Cities for citizens! Public value spheres for understanding conflicts in urban planning

Article Urban Studies 2024, Vol. 61(7) 1327–1344 ÓUrban Studies Journal Limited 2023 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00420980231207475 journals.sagepub.com/home/usj Cities for citizens! Public value spheres for understanding conflicts in urban planning Rico H Herzog TU Delft, Netherlands HafenCity University Hamburg, Germany Juliana E Goncxalves TU Delft, Netherlands Geertje Slingerland TU Delft, Netherlands Reinout Kleinhans TU Delft, Netherlands Holger Prang HafenCity University Hamburg, Germany Frances Brazier TU Delft, Netherlands Trivik Verma TU Delft, Netherlands Abstract Identifying the diverse and often competing values of citizens, and resolving the consequent public value conflicts, are of significant importance for inclusive and integrated urban development. Scholars have highlighted that relational, value-laden urban space gives rise to many diverse conflicts that vary both spatially and temporally. Although notions of public value conflicts have been Corresponding author: Rico H Herzog, City Science Lab, HafenCity University Hamburg, Henning-Voscherau-Platz 1, Hamburg 22457, Germany. Email: [email protected] conceived in theory, there are few empirical studies that identify such values and their conflicts in urban space. Building on public value theory and using a case-study mixed-methods approach, this paper proposes a new approach to empirically investigate public value conflicts in urban space. Using unstructured participatory data of 4528 citizen contributions from a Public Participation Geographic Information Systems in Hamburg, Germany, natural language processing and spatial clustering techniques are used to identify areas of potential value conflicts. Four expert interviews assess and interpret these quantitative findings. By integrating quantitative assessments with the qualitative findings of the interviews, we identify 19 general public values and nine archetypical conflicts. On the basis of these results, this paper proposes a new conceptual model of ‘Public Value Spheres’ that extends the understanding of public value conflicts and helps to further account for the value-laden nature of urban space. Keywords natural language processing, public participation, public values, spatial conflict, urban planning Received June 2022; accepted September 2023 Introduction Past and present development projects demonstrate that pluralistic values of various stakeholders often lead to conflict about the planning of urban space (McAuliffe and Rogers, 2019). A key challenge for planners and decision makers is to identify and address these diverse and often competing values of citizens and other stakeholders (Van der Wal et al., 2015). Integrated and participatory urban development, as highlighted by both the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 11 and the EU’s New Leipzig Charter, contributes to enhancing the common good and to transitioning to a sustainable and inclusive city. However, the identification of the public’s underlying ᪈㾱 䇶࡛ޜ≁ཊṧф㓿ᑨ⴨ӂߢケⲴԧ٬㿲ˈᒦ䀓ߣ䲿ѻ㘼ᶕⲴޜޡԧ٬㿲ߢケˈሩҾ ᇩᙗ઼㶽ᙗⲴ෾ᐲኅާᴹ䟽㾱᜿ѹDŽ⹄ウӪઈᕪ䈳ˈ⴨ޣⲴǃ᢯䖭Ҷѫ㿲ԧ٬Ⲵ෾ ᐲオ䰤ᕅҶ䇨ཊ൘オ䰤઼ᰦ䰤к䜭н⴨ⲴǃཊṧⲴߢケDŽቭ㇑ޜޡԧ٬㿲ߢケ Ⲵᾲᘥ൘⨶䇪кᐢ㓿㻛ᶴᜣࠪᶕˈնᖸቁᴹᇎ䇱⹄ウᶕ䇶࡛䘉Ӌԧ٬㿲৺ަ൘෾ᐲオ䰤 ѝⲴߢケDŽᵜ᮷ԕޜޡԧ٬㿲⨶䇪Ѫส⹰ˈ䟷⭘Ṹֻ⹄ウ␧ᯩ⌅䘋䐟ˈᨀࠪҶа⿽ሩ ෾ᐲオ䰤ޜޡԧ٬㿲ߢケ䘋㹼ᇎ䇱⹄ウⲴᯠᯩ⌅DŽᵜ᮷࡙⭘ᶕ㠚ᗧഭ≹๑ᐲĀޜޡ৲о ൠ⨶ؑ᚟㌫㔏āⲴǃ⭡ޜ≁䍑⥞Ⲵ䶎㔃ᶴ৲оᔿᮠᦞˈ֯⭘㠚❦䈝䀰༴⨶઼ オ䰤㚊㊫ᢰᵟᶕ䇶࡛ᆈ൘▌൘ԧ٬㿲ߢケⲴฏDŽഋ⅑уᇦ䇯䈸䇴ՠᒦ䀓䟺Ҷ䘉Ӌᇊ䟿 ⹄ウ㔃󰵭DŽ䙊䗷ሶᇊ䟿䇴ՠо䇯䈸Ⲵᇊᙗ㔃󰵭⴨㔃ˈᡁԜ⺞ᇊҶ⿽а㡜ޜޡԧ٬ 㿲઼⿽ިරߢケDŽสҾ䘉Ӌ㔃󰵭ˈᵜ᮷ᨀࠪҶа⿽ᯠⲴĀޜޡԧ٬亶ฏāᾲᘥ⁑රˈ ᢙኅҶሩޜޡԧ٬㿲ߢケⲴ⨶䀓ˈᴹࣙҾ䘋а↕䀓䟺෾ᐲオ䰤Ⲵԧ٬㿲᢯䖭ᙗ䍘DŽ  ޣ䭞䇽 㠚❦䈝䀰༴⨶ǃޜՇ৲оǃޜޡԧ٬㿲ǃオ䰤ߢケǃ෾ᐲ㿴ࡂ  1328 Urban Studies 61(7) values and their spatial conflicts through participatory approaches is a complex and challenging task (Nabatchi, 2012) as it requires methods to account for diverse and pluralistic public values related to the development and usage of urban space (Campbell, 1996; Godschalk, 2004; Lombard and Rakodi, 2016). Viewing urban space as being continuously socially produced and relational (Lefebvre, 1991; Purcell, 2022), such a conceptualisation often lacks practical application in urban planning to bolster government action through participatory means of governance (Lehtovuori, 2016). Several scholars have discussed the presence of values in the public sphere (Bozeman, 2007; Graeber, 2013; Hillier, 1999), including developing public values theory for institutions (Nabatchi, 2018). Originating from public administration research, public values theory is concerned with the underlying norms, principles and standards of public policy and government. This domain emphasises inclusive elicitation of public values (Nabatchi, 2012). The literature also