variations of indicators and their respective impact on the landscape is an important part of a P.S.S. The concept of scenarios consists of alternative localisations of new features and application of different policies. Each variation is visualised as a different map with its own features, and two or more scenarios can be compared. Different proposals can be made in the same project file for performing operations such as: - comparison of different hypothetical scenarios - weighing of economic, visual, environmental, and social policies and regulations - on-the-fly modification of assumptions

76

The impact of the whole process is to make decision-making more visual, comprehensive and more effective in these tasks: -selection of most suitable sites -build-out analysis -estimation of costs -impact on the landscape and on the environment -site selection and evaluation The revision of the Usseler Es project and the attendance to public meetings raised issues that can make use of the operations described above in order to aid in their understanding and impact on the environment. One of these issues was raised by the attendants during the question sessions of the meetings: there was a general concern on the increase of transit in the area and the pollution that this would bring. This concern has been taken for this part of the work to show that issues such as environmental impact can also be included in P.S.S. and be used for assessing impacts and making decisions about the environment. The questions derived from the concern on air pollution have been formulated for this work as follows: What would be the impact of industrial development in terms of commercial energy

use? What would be the impact of vehicle emissions from employees and from local

inhabitants (CO, CO2, NOx emmisions)?

These questions were looked at not only for the current project approved in October 2007, but also for two other scenarios to show the impact that different land use policies would have on the air pollution. The scenarios built were: - Scenario 1: the current plan of October 2007 (55 Ha). - Scenario 2: the alternative plan of 65 Ha. This was traced in ArcGIS based on the sketches of the alternatives that were not chosen (from Gem. Enschede, 2006c, see 3.3.2). The main modification is on the parcels of the Es, which are expanded to the west, hence offering a greater buildable area of up to 65 Ha. Accordingly, the water drainage system layout, planned trees, and roads were modified. - Scenario 3: a scenario of current land use, created in a new layer based upon existing conditions of the area (mostly rural and agricultural use, with some small industries, listed on Gem. Enschede, 2006c). The land use layer created for the Current use scenario was classified with the following uses: agriculture, green area (tree lines), infrastructure (roads), and mixed use (residential, light industry, agriculture). This last use corresponds to the existing

77

built areas taken as Mixed use for the other two scenarios. The roads are the main existing paths and small roads through and around the terrain. First, a build-out was run with the FAR option 1 of the previous build-out (Table 5.2), for Scenarios 1 and 2. The third scenario was assigned dwelling units rather than FAR values, given the different land use, i.e. assuming that the current agricultural, farm and light industrial conditions continued (Table 5.5). Table 5.5. Settings used for Build-out of Current use scenario

Land use Dwelling Units Efficiency %

Agriculture 1 50

Infrastructure 0 100

Green area 0 100

Mixed 1 50

For these settings, it was assumed that agricultural and mixed areas had one dwelling unit per hectare and that this situation will continue in the future, hence allowing construction on these areas, but not industrial. The efficiency of 50% for these land uses is a likelihood factor that given pressures to build on these lands, there are some 50% chances that build-out will occur in the next decade. The results of the build out for our three hypothetical build outs are in Table 5.6: Table 5.6. Build-out results of floor area and buildable area

Build-out Plan October 2007 Plan 65 Ha Current use

Total commercial floor area 26.7 ha 35.2 ha Not considered

Gross buildable area 65.7 ha 70.4 ha 178 ha

The build-out also calculated a growth of 39 dwelling units for the Current use scenario only, since the other scenarios have no residential use considered. The buildable area is slightly larger than 55 Ha and 65 Ha respectively for the first and second scenarios since all buildable land from all designations is taken, without considering density factors nor existing buildings. The buildable area of the Current use scenario is therefore the whole Usseler Es area (approx. 170 Ha). The buildable area of the other two scenarios is the gross area of the Es that was considered for parcelling (60 Ha). Once having the build-out, is possible to calculate the impact of the industrial area on air pollution and energy use. For this task, the Common Impacts Wizard of the software was used. This Wizard creates modifiable assumptions (as slider bars) and allows running automatically the following indicators: - Auto emissions

78

- Commercial energy use - Residential energy use - Residential water use - Commercial floor area - Commercial jobs - Vehicle trips per day This Wizard has the limitation that the default values for its assumptions are automatically given according to diverse U.S. agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.G.S., since it is the country of origin of the software. The units are hence in the U.S. measurement system. The residential use indicators would be relevant only for the Current use scenario. In the Wizard, the auto emissions refer to vehicle emissions from dwelling units in the area. Therefore, these indicators were manually modified to show the same results applied to the industrial use area. This means that instead of basing calculations on dwelling units, they are based on the number of employees, which is given by the indicator of “commercial jobs”, also calculated by the Wizard. To calculate the number of employees, the floor area is divided by the floor area per employee. In the Usseler Es project, this value will vary between 100 and 135 square meters per employee (Gem. Enschede, 2006c). A new assumption of “Floor area per employee” was created with a range between 50 and 500 m2/employee, so that there was room for testing different values. After this, a new indicator of auto emissions was created for the number of employees. The final impact assumptions are in Table 5.7:

Table 5.7. Assumptions and values of the common impacts Assumption Range of assumption Default

value Default value in metric units

Household vehicle trips / day 0 to 15 5.95 -

Employee vehicle trips / day 0 to 15 2 -

Average vehicle trip length 0 to 20 miles 9.62 15.48 km

Auto emissions - hydrocarbons 0 to 100 g/gallon 60.22 15.91 kg/cubic m

Auto emissions - CO2 0 to 50 lb/gallon 19.7 2360.6 kg / cubic m

Auto emissions - CO 0 to 600 g/gallon 476.76 125.95 kg / cubic m

Auto emissions - NOx 0 to 50 g/gallon 29.89 7.897 kg / cubic m

Floor Area per Employee 50 to 500 sq. m/ employee 130 - Annual Commercial Energy Use 0 to 200,000 BTU/ sq ft 85.1 966,440.4 KJ/sq m

Annual Household Energy Use 0 to 200,000 BTU/sq ft 101 1,147,009.19 KJ/sq m

Daily household water use 0 to 1000 gallons/household/day

391 1,480 litres

79

The assumption ranges are presented in slider bars with the ranges indicated. Although they are based on U.S. standards, the indicators are still valid and useful for projects in any location, since it is possible to modify the assumption values with the slider, change the defaults or readjust the range. The values and units were left as default for this task, and only the results converted. The employee vehicle trip assumption was added, as well as another set of impact calculations (auto emissions) only for non-residential use. The results of running the calculations with the default values are on Table 5.8:

Table 5.8. Results from Common Impacts calculations for all scenarios Indicator Plan 55 Ha Plan 65 Ha Current Use Netherlands

average 2006

Annual CO2 auto emissions (metric tons)

5,450 (employees)

7,193 (employees)

308 (residential)

203,147,000

Annual CO auto emissions (metric tons)

291 (employees)

384 (employees)

16 (residential)

576,400

Annual Hydrocarbon auto emissions (metric tons)

37 (employees)

48 (employees)

2 (residential)

760,300

Annual NOx auto emissions (metric tons)

18 (employees)

24 (employees)

1 (residential )

542,200

Commercial energy use (Petajoules/year)

