Multiple interpretations of the
sustainable city
—Does the planner get lost?—
Lahti Science Day, Lahti, 27 November 2007
Janne Hukkinen
Helsinki University of Technology, TKK Lahti Center, Environmental
Protection
[email protected]
Introduction: Hiking in the city (1)
Homogeneous party of hikers
Heterogeneous party of hikers
Introduction: Hiking in the city (2)
Homogeneous party
Heterogeneous party
Members
Hikers with destination
and schedule
Historian H, naturalist N,
engineer E, layman L
Objective
’Go from A to B’
’Appreciate the cityscape’
Items to
observe
(indicators)
Map
Features of the city
Streets with signs
H: traces of past human
activity
N: signs of urban ecosystem
type
E: signs of potential
construction sites
L: enjoyable items in the
cityscape
Indicators assume scenarios
 ’Appreciating the cityscape’ is like ’defining the
sustainable city’: several well-reasoned
interpretations
 Scenarios (storylines) articulate different assumptions
about what is valuable in built environment
 Indicators are a way of expressing the value of things
in several different dimensions
 Indicators assume scenarios, because scenarios
provide a series of reference points against which to
assess the significance of specific indicator values
 In practice, scenarios often go unrecognized in
indicator systems
The PSR indicator system
 Indicators make sense to human beings: they enable
communication of causally rooted intent to action
 PSR (articulation of scenario with indicators):



there exists pressure (P)
which is likely to induce a change in the state (S) of affairs,
which calls for an intentional response (R) from human
beings
Pressure
State
Response
Scenarios in the debate on the future of
built heritage in Helsinki (HS 27 Nov and 4 Dec 2005)
City of Helsinki
(Pekka Korpinen)
Board of Antiquities
(Mikko Härö)
Pressure
Helsinki must double building
base in 50 years to maintain
current population
Helsinki is under development
pressures
State
Too stringent protection of
built heritage
Post-war built heritage in
Helsinki is inadequately
protected
Response
Compromise: relax
protection and develop areas
currently under outdated use
(Santahamina, Malmi airport)
Synthesis: respect built
heritage in development by
innovatively combining
knowledge, views and public
debate
Indicators assumed by the scenarios of
built heritage in Helsinki
City of Helsinki
(Pekka Korpinen)
Board of Antiquities
(Mikko Härö)
Pressure
Required rate of increase
in building base (sq-m/yr)
Rate of disappearance of
built heritage (sq-m/yr)
State
Area protected (sq-m);
type of protection (legal
binding)
Age structure of
protected built heritage
(sq-m per era); type of
protection (legal binding)
Response
Benefit-cost ratio of
land use; zero-sum
compromises
Deliberative design of
land use; win-win
syntheses
How many scenarios?
 ’Compromise’ and ’synthesis’ are two scenarios
 Is there an infinite number of scenarios in any
given case?
 Or can we make sense of scenarios, storylines, and
viewpoints by categorizing them?
  Cultural theory
Cultural bias based on group and
grid (Douglas 1982)
Grid (control)
fatalistic: centrally
guided decisions
within heterogenous
group
+
-
individualistic:
individually based
decisions within
heterogeneous group
hierarchic:
centrally guided
decisions within
homogeneous group
+
-
Group
(membership)
egalitarian:
individually based
decisions within
homogeneous group
Cultural biases in the Helsinki
debate
Grid (control)
+
fatalistic
individualistic:
COST-BENEFIT
COMPROMISE
IS NECESSARY
hierarchic
+
egalitarian:
WIN-WIN
SYNTHESIS
- IS POSSIBLE
Group
(membership)
Built environment as a hybrid of
cognition and artefact
 Built environment is not ’out there’ being created by
different cultural groups ’in here’
 Multidisciplinary evidence: physical environment
structures human cognition and action
 science and technology studies (Winner, Haraway)
 ecological evolution (Ehrlich)
 cultural evolution (Tomasello)
 cognitive studies (Gentner)
 Built environment is an artefactual sign language—a
code—of cultural bias
 Evolving hybrid of built heritage:
cognition↔built environment
How can we as members of built heritage
make decisions about our own future?
--Scenarios and indicators- To understand debates over built
environment, need to articulate underlying
cultural scenarios and respective indicators
 Each scenario has a unique set of indicators
and each indicator has a unique bandwidth
 the set of indicators expresses which issues are
significant in that particular scenario
 the bandwidth of an indicator expresses the
permissible range of variation in indicator value
Scenarios, indicators, and
bandwidths
Scenarios
Bandwidths
Indicators
1
Scenario A
(indicators
1,2,4,6)
2
3
Scenario B
(indicators
1,3,5,6)
4
5
6
How can we make decisions about
the future?--Coexisting subcultures- The four subcultures/scenarios coexist
 Scenarios can articulate the challenge of modern
human habitats: hybrids with simultaneous demand
for



maintenance of built heritage,
high technical performance, and
protection of valuable ecosystems
Details of cultural bias in built
environment: toward indicators
Hierarchic
Egalitarian
Individualistic
Fatalistic
Myth of
natureculture
relationship
Governed by
wise rulers
Governed by
agreement
among
individuals
Governed by
powerful
majority
Beyond
individual
control
Decision
making
process
Welcomes
regulatory
directive
Win-win
deliberation
Zero-sum
compromise
Tolerates
regulatory
directive
Criterion of fit
between
entities of
built env’t
Enlightened
governance
Negotiated
agreement
Benefit-cost
ratio, monetary
compensation
Planning
theories
Interchangeability
between
entities of
built env’t
Hero planners
design optimal
systems
Irreplaceable
buildings and
materials
Replaceable
buildings and
materials
Regulations
determine
replacement
Policy benefits of scenario-framed
indicators of built environment
 Improve legitimacy of
policies over built
heritage (transparency)
 Improve quality of
indicators of built
heritage (inclusive
expertise)
 Application of indicators
at appropriate scale (coexistence of cultural
biases)
 Articulate path
dependence of current
choices (ratchet effect of
built heritage)
 Deal with contingencies