Wikienfk5 - User contributions [en]

Rural Landscapes Seminar Case Study List

2009-05-12T07:47:09Z

130.238.114.111: /* Landscape Assessment */

*''Dear participants, please add the title of your case study to the respective chapter below (edit). If your case relates to more than one theme, please copy the title to any appropriate chapter.''

*''Titles should be formulated like the example in the first chapter.''

*''As soon as the title has been added, a new wiki page will be created with the case study template as a starting point (see example). If you think that some themes are missing, feel free to add them to the list.''

[[Image:Topicmap rurallandscapes.jpeg|400px|thumb|Rural Landscapes Topic Map|right]]
[[Image:Topicmap selection 090506.jpg|400px|thumb|Participants localise their themes|right]]

== Landscape Types ==
=== Designated and Protected Landscapes ===

'''Golija-Studenica''' - The development of Ecotourism in a Biosphere Reserve, Serbia by ''Slavica Cepic, Radmila Mircetic and Dragana Romic''

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''

=== Peri-urban Landscapes ===
=== Agricultural Landscapes ===
This chapter would refer to landscapes that a definitely not peri-urban as a distinction to agricultural landscapes in the urban fringe.

== Types of Planning ==
=== Landscape Planning ===
Landscape planning may operate on country, regional and local level.
=== Rural Development ===
=== Urban Design ===
=== Site Design ===
== Planning Sectors and Objects ==
=== Recreation and Tourism ===

'''Golija-Studenica''' - The development of Ecotourism in a Biosphere Reserve, Serbia by ''Slavica Cepic, Radmila Mircetic and Dragana Romic''

=== Forestry ===
=== Agriculture ===
=== Infrastructure and Transport ===
=== Nature Protection ===
=== Mining and Quarrying ===
=== Energy ===

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''

=== Settlements ===
== Planning Methods ==
=== Landscape Characterisation ===
=== Landscape Assessment ===

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''

LANDMAP assessment - Neath-Port Talbot, Wales by Andrew Butler

=== Development Scenarios ===
=== Integrated Assessment ===
== Planning Instruments ==
The distinction between methods and instruments is that the latter is based on a legal framework, so you would basically refer to legal instruments here.
=== Environmental Impact Assessment ===

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''

=== Strategic Impact Assessment ===
=== Public Participation ===
=== Regional Planning ===
=== Landscape Planning ===

Rural Landscapes Seminar Case Study List

2009-05-12T07:46:39Z

130.238.114.111: /* Landscape Assessment */

Rural Landscapes Seminar Case Study List

2009-05-12T07:46:22Z

130.238.114.111: /* Landscape Assessment */

*''Dear participants, please add the title of your case study to the respective chapter below (edit). If your case relates to more than one theme, please copy the title to any appropriate chapter.''

*''Titles should be formulated like the example in the first chapter.''

*''As soon as the title has been added, a new wiki page will be created with the case study template as a starting point (see example). If you think that some themes are missing, feel free to add them to the list.''

[[Image:Topicmap rurallandscapes.jpeg|400px|thumb|Rural Landscapes Topic Map|right]]
[[Image:Topicmap selection 090506.jpg|400px|thumb|Participants localise their themes|right]]

== Landscape Types ==
=== Designated and Protected Landscapes ===

'''Golija-Studenica''' - The development of Ecotourism in a Biosphere Reserve, Serbia by ''Slavica Cepic, Radmila Mircetic and Dragana Romic''

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''

=== Peri-urban Landscapes ===
=== Agricultural Landscapes ===
This chapter would refer to landscapes that a definitely not peri-urban as a distinction to agricultural landscapes in the urban fringe.

== Types of Planning ==
=== Landscape Planning ===
Landscape planning may operate on country, regional and local level.
=== Rural Development ===
=== Urban Design ===
=== Site Design ===
== Planning Sectors and Objects ==
=== Recreation and Tourism ===

'''Golija-Studenica''' - The development of Ecotourism in a Biosphere Reserve, Serbia by ''Slavica Cepic, Radmila Mircetic and Dragana Romic''

=== Forestry ===
=== Agriculture ===
=== Infrastructure and Transport ===
=== Nature Protection ===
=== Mining and Quarrying ===
=== Energy ===

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''

=== Settlements ===
== Planning Methods ==
=== Landscape Characterisation ===
=== Landscape Assessment ===

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''
LANDMAP assessment - Neath-Port Talbot, Wales by Andrew Butler

=== Development Scenarios ===
=== Integrated Assessment ===
== Planning Instruments ==
The distinction between methods and instruments is that the latter is based on a legal framework, so you would basically refer to legal instruments here.
=== Environmental Impact Assessment ===

'''Wind Farm Developments in Northern Ireland''' by ''Radek Chanas''

=== Strategic Impact Assessment ===
=== Public Participation ===
=== Regional Planning ===
=== Landscape Planning ===

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:50:36Z

130.238.114.111: /* In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

It was viewed that the input from local men was not needed as their knowledge is rather well known and condidered within planning practice

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
A parallel competition was instigated between four architect practices, where proposals for the area where drawn up which were considered by three citizen groups who were instrumental in the final design, these includes; a women’s group which formed during the programming stage of the project and worked right through the consultation stage; a school group who has lessons on planning in general and the specific project, which provided a base from which to formulate proposals wit the planner The citizen groups were made up of anybody who was interested in the process but not necessarily interested in living in the area.

At the early stages issues of traffic problems, construction of housing on locally valued area and adjacent horse use were addressed and easily addressed.

==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====
The focus of the participation for the planner was to preserve what was special and valuable within the area, retaining the characteristics which make the place and which have special meaning to the inhabitants and future inhabitants. However as the future residents were unknown it was the projection of the present locals which were considered, women and school groups. They envisaged that the new “incomers” would be as themselves, young families with ecological ambitions. The reality was is that the projection was wrong and it is more wealthy middle age couples attracted to the aesthetics of the area who have moved in. There was also a “watering down” of ecological ambitions in favour of more aesthetic elements.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:39:16Z

130.238.114.111: /* How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

It was viewed that the input from local men was not needed as their knowledge is rather well known and condidered within planning practice

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
A parallel competition was instigated between four architect practices, where proposals for the area where drawn up which were considered by three citizen groups who were instrumental in the final design, these includes; a women’s group which formed during the programming stage of the project and worked right through the consultation stage; a school group who has lessons on planning in general and the specific project, which provided a base from which to formulate proposals wit the planner The citizen groups were made up of anybody who was interested in the process but not necessarily interested in living in the area.

At the early stages issues of traffic problems, construction of housing on locally valued area and adjacent horse use were addressed and easily addressed.

==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:38:57Z

130.238.114.111: /* Who was involved in the participation process? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

It was viewed that the input from local men was not needed as their knowledge is rather well known and condidered within planning practice

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
A parallel competition was instigated between four architect practices, where proposals for the area where drawn up which were considered by three citizen groups who were instrumental in the final design, these includes; a women’s group which formed during the programming stage of the project and worked right through the consultation stage; a school group who has lessons on planning in general and the specific project, which provided a base from which to formulate proposals wit the planner The citizen groups were made up of anybody who was interested in the process but not necessarily interested in living in the area.

It was viewed that the input from local men was not needed as their knowledge is rather well known and condidered within planning practice

At the early stages issues of traffic problems, construction of housing on locally valued area and adjacent horse use were addressed and easily addressed.

==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:38:21Z

130.238.114.111: /* How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
A parallel competition was instigated between four architect practices, where proposals for the area where drawn up which were considered by three citizen groups who were instrumental in the final design, these includes; a women’s group which formed during the programming stage of the project and worked right through the consultation stage; a school group who has lessons on planning in general and the specific project, which provided a base from which to formulate proposals wit the planner The citizen groups were made up of anybody who was interested in the process but not necessarily interested in living in the area.

It was viewed that the input from local men was not needed as their knowledge is rather well known and condidered within planning practice

At the early stages issues of traffic problems, construction of housing on locally valued area and adjacent horse use were addressed and easily addressed.