0.256 0.340 0 3233 Petajoules

Commercial jobs 2,050 2,706 0 n/a

Vehicle trips per day (households)

0 0 232 n/a

Vehicle trips per day (employees)

4,101 5,412 0 n/a

Residential energy use (Petajoules/year)

0 0 0.0042 412 Petajoules

Residential water use (m3/year)

0 0 21,069 1,279 millions m3

Source for Netherlands average values: CBS, 2007

The national averages are shown only for reference. The results show that there is a significant increase of all indicators as the commercial floor area increases, which is the case between the scenario of 55 Ha and the one of 65 Ha. Logically, the current residential use would have less impact regarding vehicle emissions. Scenarios 1 and 2 show a result of zero for residential energy and water use, as well as households. This is because the results are based on the build-out which had no residential use

80

considered. The results of analyses can be seen in charts or reports automatically generated and in the workspace with the three scenarios (Figure 5.4). Figure 5.4. Snapshot of the project’s different scenarios (top) and assumption sliders (below)

81

5.3. Conclusions about building scenarios and using analysis features

This part of the research has shown an application of P.S.S. in a problem derived, in this case, from concern of impact of industrial development on air quality of the Usseler Es project. The scenario comparison and common impacts procedure shows a way of calculating impact on air quality in terms of emissions and energy use derived from different land uses. It could be used in planning stages to assess the impact of design alternatives on environmental indicators. The impacts of development and of different policies are relevant questions in planning, as expressed also in interviews with one of the planners of the Usseler Es project. This example could be further developed, e.g. to study the impact on air quality that industrial development of the Usseler Es would have compared with other neighbouring industrial areas (e.g. Marssteden, Josink Es) and assess the relative impact of each industrial site. The operations that can be performed in a P.S.S. aid in the assessment of different policies and “what if” scenarios. Integration of all spatial data in one same file and dynamic updating are two important advantages offered by the P.S.S.. Within the same project, different scenarios can be created. Therefore, it is not necessary to have separate software for executing desired calculations and then having to join or update the results into new files. Modification of the assumptions has also been tried during the construction of the scenarios in order to view different results that could be obtained. However, the construction of scenarios and of the assumptions, indicators, and functions did not come at the first attempt. The software occasionally shut down, hung or stopped calculations unexpectedly. Also, errors related to licenses of some components occurred when running it on a license network. This is all part of the steep learning curve that this software has, a disadvantage shown by other projects done with CommunityViz (vid. Wickliffe, 2006). The potential of its use for analysis and comparison is however large, even though the setup is time-consuming. Figure 5.5 shows a summary of the capabilities of using 3D environments and P.S.S..

82

Figure 5.5. Summarising the results and applications of the P.S.S. and 3D environments

After building different scenarios and testing 3D modelling options, it is clear that these I.T. tools give a large room for experimentation during the planning process. As shown in the figure above, the use of these 3D and P.S.S. is meant for making more efficient the communication of ideas between the different actors of the process and to make a more visual and dynamic feedback process.

83

6. Discussion

This chapter will discuss results of the research and the impact of 3D environments and P.S.S. in the context of participation in the planning process. It also deals with limitations and difficulties and poses possible issues for further research. The results of using CommunityViz are also discussed and compared with other study cases. The intention of using 3D collaborative environments is to support the planning process by: 1) making the implications of decisions easier to understand with better visualisation techniques offered by 3D, 2) helping in the assessment of alternatives to make more informed decisions, and 3) giving more options for participation. But why worry about participation? Participation of the community in planning is important because agreement of all parts in the solution to local problems leads to more acceptance of plans and proposals (Bulmer, 2001, Appleton and Lovett, 2005). It also helps building trust in the public authority (Higgs, 2006). The community affected by new projects is interested in knowing what is happening in the area, why and how changes and new plans are going to be implemented (Mantle, et al, 2007). Without participation, planning systems can become irrelevant to the ultimate stakeholders, and the result is inadequately informed. Participation also enriches the existing datasets through both quantitative and qualitative information, and gives more transparency and accountability to the public authorities and institutions (Barton, et al, 2005). Participation is usually done in meetings of authorities with the community, particularly those directly affected. But many of these meetings take place in an atmosphere of confrontation (Kingston, et al, 2000), besides all the time invested by both sides and the extra costs for the authorities. Also, many people interested might not be able to attend the meetings because of time and location constraints (Kingston, et al, 2000, Bulmer, 2001). Another disadvantage is that attendance to this kind of meetings is not attractive to many people; especially to certain groups of ages such as late teens to late twenties (Carver, et al, 2000). This was also true for the meetings attended in Enschede. These difficulties, added to the usual techniques used to show the projects, which are slides, maps or artists’ impressions, make meetings unappealing to many people. It has been discussed that the use of plain images makes it difficult to understand the concept of the project in its whole and within its surroundings (Appleton and Lovett, 2005, Kingston, et al, 2000). This difficulty has been confirmed in the meetings attended. When using 2D images and static snapshots, the person has to integrate a mental representation on the basis of several planar images, which makes it harder to understand (Smallman, et al, 2001,

84

Mantle, et al, 2007). Several authors agree that the usual methods of visualisation used in communication of projects do not give adequate means for participation (Smallman, et al, 2001, Barton, et al, 2005, Mantle, et al, 2007, Bulmer, 2001). What the attendance to meetings has also shown is that participation includes often questions and comments focused on trying to get a better idea of what the planners are proposing during their presentations. This suggests that trying to understand the proposals consumes most of the time allocated for questions during the meetings, rather than being able to comment or focus more on other issues derived from the projects. This suggestion links us back to two main aspects related to participation and the use of I.T. in planning: One is the ladder of participation (see Chapter 2) and the level of involvement of the public in the different stages of the planning process. Usually the meetings are informative, once the plans have been designed. But more involvement of the people affected by new developments at earlier stages of design would mean giving greater opportunities to help planners creating more sustainable projects (Oh et al, 2005), for which communication and I.T. are needed. As Sten and Prosperi (2005) observe, “the main purpose of public participation in spatial and environmental planning is to achieve protection, conservation, and wise management of the land resources. This can only be achieved if the proponent properly collects (and acts upon) evidence, opinions and perspectives from all the interested or affected stakeholders, who are to be fully involved in the decision-making process, and from the earliest possible opportunity.” A second aspect is the use of I.T.: G.I.S., 3D models and decision-support systems for assisting in participation and in the comprehension of new projects. The integration of G.I.S. and 3D interactive visualisation will give new possibilities for public participation (Barton et al, 2005). The use of these means also has the potential of moving the people up in the ladder of participation (Sten and Prosperi, 2005). The internet can also help in popularising participation e.g. in younger age groups, a potential given by the “modern and fashionable nature of the web.” (Carver, et al, 2000). The use of 3D models could not only help the potential users in the perception of a project but also allow the designers to view and assess their ideas from different perspectives (Mantle, et al, 2007). Although these media add new potential to the communication and decision-making process, they have limitations: data ownership issues, restrictions in access to internet, easiness of use, computer illiteracy, implementation and maintenance costs. Kingston, et al (2000) also alert about potential risk of abuse of these systems because of the open-access nature of WWW. For example, comments left by visitors from other countries that have nothing to do with those of local visitors. Hence, trust is important and the data contained and purpose of the exercise must be made clear.

85

The use of I.T. implies also a greater access to data that becomes public. In meetings and interviews with planners, a concern was expressed about releasing too much information to the community through the use of collaborative environments. This worry was also expressed in a workshop attended about virtual environments for urban planning7 , and also found in the literature (e.g. Kwaku Kyem, 2002). One reason for this concern can be that “providing too much information about your proposal can alert audience members to issues they had not considered” (Stein, 2007). However, the amount and quality of the information given depends always on the people who make the 3D environment or the P.S.S.. This would be closely related to the nature of the project and the stage at which involvement of different actors would take place. As shown in this research, planning is still mostly one-way. Participation is often reduced to rounds of questions for criticising the project either in favour or against. In this unilateral, traditional method of planning, 3D visualisation and decision-making I.T. tools shown in front of the audience can be considered a potential instrument of convincing the people about a project, also diminishing the sensation imposition on behalf of the authorities and producers. Even if public authorities are reluctant about making the planning process more participative, they can still adopt the use of 3D visualisation and P.S.S. in their meetings with stakeholders, or to negotiate with the opposition, disclosing the data they decide. The preferences or intentions of the producers will always be reflected in the images (Appleton and Lovett, 2005). Nevertheless, the purpose of implementing the use of P.S.S. and 3D environments is to make the planning process less conflictive and to integrate different interests from the beginning. They should ideally not be implemented as an instrument to reinforce unilateral decision-making. A more participative approach of planning has already been experienced in Enschede with the Roombeek reconstruction, although there was no use of 3D G.I.S. or P.S.S.. Other similar experiences have demonstrated that it is indeed possible to reach a better understanding and acceptance of the projects when participation of the community is encouraged since early stages (see Van der Meulen, 2002, Evans, et al, 1999, Barton, et al, 2005). In these projects, the community participated in similar ways as in Roombeek, e.g. drawing, making small models of buildings, suggesting designs and locations, thus expressing their opinions the planners. More importantly, their ideas were reflected in the projects. Therefore, the mechanisms of participation can take advantage not only of these traditional methods, but also of 3D G.I.S., internet and P.S.S.. By giving access to adequate data, projects and G.I.S. on

7 Workshop “Visualisatie van stedelijke ontwerpprojecten in virtuele omgevingen”, TU Delft, 29 Nov. 2007.

86

websites with a user-friendly interface have the potential to be used as a flexible means for allowing more public involvement (Kingston, 1998). An interesting example of a case of participatory on-line G.I.S. for urban planning, although not 3D, was carried out by the West Yorkshire Village of Slaithwaite, UK (Carver, et al, 2000), between 1998 and 2003. It was as a project in which people could comment about future development of their community using a G.I.S. website and suggest designs and changes of buildings and locations. The results were overall positive in terms of participants’ feedback and were encouraging towards developing and investing more resources in these instruments that would allow two-way participation. 3D G.I.S. models and their potential use in participation

The 3D G.I.S. models created in this work show just some of the many possibilities to construct 3D G.I.S. environments. These can represent entire projects and allow navigation and great flexibility in the visualisation. It has also been shown that it is possible to combine 3D visualisation with G.I.S. analysis techniques, and that the G.I.S. component makes it possible to attach attributes to the objects and model them according to these, a characteristic that C.A.D. modelling does not have by itself. The 3D G.I.S. models bring up an important issue related to the current and future use of visualisation of spatial data. The use of 3D visualisation technologies is becoming increasingly popular through the internet with tools such as Google Earth. The 3D model created in this work has shown the easiness of set-up and great portability of Google Earth 3D files and models. These new tools have a great potential for their use in planning and participation. Their popularity and relative easiness of use can be exploited and seen as new options for communication and participation. “We are confronted with a virtual world which potentially attracts the participation of billions of connected individuals, and where everybody can plug and play” (Blamont, 2008). The use of 3D visualisation for planning is the application of recent technologies aimed at better communication, as shown by the popularisation of satellite images and 3D models over the internet. Blamont (2008) discusses the increasing importance of visual material in on-line communication: “Adding a visual side to information facilitates the transmission of this information to the

user and its acceptance. All actors have opted for 3-D and the internet is becoming a virtual universe similar to the videogame ‘Second Life’. Mass portals are intensifying the multimedia

character of their services against the textual component. The development of geocoded services contributes to making the internet mass services sector more dynamic and to creating

87

new markets: new users appear in large numbers, to become targets, and therefore new avenues are opened to image providers.” Appleton and Lovett (2005) also refer to the importance of visualisation techniques in the process of participation, perception and decision quality. The development of technology from C.A.D. drawing to virtual reality and the unprecedented popularisation of 3D visualisation and satellite images linked to internet is not only modifying the way many processes such as planning are carried out, but is also a large business itself, thanks to e.g. advertisements and the way Google works (Blamont, 2008). The concern of disclosure of too much information is an issue constantly brought up by the development of these new technologies. After all, “this [Google Earth] is a new development for G.I.S., and the research community is still trying to grapple its meaning and significance” (Sui, 2008). The growth and “wikification” of G.I.S. and 3D models is fuelled by previous successful developments of open-source systems, consumer-driven online businesses, user-made databases: in sum, web-based mass collaboration (Sui, 2008). The future development of these mass-collaborative, on-line technologies and its implications on planning is an open, interesting topic of further research raised during the exploration of Google Earth 3D models for this research. Analysis and decision-making support systems

The analysis and decision-making module of the software tested with the Usseler Es project has shown that it has a large number of capabilities to assist in different aspects of planning a project. Although the time consumed to set it up is considerable, once having the data integrated in a project there are many useful analyses that can be performed. The most valuable capability of CommunityViz is the dynamic attributes and layers that can be created. This allows the user to make modifications of values and see the results almost immediately, which would be useful also for experts’ discussions. The customisation of formulas, indicators, and assumptions adds more flexibility to the use of this system. The results of the scenarios compared show that it is possible to evaluate indicators such as buildable area and potential number of employees. The impact on air quality and energy consumption is also measurable with automated and customisable wizards, or it is possible to set manually the indicators. An important function also tried was the build-out, with different variations of rules for building. The build-out can be seen numerically, spatially on the map, and also in 3D. The results of analyses, which can be shown as graphs, indicators, reports or web sites, add the possibility to use this system in front of audiences. The modifications done to layers can be dynamically updated and the impact reflected on the indicators and graphs. This

88

helps to visualise possible impacts on costs and on indicators faster than separately performing calculations. The results of projects done with the same software were compared in terms of easiness of setup, technical difficulties encountered and practical cases. Wickliffe (2006) reports its use with the evaluation of different scenarios for development in Rockingham, New Hampshire, U.S. He concludes that the software has a great potential for organising and visualising developments for decision-making. However, setting up the project was found time-consuming, had a steep learning curve and unexpected errors appeared when using the software, which are disadvantage also encountered in this research. Another agreement with his conclusions is in that once the first analysis is created, new scenarios are much easier to set up. The Environmental Simulation Center, based in New York, is an example of a private company that uses CommunityViz and other P.S.S. and 3D visualisation tools commonly in their projects. The report of their experience with these systems is overall positive in terms of the use multi-dimensional real-time environments for decision making and community involvement. This group participated in the testing of the first commercial release of CommunityViz. Nevertheless, they admit that it “is a tool that can help planners plan better, but it does not provide all the answers. Rather it allows users to do more with the information and the knowledge they already have” (ESC, 2007). Perlman (2004) submits a critical review of CommunityViz and points out that the dynamic analysis features are worthy but that its main weakness is that 3D visualisation is not as easy to make nor as realistic as what other design software offer. Hence, this could be a reason that would make designers and planners reject is as a design tool. The Orton Family Foundation, maker of the software, has worked in improving visualisation and in offering new, diverse analysis tools in the latest version of the software (v. 3.3 released on August, 2007). The software now has dramatically dropped its price since it was launched (5000 USD in 2001 to between 279 and 750 USD in 2007), although costs of an ArcGIS license still have to be considered. Some suggestions for further analyses possible for the Usseler Es case are the assessment of costs, e.g. road construction, costs derived from the near-future selling of parcels, which are pieces of information not yet available. For example, the tax collection and costs of different parcels could be used for assessing revenues with different FAR build-outs. This work has shown a way to assess impact of transit on air quality, derived from industrial development that will cause increase of auto emissions and of vehicle trips. The vehicle transit increase was an important concern expressed by the attendants of the Usseler Es meetings. The authorities had no

89

definitive answers when addressed about this concern. The answers given were general, such as improving crossing points (mainly, Haaksbergerstraat with Usselerrondweg). Another way of assessing impact on transit could be using the same P.S.S. more specifically for transit modelling e.g. by creating other indicators and advanced formulas designed to measure variables specific to transit points (e.g. number of vehicles currently circulating, transit in peak hours, waiting time at main crossings). Such an analysis can be complemented with other software designed explicitly for modelling and simulation of complex dynamic systems like vehicle transit (e.g. VisSim, Transims, see Miller, et al, 2004). Further concerns

In the beginning of this research, the question was raised whether the use of these 3D G.I.S. collaborative environments would improve participation. The time and scope of this research would not allow reaching a definitive conclusion in this respect. A method to evaluate this would be setting up a website with access to the 3D model and options to retrieve users’ feedback, including questions about their opinion on the usefulness of 3D models compared to static slide presentations. From the cases reviewed in the literature, the use of 3D models for improvement of participation has been assessed in surveys in the UK (Mantle, et al, 2007) and is a topic treated by several authors (Bulmer, 2001, Saarloos, 2006, Kingston, et al, 2000, Appleton and Lovett, 2005), who reach the conclusion that people are more motivated to participate when using 3D visualisation and interactive websites. Logically, the producers of software of P.S.S. such as the Orton Family Foundation present also several study cases in which 3D G.I.S. and decision-support systems helped reaching agreements and allowing more involvement of the community. It would be desirable to have more of this kind of case studies provided by neutral authors rather than those related to the software producers. The Slaithwaite case (Carver, et al, 2000) also demonstrated that interest in participation increased with the availability of on-line G.I.S. participatory systems. This was not a 3D environment, however, “the concept of a two-way interaction between a user and client opens up many possibilities for participatory techniques.” (Carver, et al, 2000). Voss et al, 2004, report successful experiments with G.I.S. and decision-support software online (CommonGIS. and Dito), and conclude that “solving complex problems with multiple stakeholders can be advanced significantly by electronic media”. Despite the advantages that collaborative environments can have, Kingston, et al, (2000) raise an interesting reflection derived from their experiences with these systems:

90

“Apathy: maybe the glitzy hype of the Web will encourage more people to participate. We have good cause to believe that these kinds of schemes can result in the

formation of powerful communities who have a message to put across to those who govern them. However, probably the most important question is do we need greater public

participation? Do the public really want to participate? Do we have the right to encourage the population to participate if the will to enact those decisions is not there on behalf of those

in power? While this is an academic research programme, it obviously has a strong political agenda. As educationalists and researchers we can but stand by our raison d'etre and hold

that, at the very least, an educated public is better than an ignorant one, and policy that is implemented with the public is better than one that is implemented behind closed doors and in

fear of the public.” (Kingston, et al, 2000)

Another concern raised is whether the implementation of P.S.S. that are meant for facilitating the design and decision-making process would replace the current work of engineers, planners and architects. This means that there may be reluctance to embrace these new techniques, from professionals who have worked for years using traditional methods (see Green, 2005). However, the proposal of using 3D environments is not to replace traditional methods of visualisation but to add to them the possibilities of integrating data, 3D and analysis tools to aid in assessing alternatives for making decisions and in visualising the project. “It should be noted that these systems are seen as ways to enhance, not replace, current methods” (Carver, et al, 2000). For example, including internet based participatory systems in the planning process is useful in reaching disperse sectors of the community who cannot attend meetings, provided that access is made easily available (Kingston, et

al, 2000). Appleton and Lovett (2005) conducted a research about visualisation techniques (2D maps, paper sketches, maquettes, 3D models) among planners of Norwich, UK and concluded that the choice for one technique or the other depends more on the nature of the project and resources available, and that each one had its own advantages and disadvantages. Hence, there is no risk of replacement of traditional techniques used in planning as they would ideally complement each other. Nevertheless, the difficulties described in setting up the scenarios and in using the 3D visualisation tools will make it unlikely to be widely adopted unless easiness of use is developed further. An example of this is Google Sketchup, launched in 2000, and acquired by Google in 2006, who released a free version (Google, 2007). It has permeated the designers’ and planners’ studios and is now widely used, in particular because it is easy to learn and offers compatibility with other modelling software. Perlman (2004) points out another interesting aspect to consider brought up by his experience with CommunityViz. He states that this software would still need a lot of improvement in the 3D modelling part if designers were to adopt it consistently,

91

partly because of this reluctance to embrace new techniques with which planners do not feel comfortable. “The design community is technophobic and conservative. If they

can’t draw it they feel it isn’t theirs. They feel they can draw faster than use your kind or enhanced from your kind of technology [CommunityViz]. Planners are trained in 2D […] All

these folks have to be sensitive to urbanism and see the artistic/administrative/city management/cost benefits of the technology you have developed. You would think these folks

have a common interest in the kind of plan making that examines use, restraints, costs, and visual results as one integrated package of analysis. My experience tells me that very few do.” (Perlman, 2004). Indeed, this reflection indicates that the adoption of P.S.S. and 3D G.I.S. tools is not immediate even if the technology exists and adds new potentials in planning. It takes several years before it finds acceptance in the usual planning methods. The reasons for this could be an issue for further research. Appleton and Lovett (2005) suggest that larger city councils are more likely to integrate these methods in their practice, because they have a history of visual communication for larger projects. Smaller district councils would be less inclined because of costs, training, time, and resources needed. Of the methods traditionally used in planning, 3D C.A.D. is less used than 2D. Mantle, et al, 2007 and Green, 2005 reach similar conclusions in surveys done in planning agencies in the UK and affirm that the situation is comparable in other European countries. The reasons are mostly the costs of implementing new software, training the personnel, and the time consumed to generate a 3D model (Mantle, et al, 2007, Green, 2005). However, the combination of C.A.D. and G.I.S. can reduce the time needed for generation of models, by having the data collected in attributes. This way data can be modelled using characteristics attached to it (e.g. heights, areas, types). Also, C.A.D. models can be placed in the terrain created with G.I.S. tool, rather than having C.A.D. artistic impressions detached from their geographical context (Mantle et al, 2007). The interoperability of C.A.D. and G.I.S. is still being developed, e.g. recent extensions and tools available from ArcGIS website to enhance compatibility with C.A.D. layers and models. The value of 3D G.I.S. models and of decision-making systems relies in the several capabilities that have been discussed. Future research with environments that are made with 3D G.I.S., virtual reality and decision-making support will allow exploring the applications of its integration on diverse projects and its influence on participation. The opportunities that I.T. offers have to be considered carefully before their implementation regarding the needs of the project treated. As Appleton and Lovett (2005) conclude, only this way they will become a reliable and useful part of the planning process.

92

7. Conclusions

The objectives of this study have been largely addressed. Conclusions to specific research goals are summarised as follows:

• The research has shown that I.T. has been closely related to participation throughout the recent evolution of planning methods, from the rational and political to the communicative and collaborative approaches. Also, the increasing complexity of technologies has provided more support for participation options in networked environments. Planning support systems are the most recent I.T. development aimed at integrating spatial information and facilitating communication to deal with common concerns from planning projects. The research has also shown that participation in the planning process has different levels of involvement of the community and that traditionally it is mostly done after decisions taken by authorities. Involvement of the people in the early stages of planning is not usual and the process is mostly informative. Also, the use of I.T. for allowing participation on a network level is very limited. These conclusions were also reached for the case of Enschede. This shows that the nature of a project influences on the approach that authorities take regarding participation. Each project has the potential to be the starting point for collaborative planning and use of I.T. on networked environments. In the traditional planning methods, I.T. involve C.A.D., maquettes, slides, 3D scenes and web-sites, which are mostly informative. There are difficulties in understanding spatial relationships when only static scenes are used. There is little use of G.I.S. and of 3D G.I.S. in Enschede. The diverse I.T. are relevant in planning and not meant to replace each other, but to add visualisation capabilities and to facilitate analysis and decision-making.

• Although C.A.D. modelling is extensively used in planning, it is still relatively little used in combination with G.I.S.. C.A.D. on its own does not have the attribute attachment or spatial analysis possibilities that G.I.S. provides. By combining G.I.S. and C.A.D. it is possible to employ the complex designing features of C.A.D. with the spatial capabilities of G.I.S.. An example of this has been shown in the 3D G.I.S. models created in this work, which have made use of G.I.S. features rendered with ready-made 3D C.A.D. models. It was also possible to modify spatial attributes of features and see the results in the model. However, in a more extensive practice, there are still limitations regarding interoperability between C.A.D. and G.I.S..

• The construction of the Usseler Es project has shown that there are many possibilities for creating 3D G.I.S. navigable environments and that the choice

93

for one method or another depends largely on the user and on the planning stage it is used. The SiteBuilder 3D and Google Earth models would be more appropriate than the ArcScene one for providing the community with a navigable 3D model with which feedback on the project could be obtained. The easiness of use and portability are important considerations in the distribution of the models, as it was shown with the Google Earth model, which resulted in the most compact and popular format of the ones tried. It was also shown that G.I.S. analysis can be made in the 3D environments, using the ArcScene model, a useful feature in designing stages where visualisation is essential.

• The research has shown that planning support systems have diverse analysis and visualisation features meant for assessment of alternatives and for decision-making. The analysis of different scenarios and variations of indicators helps in assessing the impact of different policies applied. All data is integrated in one same project and could be used in the different stages of planning process. This has been applied in the Usseler Es project by creating a simple P.S.S. with three scenarios (55 Ha, 65 Ha, and current use). Diverse build-outs were generated by using different possible regulations for building. Also, the P.S.S. features were used to show a way in which the impact of the industrial development on the air quality of the Usseler Es could be assessed. The possibility to assess the impact of different policies on land use would be useful for e.g., selecting variants of development with the lowest environmental impact or calculating the overall impact that a new industrial area would have added to other neighbouring industrial zones. Other applications were researched, compared and explained for different cases to show the ways in which P.S.S. and 3D environments are aimed at facilitating decision-making in planning and providing more means for communication and participation.

• The use of 3D G.I.S. environments and P.S.S. allows the integration of different sources of data in one same framework which can combine the advantages of 3D, C.A.D. and G.I.S. rather than using these means separately. Also, the close relationship between I.T. development and participation is supported by P.S.S., which are meant to be used towards a more collaborative approach of planning. CommunityViz has been used as an example of P.S.S. that offers dynamic analytical capabilities and visualisations in 3D, although it proved to have many technical difficulties that could affect its implementation for an extensive use in planning. The implementation of these I.T. in planning is also influenced by factors such as costs, training of personnel, and acceptance of new technologies.

94

8. Recommendations

Recommendations for potential of a 3D collaborative environment in the participation process

- Participation builds confidence between the community and the authorities. The opinion of the community is significant provided that the planning process includes all the opinions possible, and considers a compromise of the interests of all parts. The close relationship between I.T. development and collaborative planning has an effect on the consciousness of the people about their role in the process of planning and the changes made to their environment. This is why the use of I.T. that integrates diverse sources of spatial data, allows analysis and assessment of options, and offers participation support, such as P.S.S. and 3D collaborative environments, should be more extensively implemented. - With a better visualisation and understanding of a project, people could express constructive and substantial opinions, suggestions and criticisms that can open up the original proposals to a better and more adequate project for those that will, in the end, live in it. To guarantee the trust in the information given to the public and to see their participation reflected in the results, it would be possible to select non-participating observers representing both sides and looking after the opinions of all parts throughout the planning process. - Easy-to-use web technologies and 3D visualisation of spatial information such as Google Earth will continue to increase with large chances of having an important influence on planning and on mass-collaboration. Planning can therefore benefit from these trends by increasing accessibility of information available in widely used formats. - Popularisation of 3D environments and virtual reality encourages improvement of the quality of visualisation also in planning, and is attractive to many users, especially younger generations who are more exposed to these technologies. This can also motivate participation if I.T. is adequately used in planning by adapting it to what people are increasingly used to perceive and by improving access to information. This is a way of encouraging the community’s consciousness and responsibility, and therefore can result in a more substantial and active participation in projects that will affect their environment.

95

Recommendations to improve planning and scenario development - Planning support systems should be used for all stages of planning: design, analysis and evaluation of alternatives, visualisation in 3D and to aid in a better understanding of the projects. It should not replace traditional methods of planning but add to them to facilitate decision-making and promote collaboration. - To address particular issues of a planning project, the implementation of P.S.S. and 3D G.I.S. environments should have a more substantial role in planning agencies, although each project would have different levels of participation, access to information and interaction possibilities. Also, diverse P.S.S. features could be used in different stages of planning, e.g. scenario comparison and evaluation of policies would be very useful in design phases and assessment of different policies. - The way of presenting projects during meetings has shown that there are difficulties in understanding spatial relationships and implications on the landscape. This can be addressed by improving visualisation through the use of 3D G.I.S. environments. However, these models should not be produced isolated, but part of a P.S.S. (made using diverse software e.g. CommunityViz, WhatIf, and related 3D modelling, C.A.D. and G.I.S. tools), which can have different levels of complexity, interfaces, and of access of information to different users.

96

9. References

Aggett, G. and McColl, C., 2006a, “Breaking Down Barriers”, Land Bulletin of the National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations, Central Washington University, January. Aggett, G. and McColl, C., 2006b, “Evaluating Decision Support Systems for PPG.I.S. Applications”, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 77-92. Allmendinger, P., Prior, A., and Raemaekers, J., 2000, Introduction to Planning Practice, Wiley, U.S.A. Altena, A., 2006, “Droombeek in Enschede”, Publishing, Everywhere and Anywhere, Hybrid Space, No. 11, pp. 134-139. Appleton, K. and Lovett, L., 2005, “G.I.S.-based visualisation of development proposals: reactions from planning and related professionals”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, No.29, pp. 321–339. Arnstein, S., 1969, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Planning

Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, July, pp. 216-224, reprinted in Gates, R. and Stout, F. (eds.), 1996, The City Reader, 2nd edition, Routledge Press, U.S.A. Barton, J., Plume, J., and Parolin, B., 2005, “Public participation in a spatial decision support system for public housing”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems No. 29, pp. 630–652. Batty, M., Dodge, M., Jiang, B., and Smith, A., 1999, “Geographical Information Systems and Urban Design” in J. Stillwell, S. Geertman, & S. Openshaw (eds), 2004 Geographical Information and Planning, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 43-65. Blamont, J., 2008, “We the people: Consequences of the revolution in the management of space applications”, Space Policy, article in press, doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2007.11.006. Bourdakis, V., 1997, 'Virtual Reality: A Communication Tool for Urban Planning' in A. Asanowicz and A. Jakimowitz (eds), CAAD-Towards New Design Conventions, Technical University of Bialystok, Poland, pp. 45-59. Broll, W., Lindt, I., Ohlenburg, J., Wittkaemper, M., Yuan, C., Novotny, T., Fatah, A., Schiecky, Mottramy, C., Strothmannz, A., 2004, “ARTHUR: A Collaborative Augmented Environment for Architectural Design and Urban Planning”, Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting, Vol. 1, No. 1, December.

97

Bulmer, D., 2001, “How can computer simulated visualizations of the built environment facilitate better public participation in the planning process?”, Online Planning Journal, Retrieved from: http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/planning/articles.htm. Date of access: 20/08/07 Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., and Turton, I., 2000, “Virtual Slaithwaite: A Web Based Public Participation, 'Planning for Real'® System”, Leeds School of Geography, Retrieved from: http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/papers/99-8/. Date of access: 20/1/08 CBS, 2007, Natuur en Milieu cijfers, Retrieved from: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/Table.asp?PA=71468ned. Date of access: 29/1/08 Criterion Planners, 2007, Retrieved from: http://www.crit.com/index/index.html. Date of access: 29/11/07 Davidoff, P., 1973, “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning”, in Faludi, A. (ed.), 1973, A Reader in Planning Theory, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 277-296 Dopheide, E., 2007, “Enschede”, Presentation, I.T.C, April, Enschede. ESC, 2007, “CommunityViz Decision Support System”, Retrieved from: http://www.simcenter.org/Projects/CommunityViz/communityviz.html. Date of access: 12/1/08 ESRI, 2007, Retrieved from: http://www.esri.com. Date of access:29/11/07 ESRI, 2007b, ArcGIS Desktop Help Files, ESRI, U.S.A. Evans, A., Kingston, R., Carver, S., and Turton, I., 1999, “Web-based G.I.S. used to enhance public democratic involvement”, Centre for Computational Geography, School of Geography, University of Leeds. Retrieved from http://www.geovista.psu.edu/sites/geocomp99/Gc99/104/gc_104.htm. Date of access: 28/11/07 Forester, J., 1989, Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles. Forester, J., 1999, “Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice”, International Planning Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, June, pp. 175 – 193. Geertman, S., 2001, “Participatory planning and G.I.S.: a P.S.S. to bridge the gap”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 21-35

98

Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., and Openshaw, J., 2004 (eds), Geographical Information and Planning, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 43-65. Gemeente Enschede, 2006a, Programma van eisen (PvE) modern gemengd bedrijventerrein

Usseler Es, Dienst Stedelijke Ontwikkeling en Beheer, December, Enschede. Gemeente Enschede, 2006b, MER Bedrijventerrein Usseler Es, Startnotitie, definitief rapport, 6th December, Enschede. Gemeente Enschede, 2006c, Bijlagen Programma van eisen, Usseler Es, Enschede. Gemeente Enschede, 2006d,“Overeenkomst Gemeente – De Larinkstichting”, March, Enschede. Gemeente Enschede, 2007a, Online municipality website. Retrieved from: http://www.enschede.nl Gemeente Enschede, 2007b, “Usseler Es, concept Stedenbouwkundigplan”, Presentation, October 8th, Enschede. Germs, R., van Maren, G., Verbree, E., and Jansen, F., 1999, “A mulit-view VR interface for 3D G.I.S.”, Computers and Graphics No. 23, pp. 497-506. Green, R., 2005, “C.A.D. Manager: C.A.D. Manager Survey 2005, Part 1: Readers reveal popular C.A.D. software options and more”. Retrieved from: http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=282579&searchString=software%20survey%202005, Date of access: 15/01/08 Google, 2007, Sketchup website. Available from: http://www.sketchup.com/?sid=5. Date of access: 28/01/08 Hanzl, M., 2007, “Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials”, Design Studies No. 28, pp. 289-307. Harris, B., 1989, “Beyond Geographic Information Systems: Computers and the Planning Professional”, Journal of the American Planning Association No. 55, pp. 85-92. Harris, B. and Batty, B., 1993, “Locational Models, Geographical Information, and Planning Support Systems”, Journal of Planning Education and Research No.12, pp. 184-198. Heywood, I., Cornelius, S., and Carver, S., 2006, Intoduction to Geographical Information

Systems, 3rd edition, Pearson Education, U.K.

99

Higgs, G., 2006, “Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical information systems in waste facility location to enhance public participation”, Waste Management & Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 105-117 Horne, M., Thompson E., and Podevyn, M., 2007, “An Overview of Virtual City Modelling: Emerging Organisational Issues”, 10th International Conference of Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Brasil, July 11th-14th Hudson-Smith, A., 2007,“Digitally Distributed Urban Environments: The Prospects for Online Planning”, Ph D thesis, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London, U.K. Hudson-Smith, A., Evans, S., Batty, M., and Batty, S., 2002, “Online participation: the Woodberry Down experiment”, Working Papers series, December, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, London, U.K. Innes, J. and Booher, D., 2004, “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century”, Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 5, No. 4, 419–436, December. Kingston, R., 1998, “Web Based G.I.S. for Public Participation Decision Making in the UK”, in Empowerment, Marginalisation, and Public Participation G.I.S., National Centre for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara, California, October 14-17th. Retrieved from: http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/papers/98-5/. Date of access: 29/11/07 Kingston, R., 2002, “The role of e-government and public participation in the planning process”, in Proceedings of AESOP XVI Congress, Volos, Greece, July 10-14. Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., and Turton, I., 2000,“Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems No. 24, pp.109-125 Klosterman, R., 1987, “Politics of Computer-aided planning”, Town Planning Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 441-452. Klosterman, R.,1998, “The What If? ™ Collaborative planning support system”, Environment

and Planning, B: Planning and Design, No. 26, pp. 393-408. Klosterman, R., and Brail, R. (eds.), 2002, Planning Support Systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualisation tools, ESRI Press, California. Klosterman, R., Siebert, L., Kim, J-K., Hoque, M., and Parveen, A., 2006, “What If?™ evaluation of growth management strategies for a declining region”, Int. J. Environmental Technology and Management, Vol. 6, Nos. 1/2

100

Kuit, G., 2007, “Landschapspark Usseler Es, Presentatie voor Buurtkring Usselo”, Presentation, March 21st. Retrieved from: http://www.usselo.nl/upload/Usseler%20Es%20landschapspark.pdf. Date of access: 9/11/07 Kumar, R., 2005, Research Methodology, A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, 2nd edition, Sage Publications, U.S.A. Kwaku Kyem, P., 2002, “Examining the community empowerment process in public participation G.I.S. Applications”, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) P.P.G.I.S. Conference, July 21–23.. Lieske, S., Mullen, S., Knapp, M. and Hamerlinck, J., 2003, “Wyoming CommunityViz™ Partnership Phase I Pilot: Aquifer Protection and CommunityViz™ in Albany County, Wyoming” (Final Report), Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. Lindblom, C., 1965, The Intelligence of Democracy, The Free Press, New York. Lutjenhuis, R., 2006, “Roombeek, a neighbourhood under reconstrucion”, in I.T.C News, No. 4, I.T.C, Enschede. Manoharan, T., Taylor, H., and Gardiner, P., 2001, “Interactive urban development control with collaborative virtual environments”, Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, pp. 809 – 818. Mantle, E., Jenkins D., and Jiang L., 2007, “The use of visualization to enhance public participation within the planning process”, 10th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Brazil, July 11-14 Mantysalo, R., 2004, “Approaches to Participation in Urban Planning Theories”, in Zetti, Iacopo & Brand, Shira (eds.), “Rehabilitation of Suburban Areas – Brozzi and Le Piagge Neighbourhoods”, Dept. of Technology of Architecture and Design, University of Florence, pp. 23-38. Milbrath, L.W., 1965, Political participation: how and why do people get involved in

politics?, in Ruedin, D., 2007, “Testing Milbrath’s 1965 Framework of Political Participation: Institutions and Social Capital”, Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Science, December. Miller, E., Hunt, J., Abraham, J., and Salvini, P., 2004, “Microsimulating urban systems”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems No.28, pp. 9–44 Oh, S. Nezu, A. Yeo, W. Fukuda, T. Kaga, A. and Sasada, T., 2005, “Using Interactive Design System Based on Multimedia mixing in the Environmental Design Planning Stage”,

101

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 15 -17 June, 2005. Orton Family Foundation, 2007, “CommunityViz”. Retrieved from: http://www.communityviz.com. Date of access: 25/08/07 Orton Family Foundation, 2007b, Scenario360 Help Files, CommunityViz Perlman, K., 2004, “Technology in Planning: Evaluation of CommunityViz”, November 18, Retrieved from: http://konradperlman.typepad.com/konradperlman/2004/11/technology_in_p.html. Date of access: 25/01/08 Pool, S., 2007, “Roombeek, nieuwe inspiratiebron”, UT News, University of Twente weekly bulletin, April 26, Enschede. Rengersen, L., 2006, “Digitale ondersteuning na vuurwerkramp Enschede”, presentation, Monito.nl, Retreived from: http://www.monito.nl/content/bestanden/roombeek_ presentatie.ppt.pdf. Date of access: 10/11/2007 Saarloos, D., 2006, A Framework for a Multi-Agent Planning Support System, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Netherlands. Shiffer, M.J., 1995, "Environmental review with hypermedia systems", Environment and

Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 359 – 372 Sidjanin, P., Kraak, M-J., Smets, G., 1995, “The Delft University of Technology’s Campus Information System Accessed by G.I.S. and Virtual Reality Technology”, First Joint European Conference and Exhibition on Geographical Information, The Hague, Netherlands. Simoff, S. and Maher, M., 2000, “Analysing Participation in Collaborative Design Environments”, Design Studies, Vol. 21, pp. 119-144. Smallman, H., St.John, M., Oonk, H., and Cowen, M, 2001, “Information Availability in 2D and 3D Displays”, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 51-57. Stein, D., 2007, “How to overcome Nimby opposition to your project”, in Nation’s Building News, Government Community Affaris, March. Retrieved from: http://www.gcastrategies.com/books_articles/article_031907.php. Date of access: 12/01/08 Sten, H., and Prosperi, D., 2005, “Citizen participation and Internet G.I.S.—Some recent advances”, Editorial, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems No. 29, pp. 617–629.

102

Stohr, J., 2007, “3D bestemmen of 3D plannen?”, Presentation from the VROM Ruimtelijke Ordening van de Ondergrond Workshops, April-June, Den Haag. Suen, I-S., and Borich, T., 2004, “3D Visualisation in Community-Based Planning”, Journal

of Extension, Vol. 42, No. 6 Sui, D., 2008, “The Wikification of G.I.S. and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and the future of G.I.S.”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems No. 32, pp. 1-5. T-XChange, 2007, Retrieved from: http://www.txchange.nl. Date of access: 28/11/07 Taylor, N., 1998, Urban Planning Theory Since 1945, Sage, London TC Tubantia, 2007, 13-08, “Geen discussie over De Wonne”. Retrieved from: http://www.enschede.tctubantia.nl/enschede/155644/geen_discussie_over_de_wonne?h=de+wonne. Date of access: 31/08/07 Timmermans, H., 1996, Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning, Chapman & Hall, London. UrbanSim, 2007, Retrieved from: http://www.urbansim.org. Date of access: 29/1/08 Van ’t Erve, E., 2007, “Pilot ROO, Spoor 3D Bestemmingsplan”, Presentation, Retrieved from: http://www.dewijdeblik.com/upload/downloads/Presentatie_Enschede_1.pdf. Date of access: 11/11/2007 Van der Meulen, J., 2002, “Using public processes & G.I.S. to help communities build a sense of place”, Proceedings of the 2nd annual public participation G.I.S. (PPG.I.S.) conference, Portland, Oregon, July 21–23, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA). Retrieved from: http://www.urisa.org/PPG.I.S./papers/JVanderMeulen.pdf. Date of access: 12/01/08 Van Dipten R. and van Klaveren, E., 1996, “The surplus of virtual reality in urban planning”, Second Joint European Conference & Exhibition on Geographical Information, Barcelona, Spain. Van Lieshout, 2006, “Zelfbouwwijken in Almere”, in De Volkskrant, Binnenland section, Dec.21, Almere. Van Snellenberg, T., 2007, “Reconstruction of Roombeek”, Conference attended on Sept. 20 in the City hall of Enschede.

