Participatory Methods for Identifying Stakeholder Perspectives on Urban Landscape Quality

  • Matthijs Hisschemöller
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


This chapter discusses an approach to assist participatory governance for the sustainability of urban landscapes. Its scope and focus are on the first stages of the policy process, which concentrate on the problem characterization and policy objectives (Turnpenny et al. 2015). Hence, the focus of this chapter is on a family of participatory methods that help citizens and other stakeholders, including policymakers and experts, to articulate and understand the different views on issues concerning urban landscape quality. Section “Articulating Different Perspectives on Urban Landscape Quality” introduces a theoretical framework, which explains why participation is needed for urban sustainability governance. Section “An Example: Repertory Grid Technique” explores the challenges for articulating and understanding different perspectives on urban landscape quality and presents the repertory grid technique as an example of a proper method. Section “Discussion and Conclusions” summarizes this chapter’s main argument and discusses the implications thereof for the overall purpose of this book, a decision-support system for quality of life issues in urban landscapes.


  1. Cuppen E (2010) Putting perspectives into participation: constructive conflict methodology for problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. VU University of Amsterdam, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Cuppen E, Breukers S, Hisschemöller M (2010) Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 69(3):579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Leeuw J, Mair P (2009) Gifi methods for optimal scaling in R: the package homals. J Stat Softw 31(4):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diesing P (1962) Reason in society: five types of decisions and their social conditions. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn WN (1981) Public policy analysis. An introduction. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunn WN, Cahill AG, Dukes MJ, Ginsberg A (1986) The policy grid: a cognitive methodology for assessing change dynamics. In: Dunn WN (ed) Policy analysis: perspectives, concepts and methods. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 355–376Google Scholar
  7. Fransella F, Bell R, Bannister D (2004) A manual for repertory grid technique. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Held D (2006) Models of democracy. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Hisschemöller M, Cuppen E (2015) Participatory assessment: tools for empowering, learning and legitimating? In: Jordan AJ, Turnpenny JR (eds) The tools of policy formulation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R (2001) Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In: Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn WN, Ravetz J (eds) Knowledge, power and participation environmental policy analysis. policy studies review annual, volume 12. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 47–72Google Scholar
  11. Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. Rutledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindblom CE (1965) The intelligence of democracy. Decision making through partisan mutual adjustment. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23(1):161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loorbach D, Shiroyama H (2016) The challenge of sustainable urban development and transforming cities. In: Governance of urban sustainability transitions. Springer, Japan, pp 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKinnon JA (2010) An innovations system approach for green living roofs in Leiden. M.Sc. Thesis, Environment and Resource Management, VU University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Meulmann J, Heiser W, SPSS Inc (2010) IBM SPSS categories 19. Copyright SPSS 1989, 2010Google Scholar
  17. Nelson TM, Loewen LJ (1993) Factors affecting perception of outdoor public environments. Percept Mot Skills 76(1):139–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Hare M (1977) Not on my block you don’t: facility siting and the strategic importance of compensation. Public Policy 25:407–458Google Scholar
  19. Pateman C (1979) The problem of political obligation. A critical analysis of liberal theory. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith NU (2015) Public attitudes and perceptions toward green roofs in Malta. MSc Thesis, Environment and Resource Management, VU University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Sühlsen K, Hisschemöller M (2014) Lobbying the ‘Energiewende’. Assessing the effectiveness of strategies to promote the renewable energy business in Germany. Energy Policy 69:316–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Turnpenny JR, Jordan AJ, Benson D, Rayner T (2015) The tools of policy formulation: an introduction. In: Jordan AJ, Turnpenny JR (eds) The tools of policy formulation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  23. Tyrväinen L, Ojala A, Korpela K, Lanki T, Tsunetsugu Y, Kagawa T (2014) The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: a field experiment. J Environ Psychol 38:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van de Kerkhof M, Cuppen E, Hisschemöller M (2009) The repertory grid to unfold conflicting positions: the case of a stakeholder dialogue on prospects for hydrogen. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76:422–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vasileiadou E, Hisschemőller M, Petersen AC, Hazeleger W, Betgen C, de Hoog I, Min E (2013) Adaptation to extreme weather: identifying different societal perspectives in the Netherlands. Reg Environ Chang 14:91–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dutch Research Institute for Transitions, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations