See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283929317

Assessing user preferences on post-industrial redevelopment

Article  in  Environment and Planning B Planning and Design · August 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0265813515599981

CITATIONS READS

17 145

3 authors:

Luis Loures Thomas Panagopoulos

Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre Universidade do Algarve
81 PUBLICATIONS   446 CITATIONS    177 PUBLICATIONS   943 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jon Burley
Michigan State University
72 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EXPL/ATP-EUR/0464/2013 entitled “Policy guidelines for regeneration in shrinking cities”. View project

The impact of the 1755 earthquake on Lisbon: 3D representation of the city before and after View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Panagopoulos on 28 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Environment and Planning B:
Assessing user preferences Planning and Design
0(0) 1–22
on post-industrial ! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:

redevelopment sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0265813515599981
epb.sagepub.com

Luis Loures
ESAE - Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre, Portugal

Thomas Panagopoulos
Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics (CIEO), University of Algarve, Portugal

Jon Bryan Burley

School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract
There is a growing interest in post-industrial landscape redevelopment and public participation in
urban planning process. This study examined the public preference on post-industrial land
transformation projects. A semi-qualitative methodology was used throughout the application
of a questionnaire and interviews. Data on public perception of post-industrial landscape that
incorporates significant environmental, cultural and historic assets were collected from 450
residents. Results illustrate that community attitudes to brownfield regeneration projects are
positive. Urban growth should consider the redevelopment of derelict and/or abandoned areas
instead of consuming new green areas. The results illustrated that, according to public perception,
the most important aspect in the redevelopment of the study area is the creation of
multifunctional areas, and that this aspect is statistically related with touristic activities, mobility
and accessibility, use of renewable energies, environmental education, economic redevelopment,
and safety/security. The researchers suggest that coupling the information gathered throughout
the public preference process with the intrinsic characteristics of each landscape is helpful in
understanding community expectations in order to inform urban regeneration projects that
consider the economic, environmental and cultural functions of sites.

Keywords
Brownfield, redevelopment, public participation, waterfront, post-industrial landscape

Corresponding author:
Thomas Panagopoulos, Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics (CIEO), University of Algarve, Campus
de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal.
Email: tpanago@ualg.pt
2 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

Introduction
Redevelopment of derelict, abandoned or underutilized post-industrial landscapes takes a
key role in global competition: attracting investments they determine positive impacts not
only in terms of economic growth and environmental protection, but also favouring a sense
of belonging, inclusion, care, respect and social responsibility (Panagopoulos and Loures,
2010). It is often recognized by landscape architects, landscape ecologists and sociologists,
among others, that the social component plays a relevant role in urban planning and
management activities, and that participation processes are linked both to landscape and
strategic environmental valuation. For this reason, there is a growing trend in government to
conclude that the commitment and will of the population is a crucial element to the
development of a sustainable city (Christensen et al., 1996; Faga, 2006; Giddings et al.,
2005), and that the redevelopment of brownfields can play a significant role in future
planning activities (Loures and Panagopoulos, 2007).
Since the early 1970s there was an increasing need for public participation and
involvement into planning processes (Fiskaa, 2005). Ever since, the necessity of
introducing public participation into planning and management activities has been
reinforced not only by designers, as is the case of Lawrence Halprin, a remarkable early
expert in public participation and involvement in design, governments and private
associations, but also in several international networks and conventions. Examples include
the USA Urban Renewal Program in 1954; the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development in 1992; the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in 1998;
the European Landscape Convention in 2000 and the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable
European Cities in 2007, among others (Bartke and Schwarze, 2015; Edwards et al., 2005;
Gordon et al., 2011; Panagopoulos et al., 2015).
As mentioned by Fadigas (1993) ‘to create is not to impose: it is to give an ordered
expression to the reality we are intending to materialize, through the perfect knowledge over
the intervention area, its identity and history’. Land transformation projects should redefine
the post-industrial landscape through community-based, interdisciplinary actions that
integrate longer term solutions based on social, economic and ecological objectives
(Ekman, 2004).
Considering the above-mentioned facts, the present paper describes the importance of
active citizen participation in urban planning and management processes in order to achieve
sustainable development. It stresses the urgency of active public involvement on the entire
policy and decision-making process, which needs to be decentralized and, as far as possible,
focused at the local level (Selman and Parker, 1997; Taylor, 2000). Additionally, considering
the recognition that public participation has become increasingly more important playing a
relevant role in determining the way society will manage, protect and reclaim not only the
natural but also the built environment, this paper describes a wide range of public
participation methods, including new ways of people interacting, new types of event, new
services and new support frameworks, while defining frameworks and approaches for how to
use community input in the identification of needs and problems, and in the design and
implementation of remedial and preventive solutions for landscape transformation projects.
Considering this scenario, the present research encompasses two main objectives. The first
is directly connected with the assessment of the implications of community engagement in
post-industrial land transformation projects and examines which design and programme
elements present higher relevance to the community and which are the critical factors on
projects’ acceptability. The second is to analyse how potentially significant resources that
were created during the industrial Era can be identified and how they can be best preserved
Loures et al. 3

and used, assessing the relationship between the current redevelopment strategies and the
design potential.