103

Vogelij, J., Laan, J., Modder, J., and Appelman, D. (eds.), 2001, “Roombeek, a close knit community”, Project report from the Fourth Biennial of Towns and Town Planners in Europe, "Cultures of Cities – Transformations Generating New Opportunities", September 20-21, Rotterdam. Voss, A., Denisovich, I., Gatalsky, P., Gavouchidis, P., Klotz, A., Roeder, S., and Voss, H., 2004, “Evolution of a participatory G.I.S.”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems No. 28, pp. 635–651. VROM, 2001, ‘Making space, sharing space’, summary Fifth National Policy Document on Spatial Planning 2000/2020, The Hague. VROM, 2007a, Verslag workshop Ruimtelijke Ordening Ondergrond, den Bosch, Retrieved from: http://www.dewijdeblik.com/upload/downloads/Verslag_Workshop_ROO4_07-06-14.pdf. Date of access: 27/08/07 VROM, 2007b, “ROO pilot 3D bestemmingsplan, Eindrapportage”, Report from the VROM Ministry, DG Ruimte, No. 212x00336.036155_2, December 4th, Boxtel. W!SL, Wageningen Software Labs, 2007, Retrieved from: http://www.maptalk.com. Date of access: 13/01/08 Westerink, B., 2004, “Op de bres voor de Usseler Es”, 21 April. Retrieved from: http://www.bertwesterink.nl/column-15.htm. Date of access: 30/08/07 WhatIf, Inc., 2007, Retrieved from: http://www.whatifinc.biz/. Date of access: 12/01/08 Wickliffe, D., 2006, “Testing out CommunityViz Scenario 360”, Rockingam Planning Commission Meeting, April 12. Retrieved from: http://www.des.state.nh.us/REPP/RPC/CV_Pres.ppt. Date of access: 21/1/08 Wissen, U., 2007, “Approaches to integrating indicators into 3D landscape visualisations and their benefits for participative planning situations”, Journal of Environmental Management, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.062 Xiang, W.N. and K.C. Clarke, 2003, “The use of scenarios in land use planning”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 885-909.

104

APPENDIX A . Definition of terms

I.T. = Information Technologies Information technology (I.T.) refers to the study, design, development, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems, particularly software applications and computer hardware. Electronic communication is a part of these systems; hence, I.T. is also often referred to as ICT (Information and Communications Technology). Its use has been expanded to include a broad range of computer-related activities, from installing applications to designing complex computer networks and information databases. Examples of tasks that I.T. professionals perform are data management, networking, engineering computer hardware, database and software design, and management and administration of entire systems Source: Information Technology Association of America, 2007, Retrieved from: http://www.itaa.com. Date of access: 29/10/07

C.V.E. = Collaborative Virtual Environment Collaborative virtual environments (CVEs) are digital worlds where virtual reality and cooperative work are brought together to enable interaction among users in a virtual 3D scene. They also allow interaction with three-dimensional representations of the environment that is worked on, thus resulting in a new tool for supportive cooperative interaction applicable to various fields of knowledge where visualisation and simulation are essential such as urban planning. Also called Virtual Decision Environments. Source: Manoharan, T., Taylor, H., and Gardiner, P., 2001, “Interactive urban development control with collaborative virtual environments”, Proceedings, 7th International Conference

on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, pp. 809 – 818.

D.S.S. = Decision Support System DSS are complex I.T. tools designed to serve a special purpose, assisting in completing analyses and tasks in a decision-making process. Some general planning tasks that can be supported using software and computerised systems include gathering relevant information, evaluating courses of actions, preparing plans and monitoring results and evaluating contingencies Source: Power, D. 2004, “What is a Planning Support System?”, DSS News, Vol. 5, No. 12,

June 6.

105

P.S.S. = Planning Support Systems Computerised planning support systems are a sub-class of decision support systems. P.S.S. are I.T. designed to facilitate communication and participation in the process of spatial decision making. Also called spatial decision support systems (SDSS), these tools respond to the need of involving all actors in the planning process more actively. These systems work by using indicators and alternative development scenarios in order to assess the attributes and functioning of communities and their plans. Examples of indicators can be land use, transportation, natural resources or employment variables. These may be user-defined and modified in a P.S.S. to compare performances of different planning scenarios. The P.S.S. are aimed at bringing planning to a level that does not require G.I.S. expertise and in which public participation processes can be more integrated. P.S.S. also integrate capabilities for budget planning, project management, and resource allocation. CVEs can be considered a component of P.S.S. because they allow visualising the impact of development on the landscape in 3D and virtual reality, based on the integration of information in the P.S.S.. Sources: ESRI, 2006, ESRI Online G.I.S. Dictionary, Retrieved from: http://support.esri.com/index.cfm?fa=knowledgebase.gisDictionary.gateway. Date of access: 28/08/07 Aggett, G. and McColl, C., 2006a, “Breaking Down Barriers”, Land Bulletin of the National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations, Central Washington University, January.

3D G.I.S. = 3-Dimensional Geographical Information Systems Geographical Information Systems usually deal with data in 2D. In a G.I.S., a feature is represented as an area of grid cells or as an area within a polygon boundary. A 3D G.I.S., in contrast, deals with volumes; hence, data that defines this volume is also required. Once having this data, a raster or a vector 3D data structure is chosen to describe geographical objects. Not only points and arcs, but also features can be indexed as surfaces and bodies. This increases the complexity of the G.I.S. and of the data required. 3D G.I.S. offers the ability to communicate complex geographic information using elements such as multiple surfaces, stereo block diagrams and object cut-aways. Source: Swanson, J., 1996, “The Three Dimensional Visualization & Analysis of Geographic Data”. Retreived from: http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/gis/Final_Projects/1996/ Swanson/G.I.S._Paper.html#3DG.I.S.. Date of access: 31/10/07

106

C.A.D. = COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN Computer Aided Design is the term for describing computer programs and systems to design detailed two- or three-dimensional models of physical objects, such as mechanical parts, buildings, and molecules Source: Carlson, W., 2003, “A Critical History of Computer Graphics and Animation”,

Retrieved from: http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/lessons.html. Date of access: 29/10/07

P.P.G.I.S.= PUBLIC PARTICIPATORY GEOGRAPHICAL INFOR MATION SYSTEM Public participatory geographic information science is a study of the uses and applications of geographic information systems to solve spatial problems where people’s participation is essential. It is aimed at having multiple users both as individuals and groups, and it is meant for participation in the public processes (data collection, mapping, analysis and/or decision-making) affecting people’s lives.

Source: CRSSA, 2007, “Public Participation G.I.S.”, Rutgers University, Retreived from: http://www.crssa.rutgers.edu/ppgis/. Date of access: 1/11/07

V.R. = VIRTUAL REALITY Virtual reality is a first-person, sensory-rich, computer-generated environment, in which the user is effectively immersed in a responsive world and has dynamic control of displays and of the viewpoint. A flight simulator is an example of a high-end virtual environment, whereas as an arcade game is an example of a low-end environment. Source: Brooks Jr., F., 1999, "What's Real About Virtual Reality?", IEEE Computer Graphics And Applications, Vol. 19, No.6

107

APENDIX B. Process diagram for the construction of the 3D G.I.S. environment of the Usseler Es.

108

Process diagram of construction of a P.S.S.: scenarios and analyses

109

APPENDIX C. FAR estimation options performed by Build-out Wizard Method 1) No. of floors x Building coverage ratio Where Building coverage ratio = Building footprint area / lot size Method 2) Building coverage percentage x No. of floors Method 3) 1- Open space coverage / [(1 + Parking space area) * (Parking ratio) * No. of floors] Where Open space coverage = Area / Area of the lot And Parking space area = No. of surface parking spaces required per area of building floor space And Parking ratio = Area of building floor space per parking space Method 4) [Sqrt(Lot size) – 2 * (Side setback)] * [sqrt(Lot size) – (front setback) – (rear setback) * No. of floors] / lot size * [(1 + 1/(Parking ratio) * (Parking space area) * No. of floors]