highlights the usefulness of mapping (assumed) stakeholder values and demonstrates how participatory mapping can support identification of areas with potential land-use conflicts and provide resolution among stakeholders (Brody et al., 2004; Brown and Raymond, 2014). While these studies are highly influential, current approaches can be improved in areas that are lacking, in terms of implicitly assuming value(s) or reducing conflict to a pair of values. A pre-specified list of values (Brown and Raymond, 2014; Karimi et al., 2015) leads to a mapping of pre-imposed values while an empirical identification infers values from data provided by citizens in which they express their values without constraints (Nabatchi, 2012). A narrow investigation on either a singular value or on a dichotomic value conflict (Tyrva ¨inen et al., 2007) does not recognise the need for a pluralistic approach to understanding the inherent conflicts in urban development (McAuliffe and Rogers, 2019). Thus, an empirical and cohesive approach is necessary to support inclusive urban development. Inclusion of public values as one ‘of the most important aspirations for public participation programs’ (Beierle and Konisky, 2000: 588) lies at the core of integrated urban development. That is often reflected in the daily work of planners (Forester, 1999), but not in their own job perception (Lehtovuori, 2016). Following the calls of Nabatchi (2012) to leverage participatory data for the identification of public values and their conflicts, there seem to be only limited attempts to theoretically establish, and empirically identify, value conflicts with the help of large-scale public participatory data in an urban context. Previous theoretical work focused on analysing value conflicts in urban regions proposed a sustainability/liveability prism to identify and discuss key values in a relational setting, both physically and metaphorically (Campbell, 1996; Godschalk, 2004). Other studies find six conflict types in peri-urban areas that ‘emerge[s] from site-specific social, economic and ecological interactions’, namely ‘noise pollution’, ‘visual blight’, ‘health hazards’, ‘nature conservation’, ‘preservation of the past’ and ‘changes to the neighborhood’ (Von Der Dunk et al., 2011: 149). These findings implicitly mark values as static. However, such seminal work can be expanded to a continuously changing landscape of values in urban areas that are also geolocated and manifest various types of dynamic conflicts. Further, in evaluating several methods to identify social-ecological hotspots, Karimi et al. (2015) call for additional case studies to include social values in spatial decision support tools. By building upon the theory of public values, this paper proposes a new approach: A case study–mixed methods design aids in understanding which public values are present and how they can lead to conflict in urban space. Applying natural language Herzog et al. 1329 processing and spatial clustering techniques to participatory data from Hamburg, Germany, public values and areas of potential conflicts are identified. Subsequently, expert interviews serve as a means to qualitatively discuss and interpret the findings of the quantitative analysis. Our goal is twofold: first, to illustrate the potential of open-source participatory data to elicit geolocated public values in an urban region and identify potential conflicts associated with urban development projects; and second, to contribute to the present theory in urban studies by proposing a conceptual model that supports understanding the pluralism of public values and their conflicts across time and space. The paper is structured as follows: first, we lay out seminal theoretical work on public values and illustrate the importance of identification of values for urban planning. Second, we explain the data and methods used. Third, we state the quantitative and qualitative results separately and then integrate the findings of both strands to form a more comprehensive model of conflicting public values in urban planning. Lastly, we discuss our approach and state conclusions for the application of the conceptual model and future research. Public values and urban planning Identification of public values Several scholars in various fields – Anthropology, Philosophy, Psychology, Economics and Public Administration research – have developed a distinct theory of value(s) for their purposes (e.g. Bozeman, 2007; Graeber, 2013; Hillier, 1999). The most profound and reoccurring distinction is the one between singular and plural: A value (singular) is typically conceived as something tangible, allocatable and traceable in relation to a specific object, for instance the monetary exchange value of a property (Bozeman, 2007). In contrast, values (plural) are considered non-comparable, co-existing and relative, and are related to a much broader, ‘societal’ and ‘political’ context (Graeber, 2013). Values comprise ‘both cognitive and emotive elements’, are connected to one’s definition of oneself, are hardly changeable, and have ‘the potential to elicit action’ (Bozeman, 2007: 117). Hillier (1999) further differentiates between instrumental and intrinsic values. Intrinsic values are ends in themselves, their realisation being their purpose. In contrast, instrumental values serve another end than itself. One could, for example, value nature preservation as an intrinsic means in itself, yet another one values nature preservation as an instrumental means to their personal health. Public values, as conceptualised by Bozeman (2007: 132), concern the values that ought to be present in the public sphere across various levels. On an individual level, people hold both public and private values, the former being values that one wishes to be realised in the public realm (e.g. ecological preservation) and the latter concerning values in their private lives (e.g. intercultural experiences brought by carbon-intensive long-distance travel). On an aggregate level, societies and governments also embrace public values, ideally emerging from the individual’s values and serving the public interest. The theory of public values is thus concerned with ‘those providing normative consensus about . . . the principles on which governments and policies should be based’ (Bozeman, 2007: 13) and ‘the social standards, principles, and ideals to be pursued and upheld by government agents and organizations’ (Nabatchi, 2018: 60). As the literature recognises that in reality, the utopia of normative consensus on values seldom materialises (Nabatchi, 2012), pluralism of equally valid, correct and fundamental values exists. The ‘most fundamental’ (Fukumoto and Bozeman, 2019) challenge in this research area is the identification of public values. Previous approaches include the analysis of 1330 Urban Studies 61(7) governmental documents (Fukumoto and Bozeman, 2019), intuition, elections, surveys and academic literature (Bozeman, 2007: 133–141). Nabatchi (2012), however, argues that any approach for public values identification other than including the public, tends to be exclusionary by highlighting only certain privileged values. Public values and urban space The role of values in urban planning gained significant traction since the recognition of relational urban space and its inherently social production (Jacobs, 1961; Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 2000). In contrast to an absolute and Euclidean conceptualisation, relational urban space implies that the perception of urban space, including its social realm, is relative to its observer and cannot fully be comprehended objectively. Subsequently, scholars have described planners as ‘practical ethicists’ (Forester, 1999: 31), rejected the idea of value-neutral planning (Sandercock, 2004), and urged planners to reconsider the plurality of values and explore more effective valueincorporation strategies for inclusive urban development (Hillier, 1999). More recently in Urban Studies, several articles investigated how urban values relate to urban qualities (Metzger and Wiberg, 2018; Molnar, 2023). However, the aforementioned literature does not adhere to a single coherent theory of values and falls short in conceptualising the transition from individual values to institutional decisions in, for example, participatory processes. Thus, in line with recent research, we contribute to advancing the theory of public values in the field of urban studies (Candel and Paulsson, 2023). Identification of value conflicts in space The existence of value conflicts in urban space is uncontested (De Graaf et al., 2016; Hillier, 1999; Nabatchi, 2018). Scholars point out that ‘emotional’ reactions towards land and places are an integral part of urban life and its resulting conflicts in cities across the globe (Lombard and Rakodi, 2016). Since the entrance of sustainability principles into urban planning, scholars point out the resulting value conflicts between social, economic and ecological aspects (Campbell, 1996). Others add additional dimensions, for example, by investigating conflicts with the value of liveability (Godschalk, 2004) or exploring values specifically related to urban woodlands (Tyrva ¨inen et al., 2007). Multiple conflict archetypes are also investigated in peri-urban areas (Von Der Dunk et al., 2011) and specifically at urban waterfront projects (Avni and Teschner, 2019). In a democratic development of urban space, there is a continuous production of conflicting values (Purcell, 2022), which, by their very nature, are dependent on the person expressing them, and thus incommensurable between people (Bozeman, 2007; Graeber, 2013; Rokeach, 1973). Value conflicts materialise in space where the realisation of one value oftentimes prohibits or impairs the realisation of another. From a relational viewpoint, value conflicts are not only unavoidable, but inherent to the planning process itself and are continually changing. Even though multiple scholars provide insight into how analysing the framing elicits urban values (Metzger and Wiberg, 2018, Molnar, 2023) and others advocate for increased deliberation and participation in urban planning (Nabatchi, 2012), a coherent overview of public values in urban planning is yet to be obtained (McAuliffe and Rogers, 2019). The question for urban decision makers then is how to transcend incommensurability and identify public values and their conflictsinanempiricalandinclusivemanner. Methods and data We conducted a case study–mixed methods approach that embeds a mixed methods Herzog et al. 1331 study within an overarching case study (Guetterman and Fetters, 2018). For the mixed-methods design, we followed an explanatory sequential approach with (1) a quantitative research strand followed by (2) a smaller qualitative study (Creswell and Clark, 2010). The results from both strands (3) were integrated and interpreted to form a better conceptual model of (conflicting) public values in urban space. In public values’ elicitation, the quality of the quantitative analysis of participatory textual data is dependent on the researchers conducting such a study (Chang et al., 2009). To address this concern our approach encapsulates a qualitative strand that makes use of expert knowledge for the purpose of interpretation and evaluation. We selected Hamburg, Germany, as a case study for three reasons. First, the city faces substantial urbanisation challenges with a potential total population increase of 200,000 people by 2040, thereby crossing the two million inhabitant threshold. Second, Hamburg’s Senate founded the ‘Stadtwerkstatt’ (‘urban workshop’) to stimulate a new planning culture by proactively involving the citizenry in informal participation processes in urban planning and deploying the digital on-site and online participation platform DIPAS on a citywide scale (Lieven, 2017). Third, Hamburg’s own transparency law prescribes the publication of information processed within the city’s administration in a central online repository that is accessible in an anonymous way without any associated costs. In the quantitative strand, we leveraged 4528 citizen contributions from a total of 24 participation processes between 2016 and 2021 on the DIPAS platform where people input open textual comments on heterogeneous local urban planning matters (for more detailed information about the projects, see Online Supplemental Material). Contributions are attributed to a certain category and type (Lieven, 2017). Of these contributions, 3584 were geolocated. Preprocessing of the data included basic data cleaning, named entity removal, lemmatisation, n-gram modelling and stopword, number and punctuation removal (Grimmer and Stewart, 2013); see the Online Supplemental Information for details. Subsequently, the data was transformed to a bag of words and the most infrequent 0.75% of words were removed before applying Structural Topic Modelling (STM) (Roberts et al., 2019), an unsupervised clustering algorithm for large text corpora to infer latent topics behind documents in the text corpus while allowing metadata to influence topic assignments. Structural Topic Modelling as an unsupervised machine learning method does not rely on pre-existent training data, but aims to find structures in the data by itself. In contrast, supervised machine learning algorithms would only predict labels in the data that were manually specified beforehand. Hence we argue that the methodology – by design – enables a much better inductive analysis and can uncover structures in participatory data that were previously unknown. Additionally, using the Google Translate API, the contributions were translated to English and sentiment analysis was applied to add more nuanced metadata to STM. We chose k= 30 topics as a hyperparameter based on the metrics of residual analysis and semantic coherence and manually assigned topics to a public value, wherever such an assignment was justifiable. We based this decision on the close investigation of contributions found in each specific topic cluster (see Supplemental Information). To examine areas of potential public value conflicts, the different assigned public values were spatially clustered using the HDBSCAN algorithm (Campello et al., 2015) and converted into spatial polygons by applying the alpha shape algorithm, as illustrated by Chen et al. 1332 Urban Studies 61(7) (2019). Using this method, areas of potential public value conflicts can be investigated by exploring the intersection of polygons. To investigate these conflicts, we largely built upon the theoretical work of Godschalk (2004) and Campbell (1996) since they provide an inventory of archetypal conflicts on a city-wide scale that encompasses generic values as opposed to specific contexts, spatial scales and geographies. In the qualitative strand, four expert interviews with urban planners based in Hamburg and familiar with the local context were conducted. Their different domains were green space and playground planning, residential development, mobility planning, and noise protection planning. Due to restrictions regarding the spread of the Coronavirus, interviews were conducted in an online Zoom environment. The Stadtwerkstatt Hamburg actedasanintermediarytoestablishcontacts with planning experts. To ensure a mutual benefit of the interviews, only planning experts with background knowledge in the DIPAS platform and participation processes were selected. Expert interviews were structured in three main parts: Section one, ‘Introduction’, set the scene and introduced participants to the concept of public values. Section two, a short semi-structured interview, sought to gain insights into the perception of public values and their conflicts by expert planners (see Online Supplemental Information). Section three was an interactive working session: Together, the STM results were investigated and via remote controlled screen sharing, an interactive map of contributions and areas of possible public value conflicts were explored. Afterwards, interviews were both transcribed and coded for the extraction of relevant knowledge. Lastly, both quantitative and qualitative research strands were integrated to formulate a more comprehensive model of public values and their spatial conflicts in urban planning. By building on existent metaphorical descriptions of pluralistic values as spheres and universes (Graeber, 2013; Van der Wal et al., 2015) we suggest different visualisations that depict the identified public values and spatial conflicts as a snapshot in the case study of Hamburg. Quantitative results Using STM on Hamburg data, 30 topics were identified that were discussed in relation to urban development projects. Twentyeight topics were assigned with a caption that represents the overarching concepts discussed in each topic, and two showed no broader coherent theme. In these topics, five broad public values were identified: economic opportunity, ecologic quality, social equity, liveability and safety/health. A single public value is reflected in 19 topics; the remaining ones contain various public values (for more details see Online Supplemental Information). As shown in Figure 1a, the public value of ecologic quality revolves around the two main ideas of protection and creation of green spaces. The most probable words for the public value of social equity (as shown in Figure 1b) are ‘car’, ‘bicycle’, ‘provide’, ‘good’ and ‘wide’. They reflect the idea that the city should be more accessible to cyclists with the improvement of bike lanes, for example, by widening them. Contributions for topic 11, ‘Living for marginalised groups’, in another notion of social equity, lament exploding apartment rents, wish for subsidised and accessible living space for disabled people, suggest increased investment in neighbourhood activities due to increasing loneliness of the elderly/the youth or actively look out for partners to provide living space for the homeless. As Campbell (1996: 297) describes the value of economic opportunity realised as the ‘space of highways, market areas and commuter zones’, the issue of providing parking spots for residents in public spaces was assigned to Herzog et al. 1333 Figure 1. Wordclouds show the most probable words that appear in topics assigned to a single public value. (a) The public value of ecologic quality centres around the creation and protection of green spaces. (b) The public value of social equity mainly reflects the provision of better bicycle lanes for better accessibility. (c) The public value of economic opportunity is largely concerned with the provision of parking spots for local residents. (d) The public value of liveability reflects certain wishes for the built environment regarding design that should be realised. (e) The public value of health/safety indicates the wish for better protection from dangerous traffic situations. 1334 Urban Studies 61(7) the public value of economic opportunity. As many contributions are attributed to this specific issue, the most probable words are ‘local residents’, ‘far away’, ‘zone’, ‘always’ and ‘establish’ (see Figure 1c). Representing the more tangible everyday environment and its design, many (partially contradicting) desires are subsumed under liveability. Dominant words are ‘should’, ‘find’, ‘instead of’ and ‘design’, indicating a wish for a different shaping of urban space. Looking for terms that concretise these desires, words like ‘gastronomy’, ‘subway’, ‘business’, ‘market’, ‘bank’ and ‘playground’ can be found. Lastly, the public value of health/safety was identified mainly in mobility-related topics, which explains their most probable words: ‘traffic’, ‘protection’, ‘tempo’, ‘high’, ‘sidewalks’ and ‘dangerous situations’ (see Figure 1e). Figure 2a illustrates the spatial distribution of public value clusters detected by the HDBSCAN and alpha shape algorithm. Note the several larger value clusters of equity, liveability and health/safety in this map. Additionally, three larger clusters of economic values can also be observed. Multiple smaller clusters of each value are distributed across the city. Intersections of overlapping clusters show areas of potential public value conflicts (Figure 2b). Through the lens of Godschalk’s prism, six types of conflict are distinguished and illustrated with the help of three regions of special interest in Hamburg (Godschalk, 2004). One, in multiple areas a development conflict manifests. Its most common form is the dedication of street space for increased access to pedestrians and cyclists as opposed to green area protection, specifically along the Jungfernstieg (Figure 2b [a]). Two, in the newly developed district of the Grasbrook (Figure 2b [b]) and the Spreehafenviertel (Figure 2b [c]), the gentrification conflict becomes visible in a clash between the wish for both highly liveable environments and affordability. As these neighbourhoods are about to be developed for residential living, multiple people wish for affordable government housing while other people wish for exciting architecture and other appealing places. Three, the green cities conflict is only partially reflected in the case study of Hamburg. In the perception of most contributors liveable and green spaces go hand in hand. This becomes especially apparent around the Jungfernstieg (Figure 2b [a]): frequently, liveability values reflect a desire for more urban green instead of the built environment. However, sporadic contributions reflecting wishes for open-air cinemas, more art and more kiosks could result in a green cities conflict with contributors wishing for the restoration of nature. Four, the growth management conflict again becomes visible around the Jungfernstieg [a] area, which was chosen as a car-free pilot project. Here, multiple people lament the decay of the inner city due to customers’ lack of accessibility by car. Simultaneously, many see a more liveable environment created through the exclusion of private cars. Five, multiple smaller sections in Hamburg exhibit the property conflict between equity and economic values. The property conflict ‘between private interest and the public good’ (Campbell, 1996: 298) is frequently reflected in the wish for redeveloping street/parking space for cyclists and pedestrians. In that way, pedestrian and bike lanes reflect a much more social sharing of space. Private cars are considered to take up public space that could otherwise be used for the broader benefit of society. Six, the resource conflict between economic and ecologic values manifests only in very sparse sections of the city. It is identified in similar spaces as the property conflict, since oftentimes, the wish for more parking spots contradicts the wish for the preservation or creation of green areas. Herzog et al. 1335 be open to expansion and/or rearrangement, future case studies in differing contexts might help with drawing a more holistic picture by providing additional ‘snapshots’ of (conflicting) public values in other spatiotemporal settings. Future research Building on the previous discussion, three main starting points for future research can be