==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:37:58Z

130.238.114.111: /* How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
A parallel competition was instigated between four architect practices, where proposals for the area where drawn up which were considered by three citizen groups who were instrumental in the final design, these includes; a women’s group which formed during the programming stage of the project and worked right through the consultation stage; a school group who has lessons on planning in general and the specific project, which provided a base from which to formulate proposals wit the planner The citizen groups were made up of anybody who was interested in the process but not necessarily interested in living in the area.

At the early stages issues of traffic problems, construction of housing on locally valued area and adjacent horse use were addressed and easily addressed.

==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:37:39Z

130.238.114.111: /* How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
A parallel competition was instigated between four architect practices, where proposals for the area where drawn up which were considered by three citizen groups who were instrumental in the final design, these includes; a women’s group which formed during the programming stage of the project and worked right through the consultation stage; a school group who has lessons on planning in general and the specific project, which provided a base from which to formulate proposals wit the planner The citizen groups were made up of anybody who was interested in the process but not necessarily interested in living in the area.

It was viewed that the input from local men was not needed as their knowledge is rather well known and condidered within planning practice

At the early stages issues of traffic problems, construction of housing on locally valued area and adjacent horse use were addressed and easily addressed.

==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:23:47Z

130.238.114.111: /* How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
A parallel competition was instigated between four architect practices, where proposals for the area where drawn up which were considered by three citizen groups who were instrumental in the final design, these includes; a women’s group which formed during the programming stage of the project and worked right through the consultation stage; a school group who has lessons on planning in general and the specific project, which provided a base from which to formulate proposals wit the planner The citizen groups were made up of anybody who was interested in the process but not necessarily interested in living in the area.
At the early stages issues of traffic problems, construction of housing on locally valued area and adjacent horse use were addressed and easily addressed.

==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

Uggledal

2008-12-15T08:15:41Z

130.238.114.111: /* Who was involved in the participation process? */

'''Uggledal, Göteborg - Comprehensive Plan'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''please enter the name here''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Göteborg''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Sweden''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''please enter the topic here''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Andrew Butler''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the date of completion''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the client''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Please enter the costs (if known)''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="57.699745" lon="11.930466" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===
The case study looks at the development of local forums for public participation in the process of detail planning and design within a new housing area, allowing an interchange of knowledge which facilitates improves outcomes. The project also illustrates how the “landscape” can function as an arena and focus points for communications relating to balancing growth issues with public needs.

=== Author's perspective ===
I come to this case study in the start of my PhD education. The subject I have chosen to study for the next 4 years relates to the inclusion of public perception within the analysis of the urban fringe landscape, this is mirrored in my case study
Over the subsequent 10 years I have studied and worked as a landscape architect and landscape planner, focusing on landscape analysis and trying to understand the multi faceted entity that is landscape and the meanings and values attached to ‘landscape’

Göteborg, Sweden’s second largest city with a population of 494 806 (Statistiska centralbyrån), lies on the country’s west coast.
Uggledal is situated in the south of the kommun forming an easily accessible suburb to the city. The area is comprised of new housing situated between the coast and the abrupt granite hills which dominate this area of Västra Gotaland county. It has been described by recent developers as “Housing area in harmony with nature”

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

=== Cultural/social/political context===

Illustration:
Bullet points, image, background notes

=== History ===
*How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?

Illustration: Table or time line

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity ===
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ====
For the development of Uggledal the preservation of the areas “green qualities” was considered of significant value, along with ecological integration and sustainable development practices. Early in the process consultation between municipal authorities and residents and actors to provide an exchange of knowledge and views, leading to a deeper understanding of the site and its issues. Future residents were represented by among others; current residents, planners, and the property developer, The green issues were represented by local residents’ groups, architects and other experts. Future requirements and locations which were too valuable to be built on where identified by womens groups and school groups already residing in the area.

==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ====
==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ====

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Future development directions ===
* How is the area/project/plan evolving?
* Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Peer reviews or critique ===
* Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
* What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Public space and Civic identity]]
[[Category:Participation]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:Göteborg]]
[[Category:Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity]]
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories