DialogueMaps: GIS instrument for landscape valuation (august, 2014)

DialogueMaps A GIS instrument for landscape valuation in the rural-urban fringe of Leiden

Name: Robbert-Jan Geldhof, BSc. E-mail: rmgeldhof@live.com Registrationnr.: 3469212 Period of Internship: 1-3-2014 – 22-8-2014 Date final report: 22-8-2014

Internship provider Ir. Merten Nefs Deltametropolis Association Aert van Nesstraat 45 3012 CA, Rotterdam +31 (0)10 737 0340

University Dr. Ir. Ron van Lammeren Wageningen UR PO Box 47 6700 AA, Wageningen +31 (0)317 481 553

1

ABSTRACT The landscape in the rural-urban fringe of the Deltametropolis is under pressure from spatial developments. Landscape protection policies are being relaxed, planning authority is being decentralized to lower governments, and the agricultural sector is increasingly dynamic. This leads to a current and urgent discussion about the value of the landscape of the Deltametropolis. To facilitate this discussion, the Deltametropolis Association set out to develop a GIS instrument.

The result is DialogueMaps, an interactive, web-based viewer that aims at visualizing stakeholders’ conflicting landscape values.

In DialogueMaps, stakeholders identify their landscape values based on a set of maps that tell the story of the landscape, the landscape’s narrative. Stakeholders’ landscape values are modelled as geodata and are input for a weighted overlay analysis. Via this analysis these landscape values are then modelled as value maps, to be visualized in an interactive viewer. The conflict map identifies areas of conflicting values, and of areas of agreement between stakeholders.

Test sessions yield that the value maps contribute to the discussion, and offer new insights into stakeholders’ valuation of the landscape. It was also found that value maps are complex and require careful explanation.

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On behalf of the Deltametropolis Association and myself I direct a word of gratitude to the participants of the various meetings and interviews: Jeroen Traudes (Gemeente Leiden), HenriĂŤtte Noordhof (Gemeente Leiden), Steven Slabbers (Bosch Slabbers), Lennert Langerak (Werkorganisatie Duivenvoorde), Elise Coenen (Werkorganisatie Duivenvoorde), Ernst Bos (LEI), Wim ter Keurs (Stichting Behoud Rijnland), Hans Hoek (Veelzijdig Boerenland).

Without their valuable contribution this research would not have been possible.

22-8-2014 Rob Geldhof

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 3 1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1

The rural-urban fringe of the Deltametropolis ...................................................................... 6

1.2

Defining the RUF ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.2.1

A multi-functional environment ..................................................................................... 6

1.2.2

A dynamic environment ................................................................................................... 7

1.2.3

An untidy and vulnerable landscape ............................................................................... 7

1.2.4

“Fuzzy” and permeable boundaries ............................................................................... 7

1.3 2

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1

Study area ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.2

User involvement and user requirements .................................................................... 10

Technical development ........................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1

Geodata and geoprocessing requirements................................................................... 11

2.2.2

Interface requirements ................................................................................................... 11

2.2.3

Technical components and prototype assembly ........................................................ 12

2.3

Testing ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1

First stakeholder reflection board meeting........................................................................... 13

3.1.1

Stakeholders’ view of landscape valuation .................................................................. 13

3.1.2

Stakeholders’ view of the three types of instruments ................................................ 13

3.2

Landscape economist and CBA practitioner ....................................................................... 14

3.3

Representative of agricultural nature management associations ....................................... 15

3.3.1

Farmers’ perspective on landscape ............................................................................... 15

3.3.2

Feedback on instrument design .................................................................................... 15

3.4

Environmental activist............................................................................................................. 16

3.4.1

Evaluation of Rijnlandroute Project............................................................................. 16

3.4.2

Feedback on instrument design .................................................................................... 17

3.5

4

Users and user requirements .................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1 2.2

3

Research goal and research questions ..................................................................................... 8

Second stakeholder reflection board meeting ...................................................................... 17

3.5.1

Design of the first working prototype ......................................................................... 17

3.5.2

The process of using the instrument ............................................................................ 18

DialogueMaps .................................................................................................................................... 20 4.1

User interface ............................................................................................................................ 20 4

4.2

4.2.1

Base maps ......................................................................................................................... 21

4.2.2

Thematic maps ................................................................................................................ 21

4.2.3

Value maps ....................................................................................................................... 23

4.3

6

Context of use process ................................................................................................... 24

4.3.2

Step one: user session for value identification ............................................................ 24

4.3.3

Step two: Spatial analysis of stakeholders’ landscape values..................................... 25

4.3.4

Step three: user session for discussing value conflicts ............................................... 25

Test results ................................................................................................................................ 25

4.4.1

Test session 1 ................................................................................................................... 25

4.4.2

Test session 2 ................................................................................................................... 27

Technical design ................................................................................................................................ 30 5.1

User interface ............................................................................................................................ 30

5.2

Tile server .................................................................................................................................. 30

5.3

Geodata ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Discussion, conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................... 32 6.1

7

Use process ............................................................................................................................... 24

4.3.1

4.4

5

Map layers.................................................................................................................................. 21

Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 32

6.1.1

Stakeholder involvement and testing ........................................................................... 32

6.1.2

Instrument interactivity and user interaction .............................................................. 32

6.2

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 33

6.3

Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 34

6.3.1

Process recommendations ............................................................................................. 34

6.3.2

Technical recommendations.......................................................................................... 35

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A: Literature study to landscape valuation ......................................................................... 38 Spatial planning approach to landscape valuation .......................................................................... 38 Ecosystem services approach to landscape valuation .................................................................... 39 In summary: confronting two different approaches....................................................................... 40 Appendix B: Hand-out to stakeholder reflection board for instrument types ................................ 42 Appendix C: Origin datasets................................................................................................................... 44

5

1 INTRODUCTION The position of the landscape in the metropolitan debate is gaining in importance as planners and designers become more aware of the benefits landscape provides to urban society, but also of the problems the metropolitan landscape is facing. This has prompted the Deltametropolis Association to start a research program on the Metropolitan Landscape. As part of this program, this research attempts to facilitate the discussion on the position of the landscape in the metropolitan debate by developing a GIS instrument for landscape valuation.

1.1 THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE OF THE DELTAMETROPOLIS The Deltametropolis is the conurbation situated in the Rhine-Meuse delta, the Netherlands, and roughly corresponds with the area known as the Randstad with spill-overs to the east and south.

Historical developments and planning regimes have resulted in a polycentric urban form and have preserved the rural landscape between the cities. Past and contemporary planning practices are typically aimed at either urban or rural landscapes, but the interface between them is gaining in importance as academics and practitioners begin to identify the rural-urban fringe (RUF) as a separate place with its own problems and needs (Scott et al., 2013).

In the Deltametropolis, the RUF has received attention from academics but the concept has not yet taken hold in planning practices (Nabielek, Kronberger-Nabielek & Hamers, 2013; Piek & De Niet, 2010). In several case studies of metropolitan landscapes, the Deltametropolis Association has found that the relationship between the rural and the urban is becoming more important, but that conflicting interests and values remain a pervasive issue (Nefs, 2014).

1.2 DEFINING THE RUF The RUF is the transitional zone between town and country. It can be described as the gateway for visitors who enter the city, and as a recreational area for urban citizens. The RUF is further characterized by a unique mixture of different land uses: residential, business parks, infrastructure but also recreational and cultural facilities (Piek & De Niet, 2010). One could argue that no traditional concept of urban or rural land use is dominant in the RUF, so the RUF is difficult to define as a separate place next to city and countryside. Scott and colleagues (2013) identify several characteristics of the RUF:  The RUF is a multi-functional environment, often characterised by essential service functions, and by low-density economic activity including retail, industry, distribution and warehousing.  The RUF is a dynamic environment, characterised by adaptation and conversion between uses.  The RUF is characterized by an untidy and vulnerable landscape, potentially rich in wildlife.  The RUF does not have clear, but rather “fuzzy” and permeable boundaries.

These characteristics are further explored and put in context of scientific literature.

1.2.1 A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT The multi-functionality of the RUF is manifest in the diverse functions that can be found in the RUF. As a zone of transition, the RUF has a mixture of rural and urban functions. For example, 6

in the RUF residential areas and commercial zones are bordered by rural functions such as crop fields and nature conservation areas. And infrastructure is usually prevalent in the form of junctions of major traffic arteries (Piek & De Niet, 2010; Zhang, Pu & Zhu, 2013). But the RUF also has unique functions that are not found in dominantly urban or rural areas. These functions usually rely on large markets of consumers, who reside in the city, but also require good accessibility and low land prices. Examples of such functions are indoor ski centres and shopping malls (Rauws & De Roo, 2011).

1.2.2 A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT The dynamic nature of the RUF is manifest in the rate of change in the land use. A quantitative GIS analysis of the RUF in the Netherlands, spanning the period 1996-2003, revealed that changes in residential land use were 5 times greater in the RUF than in the city, and 14 times greater than in the countryside. Land use changes in commercial and recreational land use types showed similar numbers (Nabielek, Kronberger-Nabielek & Hamers, 2013). Rauws and De Roo (2011) argue that these land use changes can be explained by the influence of drivers that are largely autonomous and beyond the control of planners. Examples of these autonomous drivers are (Rauws & De Roo, 2011):  urbanization/suburbanization;  the emergence of new land use types like technoparks and shopping malls;  diversification of agriculture, where farmers broaden the scope of their business by also offering recreational, health care and education services and products.

