Everyday Urbanity

Project description

When developing urban settlements we do not start with a clean sheet but need to proceed on terms of the existing and continuously changing city. Parts of an agglomeration need to be seen as everyday life settings, which different user groups have a particular relation with. This relation is built through the usage of the areas, by moving in and passing through certain places, by using services etc. The Everyday Urbanity -project clang to this relation with the help of existing data sources in transport and mobility research as well as with new data that was acquired through the softGIS-questionnaires. Here the softGIS-method was used to study urban ways of life, while maintaining the connection with built environment and settlement structure.

The project had three themes: 1) smooth, 2) diverse and 3) healthy everyday life. The first one was about the conditions of everyday mobility and service usage. Here we  also identified certain user profiles within the studied areas. The second theme referred to the need to base the development of existing settlements on rich information on and by the inhabitants of the area, the users of the environments. This part was realized in close cooperation with concrete planning projects to ensure the usefulness of the results. The third theme advanced the ongoing discussion about the possibilities to promote healthy life with planning solutions that encourage personal mobility. Each of the three themes related to a pair of pilot areas.

In the cities of Helsinki and Tampere we studied the smoothness of everyday mobility. In  Kuninkaankolmio in Helsinki metropolitan area we studied the participants perspectives in a area under development concentrating e.g.  on the use of inter-municipal services. Finally, in cities of Kauhajoki (Finland) and Bendigo (Australia) we studied the perspective of children and young people to the health promotive everyday life.

Research themes

Active living and urban lifestyles

Participatory planning

Child and age-friendly environments

Project details

  • Start date:
    January 1, 2011
  • End date:
    December 31, 2012
  • Location:
    Helsinki, Tampere, Kuninkaankolmio, Kauhajoki, Bendigo
  • Funded by:
    TEKES (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation)
  • Objectives:

Project contact

Marketta Kyttä

Team members

  • Kaisa Schmidt-Thome
  • Hanna Kalenoja
  • Anna Broberg
  • Mohammad Haybatollahi
  • Tiina Laatikainen

Participating partners

Michal Czepkiewicz

University of Iceland

Sirkku Wallin

Aalto University

Jonna Kangasoja

Aalto University

Julie Rudner

La Trobe University

Greg Brown

University of Queensland

Maria Salonen

University of Helsinki

Tuuli Toivonen

University of Helsinki

Related publications

Hasanzadeh K., Kyttä, M., & Brown, G. (2019). Beyond housing preferences: Urban structure and actualisation of residential area preferences. Urban Science, 3, 1-17. doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010021

Salonen, M., Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., & Toivonen, T. (2014). Do suburban residents prefer the fastest or low-carbon travel modes? Combining public participation GIS and multimodal travel time analysis for daily mobility research.  Applied Geography, 53, 438–448. doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.028

Schmidt-Thomé, K., Haybatollahi, M., Kyttä, M., & Korpi, J. (2013). The environmental prospects of urban densification in the light of place-based data from the residents of Kuninkaankolmio. Environment Research Letters, 8, 1-11. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025020

Schmidt-Thome, K., Wallin, S., Laatikainen, T., Kangasoja, J. & Kyttä, M. (2014). Exploring the use of PPGIS in self-organizing urban development: Case softGIS in Pacific Beach. Journal of Community Informatics, 10(3). beautifulpb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the-journal-of-community-informatics.pdf

Haybatollahi, M., Czepkiewicz, M., Laatikainen, T., & Kyttä, M. (2015). Neighbourhood preferences, active travel behaviour, and built environment: An exploratory study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 29, 57–69. doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.01.001

Participatory Mapping Institute
Copyright 2020