explored. First, additional case studies in other social and cultural contexts, especially ones in the Global South, would add crucial perspectives on public value spheres. Enlarging this public value network with additional values and archetypal conflicts will ultimately lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions of public values and urban space and into how decision makers could possibly mitigate or resolve such conflicts. Comparing spatial characteristics of conflicts, best practices and archetypes to address various conflicts can be systematically studied to aid valuedriven design. Studying such phenomena through the lens of a material semiotic approach could reveal connections of values to certain material and social contexts. Second, investigating the differentiation between individual and public values and the sources of conflict in between these values would help explain multiple urban social phenomena and could provide starting points for more effective public participation processes (Thoneick, 2021). Third, research into participatory processes and generative design techniques could aid in improving current PPGIS platforms to not only investigate what citizens want, but also their underlying values. In this context, drawing from a participatory process that includes other tools tailored towards diverse needs of a society could ensure that more minority voices are heard. Such future research would also critically evaluate our suggestion of public value spheres and its implications for urban planning and participatory settings. Conclusion Understanding public values and especially their inherent conflicts is crucial to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 11 of more inclusive and sustainable cities. Only once such conflicts are identified, can they be effectively addressed, mitigated and potentially resolved. By viewing such conflicts through the lens of public values spheres, the present case study of Hamburg showcases a new approach to both identify and conceptualise public values in urban space. Attempts to truly understand the citizenry should start at identifying their norms and values: the principles on which the development of their city should be based. Emerging technology and multidisciplinary approaches now enable an integration of pluralistic values obtained from a large-scale sample of citizens for inclusive and sustainable planning of urban space. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Stadtwerkstatt Hamburg, especially Mateusz Lendzinski, for the data provision of multiple DIPAS participation processes and for establishing the contacts to the expert planners to conduct the workshops. Declaration of conflicting interests 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 1342 Urban Studies 61(7) ORCID iDs Rico H Herzog https://orcid.org/0000-00021603-2926 Juliana E Goncxalves https://orcid.org/00000001-6888-3362 Geertje Slingerland https://orcid.org/00000002-3938-2427 Reinout Kleinhans https://orcid.org/00000002-5714-2128 Holger Prang https://orcid.org/0000-00026480-7044 Frances Brazier https://orcid.org/0000-00027827-2351 Trivik Verma https://orcid.org/0000-00032761-5155 Supplemental material Supplemental material for this article is available online. References Avni N and Teschner N (2019) Urban waterfronts: Contemporary streams of planning conflicts. Journal of Planning Literature 34(4): 408–420. Beierle TC and Konisky DM (2000) Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19(4): 587–602. Bozeman B (2007) Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Brody SD, Highfield W, Arlikatti S, et al. (2004) Conflict on the coast: Using geographic information systems to map potential environmental disputes in Matagorda Bay, Texas. Environmental Management 34(1): 11–25. Brown G, Kelly M and Whitall D (2014) Which ‘public’? Sampling effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems for public lands management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57(2): 190–214. Brown G and Raymond CM (2014) Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning 122: 196–208. Campbell S (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3): 296–312. Campello RJGB, Moulavi D, Zimek A, et al. (2015) Hierarchical density estimates for data clustering, visualization, and outlier detection. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 10(1): 5:3–5:51. Candel M and Paulsson J (2023) Enhancing public value with co-creation in public land development: The role of municipalities. Land Use Policy 132: 106764. Chang J, Boyd-Graber J, Gerrish S, et al. (2009) Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22 – Proceedings of the 2009 Conference, British Columbia, Canada, 2009. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates Inc pp. 288– 296. Chen M, Arribas-Bel D and Singleton A (2019) Understanding the dynamics of urban areas of interest through volunteered geographic information. Journal of Geographical Systems 21(1): 89–109. Creswell JWL and Clark VP (2010) Choosing a mixed methods design. In: Creswell JW and Piano Clark VL (eds) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 53–106. de Graaf G, Huberts L and Smulders R (2016) Coping with public value conflicts. Administration and Society 48(9): 1101–1127. Forester J (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. Fukumoto E and Bozeman B (2019) Public values theory: What is missing? The American Review of Public Administration 49(6): 635–648. Godschalk DR (2004) Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(1): 5–13. Graeber D (2013) It is value that brings universes into being. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3(2): 219–243. Herzog et al. 1343 Grimmer J and Stewart BM (2013) Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis 21(3): 267–297. Guetterman TC and Fetters MD (2018) Two methodological approaches to the integration of mixed methods and case study designs: a systematic review. American Behavioral Scientist 62(7): 900–918. Hillier J (1999) What values? Whose values? Philosophy and Geography 2(2): 179–199. Jacobs J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Vintage. Jørgensen TB and Bozeman B (2007) Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society 39(3): 354–381. Karimi A, Brown G and Hockings M (2015) Methods and participatory approaches for identifying social-ecological hotspots. Applied Geography 63: 9–20. Kleinhans R, Falco E and Babelon I (2022) Conditions for networked co-production through digital participatory platforms in urban planning. European Planning Studies 30(4): 769–788. Lefebvre H (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lehtovuori P (2016) Experience and Conflict: The Production of Urban Space. New York, NY: Routledge. Lieven C (2017) DIPAS–Towards an integrated GIS-based system for civic participation. Procedia Computer Science 112: 2473–2485. Lombard M and Rakodi C (2016) Urban land conflict in the Global South: Towards an analytical framework. Urban Studies 53(13): 2683–2699. McAuliffe C and Rogers D (2019) The politics of value in urban development: Valuing conflict in agonistic pluralism. Planning Theory 18(3): 300–318. Metzger J and Wiberg S (2018) Contested framings of urban qualities: Dis/qualifications of value in urban development controversies. Urban Studies 55(10): 2300–2316. Molnar S (2023) The framing of urban values and qualities in inter-organisational settings: The case of ground floor planning in Gothenburg, Sweden. Urban Studies 60(2): 292–307. Nabatchi T (2012) Putting the ‘Public’ back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review 72(5): 699–708. Nabatchi T (2018) Public values frames in administration and governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1(1): 59–72. Purcell M (2022) Theorising democratic space with and beyond Henri Lefebvre. Urban Studies 59(15): 3041–3059. Roberts ME, Stewart BM and Tingley D (2019) STM: An R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software 91(2): 1–40. Rokeach M (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: Free Press. Sandercock L (2004) Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 133–141. Soja EW (2000) Thirdspace Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Blackwell. Thoneick R (2021) Integrating online and onsite participation in urban planning: assessment of a digital participation system. International Journal of E-Planning Research 10(1): 1–20. Tyrva ¨inen L, Ma ¨kinen K and Schipperijn J (2007) Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 79(1): 5–19. Van der Wal Z, Nabatchi T and De Graaf G (2015) From galaxies to universe: A crossdisciplinary review and analysis of public values publications from 1969 to 2012. American Review of Public Administration 45(1): 13–28. Visser FS, Stappers PJ, van der Lugt R, et al. (2005) Contextmapping: experiences from practice. International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 1(2): 119–149. Von Der Dunk A, Greˆ t-Regamey A, Dalang T, et al. (2011) Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts – A case study from Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 101(2): 149–156. Walzer M (1983) Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York, NY: Basic books. 1344 Urban Studies 61(7)