And an additional driver that can be added to this list is the changing landscape policy. Policies that aim to contain urban development and preserve landscape are being relaxed and decentralized, as the planning system as a whole is undergoing a process of liberalization (Nabielek, Kronberger-Nabielek & Hamers, 2013).

1.2.3 AN UNTIDY AND VULNERABLE LANDSCAPE From the perspective of landscape and ecology, it can be said that the RUF is a very vulnerable place. The dynamic land use pattern that characterizes the RUF results in small pockets of “remnant” nature amidst other functions such as residential and commercial (Crossman et al., 2007). These “remnants”, in turn, are vulnerable to land use change. Research in the Netherlands suggests that residential, commercial and recreational developments in the RUF come at the expense of agriculture in particular, but to nature as well (Nabielek, Kronberger-Nabielek & Hamers, 2013). This is partly because natural areas in the RUF tend to be of high economic value due to their proximity to high value functions (Crossman et al., 2007). The resulting mix of “green” and built-up areas in the RUF results in a cluttered, untidy landscape (Wagtendonk & Vermaat, 2014). The vulnerability of the landscape raises concerns about the benefits provided by the landscape. Green environments in and surrounding the city provide important ecosystem services to urban residents (Krasny et al., 2013).

1.2.4 “FUZZY” AND PERMEABLE BOUNDARIES There is no consensus among authors about the geographical extent of the RUF. It appears that this definition varies from region to region, and is largely dependent on urban and landscape patterns in those regions. In Australia and North America, the spread of suburbs have resulted in areas that can be characterized as RUF areas that can extend up to 100 km around an urban 7

centre (Crossman et al., 2007). In South Africa, the RUF is dominated by townships, sprawling urban centres in the vicinity of central cities that are remnants of apartheid planning (Cash, 2014).

In contrast, the Netherlands has not seen urban sprawl like North America, South Africa or Australia. Here, urban compaction policies have resulted in clearer boundaries between city and countryside. Some researchers even suggest the RUF in the Netherlands can be defined by a 2 km buffer around built-up areas (Nabielek, Kronberger-Nabielek & Hamers, 2013; Piek & De Niet, 2010).

In any case, defining the RUF using a geographical extent seems to be at odds with another characteristic of the RUF, namely the dynamic nature of the land use. If cities expand, and the land use on the fringes constantly changes, then it is difficult to define a hard geographical extent of the RUF (Rauws & De Roo, 2011).

1.3 RESEARCH GOAL AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS In summary it can be said that the multi-functional and dynamic fringes of towns and cities can be identified as places in their own right, having neither a dominant urban or dominant rural character. These areas are constantly changing in terms of land use and are vulnerable from a perspective of landscape and ecology as a result of various, largely autonomous drivers. This leads to an important debate on the value of the landscape in the RUF of the Deltametropolis.

The hypothesis is that the discourse on landscape valuation in the Deltametropolis is currently suboptimal, due to poor awareness of landscape characteristics and conflicting interests among stakeholders in the RUF on the one hand, and the overlap of distinct planning doctrines (urban and environmental planning) on the other. It is assumed that mapping and visualizing crucial landscape characteristics and stakeholder values will improve the debate on the value of the landscape and therefore planning processes in the RUF, and that the resulting areas of conflict will help to create a basis for negotiation and decision making.

Calling on positive experiences with the application of geographical information systems (GIS) to complex planning problems, the Deltametropolis Association aims to develop a GIS instrument to facilitate this debate. The research goal and questions are therefore: To develop a GIS instrument to facilitate the discussion of the valuation of the landscape in the rural-urban fringe.

To reach this goal, the following questions are answered: Q1. Who are the supposed users of such a GIS instrument and how can these users be involved in the instrument’s development and what are their requirements?

Q2. What geodata and geodata-processing is needed?

Q3. What interface does the instrument need to facilitate the discussion?

Q4. Which technical components does this GIS instrument require and how can these components be assembled in a prototype?

Q5. How can the prototype be tested?

In the next chapter the methodology of the research is explained, followed by the results of the user requirements study in chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the instrument. Chapter 5 provides an in-depth overview of the technical components and chapter 6 is dedicated to discussion, conclusions and recommendations.

8

2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 USERS AND USER REQUIREMENTS 2.1.1 STUDY AREA The first research question addresses the question who the users are. To answer this question a geographical demarcation of the research was needed. A study area was selected based on two criteria: a clear spatial development that affects the landscape in the RUF, and practical considerations, in particular the availability of a network among stakeholders on part of the Deltametropolis Association. Three areas were initially considered: Midden-Delfland, the Randstadrail Corridor1 and the south-western fringe of Leiden (Figure 1). This report will suffice with elaborating on the south-western fringe of Leiden.

The south-western fringe of Leiden can be roughly defined as the area stretching from the North Sea coast to the village of Zoeterwoude, following the south-western fringe of the urban fabric of the cities of Katwijk and Leiden (Figure 2).

This area is characterized by a great and unique variety of landscape types: dunes, beach ridges, beach plains, reclaimed peat lands and land drainages. Partly these landscapes were shaped by geophysical processes (dunes, beach ridges and plains), and partly by anthropogenic processes (peat reclamations, settlement patterns) (Provincie Zuid-Holland, 2014).

Figure 1: Images from the south-western RUF of Leiden

1

The corridor between The Hague and Rotterdam which follows the Randstadrail trajectory

9

The urgency in the area is caused by two major developments: the transformation of former air base Valkenburg into a large residential location and the connection of highways A4 and A44 via a new road (the so called Rijnlandroute) (respectively black and green/black in Figure 2). The Deltametropolis Association has previously operated in this area, and therefore a network of stakeholders could be called upon for this research, in both the rural and urban area. Together with the diverse landscape and clear spatial developments in the area the south-western fringe of Leiden was selected as the study area.

Figure 2: Study area: the south-western fringe of Leiden, featuring the Valkenburg location (black) and the Rijnlandroute (green with black)

2.1.2 USER INVOLVEMENT AND USER REQUIREMENTS To identify potential users of the instrument a reflection board of stakeholders was set up. In addition to three employees of the Deltametropolis Association (including the author), the board was comprised of a landscape architect and various representatives from the municipalities in the study area. Due to circumstances these representatives varied every board meeting.

The stakeholder reflection board was involved throughout the project to reflect on the instrument’s development and provide feedback. This is reflected in the topics of each board’s meeting (table 1). In addition to the stakeholder reflection board, three interviews were conducted. One was an expert interview with a landscape economist. The other two were interviews with stakeholders in the area who were unable to take part in the reflection board.

These stakeholders were a farmers’ representative and an environmental activist. Finally two test sessions were organized. One separate session and one was combined with the final stakeholder reflection board meeting.

Table 1: Meetings of stakeholder reflection board

Date 29-5-2014 11-6-2014 20-6-2014 23-6-2014 1-7-2014

Event Stakeholder reflection board Interview landscape economist Interview farmers’ representative Interview environmental activist Stakeholder reflection board

Topic Discussion about three types of prototype tools Cost-benefit analysis, economic landscape valuation Farmers’ perspective on landscape valuation; feedback on prototype design Activist’s perspective on landscape valuation; feedback on prototype design Reflection on first working prototype 10

6-8-2014 19-8-2014

Test session Test session/stakeholder reflection board

Test session of near final prototype Reflection on final prototype, testing of final prototype

2.2 TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT The technical development addresses research questions 2, 3 and 4: the geodata requirements, the interface requirements and the instrument’s technical components.

2.2.1 GEODATA AND GEOPROCESSING REQUIREMENTS The stakeholders consulted in the reflection board and interviews provided the input needed to define what geodata and geoprocessing were needed. The stakeholders did, however, not directly indicate what kind of data and processing thereof were required. Gathering the data requirements was therefore an interpretative process where stakeholders would state what kind of information they would need to valuate the landscape. Then the possibilities would be explored on how this information could be modelled and presented as maps. In the first board meeting the discussion on information requirements was a very general discussion in order to explore a range of possibilities. In later meetings the discussion would become more precise, addressing specific maps and occasionally geoprocessing approaches.

2.2.2 INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS The interface requirements in this research are understood as the requirements to the type of interface, but also more general as the type of instrument. It should be noted that the study for interface requirements focussed on the type of instrument and on the information that the interface should serve to the users. No computer-human interaction study was conducted.

It was unclear, initially, what kind of an instrument was called for, and it became evident that many different approaches to landscape valuation exist. Therefore an academic literature study was conducted on the backgrounds of landscape valuation (Appendix A). Drawing upon this literature study, and on examples found in practice, three widely different types of instruments were described and presented to the first actor board meeting. These types are a quantitative model, an interactive viewer and a serious game (Table 2).

Table 2: Three types of GIS instruments

Description

Example

Quantitative model A spatio-mathematical model that quantifies landscape values based on objective, measurable units Burkhard et al., 2013

Interactive viewer A web-based viewer that displays attractively styled, interactive maps.

Serious game A game that addresses a serious, real-life issue using an appealing narrative.

Info Amazonia www.infoamazonia.org

Rufopoly (Scott et al., 2013) http://bit.ly/1iFYd9l

The quantitative model is prevalent in academic literature (see appendix A for a comprehensive literature study). These models either use ecosystem services to quantify landscape values, or are grounded in economic theory. In the latter case, these models generally take on the form of a cost-benefit analysis. These models do not necessarily have an attractive user interface and are not usable for lay users. The interactive viewer is a common GIS instrument, which aims at 11

serving geo-information in a simple and appealing way to users. It is usually the final stage of geoinformation handling, when data have been acquired, analysed, styled and then served to the user.

Academic literature on interactive viewers focuses on computer-human interaction and usability (e.g. Vonk & Ligtenberg, 2010). The use of GIS in combination with serious gaming is an innovative approach which is actively pursued by Deltametropolis Association (Duffhues et al., 2014). Another notable example is Rufopoly, a board game designed for regional planning in a hypothetical RUF (Scott et al., 2013).

It is clear that these instruments are not mutually exclusive. For example, a quantitative model could be combined with an interactive viewer to display the model’s output. The purpose of the three types was rather to present widely different approaches to the stakeholders and learn from their feedback. Therefore these instruments were presented on the first stakeholder reflection board using a slide presentation and a hand-out with a comparative diagram (appendix B). Based on these different types the actor board made a clear decision for the interactive viewer, which enabled the technical design process to start.

2.2.3 TECHNICAL COMPONENTS AND PROTOTYPE ASSEMBLY The fourth research question addresses the technical development process of the instrument.

Once a decision was made on the type of instrument to be developed, the technical design process started. For developing the instrument an approach was taken similar to the Agile development methodology. In Agile short term goals are reached using short iterations (here one week was used). At the end of the iteration it was evaluated what to do with goals that could not be reached, whether to drop them or to adjust them and move them to the next iteration. The benefit of Agile is that the scope is not fixed, and so the development process is flexible to scope changes (Alleman, 2002).

2.3 TESTING Lastly, testing is addressed. The instrument was tested in two user sessions. One user session was conducted with co-workers from Deltametropolis Association and one user session was conducted with the stakeholder reflection board. In both sessions different features of the instrument were tested. The setup and aims of both sessions are explained in later sections.

12

3 RESULTS This chapter outlines the results of the user requirements study. The results are discussed in chronological order, as the findings of one event influenced the discussion topic of consecutive events.

3.1 FIRST STAKEHOLDER REFLECTION BOARD MEETING Attendees:  Henriëtte Noordhof, policy advisor on the Rijnlandroute (Municipality of Leiden)  Lennert Langerak, landscape coordinator (Municipalities of Wassenaar Voorschoten)  Steven Slabbers, landscape architect (Bosch-Slabbers)  Paul Gerretsen (Deltametropolis Association)  Merten Nefs (Deltametropolis Association)  Rob Geldhof (Deltametropolis Association)

and

In the first stakeholder reflection board the aim was to give direction to the research by specifying what the stakeholders think the main issues with landscape valuation are in general, and specifically at the fringe of Leiden, and by choosing one of the three different instrument types.

3.1.1 STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEW OF LANDSCAPE VALUATION The municipal members stressed the fact that stakeholders often are not communicating effectively. There is much mutual misunderstanding between stakeholders about people’s values of the landscape. Mr. Slabbers emphasized the fact that the landscape in the RUF is very fragmented, and that as such it is difficult to recognize the relations between city and countryside.

This makes a coherent discussion about landscape in the RUF difficult.

The board therefore concluded that there is a need for discussion that raises awareness of people’s different values of the landscape, particularly taking into account different scales (from neighbourhood to regional scale). Based on this conclusion the board was asked what kind of information would then be necessary. The consensus was that the instrument should make clear why the landscape is as it is, by offering insights in processes that shape and have shaped it (the geogenesis, settlement and cultivation). The board also set a condition to the instrument, it should not let the valuation discussion dwell on established facts that cannot be overturned. The construction of the Rijnlandroute was mentioned specifically here.

3.1.2 STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEW OF THE THREE TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS The board immediately recognized the cost-benefit analysis as a quantitative model. A costbenefit analysis was performed as part of the Rijnlandroute project. The experiences with this project are mixed. The consensus was that the cost-benefit analysis has many advantages, including monetization, but that it does not contribute to raising awareness of people’s different valuations of the landscape. The cost-benefit analysis is considered too technical and too rigid for this purpose. However, the board did not dismiss the principle of value quantification as such.

13

The board opted for an interactive viewer approach. The viewer should display stakeholders’ landscape values based on a bottom-up process, where stakeholders would provide the input for the landscape values directly. Also a viewer was found suitable because it allows for switching between different spatial scales. The board agreed that the instrument should target a wide audience of users: both aldermen and local residents should be able to use it simultaneously, because one of the purposes of the instrument should be to overcome the lack of communication between some stakeholders.

The outcomes of the first stakeholder reflection board can thus be summarized as follows:  The instrument should give insights in the defining and shaping factors of the landscape  The instrument should connect stakeholders that do currently not have an understanding of each other’s valuation of the landscape  The instrument should be an interactive viewer rather than a quantitative model or a serious game

3.2 LANDSCAPE ECONOMIST AND CBA PRACTITIONER An interview was held with Ernst Bos, professor in Landscape Economics affiliated with the LEI Institute and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) practitioner. The purpose of the interview with prof. Bos was to increase the understanding of the CBA, to understand why it is the established landscape valuation method and what its pros and cons are.

Prof. Bos believes that economic valuation of landscape, using the CBA, holds the future for landscape valuation. The main reasons being the fact that CBA is grounded in market theory, which enables the use of market prices as a relatively objective standard of valuation. Also prices can be standardized, making values transferable, and results comparable, between separate studies.

Prof. Bos was confronted with the question whether all aspects of landscape can be valuated using CBA. His response was negative. According to Bos, CBA is currently not capable of adequately valuating aspects that represent intrinsic values, the most important of which being cultural heritage. Bos explained that the value attached to heritage by society changes over the course of time and it is questionable if, for example, a certain object or structure in the landscape represents a constant value. Particularly if heritage is hardly recognizable, like archaeological findings that remain covered. However, Bos does believe that it is only a matter of time before there have been sufficient studies into valuating heritage so that it too can be properly assessed by CBA. It was explained to prof. Bos that the CBA involving the Rijnlandroute was perceived negatively by some stakeholders in the study area. Bos stated that he is not familiar with this particular case, but he emphasizes public participation in the process. Stakeholders must be involved with identifying landscape values and be made aware of how the valuation method works. This is necessary for creating support for the CBA. Without public support it is questionable what the purpose of the CBA is. The identification process of landscape values is particularly important, because a CBA practitioner must make clear decisions on what to valuate and what not. It is usually possible nor expedient to valuate everything. Therefore the valuation process must be a reflection of the landscape values that exist among the stakeholders.

For the development of the instrument, the following lessons were drawn from the interview with prof. Bos: 14

  

CBA is currently not adequately able to address intrinsic landscape values, particularly heritage Landscape valuation requires public support in order to be useful The identification of landscape values among stakeholders is an important part of the valuation process

3.3 REPRESENTATIVE OF AGRICULTURAL NATURE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS Following European and national policies2 farmers are becoming increasingly more involved in the management of the landscape in general and nature in particular. Farmers are therefore an important stakeholder, and consequently an interview was conducted with Mr. Hans Hoek, director of Veelzijdig Boerenland, an organization that represents farmers who take part in landscape and nature management. The purpose of the interview was primarily to learn about farmers’ perspective on landscape, and second, to obtain feedback on the design of the instrument as it was then.

3.3.1 FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVE ON LANDSCAPE Mr. Hoek recognizes the tensions between rural and urban areas because of the process of urbanization which almost always happens at the expense of agricultural land. But it also causes dynamic interactions between city and countryside that benefit farmers. Mr. Hoek mentions the examples of leisure seekers from the city who enjoy the agricultural countryside and the natural values of the landscape that provide ecosystem services. On the topic of heritage and landscape preservation, Mr. Hoek believes that farmers feel it is their responsibility to society to preserve the landscape and also spend time and effort on it. However, as farmers are entrepreneurs with a business, they expect to be compensated properly by society in return for this service. Offering products and services in addition to traditional food production is called multifunctional land use, and Mr. Hoek believes it is an important principle for farmers in the western, urbanized part of the country.

However, Mr. Hoek identifies an important problem with multifunctional land use. There is a mismatch between supply and demand of these additional services. One example is that some areas that farmers maintain for leisure seekers are not accessible. For example because there is no good cycling infrastructure. Earlier research on this topic revealed that sometimes visitors do get access to the area, but would like additional access to the premises of farms, which they do not always allow (Nefs, 2014). Another example of mismatch is that products that farmers brand as local produce somehow do not reach the consumer in the city. This too is supported by earlier research (Nefs, 2014). The main cause of this mismatch is a lack of transboundary coordination of landscape initiatives, says Mr. Hoek. He believes that many initiatives to improve the relation between city and countryside founder on administrative boundaries. Something he believes should be addressed.

3.3.2 FEEDBACK ON INSTRUMENT DESIGN At the time of the interview the instrument design included the principle of value maps: maps that visualize stakeholders’ landscape valuation based on an assessment of the landscape value by

2

Communal Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Nature Vision 2014

15

means of a score. These scores would be assigned to concrete landscape objects and types of land use by the user.

Mr. Hoek indicated that this approach would always be susceptible to the viewpoint of one individual person, and would not per se be representative for a larger group of persons. He also indicated that assessing concrete objects and land use types would not do justice to the diversity of landscapes and multifunctional land use. Also, for farmers specifically, the ownership situation of land is important for the valuation of landscape.

Summarizing the interview, the following lessons were drawn:  Farmers anticipate on the city’s needs by providing additional products and services from their lands. Therefore agricultural land is multifunctional.  Farmers recognise a mismatch between supply and demand of the city and the (agricultural) landscape, something they believe should be addressed.  Value maps are not representative per se, and landscape assessments should take into account the diversity and multifunctionality of the landscape.

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST The Rijnlandroute project has sparked significant opposition among various activist groups in the area, in particular from community associations and environmental associations. An overarching foundation, the Foundation Preserve Rhineland, represents these groups and is headed by Wim ter Keurs, a retired environmental biologist. The purpose of the interview was to review how the environmental support groups experienced landscape valuation in the Rijnlandroute project.

3.4.1 EVALUATION OF RIJNLANDROUTE PROJECT Mr. Ter Keurs describes the process of the Rijnlandroute project. In an early stage stakeholders were invited to partake in an evaluation of the plan. This evaluation was done using a multicriteria analysis. The result of the evaluation was that traffic relief and nature preservation were ranked almost equally by stakeholders, but that these values did not find their way into the eventual plan in equal manner. This is evident in the mandatory cost-benefit analysis, carried out by the province, which has not quantified nature and landscape values at all. In addition, the Foundation Preserve Rhineland considers that stakeholders were not involved sufficiently in the project. For this reason, and for the lack of acknowledgement of natural values, the foundation has always rejected the Rijnlandroute.

Looking back at the process, Mr. Ter Keurs was positive about the multi-criteria analysis because it was transparent and on a level playing field where all stakeholders had equal influence on the evaluation outcome. But he now rejects the approach as the eventual plan did not do justice to the result.

Mr. Ter Keurs was asked to respond to the thesis that any landscape valuation method should attempt to objectify the values, as is the case in a cost-benefit analysis. He is not in favour of this thesis, as he questions the ability of such methods to adequately express the intrinsic value of landscape. He is more in favour of an approach where value is derived from a degree of public support for an intervention, but he acknowledges that this is difficult to standardize.

16

3.4.2 FEEDBACK ON INSTRUMENT DESIGN Mr. Ter Keurs appreciates the principle of mapping the values of individual stakeholders, but he argues that most methods can be adequate as long as some important conditions are met. He lists four:  No stakeholder should be denied participation in the valuation method  All stakeholders should be involved in an early stage of the project  The method must facilitate a level playing field where all stakeholders have equal influence  The method must be transparent In effect, Mr. Ter Keurs argues, these conditions are not in any way new. They can be read almost literally in the report by the Elverding Committee3 (Elverding et al., 2008). But somehow, Mr. Ter Keurs observes, these recommendations are seldom put into practice.

3.5 SECOND STAKEHOLDER REFLECTION BOARD MEETING Attendees:  Elise Coenen, policy advisor green space (Municipalities of Voorschoten/Wassenaar)  Steven Slabbers, landscape architect (Bosch Slabbers)  Jeroen Traudes, project manager Rijnlandroute (Municipality of Leiden)  Paul Gerretsen (Deltametropolis Association)  Merten Nefs (Deltametropolis Association)  Rob Geldhof (Deltametropolis Association) The purpose of the second actor board meeting was to reflect on the first working prototype of the instrument.

3.5.1 DESIGN OF THE FIRST WORKING PROTOTYPE The first prototype was a web viewer that featured a topographic basemap, a landscape map and

Figure 3: Screenshots from the first working prototype, featuring the landscape map (left) and the value map (right) 3

Advisory Committee on Expedition of Decision Making in Infrastructure Projects

17

a series of value maps. The landscape map was a map of land use and prominent landscape features and “carriers” of the landscape, such as the Roman Limes, age-old water ways and estates (Figure 3).

The value maps are rasters of which the cell values correspond with the landscape value at that location, defined by user input using a score of -3 to 3, where -3 means that intervention should take place at that location, and where 3 means the opposite (Figure 4). Dummy value maps were made representing four different fictional stakeholders.

The board re-emphasized the importance of communicating the narrative of the area to the user by visualizing important landscape features and structures. However, the landscape map was considered to be too focused on specific objects whereas a more generic map was needed, one that focuses more on dominant structures in the landscape and the processes that defined the landscape. This would help in seeing the landscape as an integrated whole rather than a fragmented environment.

The concept of value maps was well received, but these maps are based on the wrong values. In the current approach land use and landscape objects are valuated, rather than “real” values, such as view and openness of the landscape, the absence of noise, accessibility by bike etc. The board argued it is necessary that the instrument focuses on these, more abstract, values instead.

Also, an issue was found in the numeric spectrum of -3 to 3, which is not suitable to make composite maps of multiple stakeholders, as you cannot use the sum or mean (e.g. two overlapping values of -3 and 3 would sum or mediate to 0, which effectively means there is no discussion, whereas there actually is a considerable underlying disagreement).

Figure 4: Schematic of value map computation in first working prototype

3.5.2 THE PROCESS OF USING THE INSTRUMENT The board argued that it would require two user sessions to reach a landscape valuation. The first session should focus on identifying people’s values using the landscape map, whereas a second session should focus on discussing the value maps. In the meantime the value maps should be produced based on the input provided by stakeholders in the first session. Mr. Traudes indicated this approach would be of benefit if the instrument were to be used by municipalities, 18

as they have the obligation to specify the manner in which public participation input is processed into policy recommendations. Value maps would be a useful instrument in that respect.

19

4 DIALOGUEMAPS Based on the iterative development process, supported by input from stakeholders, experts and literature, DialogueMaps is developed (link: www.deltametropool.nl/index5.html). This chapter outlines the workings and components of the instrument.

4.1 USER INTERFACE The user interface is a web-based map viewer accessible through most web browsers. It was attempted to design the interface in a minimalistic fashion so that the map would be the centre of attention, but also so that the interface would be easy to operate. The interface features the following controls: zoom, draw and layer control. Some layers feature additional interaction through legends and teasers that appear in the bottom right and top right of the screen. A teaser is an information label that appears on the mouse-over of an object. The video below illustrates the interface controls.

20

4.2 MAP LAYERS DialogueMaps features three types of maps:  Base maps  Thematic maps  Value maps

4.2.1 BASE MAPS Base maps are a topographic map and the aerial imagery. Both layers are map services provided

by MapBox. In addition an overlay of streets is included. This high-contrast layer displays only streets and roads, which is useful in combination with thematic maps. This layer is provided as a service by Stamen Maps (refer to Appendix C for a comprehensive overview of all original datasets used).

4.2.2 THEMATIC MAPS There are two kinds of thematic maps. First are the so called narrative layers. The first stakeholder reflection board meeting emphasized the fragmented topography of the current landscape, and expressed the need for visualizing the underlying defining features of the landscape. Therefore a geomorphology map and a landscape map are included. These maps describe the narrative of the landscape in terms of geogenesis and defining landscape objects and structures. The plan contours, which can be visualized on top of other maps, represent the planning urgency in the area and are included so that these plans are displayed in their landscape context.

The second kind of thematic map refers to values that are of particular importance in the study area. As was noted in the methodology, mapping values is an interpretative process because key landscape values are often abstract. In the prototype six values have been mapped based on input from the stakeholder reflection board meetings and interviews (Table 3). In addition, all map layers are displayed in the video on the next page4.

Table 3: Description of thematic maps, as interpretations of abstract landscape values

Value View, openness Quietness, absence of noise Accessibility for leisure seekers The natural value of the landscape The economic value of the landscape Permissibility and ability of access 4

Thematic map Two view shed panoramas, one from the main infrastructure (rail, highway) and one from intimate country roads that cross the landscape.

A map of noise contours around infrastructure and protected nature silence areas.

A map of service area contours of 1, 2 and 3 km around important nodes in the leisure cycle infrastructure (national cycling routes, train stations and recreational parking facility).

A map displaying several categories of nature protection areas.

A map displaying the various spatial forms of economic activity in the landscape.

This map is a qualitative assessment of the degree to which, mainly leisure seekers, are allowed and able to access a specific area.

The digital file can be downloaded here: http://deltametropool.nl/nl/dialoguemaps

21

Most thematic maps were created by combining different origin datasets (appendix C). The view sheds were created by performing a view shed analysis on a digital elevation model. The service area contours for cyclists were created using network analysis based on the road network. All thematic maps are transparent overlays, except for the view shed maps.

22

4.2.3 VALUE MAPS Value maps are non-transparent overlays that visualize stakeholders’ landscape values in the area. Every stakeholder contributes to the discussion with his own value map (or of the interest group that the stakeholder represents). Comparison of the different value maps is one of the main drivers of the debate.

Value maps are the output of a weighted overlay analysis. The weighted overlay analysis can be described as a spatial variant of a multi-criteria analysis, and weighs input criteria according to a positive-negative scale and an important-unimportant scale (Figure 5). The input criteria are the thematic maps of abstract landscape values. The landscape values are valued from negative to positive, expressed in a score of 1 to 9, and according to their relative importance, or weight, expressed in a percentage. The sum of all weights equals 100%. The scores are not assigned to a complete thematic value map, but to categories within that map. For instance, for the nature map, scores are assigned to each category of nature on the map: Natura2000, EHS-nature, bird protection areas and ecological corridors. The weights, however, are assigned to the complete map. The result is a set of maps that represents stakeholders’ views on the area, based on both their valuation (i.e. positive or negative) and on their assessment of relative importance of these landscape values.

User input

Stakeholder’s values

Scores

Thematic value maps

Weights

Weighted overlay

Value map

Figure 5: Flow chart of the weighted overlay analysis

The value maps are raster maps, where cell values in the raster correspond with a result score.

For visualisation it is important that all value maps for all different stakeholders are visualized on the same scale, with the same colours corresponding to the same values. The scale is an ordinal scale which ranges from the lowest to the highest value of any value map, with intervals of 1. In the value maps included in the prototype, the lowest value is 1 and the highest is 9, so this creates a scale of 9 classes that are assigned a colour on a spectrum from red (1) to green (9) (Figure 6).

In other words, a bright red zone on a value map represents an area that the stakeholder rates negatively, and a green zone is rated positively.

In addition to the separate value maps, a composite map is included. The purpose of the composite map is to visualize areas where landscape values conflict. Conflicts are visualized by means of the standard deviation, which is expressed on a colour scale ranging from the lowest value (light blue) to the highest value (dark blue). The standard deviation is an expression of the degree of variance in underlying values, in this case the value maps of all stakeholders. If the standard deviation is low at a given location, all value maps tend to have a similar value there. If the standard deviation is high, the stakeholders value that location differently.

23

Figure 6: Detail of a value map (left), indicating positively (green) and negatively valued areas and composite map (right), indicating areas of agreement (light blue) and areas of conflict (dark blue)

Other statistics of dispersion were considered in addition to the standard deviation: the variance, coefficient of variation and index of dispersion. The standard deviation was selected because it has the same dimension as the value scale, which makes it easier to interpret than the other statistics.

4.3 USE PROCESS DialogueMaps has been designed with a process in mind that could facilitate its use. This paragraph outlines this process, but it is by no means a blueprint, and alternative processes and applications can be thought of.

4.3.1 CONTEXT OF USE PROCESS DialogueMaps can be imagined as a tool in the toolbox of a planner. When landscape is a sensitive topic in a planning discussion, this tool could be used to involve stakeholders in the design phase of the plan. Alternatively, the tool can be used to gather arguments for adapting existing plans, or to steer developments that have already been set in motion.

DialogueMaps is used in three steps: two separate user sessions, and an analysis step in between.

The user sessions are to be organized with 4 to 8 stakeholders who have a clear stake in the landscape.

4.3.2 STEP ONE: USER SESSION FOR VALUE IDENTIFICATION In the first user session the landscape values are identified. This session yields criteria (the landscape values), scores and weights for the weighted overlay analysis. During this session the viewer only contains the geomorphology, landscape and plan contours layers, in addition to the base layers. These layers communicate the narrative of the study area and help stakeholders to formulate their values.

The session is led by a chairman, whose role is to explain the process and to make sure all stakeholders get to express what they think is valuable about the landscape in the study area. In addition, his role is to make sure the position of all stakeholders is known by the end of the

24

session. It is possible to let users assign scores and weights directly, or to let an independent observer (e.g. the chairman) assign these on the basis of interpretation.

Although one of the aims of the first session is to identify values, it is to be expected that in practice some values will already be known beforehand. For example, the prevalence of nature and particular view sheds are expected to be quite common. In this case these values may already be modelled as map layers and included in the interface on beforehand (Figure 7).

Stakeholders’ landscape values Narrative maps

Predefined thematic value maps

Values Discussion: Value identification

Scores Weights

Figure 7: Flow chart of first user session

4.3.3 STEP TWO: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDERS’ LANDSCAPE VALUES The second step is the modelling of stakeholders’ landscape values into thematic value maps, and the subsequent computation of the value maps using the weighted overlay analysis (Figure 5).

Landscape values are abstract constructs, for “off the shelf” geodata will not always be available.

In this case interpretation and operationalization becomes part of the modelling process, and constraints such as data availability and capacity for geoprocessing come into play.

4.3.4 STEP THREE: USER SESSION FOR DISCUSSING VALUE CONFLICTS In the second user session the values have been identified and the value maps have been generated. The purpose of this session is to identify where and why stakeholders’ landscape values conflict, and to discuss what could be done about it (Figure 8). The chairman of the session needs to take the time to recap on the findings of the first session. Next the value maps need to be discussed one by one, with particular attention paid to the issues that are brought up by the composite map.

4.4 TEST RESULTS The instrument was tested in two sessions. The first session was conducted with co-workers at the Deltametropolis Association, who all have backgrounds in urban planning and urban design.

The second session was conducted with the stakeholder reflection board.

4.4.1 TEST SESSION 1 The aim of the first session was to assign roles to the participants (co-workers) and play out all three steps of the instrument. Participants were assigned the roles of four different stakeholders: 25

Value maps Discussion: conflict identification

Insights into areas of conflict

Composite map Figure 8: Flow chart of second user session

farmer, resident, leisure seeker and environmental activist. The testing environment was a meeting room with a big screen (Figure 9).

The participants had one mouse at their disposal to operate the viewer. The instrument used during this session was very similar to the final release version, with the exception that no value maps were included.

The thematic value maps of Table 3 (Page 21) were predefined and included in the interface.

The participants were given an introduction into the background of the research and the study area. Also they were given a layer-by-layer explanation of the viewer. On their own initiative, the participants decided to mark down where they were housed or situated in the area, using the draw functionality. They were then asked to start the discussion.

The first assignment was to have a generic discussion about the value of the landscape using the viewer. The active layers were the topographic base layer and the plan contour layer. The discussion that ensued revolved around the spatial plans in the area, about whether the participants supported or rejected them. The chairman did not steer this discussion. They made little use of the viewer. This discussion was ended after about 10 minutes when it was clear the discussion did not really involve the landscape or the viewer.

It was decided to choose a more structured approach. The plan contour layer was turned off.

Layer by layer the chairman would ask the participants to explain their position on each particular value (refer to paragraph 4.2.2 on page 21 for an overview of the values). This led to a more structured discussion that involved the entire area and not just the areas where the developments are planned. During the discussion the users would occasionally enable another layer, but most of the time the chairman would enable another layer when the topic of the discussion changed. Also during the discussion the chairman kept notes on everyone’s position for each value (a positive or negative stance for each value). At the end of the discussion, the participants were asked to determine the relative weights themselves. A fill-in form was distributed for that purpose, and it was asked to divide 100 points over the five values reflecting importance.

A short break was held during which the chairman entered the values and weights in the weighted overlay model, and the value maps were generated. It was not possible to include the value maps so quickly in the viewer, so they were displayed in the desktop GIS environment instead. The participants had trouble understanding the value maps, especially the composite map. One participant, in retrospect, stated she did not understand the difference between score and weight, and had assigned weight points on the basis of positive/negative rather than important/unimportant. More participants stated that the distinction should be made clearer.

26

Figure 9: Environment of test session 1

Unfortunately the session was over time and had to be stopped before the actual discussion based on the value maps could take place.

The duration of the session was 2 hours, including 20 minutes of introduction and 20 minutes of geoprocessing.

4.4.2 TEST SESSION 2 The second test session was conducted with the stakeholder reflection board, and was at the same time the final meeting of the board. Attending were Steven Slabbers, landscape architect and Jeroen Traudes, project manager for the Rijnlandroute, in addition to Paul Gerretsen, Merten Nefs and the author from Deltametropolis Association. The purpose of the session was to evaluate the final instrument, in particular the value maps and the composite map, as these were not thoroughly discussed in the first test session.

The session started with a slide presentation which recapped on previous findings and an explanation of all layers in the viewer, similar to the first session. This time also the value maps and composite map were explained. The questions for the day were stated:  Are the map layers clear?  Is the purpose of the instrument clear, how could the instrument be used?  And what is the role of the value maps in the discussion?

Table 4: Feedback on map layers by the stakeholder reflection board

Map layer View shed panoramas

Feedback The view sheds may display the quantity of the view shed (i.e. what can be seen and from how far), but they do not say anything about the quality of the view shed (i.e. what is it that the observer sees in the distance?).

The argument is that the magnitude of the view shed does not determine the quality of the view, and so the view shed may need to be enriched with qualitative data. Also, the maps need some sort of legend or informative text to clarify the symbology.

27

Permissibility and ability of access

Value maps / composite map

It was recognized that permissibility and ability of access is a very difficult value to model in geodata. Although the board had previously expressed the desire to include this value in the instrument, no consensus could be reached this time on how to define it.

This illustrates the importance of a good interpretation of stakeholders’ definitions of the values they express in the identification process. It also illustrates the importance of evaluating the thematic value maps so they can be validated before the actual value maps are discussed.

The principle of the weighted overlay analysis, using scores and weights to determine landscape value, was clear to the participants. However, the board prompted the question to what extent the value maps, eventually, tell us what the qualities and non-qualities are of specific areas. The underlying criticism here is that the overlaying process disguises the underlying values, and so it is difficult to understand why an area is perceived as positive or negative.

Finally the board recommends that the value maps are aggregated. Currently the maps are raster maps with a resolution of 25m. This results in “speckles” in the maps that raise unnecessary questions. It is proposed to convert the maps to smooth polygons.

In addition, it was noted how the participants would interact with the instrument.

First, the map layers were discussed. Most map layers were considered clear, but some were not (Table 4).

The second issue to be addressed is the purpose of the instrument, and how it can be used. The board reaffirmed the importance of having two separate discussions: one devoted to value identification and one to discussing value maps and identifying conflicts. Two issues were raised: First, it is unclear who should participate in the sessions and how to assess the importance of each stakeholder (democratic influence). The instrument is designed for 4 to 8 participants, any more and the number of value maps to discuss becomes unmanageable. Therefore the participants should have a very clear and undisputed stake in the landscape. The example was given of the resident, whose value map is part of the prototype. There are two types of residents that can be distinguished: a small number of residents whose view of the landscape from their homes is threatened by developments, and a larger number that live in the wider region. Both should be involved, as they would probably have different opinions and values in the area at stake. It was mentioned that a local entrepreneur or commuter would also be an interesting stakeholder, because of their view of the landscape from the highway or train.

Second, the role of the chairman is very important. As was noted in Table 4, the chairman has an important role in explaining the value maps that are not self-explanatory. The same remark was made in the first test session. The board proposed to rename the chairman to “dialogue leader” and for him to more actively steer the discussion by unravelling conflict areas in advance and explain them to the participants, so that the discussion can focus on these areas. As an example a conflict area on the Rijnlandroute was identified (Figure 10). For such areas, that intersect with spatial developments, the dialogue leader should be able to explain why the area highlights as a conflict area based on the underlying values. A possible goal of the discussion could be to reach consensus on the value of certain areas and resulting ambitions, for example conservation. Another goal could be, in the case of conflict areas, to identify differences in values that might be overcome by the different stakeholders, and others that are likely to remain, should simply be recognized instead of solved. The drawing tool could be used to highlight these areas.

28

Lastly, it was observed how participants interact with the instrument. It was observed that the participants were hesitant to operate the mouse, which was at their disposal.

Rather they would ask the chairman to navigate or enable layers. Only on one occasion would one participant operate the instrument by himself. The participants were asked how they appreciated the draw functionality. They argued it is a good addition to the instrument, but also argued that more functionalities would be helpful, like having the ability to choose colours, Figure 10: Example of interesting conflict area (dark blue) on intersection with planned road (dashed line) write texts and save the drawings to file.

The dominant zoom level was the most detailed zoom level. This was caused by the value maps, that draw attention to particular areas of agreement or conflict. Participants would want to zoom to those areas and enable other layers to see what may cause the agreement or conflict.

The duration of the session was 80 minutes, with an introduction of 20 minutes and a discussion of 60 minutes.

29

5 TECHNICAL DESIGN This chapter outlines the technical design of the instrument. It is intended as a technical reference for understanding the instrument’s technical components. Simultaneously it answers research question 4.

The technical components are described using the software stack (Figure 11). The bottom of the stack is the data-component. The top of the stack is the user interface, the viewer. The “middleware” is a server for serving data to the interface.

5.1 USER INTERFACE The user interface is a HTML website. The code is scripted in Javascript using the MapBox Application Programming Interface (API). This API is based on the popular Leaflet API. The website is styled using CSS. The website consists of only an index file, and requires only a web server and web space to publish it online.

Sublime Text 2 was used to write all code.

5.2 TILE SERVER

User interface MapBox API Tile server MapBox or Tilestream

A tile server is required to serve the maps to the user interface, in Geodata other words, to visualize the data at several scales in the Shapefile, GeoTiff, interactive viewer. The tile server is provided by MapBox, which MBtiles offers free hosting space of up to 50 mb of map data.

Alternatively a private tile server must be set up. MapBox offers Figure 11: Software stack of the Tilestream tile server for free. This server requires an Ubuntu DialogueMaps or iOS system. Tilestream can be made interoperable with a Windows system if a virtual machine, such as Oracle VM VirtualBox is used.

5.3 GEODATA The source data are vector or raster files that are processed in any desktop GIS environment.

For this research, ESRI ArcGIS was used to assemble, analyse and prepare data before being styled in Tilemill. It goes beyond the scope of this report to specify the processing steps of all map layers, but for vector data some kind of generalization (e.g. the removal of sliver polygons and the smoothing of edges) is recommended as Tilemill cannot do this. The value maps and composite map require the Weighted Overlay and Cell Statistics tools in ArcGIS. These tools require the Spatial Analyst extension to operate. The service area analysis for the bicycle accessibility layer requires the Network Analyst extension.

Also, the instrument contains some layers that are external services (topographic map, aerial imagery and roads overlay). The display of these layers is dependent on the link to these services.

The link is contained in the index file of the instrument. If the service providers would ever change the link, then these layers would no longer show. However, it is relatively easy to find the links in the index file and change them with up to date links should the event occur. No scripting knowledge is required to make this reparation.

The maps in the user interface are in the so called MBtiles format. MBtiles is a tile format designed by MapBox, and is unique in the sense that the tiles offer user interactivity, for example, 30

the display of pop-ups on mouse-over of map features or the display of a legend. MBtiles is not an open standard, and is not supported by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). Although OGC standards like WMS and WMTS can be used to serve MBtiles, the interactivity of legends and teasers will be negated.

MBtiles are the output format of Tilemill. Tilemill is the cartographic stylesheet editor by MapBox that reads Shapefiles (vector) and GeoTiffs (raster) and allows for detailed cartographic styling using the CartoCSS styling language.

31

6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this chapter the results are discussed, conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made to the Deltametropolis Association.

6.1 DISCUSSION 6.1.1 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND TESTING The goal of this research was to develop a GIS instrument to facilitate the discussion of landscape valuation in the rural-urban fringe. After a literature study, an iterative development process with stakeholders and experts, and two test sessions, DialogueMaps has been developed as the result. Consulting stakeholders was an important part of the requirements study. Originally it was intended to test the instrument in a setting with direct stakeholders, individuals who have a clear stake in the landscape and use the spatial developments in the study area as a case. It turned out that the conceptual design of the instrument was more difficult than anticipated because landscape valuation is conceptually complex. As a consequence a comprehensive literature study was performed before the user requirements analysis (Appendix A). Consequently, the stakeholders who were consulted in this research were invited based on their position as stakeholder in the study area, but also as being an expert or authority in their field or interest group. It can be said that this was a good approach, as these stakeholders are involved in the area, but are also knowledgeable about landscape, planning processes and public participation. They could reflect on the instrument’s contents and functionalities, as was the case in the second test session, but also on the conceptual design and context, which was the topic of the first stakeholder reflection board.

However, as a point of discussion, it should be noted that these stakeholders are not per se a reflection of the end users of the instrument. End users in this case refer to direct stakeholders who are participating in a session, for example the residents who overlook the Rijnlandroute or a local farmer, and not their representatives in interest groups or associations. The first test session did attempt to simulate these users by assigning roles to participants. However, the representativeness of this simulation for the study area and its stakeholders cannot be assured, because the stakeholders were fictional. Additional testing with direct stakeholders and a concrete case is therefore required and recommended.

6.1.2 INSTRUMENT INTERACTIVITY AND USER INTERACTION Another point of discussion relates to the instrument’s interactivity. It was found that users tend to be reluctant in operating the instrument themselves. This was an unexpected result, as the interface was partly designed with direct user interaction in mind (i.e. minimalistic and straight forward interface). This does not mean that the users do not interact with the instrument at all. It was evident that maps, the value maps and composite map in particular, spark arguments and trigger discussion. It is therefore argued that future research should take this distinction in user interaction into account, and evaluate to what extent users actually have the need to operate the instrument in order to make use of it.

32

6.2 CONCLUSIONS In order to reach conclusions, the research goal and questions are revisited.

Q1. Who are the supposed users of such a GIS instrument and how can these users be involved in the instrument’s development and what are their requirements?

Supposed users of the instrument are actors with a clear stake in the landscape that is undergoing change due to spatial developments. The instrument can be used as a tool by practitioners in spatial planning who are faced with complex landscape valuation discussions in a particular area.

Making use of a reflection board of stakeholders and interviews it was found that there is a need for an instrument that can address intrinsic landscape values and can bridge the gap between widely different landscape values of different stakeholders, and literally bring them together. This need stems from the fact that the prevailing instrument for landscape valuation, the cost-benefit analysis, cannot adequately value intrinsic landscape values and is too technical and rigid to connect stakeholders.

Q2. What geodata and geodata-processing is needed?

First, the user requirements yielded a specific need for the instrument to “tell the story of the landscape”. This resulted in the inclusion of maps that offer insights into the geogenesis of the area and defining features and structures that are present in the landscape today. For this purpose, geomorphology data and data on cultural heritage were used to assemble the required maps.

Second, in order to map specific landscape values, data were acquired that represent these values based on interpretation. Interpretation is needed because landscape values are abstract, and data are not always readily available to map these values. Sometimes a specific geoprocessing analysis is required to make the step from data to an adequate thematic value map. This was the case with the values “accessibility” and “view”, which require a service area analysis and view shed analysis respectively. Eventually the geodata needs are dependent on the values that are identified by stakeholders, and cannot always be mapped in advance.

Third, the last geodata and geoprocessing requirement concerns stakeholders’ value maps.

Based on scores and weights provided, directly or indirectly, by the stakeholder, a weighted overlay analysis is performed on the thematic value maps, which results in the stakeholder’s value map. The value maps are an important result of the use of the instrument, and provide the basis for discussion about the value of the landscape. All stakeholders’ value maps together provide the input for the composite, or conflict map, which visualizes underlying areas of agreement or conflict by means of the standard deviation. It was found that these maps are difficult to understand for users, and therefore require careful explanation.

In conclusion it can be said that the instrument requires only a few generic maps, but mostly requires maps that are the result of user input. It can also be concluded that these maps require a well-informed dialogue leader who is able to explain and clarify the maps and lead a productive discussion.

Q3. What interface does the instrument need to facilitate the discussion?

In order to determine what kind of interface is required, stakeholders were presented with three widely different instrument design types, that each feature a different interface. The characteristics of these three “archetypes” were explained to the stakeholders so that they could make an informed decision. The stakeholders decided for an interactive viewer as the user 33

interface. In the test sessions it became clear that users do not interact much with the interface by taking the controls. The interaction is mainly manifest in the discussion, where the maps provide input for the discussion. However, it was also found that the maps are not self-explanatory, so the role of a dialogue leader is very important, aside from the instrument itself. From this it is concluded that the maps, and how they are displayed and explained, is key to facilitating the discussion.

Q4. Which technical components does this GIS instrument require and how can these components be assembled in a prototype?

Following the choice of the stakeholders for an interactive viewer, it can be said that the following components are required:  A web-based viewer interface  A tile server  Geodata Geodata is served to the client as tiles via a tile server. Before geodata is served to the interface, geoprocessing and styling are necessary. For this purpose a desktop GIS with analytical capabilities is required as well as a style sheet editor.

Q5. How can the prototype be tested?

The prototype was tested on two occasions. On one occasion the use of the instrument was simulated by assigning stakeholder roles to non-involved participants. On the second occasion the overall concept and quality of the maps was the focus of discussion. Useful feedback was obtained from this group of experts to improve the instrument in quick development cycles. To test the resulting instrument more thoroughly, sessions with a concrete planning problem and direct stakeholders, rather than a simulation, are called for. Therefore it is argued that this question has not been completely answered, and remains open for further research.

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS This research has yielded a functional prototype and a basis for applying it in practice.

Recommendations are made to Deltametropolis Association on how to proceed from here, both with regard to the use and process of the instrument and the user sessions, as well as regarding further technical development of the instrument.

6.3.1 PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS The instrument is functional, but now it needs to be applied in practice. The instrument has not been tested with direct stakeholders in a concrete case, and it was found that steering the process with a dialogue leader is crucial. It is therefore argued that the process component of the instrument requires further research. This leads to the recommendation to conduct a pilot study.

This pilot study should be set up in cooperation with a municipality or province, as these organizations typically initiate and coordinate spatial plans, and have access to all stakeholders.

Ideally the pilot study should involve two or three sessions with stakeholders.

It is believed that such a pilot study should be of sufficient substance for a graduate intern. This intern would require a background in planning processes, public participation, but also in GIS in order to create thematic value maps and perform the weighted overlay analysis. A key goal of this pilot study should be the role of the dialogue leader, and the manner in which to moderate the discussion. Another process-oriented goal should be the selection of stakeholders. What would be an optimal size and composition of a group of stakeholders?

34

6.3.2 TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS Technically the prototype is functional, but there is room for improvement. The following technical recommendations are made:  Include the ability to style and export drawings. The software component that enables the draw functionality is the Leaflet Draw plugin. This plugin includes the possibility to style drawings, however, they simply have not been implemented. Saving the drawings to disk is more difficult. It requires the scripting of a method that recognizes the JSON code of the drawing, and allows to save this code to disk. Online sources seem to provide the answer, but it was not possible to implement the solution within the scope of the research.  Aggregate the value maps. A recommendation made in the second test session was to aggregate the value maps, including the composite map. This would clear out “speckles” and create a smoother appearance of the map. It is recommended to look for a solution in first aggregating the cell size of the raster file and then converting the raster to polygons, followed by a procedure to smooth and simplify the polygons.  Explore the possibilities of using a map table. Map tables are innovative forms of hardware that are emergent in participatory GIS. Using DialogueMaps with a map table could be an appropriate interface.  Explore the need for additional base and thematic maps. Currently, the narrative of the area is described using a geomorphology map and a landscape map. It could be considered to emphasize the natural values of the area by adding an ecosystem services map to the narrative. Also, a map of underground values could be considered (e.g. archaeology).  Solve known issues. The following issues are known: o In Internet Explorer 11 the legend of the Landscape overlay does not display correctly o In Google Chrome 36 and Firefox 31 the Leaflet Draw marker does not display correctly.

35

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alleman, G. (2002), Agile project management methods for IT projects. In: E. Carayannis & Y. Kwak, The story of managing projects: A global, cross-disciplinary collection of perspectives. Greenwood Press/Quorum Books. van Berkel, D., and P. Verburg. 2014. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators 37:163-174.

Beukers, E., L. Bertolini, and M. te Brömmelstroet. 2012. Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: A process perspective.

Transportation Research Part A 46:68-78.

Bos, E. 2008. De evaluatie van ruimtelijke afwegingsvraagstukken: via Maatschappelijke Kosten Baten Analyse of via Multi Criteria Analyse? Tijdschrift Vervoerswetenschap 44:162-168.

Bos, E., and R. de Graaff. 2013. Naar een economische waardering van het cultuurhistorisch landschap. In Regionale Economie en Ruimtegebruik. Den Haag: LEI. Bull, R., J. Petts, and J. Evans. 2008. Social learning from public engagement: dreaming the impossible? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (5):701-716.

Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, S. Nedkov, and F. Müller. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21:17-29.

Cash, C. 2014. Towards Achieving Resilience at the Rural–Urban Fringe: the Case of Jamestown, South Africa. Urban forum 25:125-141.

Crossman, N., B. Bryan, B. Ostendorf, and S. Collins. 2007. Systematic landscape restoration in the rural–urban fringe: meeting conservation planning and policy goals. Biodiversity Conservation 16:3781-3802.

Cumming, G., P. Olsson, F. S. C. III, and C. S. Holling. 2013. Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology 28:1139-1150.

Duffhues, K., I. Mayer, M. Nefs and M. van der Vliet. 2014. Breaking barriers to transit-oriented development: insights from the serious game SPRINTCITY. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. In press Elverding, P., J. de Graeff, N. Ketting, N. Koeman, H. de Ru, M. Scheltema and D. Stadig. 2008.

Sneller en beter. Advies Commissie Versnelling Besluitvorming Infrastructurele Projecten.

Hauck, J., and B. Schweppe-Kraft. 2013. The Promise of the Ecosystem Services Concept for Planning and Decision-Making. GAIA 4:232-236.

Kandziora, M., B. Burkhard, and F. Müller. 2013. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services 4:47-59.

Mackie, P., and T. Worsley. 2013. International comparisons of transport appraisal practice.

Overview report. Leeds: Institute for Transport Studies.

Martínez-Harms, M. J., and P. Balvanera. 2012. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8:17-25.

Mouter, N., J. A. Annema, and B. van Wee. 2012. Maatschappelijke kosten- en batenanalyse inhoudelijk geëvalueerd. Den Haag: NICIS Institute.

Nabielek, K., P. Kronberger-Nabielek, and D. Hamers. 2013. The rural-urban fringe in the Netherlands: recent developments and future challenges: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Nefs, M. 2014. Veenweidegebied van de Deltametropool. Metropolitaan landschap in ontwikkeling. In Landschap van de Metropool: Deltametropolis Association.

Piek, M., and R. de Niet. 2010. Groene stadsranden en verstedelijkingsdynamiek. In Staat van de Ruimte 2010. De herschikking van stedelijk Nederland, 169-191. Den Haag/Bilthoven: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

36

Plant, R., and P. Ryan. 2013. Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural resource management: some lessons from Australia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 9 (1):44-53.

Provincie Zuid-Holland. 2014. Gebiedsprofiel Duin Horst en Weide. Amersfoort, Rotterdam: H+N+S Landschapsarchitecten.

Rauws, W. S., and G. de Roo. 2011. Exploring transitions in the peri-urban area. Planning Theory & Practice 12 (2):269-284.

Scott, A. J., C. Carter, M. R. Reed, P. Lurkham, D. Adams, N. Morton, R. Waters, D. Collier, C. Crean, R. Curzon, R. Forster, P. Gibbs, N. Grayson, M. Hardman, A. Hearle, D. Jarvis, M. Kennet, K. Leach, M. Middleton, N. Schiessel, B. Stonyer, and R. Coles. 2013.

Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning 83:1-52.

Sijtsma, F. J., A. van Hinsberg, S. Kruitwagen, and F. J. Dietz. 2009. Natuureffecten in de MKBA's van projecten voor integrale gebiedsontwikkeling: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Stolwijk, H. 2004. Kunnen natuur- en landschapswaarden zinvol in euro's worden uitgedrukt?: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

Tagliafierro, C., A. Longo, V. V. Eetvelde, M. Antrop, and W. G. Hutchinson. 2013. Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics.

Environmental Science & Policy 32:26-36.

TEEB. 2014. Ecosystem Services 2014 [cited 30-4-2014 2014]. Available from http://www.teebweb.org/resources/ecosystem-services/.

Tewdwr-Jones, M., N. Gallent, and J. Morphet. 2010. An Anatomy of Spatial Planning: Coming to Terms with the Spatial Element in UK Planning. European Planning Studies 18 (2):239257.

Troy, A., and M. Wilson. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60:435-449.

Wagtendonk, A., and J. Vermaat. 2014. Visual perception of cluttering in landscapes: Developing a low resolution GIS-evaluation method. Landscape and Urban Planning 124:85-92.

Zhang, R., L. Pu, and M. Zhu. 2013. Impacts of Transportation Arteries on Land Use Patterns in Urban-rural Fringe: A Comparative Gradient Analysis of Qixia District, Nanjing City, China. Chinese Geographical Science 23 (3):378-388.

37

APPENDIX A: LITERATURE STUDY TO LANDSCAPE VALUATION In the introduction chapter it was explained that the position of the landscape in the RUF poses complex challenges to planners. Scott and colleagues (2013) identify a clear divide between the urban and the rural, not only in physical space but also in governance practice and academic research. They argue that both planning agencies and academics either champion the urban or the rural, resulting in a “neglected and forgotten policy space”, which is problematic because the RUF is “a place in its own right with its own needs and priorities” (Scott et al., 2013, p. 2). Scott and colleagues (2013) identify two paradigms of land use planning that are currently prevalent in both policy practice and the academic sphere. These frameworks are the spatial planning approach and the ecosystem approach that provide an urban and a rural lens through which to look at the RUF, respectively.

Spatial planning is used as an overarching concept for many different planning regimes, and as such has no clear definition, in term nor in substance (Tewdwr-Jones, Gallent & Morphet, 2010).

However, all spatial planning regimes are typically rooted in a historical context of controlling urban development, thereby emphasizing instruments of control and zoning, like greenbelts.

More contemporary instruments of spatial planning let go of strict control and regulation, and are partnerships between stakeholders, particularly public-private partnerships (Scott et al., 2013).

A separate paradigm of land use planning developed in the form of the ecosystem services approach. Although ecosystem services are not considered planning instruments as such, they can be used to justify spatial developments and can therefore be considered an important paradigm in land use planning (Scott et al., 2013). It is well established that ecosystems are important to (urban) society because they provide essential services such as a healthy environment in terms of air and water, but also space for relaxation and recreation (TEEB, 2014). Drawing upon the notion that ecosystems provide benefits for society, separate planning regimes have developed for the rural, or natural, environments. These regimes are characterized by different instruments than spatial planning regimes that are aimed at urban areas. The ecosystems approach emphasizes landscape valuation and uses incentives, for example incentives for farmers to improve biodiversity in their fields (Scott et al., 2013).

Both approaches have developed their own instruments and tools to valuate the landscape.

These are looked at more closely in the following sections.

SPATIAL PLANNING APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE VALUATION Spatial planning processes incorporate landscape valuation as part of cost-benefit analyses (CBA). This instrument is embedded in formal procedures and is mandatory in planning policy frameworks around the world (Sijtsma et al., 2009; Mackie & Worsley, 2013). The purpose of CBA in spatial planning is to evaluate a spatial intervention ex ante, by estimating all positive and negative effects of the intervention for society as a whole on the long term, and this includes effects on landscape and the environment (Sijtsma et al., 2009). In CBA costs and benefits are quantified in monetary equivalents (i.e. currency) as much as possible. Many effects of spatial interventions can be monetized relatively easily, for example the effect on land prices, accessibility, the project costs and more. However, the CBA also includes non-marketable, or “soft” values, such as landscape preservation, cultural heritage, biodiversity, environmental

quality, etc. The monetization of such values is perceived to be very problematic by both academics and practitioners.

First, the question arises to what extent “soft” values can be monetized at all. Stolwijk (2004) argues that monetization may make technical assessment easier, this does not apply for the “moral” assessment that is hidden behind the currency (Stolwijk, 2004). Some practitioners in land use planning even think that monetizing abstract values is not possible, and should be avoided, because it creates false certainty (Beukers, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2012). The ambiguity surrounding monetization of abstract values creates much controversy in the CBA, which undermines its validity as an instrument (Mouter, Annema & Van Wee, 2012; Beukers, Bertolini, & Te Brömmelstroet, 2012).

Second, the methods for monetizing abstract values are very complex, expensive and time consuming (Stolwijk, 2004). Two of the most common methods are the contingent value method and the travel cost method. The former measures people’s willingness to pay for abstract values such as landscape preservation or biodiversity, whereas the latter measures people’s actual money spent on travelling to a certain locality (e.g. a nature reserve) (Tagliafierro et al., 2013; Van Berkel & Verburg, 2014; Bos & De Graaff, 2013). The complexity and costliness of measuring “soft” values sometimes means that these values are not quantified at all, but are only included in the CBA as a qualitative cost or benefit (Sijtsma et al., 2009). The consequence is that these values receive less attention than values that are monetized, and as a result the CBA emphasizes “hard” values, and undervalues “soft” values (Beukers, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2012).

A third criticism on CBA is how it is embedded within the planning policy framework. In the Netherlands, academics argue that the CBA is positioned too late in the planning process, when plans are already designed and political positions entrenched. However, it is also possible that the CBA is positioned too early, in a phase when decision makers do not yet want to reveal their position (Beukers, Bertolini, & Te Brömmelstroet, 2012). In any case this illustrates the procedural context of the CBA in the context of the wider planning policy framework.

A notable alternative to CBA that is mentioned in literature is the multi-criteria analysis (MCA).

In MCA users assign a weight to a criterion that reflect the importance of this criterion relative to the other criteria in the analysis. The units are usually qualitative instead of monetary. Bos (2008) argues that the benefits of MCA are increased methodological transparency and the ability to valuate non-monetizable values. But a disadvantage compared to CBA is that the MCA only measures the criteria that users decide to put in. MCA is therefore not a complete assessment. In addition, MCA employs relative weights, instead of absolute (monetary) values.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE VALUATION Central to the ES approach is that biophysical variables, most notably land use/land cover, are expressed as ES using a method of quantification (Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012). In general, three different approaches to mapping ES supply can be identified (Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012, p. 17):  Valuation of ES through benefit transfer. This method applies a monetary value to a land-cover map based on previous studies from sites having similar land cover types.  Community value methods. These methods obtains social values and other perceptions of place through surveys and are then integrated with biophysical data.  Social-ecological assessment methods. These methods model the relationship between measureable variables that indicate ES and map the results.

These methods have in common that they are all quantitative methods and are almost all performed at regional, national or global scales (>1000 km2). Also they have in common that some kind of monetary equivalent unit is often used to quantify the ES benefits. By quantifying ES in monetary equivalents they can be compared with land use developments that are commonly expressed in currency, like infrastructure or housing (Tagliafierro et al., 2013).

Examples of ES quantification are the provisioning service of food, which can be quantified using kilo Joules per hectare, and the cultural service of landscape, which can be quantified using willingness to pay-assessments (Burkhard et al., 2012; Van Berkel & Verburg, 2014).

In any case, there is no general framework of ES quantification. Troy and Wilson (2006) argue that the total ES value of a given area is typically a function of two variables: the area of a given land use or cover type and the ES value associated with that land use or cover type. But both the land use/cover type typologies and the ES values are unique for every different study area. For example, in areas where wildfires are a prominent danger, a very detailed classification of forest types is required. And in a large metropolis one km2 of green space is far more valuable than in an extensive forest area (Troy & Wilson, 2006).

Very few quantitative methods have been applied to larger scale areas, like the local or sub-local scale (<1000 km2) (Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012). One reason is that the most important data source for mapping ES, land use/land cover data, is if often not sufficiently detailed for greater scales (Kandziora, Burkhard & Müller, 2013). But more importantly, ES become less meaningful in small study areas where the landscape is very detailed and spatial entities are very concrete. In study areas such as these, ES need to be provided with sufficient context and evidence from other disciplines, in order to be applicable in decision making (Troy & Wilson 2006).

Other authors stress the importance of the social learning process at the local scale when valuating landscape. Social learning is the process whereby stakeholders in a planning process communicate directly, and learn each other’s values, opinions and limits (Bull, Petts & Evans, 2008). Plant and Ryan (2013) argue that “a well-facilitated process of group learning and reasoning about nature’s values that is grounded in local knowledge and experience may ultimately better approximate the ‘true’ value of a region’s natural capital than traditional positivist approaches aimed at comprehensive quantification and valuation of ES”. A similar viewpoint was adopted by other authors (Cumming et al., 2013).

IN SUMMARY: CONFRONTING TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES In summary, spatial planning and ecosystem services provide different perspectives for valuating landscape. In spatial planning the emphasis is on “hard”, measureable effects that are measured as part of CBA. Spatial planning does recognize the value of landscape, nature and other “soft” values and consequently attempts to “fit” them into the CBA methodology. However, this causes much controversy and ambiguity. Ecosystem services, on the other hand, emphasize “soft” values as the core of the approach. Sophisticated GIS models are used to quantify ES potential, supply and demand. However, the ES approach struggles with scale, particularly with the validity of quantitative methods at larger scales, and social learning is suggested as a qualitative alternative at local scales. In addition, the ES approach uses only ecosystem services as a framework, and does not attempt to provide an integral assessment of effects like the CBA. Effects such as land price, accessibility, employment and other “hard” economic factors are not measured with ES. Also, unlike CBA, the ES approach is rarely embedded in planning policy frameworks (Hauck & Schweppe-Kraft, 2013).

APPENDIX B: HAND-OUT TO STAKEHOLDER REFLECTION BOARD FOR INSTRUMENT TYPES

APPENDIX C: ORIGIN DATASETS Layer Basiskaart Luchtfoto Structuurpanorama Dwarspanorama Geluidscontouren

Origin datasets N.A. (MapBox service) N.A. (MapBox service) AHN2 (ruw) AHN2 (ruw) Geluidsbelasting langs wegen per etmaal Cultuurhistorische Hoofdstructuur: stiltegebieden Fietscontouren TOP10NL: weghartlijnen Fietsknooppunten Natuurkaart Natura2000 Provinciale EHS Productielandschap Kantoorlocaties bedrijventerreinen Basisregistratie Percelen (BRP) Fysiek Glas Toegankelijkheid Geomorfologie Cultuurhistorische hoofdstructuur Geomorfologische Kaart Nederland (GKN) Landschap Cultuurhistorische hoofdstructuur CultGIS Wegennet N.A. (Stamen service) Plancontouren Planned land use; IMRO dataset