Public participation in landscape redevelopment

At present, many European governments are supporting the restructure of hierarchical
forms of governance towards one of participatory democracy, where stakeholder
involvement, active citizenship and social capital are part of this participatory urban and
regional planning (Albrechts, 2002). Although public participation both in landscape
planning, management and redevelopment has gained wide acceptance among private and
public domains, academic literature and research still offers limited understanding on what
public participation means, how to accomplish it and which factors contribute to its success
(Beierle and Konisky, 1999; Davies, 2001). In fact, public participation, generally defined as
a descriptive and exploratory method, enables the observation and analysis of specific issues
and phenomena, allowing the establishment of relations among variables (Gil, 1994;
Triviños, 1995).
However, as mentioned by Duffy and Hutchinson (1997), concepts indicating different
levels of public involvement, often associated with different styles of political decision-
making, with direct influence on the acceptance of the project ‘such as participation,
incorporation, empowerment, capacity building and consultation’, although having different
meanings, are often used as synonymous. In fact, since Sherry Arstein’s 1969 seminal article
‘A ladder of citizen participation’ that launched the ladder metaphor, several researchers have
focused on degrees of citizen power and local control in government decision (Connor, 1988;
Potapchuk, 1991; Toker, 2007).
Besides the aforementioned spectrums, public participation can take several different
forms (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Creighton, 2005). Public meetings, workshops, citizen
juries, focus groups, internet, mail interviews, and face-to-face interviews constitute some
of the most common approaches, each of them legitimate a priori, and justified by the
context in which the project takes place (Table 1). Still, in landscape planning,
management and redevelopment, public participation is generally accomplished through
public workshops, where the different perspectives and possibilities are presented and
discussed (Faga, 2006). Nevertheless, even if the selection of the public participation
method constitutes a relevant part of the process, Bass et al. (1995) stressed that what
decision-makers really need to understand is that science-based and inter-disciplinary
approaches are not enough to define social, environmental and economic needs, and that,
therefore, public participation must be a people-centred approach (Loures and Crawford,
2008). Even with the changes that have been introduced in policy and attitude during the last
decades, there is still a large number of obstacles to a successful transition to a more
participatory decision-making process. Design professionals constitute one of the most
effective obstacles to the implementation of public participation procedures in planning,
allegedly, regarding concerns with less power in the design process, perceptions of
participatory practices being unprofessional and sceptic about unaesthetic outcomes. This
fact constitutes one of the most relevant setbacks in introducing public participation in
landscape planning and redevelopment projects, a process increasingly considered to be
indispensable in any project considering the objective to serve the public.
Moreover, the influence of public participation in project acceptability is progressively
acknowledged. In fact, as mentioned by Beierle and Konisky (1999) the use of public
participation contributes to achieve five different social goals: incorporating public values
into decisions, improving the substantive quality of decisions, resolving conflict among
 4
Table 1. Public participation techniques.

Influence
Most common problems on project
Technique Technique description and challenges acceptability Sources j references

Advisory Committee A group of invited experts It requires full-time dedication Low Abreu (2002) and Beierle
representing interested for a long period of time. and Konisky (1999)
and interacting parts Controversy may arise
Focus groups Discussion groups led by It allows estimating emotional Medium Creighton (2005) and Faga
professionals responses (2006)
Dedicated phone line Experts answering Requires availability of well- Low Abbott (1996) and Beierle
questions and providing prepared personnel on a and Konisky (1999)
information on regular schedule base. Its
dedicated phone lines success depends on
advertisement and public
willingness to call
Interviews Interviews with It requires a lot of time and well- Medium Beierle and Konisky
stakeholders prepared staff (1999) and Faga (2006)
Town meetings Meetings where experts It does not facilitate dialogue; it Medium Abbott (1996) and
or politicians present allows exacerbation of Newman and Jennings
formal communications differences of opinion; (2008)
requires plenty of time to
organize
Conferences Less formal meeting Dialogue is generally limited. It Medium Loures and Crawford
where people present requires a lot of time and (2008)
their views, ask people to organize
questions, etc.
Multi-criteria analysis Working sessions of small Inadequate for large audiences. High Beierle and Cayford
Workshops groups dedicated to Requires plenty of people and (2002), Creighton
complete the analysis time (2005) and Faga (2006)
of a certain topic
Surveys It provides an image of public High Faga (2006), Karanikola
opinion, but it requires et al. (2014) and
(continued)
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)
Table 1. Continued.

Influence
Most common problems on project
Loures et al.

Technique Technique description and challenges acceptability Sources j references

Carefully prepared trained professionals and is Panagopoulos et al.

questions are asked to expensive (2015)
a sample population
Referendum, Counting votes within a Requires a long phase of Medium Gregory et al. (2001),
plebiscites community information and debate. Newman and Jennings
Decisions are more (2008) and Webler
susceptible to emotional et al. (2001)
assertions than to reasoned
opinions
Technologically aided Immersive planning with Requires knowledge on virtual Medium Gordon et al. (2011) and
approaches the use of three- technologies as a community Panagopoulos et al.
dimensional virtual engagement tool in urban (2012)
environments planning
5
6 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

Table 2. What people are concerned about.

Realtorsj
Environmentalists Citizens Law makers Farmers Developers Businesses

Preservation Good schools Jobs Investment Profitability Taxes

Water quality Quality of life Industry Right to farm Affordability Market
Energy Health Security Equity Community Talent
Food security Community Equity Viability Opportunities Competitiveness
Biodiversity Jobs Welfare Property rights
Stewardship Safety Policy Food security
Future for children

competing interests, building trust in institutions, and educating and informing the public
(De Groot et al., 2014). Besides, these goals there are several other reasons why public
participation should be introduced in the planning process. The relevance of the social
acceptability of a specific project should never be underestimated and the social conflict
and litigation should be reduced, considering that the planning paradigm has shifted to
give the general public greater input in planning and environmental decisions (Dustin and
Schneider, 1998; Fiorino, 1996; Gunderson, 1995; Steelman, 2001). This will improve their
social acceptability and certify that public space will be developed according to public will.
Public participation will also contribute to expanding the number of possible choices,
making them more precise and enabling that the different actors involved in the process
take ‘ownership’ of the decision (Loures and Burley, 2012).
As Beatley (2004) mentions, it is through ownership, commitment and the infusion of
‘local knowledge’ in project development that unique places, genuinely native to the culture
and environment, can be sustained. Still, designers have to be aware that different people
have different ideas, perspectives, needs and concerns (Table 2), which is the reason why the
participation process has to be as inclusive as possible, considering the opinion of each and
every single group related directly or indirectly with the project (Loures and Burley, 2012).
Considering post-industrial redevelopment projects, as they are often located in highly
visible and accessible areas, public perception and support is essential not only to the
long-term success of the project (Nassauer, 1997) but also to enhance the social, economic
and environmental benefits that they provide.
In this regard, considering that public participation is essential to achieve social objectives
in planning activities, enabling sustainable landscape design (Dobbie, 2013; Musacchio,
2009), that participatory methods constitute a critical resource for planning processes
(Nackoney et al., 2013), and that the redevelopment/transformation of post-industrial
landscapes and infrastructures is increasingly recognized as an important strategy to
achieve sustainable urban development, this paper presents a specific methodology to
access public preferences regarding post-industrial land transformation, throughout the
application of combined public participation procedures.

Materials and methods

Study area
The study area constitutes a post-industrial landscape that incorporates significant
environmental, cultural and historic assets not only at the local level but also at the
regional and national levels. Located on the left bank of the Arade River is situated
between the cities Portimão and Lagoa in southern Portugal – GPS: 37 090 42.1700 N 08
Loures et al. 7

Figure 1. Delimitation of the study area at the right side of the Arade River (background from Google
Earth).

290 02.2700 W (Figure 1). The climate is Mediterranean temperate and characterized by mild
and short winters and long, hot and dry summers, suffering a significant influence of the
Atlantic Ocean. This estuarine landscape constitutes a site with a long history, which has
experienced several structural transformations catalyzed in part by deep shifts at the
economic level. The area is relatively flat, especially along the valleys adjacent to the
Arade riverbed and its tributaries, being delimited at east by a group of small hills, which
bound the river, creating particular environmental conditions on the area. Since the
beginning of human occupation, the Arade River has been used in several different ways
by the people who have settled along its banks. Used first as a source of energy and as a
transportation and communication route, it became an important natural, commercial,
industrial and lately touristic resource. In this regard, along the colonization of its
margins, the river and its surroundings assumed great importance both locally and
regionally, which can be confirmed by the existing historic and cultural buildings and by
the several archaeological tracks that have been found.
This post-industrial area, currently occupied by sparsely distributed urban areas, rustic
urban spaces, urban voids, some agricultural land, marshes, salt evaporation ponds and
derelict fish canning industrial areas, describes today more than a hundred years of local
and regional history, constituting a testimony of an industrial, cultural and social conception
and evolution which documents and interprets considerable values for the industrial heritage
of Algarve. Also encompassing several other historic, cultural and natural assets, such as tide
8 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

Figure 2. A derelict fish-canning industrial site redeveloped to a five stars hotel and recreational boating
facilities.

mills, bridges, springs, churches and fortresses that may constitute valuable patterns for
landscape redevelopment both at the local and regional level. This area has been
experiencing unprecedented pressure posed not only by urban developers that often had
to find ways to dribble legal constraints, proposing redevelopment options with a main
objective of maximizing profit, but also by a rising demand for recreational activities and
by a growing resident and tourist population that want to live along the waterfront
(Figure 2).

Survey – Definition and application

Taking into account the literature review regarding public participation and involvement, a
preliminary questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was developed considering face-
to-face interviews, a technique in which the interviewer asks questions of a respondent in a
face-to-face encounter. The selection of this type of interview was based on the fact that it is
a very reliable method of data collection in which the researcher has full range and depth of
information, the respondents have the opportunity to ask for clarifications during the
interviewing process, the target population may be easily located and defined, and no one
is excluded a priori from the sample (Hill and Hill, 2008).
The general applicability of the questionnaire and the relevance of the responses were
previously tested with a sample of 90 landscape architecture students: 30 from Michigan
State University, USA; 30 from the University of Toronto, Canada and 30 from the
Loures et al. 9

University of Algarve, Portugal. After the analysis of the sample test, considering the
recommendations on specialized literature (e.g. the time used by respondents, the way
personal information was collected, the types of questions used, etc.) a few questions were
removed, reviewed and/or refined in order to not only facilitate the interviewing process but
also the collection of valid information to be used during the design phase and the reduction
of the time spent by respondents, given that the surveys should not last more than 15 min, as
people tend to be less accurate in long interviews.
The public participation questionnaire consisted of 12 questions that are mainly closed-
ended questions (nine), in which respondents had to choose among given answers, allowing a
limitation of the response variability from the participants, subjecting them to less effort and
forcing them to define their position, and increasing a greater facility and accuracy listing
responses and measuring variables (Hill and Hill, 2008). Still, the questionnaire had three
open-ended questions in which respondents were invited to tell what they really feel without
preconceived limitations, imposed by a fixed set of possible responses. Open-ended questions
enabled the acquisition of a clearer view of the public’s opinion (Pavlikakis and Tsihrintzis,
2006). Though the questionnaire was anonymous, the sample was characterized considering
age, gender, school level and parish. In this regard, the questionnaire entailed three different
parts composed of sets of questions in order to identify: first, general issues regarding post-
industrial landscape redevelopment; second, case-specific information regarding a specific
case study and, third, the characteristics of the sample (age, gender, residence parish and
school level).
The sample size was defined considering the analysed population according to Isaac and
Michael (1997) and Krejcie and Morgan (1970). The sample size needed (S) relative to the
population was calculated using equation (1)
x2 NPð1  PÞ
S¼ ð1Þ
d2 ðN  1Þ þ x2 Pð1  PÞ

in which N – stands for the given population size; P – represents the population proportion
(which in this research was assumed to be 0.50, considering the objective to obtain the
maximum possible sample size required); d – represents the degree of accuracy as reflected
by the tolerated amount of error; and x2 – corresponds to the table value of chi square for
one degree of freedom relative to the desired level of confidence.
Considering the population of the Lagoa municipality (22,975 people), and more precisely
the number of people with more than 18 years (17,063 people) and equation (1), the sample
size would be 376 people, considering a margin of error of 5% and a confidence level of 95%.
However, in order to prevent problems with lack of information, it was decided to select a
larger sample of 450 people, a number that corresponds to a margin of error of 4.56%
considering the same population size and confidence level.
Once the sample size was selected, following the protocol, it was necessary to select the
locations in which the face-to-face interviews would be developed, and how the population
would be randomly selected. Regarding the selection of survey sites, six different locations
were selected, bearing in mind the choice of busy public spaces, without signs of segregation,
where one can find a sample that adequately represents the population. Regarding the
random selection of respondents, the method was based on the creation of a table of
random numbers from 1 to 10, using the online software Stattrek. The generated numbers
were used in order to guarantee that the sample was randomly selected. Interviews were
started at 10:00 am in the selected site, and the first approached person was selected
according to the table of random numbers. Additionally, in order to reduce bias,
10 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

interviews were always conducted by the same person, assuring that explanations and
clarifications to the respondents’ doubts were always made the same way.

Data analysis
After collecting the data regarding the survey instruments, statistical analysis was developed,
first using the Microsoft Office Excel 2007 spread sheet to organize the collected data, and
then the computer statistical analysis programmes, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences), version 17.0 for Windows, and SAS (Statistical Analysis System), version 9.1.3
(TS1M3) for Microsoft Windows. However, before using the above-mentioned software, it
was necessary to code the collected data (a task requiring significant effort, considering not
only the number of questions but also the number of option within each question). For the
open-ended questions, before coding the data, it is necessary to analyse the answers using
content analysis methods, and then categorize them into coded groups, which were after
introduced into the database.
Regarding the performed descriptive statistics, besides the general description of the
whole population, crosstab analysis considering the characteristics of the sample
population (age, gender, school level and parish of residence) was also developed in order
to draw conclusions by comparing the data among variables, taking into consideration the
data collected with the public participation questionnaire. Regarding inferential statistics,
Pearson’s Chi-square tests will be performed in question number 6, in order to verify the
relationship between the categorical variables (aspects that respondents considered more
relevant in the redevelopment of the left bank of the Arade River) within the question,
i.e. to see if preferences for some mean preferences for others. In this regard, collapsed
2  2 contingency tables with four boxes were used in order to meet the requirements of
the test (more than five responses in each box).
Considering the data gathered in question number 6, each categorical variable was
standardized (mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1) and examined using a principal
component multivariate analysis to search for clusters of related behaviour in response to the
questions (Johnson and Wichern, 1988), i.e. to see how the aspects align as a group. The
statistical procedure assesses the selected aspects, building latent combinations (principal
components) with the dataset. This analysis generates eigenvalues that represent independent
dimensions. Eigenvalues over 1.0 for standardized data were considered significant
dimensions and were further analysed by examining the eigenvector coefficients of each
dimension, which numerically illustrate the correlation between a categorical variable
(redevelopment aspects) and the dimension (Burley et al., 2009). In the present analysis,
eigenvector coefficients greater than or equal to 0.400 or less than or equal 0.400 were
considered to be associated with the dimension. Principles with more than one significant
eigenvector meant that they are significant to more than one dimension. This statistical
procedure will enable the analysis of how many principal components (dimensions) there
really are, allowing the supporting or refuting of the dimensions suggested in the literature,
according to public opinion.

Results
The survey results
The survey was conducted from the 15th of August to the 17th of November of 2008, a
period throughout which 450 respondents were successfully interviewed (12 questionnaires
were completed in English and 438 in Portuguese). The used method, face-to-face interviews,
Loures et al. 11

Table 3. Socio-demographic profile of the sample.

Age % Gender % Parish % School Level %

A 18–29 17.78 M Male 55.33 Ca Carvoeiro 10.00 A Primary school 26.22

B 30–45 41.56 F Female 44.67 Es Estombar 12.67 B High school 51.11
C 46–65 34.67 Fe Ferragudo 9.11 C Higher technical 20.67
or professional
degree
D > 65 6 La Lagoa 48.44 D Post-graduate 2
degree
Pa Parchal 11.33
Po Porches 8.44

resulted in a moderate response rate of 36.35%. In order to achieve the 450 responded
questionnaires, 1238 people were approached. Two of the most frequent reasons given by
respondents who refused to complete the survey were: ‘I am too busy’ and ‘This is just a time
loss, given that the public opinion is never considered’. One observation set corresponds to a
completed survey by a respondent.
Concerning the social characteristics, men (55.33%) were more active respondents than
women (44.67%). While 41.56% of the respondents were aged 30–45, which was the most
frequent age group; 34.67% were aged 46–65, 17.78% were aged 18–29 and only 6% were
aged > 65 years. Regarding educational level, by excluding the age group < 18, the
proportion of respondents with university education was expected to be high; however,
the majority of the respondents (51.11%) had a high school level, 26.22% primary school
level and 20.67% had university education. The percentage of respondents with post-
graduate education was significantly low (2.00%). In regard to the distribution of the
population by parish of residence, almost half of the respondents (48.44%) were from
Lagoa, which according to the Municipality of Lagoa is the most populated parish of the
municipality (5528 people). The rest of the respondents were more or less evenly distributed
by the other parishes (Table 3).
Regarding the most relevant factors in landscape reclamation (Figure 3(a)), the majority
of the respondents considered the environmental and aesthetic (51%), while economic
aspects represented 30% of the responses and sociocultural aspects 18%. This tendency
was maintained when considering crossing the data with the sample population
characteristics (age, gender, parish and school level). Figure 3(b) presents the results
regarding the actual condition of the municipal landscape. The majority of respondents
consider that it is degraded (39%) or very degraded (5%), and 24% that it is normal,
25% that it is pleasant and 7% that it is very pleasant. The mean was 2.90, a value still
below the normal condition, and the standard deviation was 1.05.
Figure 4(a) presents the results in regard to the question related to the responsibility for
land redevelopment. The majority of respondents (70%) considered the government to have
the main responsibility for reclaiming degraded landscapes, while 12% consider the
landowners and 8% the NGOs and 1% mentioned other. Municipalities were surprisingly
mentioned only by 3% of the respondents. Concerning the question regarding people’s
opinion towards the possibility to promote post-industrial transformation instead of
greenfield consumption, each response was assigned a numerical value indicating totally
agree (value 1), agree (value 2), no opinion (value 3), disagree (value 4) and totally
disagree (value 5). The responses were described by calculating the mode, the mean and
12 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

Figure 3. Graphical distribution of the importance of planning and design dimensions to landscape
transformation (a), and of people’s opinion regarding the actual condition of the municipal landscape (b).

Figure 4. Graphical distribution of people’s opinion regarding main responsibility for post-industrial land
transformation (a), and regarding post-industrial transformation instead of greenfield consumption (b).

the standard deviation. Figure 4(b) presents that the mode response was totally agree,
selected 192 times (42%), the mean was 1.96 indicating agreement with the presented
sentence and the standard deviation was 0.05. Option 4 (disagreement) was the least
selected one (2.00%).
Since the questionnaire was composed of two different parts, the first one more general
and the second one directly related to the specific case study area, the post-industrial
estuarine landscape in the Arade River, only the people who knew well the area (313 out
of the 450 respondents, 69.78%) responded to the second part of the questionnaire. From
those 313 respondents, 93.61% considered that the redevelopment of this landscape was
important.
The first question directly related to the case study area addressed the most relevant
aspects in the redevelopment of post-industrial landscapes. The mode response was
(creation of multifunctional areas – 16.21%) followed, respectively, by the creation of
leisure areas (13.18%), the creation of green-open areas (12.14%), the use of renewable
energies (9.58%) and economic development (9.03%). The less selected aspects were:
create affordable housing (0.32%), environmental education (1.59%) and creation of
habitats (1.76%). In this question it is relevant to mention that the 15 aspects considered
are the result of a previously developed ‘survey’ with only one ‘open-ended’ question in
Loures et al. 13

Figure 5. Graphical distribution of people’s opinion regarding uses/functions that should be implemented
in the redevelopment of the assessed post-industrial landscape.

which 100 residents in the municipality of Lagoa were asked the question: ‘Which is the
aspect you consider more relevant in the redevelopment of derelict areas of your
municipality?’ The 100 responses were analyzed and grouped into 15 classes. Regarding
the fact that respondents might consider a different aspect which was not in the list of 15,
the option ‘others’ was included.
Figure 5 presents the opinion of the participants related to the use/function that should be
implemented in the future on the post-industrial landscape. The majority consider that this
landscape should be used as a multifunctional area (36%), which was followed by leisure
green areas and parks (26%). Almost one-quarter of the respondents did not answer this
question (23%), and residential area was the least mentioned use (2%).
Regarding the question whether or not the redevelopment of the study area would
contribute to increase the quality of life for the local inhabitants, 95% of the respondents
considered that it would increase life’s quality. Besides that, the majority of the respondents
(61%) considered that the destruction of the industrial heritage was relevant, and that its
destruction would contribute to decrease landscape quality and value.
Considering the obtained results about the most relevant aspects in post-industrial land
transformation (Table 4), it was found interesting differences in views on conservationist and
interventionist approaches to brownfield regeneration. It appears that industrial features
have heritage value for part of the population, such as young, skilled workers in the
creative sector. However, retired residents reacted negatively to a post-industrial
landscape and have less concerns on environmental preservation issues, but prefer open
green spaces and have considerations on safety and security. This indicates that the
preferences of different populations need to be understood to help guide redevelopment.
The performed Chi-square analysis of independence regarding the existence of statistically
significant relationships between the categorical variables (aspects that respondents
considered more relevant in the brownfield redevelopment) indicated that there were 60
significant results of dependence, as it might be seen in Table 5.
 14
Table 4. Most relevant aspects in post-industrial land transformation.

Age Gender Parish School level

Total
A B C D M F Ca Es Fe La Pa Po A B C D Freq. %

1 30 86 73 14 120 83 12 29 22 98 32 10 40 120 39 4 203 16.21

2 9 27 11 4 32 19 5 10 4 22 6 4 12 26 10 3 51 4.07
3 12 36 27 8 47 36 7 12 11 37 13 3 25 45 12 1 83 6.63
4 9 25 16 4 26 28 5 6 3 28 8 4 12 33 7 2 54 4.31
5 15 30 32 5 48 34 11 8 7 44 8 4 26 43 12 1 82 6.55
6 21 60 58 13 94 58 6 26 15 82 16 7 38 76 35 3 152 12.14
7 13 19 15 2 34 15 3 8 6 29 2 1 16 19 14 – 49 3.91
8 10 18 19 8 33 22 5 9 5 21 10 5 19 26 9 1 55 4.39
9 14 13 11 1 21 18 1 4 6 20 6 2 10 26 3 – 39 3.12
10 32 67 53 13 97 68 8 26 16 82 23 10 38 88 36 3 165 13.18
11 6 9 6 1 13 9 – 4 4 6 7 1 1 16 4 1 22 1.76
12 14 55 45 6 73 47 6 24 13 57 12 8 29 59 29 3 120 9.58
13 7 4 5 3 12 7 – 5 3 8 3 – 8 6 5 – 19 1.52
14 14 41 50 8 64 49 12 21 14 46 13 7 24 57 27 5 113 9.03
15 6 21 13 1 28 13 3 4 3 22 7 2 6 21 13 1 41 3.27
16 – 1 2 1 2 2 – – – 2 2 – – 3 1 – 4 0.32
Total 212 512 436 92 744 508 84 196 132 604 168 68 304 664 256 28 1252 100

1 Creation of multifunctional areas 2 Industrial j Built heritage

3 Mobility j Accessibility 4 Environmental preservation
5 Tourism 6 Creation of green j Open areas
7 Culture j Local characteristics 8 Safety j Security
9 Creation of residential areas 10 Creation of leisure areas
11 Creation of habitats 12 Use of renewable energies
13 Environmental education 14 Economic redevelopment
15 Maintain the local character j Local beauty 16 Others – create affordable housing
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)
 Loures et al.

Table 5. Chi-square analysis of independence – significant results of dependence (p  0.05).

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16

P1 0.008 0.000 0.017 0.008 0.008 0.011

P2 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
P3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.003 0.026
P4 0.015 0.025 0.000 0.020 0.000
P5 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.017 0.029
P6 0.002 0.046 0.000 0.017 0.037 0.000
P7 0.000 0.001 0.001
P8 0.002 0.000 0.025 0.030 0.000 0.022
P9 0.000 0.000 0.004
P10 0.031 0.001 0.000
P11 0.003 0.001 0.006
P12 0.010 0.000
P13
P14 0.001
P15
P16
15
16 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

Table 6. Total variance explained in principal component analysis.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Eigenvalue 2.40 1.95 1.75 1.47 1.21 1.10 1.01 0.86 0.81 0.69 0.65 0.59 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.00
Cumulative 15.02 27.20 38.11 47.30 54.88 61.78 68.11 73.49 78.54 82.88 86.96 90.66 93.91 97.05 100 100

Principal component analysis results

Considering the principal component analysis developed for the question regarding the most
relevant aspects in post-industrial land transformation, there were seven significant
eigenvalues (principal components), explaining 68.11% of the variance (Table 6). The way
in which these principal components are associated with the redevelopment aspects is
presented in Table 7. The first principal component explaining 15.02% of the variance
was strongly associated with the creation of leisure areas, tourism, mobility and
accessibility; creation of green and open areas; and safety and security. The second
principal component (dimension) explained 12.18% of the variance and was strongly
associated with economic development, with the use of renewable energies and with the
creation of residential areas. The third dimension, which explained 10.91% of the
variance, was strongly associated with the creation of green areas, industrial and built
heritage, environmental preservation and the maintenance of local character and local
beauty. Principal component number 4 was strongly associated with environmental
preservation, creation of residential areas, culture and local characteristics and with the
creation of habitats, and explained 7.58% of the variance. The fifth principal component
explaining 6.90% of the variance was strongly associated with environmental education and
with the creation of multifunctional areas. The sixth dimension, which explained 6.32% of
the variance, was strongly associated with the creation of multifunctional areas, with culture
and local characteristics and with the creation of habitats. Finally, the seventh principal
component is the one that was strongly associated with only a single aspect (creation of
affordable housing) and explained 5.39% of the total variance.

Discussion and conclusions

This research started with the assumption that there is still a general misconception in the
redevelopment approach usually applied to post-industrial land transformation projects, and
that the application of specific public participation procedures could benefit the overall
quality of future post-industrial redevelopment projects, considering that designers are,
very often, primarily focused on aesthetics, leaving society’s other main goals as a
secondary status. This vision constitutes an important setback in achieving sustainable
projects and corroborates with the ideas presented in previous studies (Nijnika and
Mather, 2008; Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2010) augmenting the need to create new
methodological frameworks that consider public participation from the outset of project
and planning activities.
Considering these assumptions, this research identified a set of critical factors that,
according to public perception, have higher influence on post-industrial landscape
redevelopment. The application of these factors to the redevelopment of the post-
industrial landscape of the left bank of the Arade River highlighted their application to
the redevelopment of similar post-industrial landscapes. Whether or not these efforts will be
sufficient to make post-industrial redevelopment environmentally, economically and socially
 Loures et al.

Table 7. Eigenvector coefficients for the first seven principal components.

Eigenvectors

Prin1 Prin2 Prin3 Prin4 Prin5 Prin6 Prin7

Creation of leisure areas 0.689 0.026 0.393 0.162 0.027 0.187 0.003
Tourism 0.687 0.188 0.287 0.128 0.102 0.159 0.020
Mobility/Accessibility 0.684 0.121 0.297 0.104 0.195 0.214 0.083
Creation of green/Open areas 0.570 0.036 0.403 0.344 0.094 0.362 0.090
Safety/Security 0.490 0.280 0.233 0.349 0.123 0.133 0.184
Economic redevelopment 0.020 0.750 0.030 0.021 0.235 0.031 0.070
Use of renewable energies 0.127 0.721 0.146 0.029 0.161 0.212 0.051
Industrial/Built heritage 0.022 0.067 0.756 0.275 0.085 0.111 0.015
Environmental preservation 0.023 0.245 0.550 0.521 0.162 0.061 0.020
Others – create affordable housing 0.125 0.388 0.505 0.277 0.153 0.166 0.112
Creation of residential areas 0.346 0.409 0.024 0.537 0.078 0.053 0.115
Environmental education 0.083 0.342 0.160 0.032 0.720 0.089 0.127
Creation of multifunctional areas 0.331 0.083 0.100 0.060 0.609 0.429 0.111
Culture/Local characteristics 0.258 0.284 0.121 0.499 0.137 0.592 0.138
Creation of habitats 0.296 0.383 0.007 0.422 0.294 0.456 0.028
Maintain the local 0.039 0.063 0.033 0.187 0.042 0.081 0.938
character/Local beauty

Coefficients in bold indicate subject categories with a strong association for a particular principal component (dimension), and grey cells indicate subject categories strongly associated
with more than one dimension.
17
18 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

sustainable remains to be seen, and future research will be required in order to ascertain that
goal, considering that a number of barriers and procedural limitations to achieve such
objectives were identified during the public participation process, as occurred in similar
studies (Pediaditi et al., 2010).
Still, the presented results put forward noteworthy ideas. The Pearson’s Chi-square tests
of independence developed for the categorical variables (aspects that respondents considered
more relevant in the redevelopment of the left bank of the Arade River) demonstrated that
there is a high level of statistically interrelated aspects. For example, the obtained results
illustrated that, according to public perception, the most important aspect in the
redevelopment of the study area is the creation of multifunctional areas, and that this
aspect is statistically related with touristic activities, mobility and accessibility, use of
renewable energies, environmental education, economic redevelopment, and safety and
security. The high number of statistically significant relations between the aforementioned
categorical variables corroborating with the idea according to which ‘there are several
interrelated planning and design principles that should be considered in post-industrial
land transformation projects’ (Loures, 2011). Also was confirmed the ideas presented in
similar research (Aruninta, 2009; Hoppner et al., 2007; Swensen, 2012), according to
which different redevelopment aspects should act together in an interconnected manner
while considering that site-specific decisions should be integrated with the general public
and private needs. Public environments can no longer be the result of concerted actions
between the designer and the local/regional authorities.
Besides this, the developed survey revealed distinct perceptions about post-industrial
development that support the importance of post-industrial landscapes and might be
useful in the delineation of a redevelopment proposal for the study area. More than half
of the 450 respondents considered that the environmental and aesthetic dimension are the
most relevant in the redevelopment of derelict landscapes; 81.55% of the respondents stated
that they ‘totally agree’ or ‘agree’ with the fact that urban growth should consider the
redevelopment of derelict and/or abandoned areas instead of consuming new green areas,
corroborating the results put forward by De Sousa (2002) and opposing to the development
plans put forward by local authorities. A large majority of the respondents who knew the
study area (313) considered both that it is important to redevelop the study area (96.61% of
the respondents), and that the redevelopment of this area would contribute to increase the
quality of life of its inhabitants (94.89% of the respondents). Considering other uses and
functions, respondents considered that the study area was mainly suitable for the
development of multifunctional leisure green areas and parks, tending to be more
concerned with environmental and social issues than with economic ones, idea that
corroborates with the conclusions presented by Arunita (2009).
The protection of the industrial heritage constitutes an important issue for the large
majority of the respondents, corroborating the ideas presented by several authors (Nijnika
and Mather, 2008; Swensen, 2012) according to which public interest in cultural heritage
issues has markedly increased during the past few decades. In fact, even if cultural heritage
management has a recognized role in planning processes to which it conscientiously attends
(Swensen, 2012). This fact has not been considered by local and regional authorities that, in
recent years, have approved and applauded urban redevelopment projects which have totally
misinterpreted and/or destroyed the existing industrial heritage. This is the case for the
transformation projects for former fish canning factories, which were converted from
valuable architectural industrial elements into uninteresting new buildings, in which the
former chimneys were kept as if they could, alone, represent the previous spirit of the
place. According to Panagopoulos (2009), the key ingredient for optimum design is
Loures et al. 19

the knowledge of the essence of the place, therefore, public involvement in landscape
reclamation decisions will give meaning in the place and consequently will give value in
the landscape and enhance the acceptability of urban regeneration proposals.
The participants revealed strong critique for disrespect of industrial heritage and also in
nature protection issues. In general, the municipality planning was criticized for neglecting
local interests and for being authoritarian and directed from the top down. Additionally, our
findings highlight significant discoveries put forward in recent research (Hoppner et al.,
2007; Lawless, 2013; Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2010) according to which redevelopment
processes should provide different opportunities for public participation and involvement
in order to comprehensively affect all dimensions of trust and to foster engagement, since
participatory landscape planning constitutes an effective way of informing and impacting
local policy related to sustainable redevelopment.
Results revealed that post-industrial landscape redevelopment could be a feasible
alternative not only in the environmental perspective, but also considering economic
sustainability provides new investment opportunities. By reinvesting in areas already
served by infrastructure to accommodate new growth, we can meet the demand for
development and protect critical areas. This is a core smart growth principle that
encompasses a broad array of policies and practices, including brownfield redevelopment
among others (Ye et al., 2005).
Besides the presented conclusions, the performed research highlighted the fact that the
application of public participation procedures in post-industrial redevelopment is
increasingly becoming a key factor for proper land use planning and urban design,
contributing directly to minimizing consumption of natural resources, while reconciling
social issues with economic development and environmental objectives (Valencia-Sandoval
et al., 2010). Though it might be argued that further research and replications are necessary
to generalize the findings, it became clear that the introduction of public participation
techniques constitutes an opportunity to ascertain the way planning principles and
legislation strengthen the delineation of post-industrial land redevelopment plans.
Coupling the information gathered throughout the public participation process with the
intrinsic characteristics of each specific landscape might aspire to more viable, bearable
and equitable post-industrial land redevelopment projects. In other words, public
participation and co-operation might aspire tomorrow’s municipality planning process for
more resilient and sustainable cities.

Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article:
This work was supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology under grand UID/SOC/
04020/2013.

References
Abbott J (1996) Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Development. London: Earthscan.
20 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

Abreu P (2002) New information technologies in public participation: A challenge to old decision-making
institutional frameworks. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Albrects L (2002) The planning community reflects on enhancing public involvement. Views from
academics and reflective practitioners. Planning Theory and Practice 3(3): 331–347.
Aruninta A (2009) WiMBY: A comparative interests analysis of the heterogeneity of redevelopment of
publicly owned vacant land. Landscape and Urban Planning 93: 38–45.
Bartke S and Schwarze R (2015) No perfect tools: Trade-offs of sustainability principles and user
requirements in designing tools supporting land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields.
Journal of Environmental Management 153: 11–24.
Bass S, Dalal-Clayton B and Pretty J (1995) Participation in Strategies for Sustainable Development.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Beatley T (2004) Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Beierle T and Cayford J (2002) Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions.
Washington, DC: Resources for the future.
Beierle T and Konisky D (1999) Public Participation in Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes
Region. Washington, DC: Resources for the future.
Burley J, Singhal V, Burley C, et al. (2009) Citation analysis of transportation research literature: A
multi-dimensional map of the roadside universe. Landscape Research 34(4): 481–495.
Christensen L, Bartuska A, Brown J, et al. (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America
Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6(3): 665–691.
Connor M (1988) A new ladder of citizen participation. National Civic Review 77(3): 249–257.
Creighton J (2005) The Public Participation Handbook. Making Better Decisions Through Citizen
Involvement. San Francisco: Wiley.
Davies A (2001) Hidden or hiding? Public perceptions of participation in the planning system. Town
Planning Review 72(2): 193–216.
De Groot M, Winnubst MH, van Schie N, et al. (2014) Visioning with the public: Incorporating public
values in landscape planning. European Planning Studies 22: 1–17.
De Sousa CA (2002) Measuring the public costs and benefits of brownfield versus greenfield
development in the Greater Toronto area. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29:
251–280.
Dobbie M (2013) Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria,
Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 120: 178–189.
Duffy K and Hutchinson J (1997) Urban policy and the turn to the community. Town Planning Review
68(3): 347–362.
Dustin D and Schneider I (1998) The widening circle: The role of democratic deliberation in outdoor
recreation conflict management. Trends 35: 27–30.
Edwards D, Pahlen G, Bertram C, et al. (2005) Best Practice Guidance for Sustainable Brownfield
Regeneration for RESCUE Consortium, Nottingham. Nottingham: Land Quality Press.
Ekman E (2004) Strategies for reclaiming urban postindustrial landscapes. Master Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Fadigas L (1993) A Natureza na cidade: uma perspectiva para a sua integração no tecido urbano. PhD
Thesis, Technical Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon.
Faga B (2006) Designing Public Consensus – The Civic Theater of Community Participation for
Architects, Landscape Architects, Planners, and Urban designers. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Fiorino D (1996) Environmental policy and the participation gap. In: Lafferty W and Meadowcroft J
(eds) Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp. 194–212.
Fiskaa H (2005) Past and future for public participation in Norwegian physical planning. European
Planning Studies 13: 157–174.
Giddings B, Hopwood B, Mellor M, et al. (2005) Back to the city: A route to urban sustainability.
In: Jenks M and Dempsey N (eds) Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities. Oxford:
Architectural Press, pp. 13–30.
Loures et al. 21

Gil A (1994) Metodologia do Ensino Superior. São Paulo, Brazil: Atlas.

Gordon E, Schirra S and Hollander J (2011) Immersive planning: A conceptual model for designing
public participation with new technologies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38:
505–519.
Gregory R, McDaniels T and Fields D (2001) Decision adding, not dispute resolution: Creating
insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
20: 415–432.
Gunderson A (1995) The environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Hill M and Hill A (2008) Investigação por questionário. Lisbon: Edições Sı́labo.
Hoppner C, Frick J and Buchecker M (2007) Assessing psycho-social effects of participatory landscape
planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 83: 196–207.
Isaac S and Michael W (1997) Handbook in Research and Evaluation: For Education and the Behavioral
Sciences. San Diego: EdITS.
Johnson R and Wichern D (1988) Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Karanikola P, Panagopoulos T, Tampakis S, et al. (2014) Facing and managing natural disasters in the
Sporades islands, Greece. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 14: 995–1005.
Krejcie R and Morgan D (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 30: 607–610.
Lawless P (2013) Reconciling ‘‘Bottom-Up’’ perspectives with ‘‘Top-Down’’ change data in evaluating
area regeneration schemes. European Planning Studies 21: 1562–1577.
Loures L (2011) Planning and design in post-industrial land transformation: East Bank, Arade River,
Lagoa Case Study. PhD Thesis, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal.
Loures L and Burley J (2012) Post-industrial land transformation – An approach to socio-cultural
aspects as catalysts for urban redevelopment. In: Burian J (ed) Advances in Spatial Planning.
Olomouc, Czech Republic: InTech, pp.223–246.
Loures L and Crawford P (2008) Democracy in progress: Using public participation in post-industrial
landscape (re)-development. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 4(9): 794–803.
Loures L and Panagopoulos T (2007) Sustainable reclamation of industrial areas in urban landscapes.
WIT Transactions on Ecology and Environment 102: 791–800.
Musacchio L (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual
framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six
Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology 24(8): 993–1013.
Nackoneya J, Rybockb D, Dupainc J, et al. (2013) Coupling participatory mapping and GIS to inform
village-level agricultural zoning in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Landscape and Urban
Planning 110: 164–174.
Nassauer J (1997) Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Newman P and Jennings I (2008) Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Nijnika M and Mather A (2008) Analysing public preferences concerning woodland development in
rural landscapes in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 86: 267–275.
Panagopoulos T (2009) Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecological Economics 68:
2485–2489.
Panagopoulos T, Guimaraes ME and Barreira AP (2015) Influences on citizens’ policy preferences for
shrinking cities: A case study of four Portuguese cities. Regional Studies, Regional Science 2:
140–169.
Panagopoulos T, Jankovska I and Straupe I (2012) Second Life 3D city virtual environment as an
urban planning tool for community engagement. In: Burley J, Loures L and Panagopoulos T (eds)
Recent Researches in Environmental Science & Landscaping. Faro, Portugal: WSEAS Press,
pp.59–66.
Panagopoulos T and Loures L (2010) Reclamation of derelict industrial land in Portugal – Greening is
not enough. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 5(4): 343–350.
Pavlikakis G and Tsihrintzis V (2006) Perceptions and preferences of the local population in Eastern
Macedonia and Thrace National Park in Greece. Landscape and Urban Planning 77: 1–16.
22 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 0(0)

Pediaditi K, Doick K and Moffat A (2010) Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield,
regeneration to greenspace initiatives – A meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools.
Landscape and Urban Planning 97: 22–36.
Potapchuk R (1991) New approaches to citizen participation: Building consent. National Civic Review
80(2): 158–168.
Selman P and Parker J (1997) Citizenship, civicness and social capital in local agenda 21. Local
Environment 2(2): 171–184.
Steelman T (2001) Elite and participatory policymaking: Finding a balance in a case of national forest
planning. Policy Studies Journal 29(1): 71–89.
Swensen G (2012) Integration of historic fabric in new urban development: A Norwegian case-study.
Landscape and Urban Planning 107: 380–388.
Taylor M (2000) Communities in the lead: Organizational capacity and social capital. Urban Studies
37(5): 1019–1035.
Toker Z (2007) Recent trends in community design: The eminence of participation. Design Studies 28:
309–323.
Triviños A (1995) Introdução à pesquisa em cieˆncias sociais: A pesquisa qualitativa em educação. São
Paulo, Brazil: Atlas.
Valencia-Sandoval C, Flanders D and Kozak R (2010) Participatory landscape planning and
sustainable community development: Methodological observations from a case study in rural
Mexico. Landscape and Urban Planning 94: 63–70.
Webler T, Tuler S and Krueger R (2001) What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives
from the public. Environmental Management 3: 435–450.
Ye L, Mandpe S and Meyer PB (2005) What is smart growth? – Really? Journal of Planning Literature
19: 301–315.

Luis Loures is a Landscape Architect, Professor at the ESAE in the Polytechnic Institute of
Portalegre, who holds a PhD in Urban Planning. Since he graduated he has published
several per reviewed papers at the national and international levels and he has been a
guest researcher and Lecturer both at Michigan State University (USA), and at
University of Toronto (Canada) where he has developed part of his PhD research with
the Financial support from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (PhD
grant).

Thomas Panagopoulos graduated in Forestry at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,

Greece; MSc in Renewable Natural Resources; and PhD in Forestry and Natural
Environment. His main research fields are ‘‘landscape reclamation’’ and ‘‘sustainable
development’’. He has been Department Head and Landscape Architecture Master
Degree Director and Vice-president of the Research Centre of Spatial Organizational
Dynamics at the University of Algarve, Portugal. He is member of the executive board of
UNISCAPE (the Network of Universities for the implementation of the European
Landscape Convention).

Jon Bryan Burley is an Associate Professor of landscape architecture in the School of

Planning, Design and Construction, at Michigan State University. He earned his Bachelor
of Landscape Architecture with Distinction at the University of Minnesota in 1978, his
Masters of Landscape Architecture from the University of Manitoba in 1988, and his
PhD in Landscape Architecture at the University of Michigan in 1995. He is a Fellow in
the American Society of Landscape Architects, and a life member in the Ecological Society
of America, and the American Society for Mining and Reclamation.

View publication stats