Identifying the merits of bottom-up urban development: theory-based evaluation using a value map model

Figures & data

Figure 1. Analytical model to capture the values created by bottom-up urban development initiatives.

Figure 2. Hypothetical impact pathway of bottom-up urban development initiatives.

Figure 3. Case 1 and subcases 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 in Rotterdam.

Figure 4. Case 2 and subcases 2.1 and 2.2 in Utrecht (subcase 2.3, Vriendinnen van Cartesius, is not physically located in WSK).

Table 1. Combined output-map of subcases 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 (i.e. physical developments).

Types of values		Outputs generated by subcases 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2
		Which values?	Valued by whom? Beneficiary? Public or private value?
Economic values		Lease incomes on formerly unused land (subcase 2.2) or buildings (subcases 1.2 + 2.1) and economic values of newly erected real estate (subcases 1.1 + 2.2) or refurbishment of real estate (subcases 1.2 + 2.1).	Property owners. Private value or public value in case of municipal property.
		Revenues generated by tenants (subcases 1.2 + 2.1 + 2.2).	Tenants of the initiatives. Private value.
Socio-economic values		Use value by new use of former wasteland (subcases 1.1 + 2.2) or unused buildings (subcases 1.2 + 2.1) and an intensified usage of urban space (also a socio-spatial value).	Property owners, new users and society in general. Private & public value.
		New, local concentrations of creative industry employment and businesses (subcases 1.2 + 2.1 + 2.2) and new, local socio-economic networks (all subcases).	Authorities aiming to stimulate the local economy. Public value.
		New companies with a public function: Buurman Rotterdam and Buurman Utrecht (subcases 1.2 + 2.2).	Local society and the initiatives themselves. Public & private value.
Social values	Socio-spatial values	New, affordable, inner-city workspaces for small, creative entrepreneurs (also a socio-economic value) (subcases 1.2 + 2.1 + 2.2).	Tenants of spaces at the initiatives. Private value.
		New public amenities: (semi-)public spaces for meeting, interacting, enjoying greenery (subcases 1.1 + 2.2) or enjoying art, culture and having drinks (subcase 2.1).	Local society. Public value.
		Improved spatial qualities by physical developments (all subcases) and more local greenery (subcases 1.1 + 2.2).	Authorities, users of the areas, local society. Public value.
		New, local (creative) communities with a strong sense of collectivity and commitment to the areas in which they are active (all subcases).	Community members and authorities aiming redevelopment of the areas. Private and public value.
	General social values	Places where people with, e.g. personal issues can do volunteer work (subcases 1.1 + 2.2).	Volunteers and the initiatives themselves. Private value.
		Provision of fresh vegetables and fruits for the local Foodbank (subcase 1.1).	Clients of the local Foodbank. Private value.
		Diverse contributions to educational programs (subcases 1.1 + 1.2 + 2.2).	Educational institutions and students. Public value.
	Socio-cultural values	Socio-cultural programming (all subcases).	Local society. Public value.
Socio-environmental values		Leading examples of urban sustainability and socio-technological innovation; living labs (subcases 1.1 + 1.2 + 2.2).	Society in general. Public value.
		New knowledge and expertise on sustainability, e.g. on circular building (subcase 2.2) or climate-adaptivity (subcases 1.1 + 2.2).	Society in general. Public value.
Environmental values		Diverse sustainability gains, e.g. by the re-use of discarded materials (subcases 1.2 + 2.1 + 2.2) or local food production (subcase 1.1).	Society in general. Public value.

Table 2. Combined output-map of subcases 1.3 and 2.3 (i.e. non-physical developments).

Types of values		Outputs generated by subcases 1.3 and 2.3
		Which values?	Valued by whom? Beneficiary? Public or private value?
Socio-economic values		New intermediates between local authorities, local businesses, entrepreneurs and society (both subcases).	Authorities, local businesses, local society. Public value.
		New, local (socio-economic) networks (both subcases).	Authorities, local businesses, local society. Public value.
Social values	General social values	Various encounters and interactions between stakeholders, users of the area and others (both subcases).	Local society. Public value.
		Provision of information, e.g. by newsletters and network meetings; accessibility of information (subcase 2.3).	Authorities, local businesses, local society. Public value.
		Knowledge spillovers and creation of new knowledge, e.g. by expositions and debates (subcase 1.3).	Local society. Public value.
	Socio-cultural values	Socio-cultural programming (subcase 1.3, to lesser extent subcase 2.3).	Local society. Public value.
	Socio-spatial values	Facilitation of the public debate on the development of M4H (subcase 1.3)	Authorities, local businesses, local society. Public value.

Table 3. Combined outcome-map of all subcases.

Types of values		Outcomes of all subcases
		Which values?	Valued by whom? Beneficiary? Public value or private value?
Socio-economic values		Diverse encounters, interactions and knowledge spillovers between those involved in the bottom-up initiatives and others, leading to new ideas, opportunities, collaborations, resource-sharing, experiments.	Diverse actors and authorities aiming to stimulate the local economy and redevelopment of the areas. Private and public value.
Social values	General social values	Volunteers with personal issues thriving by doing voluntary work (effect of subcases 1.1 + 2.2 only).	Volunteers. Private value.
	Socio-spatial values	Increase of activity, interaction, liveliness and social safety in the areas.	Authorities and users of the areas. Public value.
		Various innovation prizes (effect of subcases 1.1 + 2.2 only), increased media-attention and the areas becoming more well-known and gaining a positive reputation.	Prizewinning initiatives, authorities, users of the areas. Private and public value.
		Attraction of new and more diverse actors to the areas.	Authorities, users of the areas and local society. Public value.
		Change in place-identity and attractiveness of the areas and a change in functionalities/mental conceptions of the areas.	Authorities, users of the areas and local society. Public value.
Socio-environmental values		Others in WSK adopting the sustainability (i.e. circularity) approaches of subcase 2.2 (effect of subcase 2.2).	Society in general. Public value.

Table 4. Combined impact-map of all subcases.

Types of values		Impacts of all subcases
		Which values?	Valued by whom? Beneficiary? Public value of private value?
Economic values		Increased exchange value of lands and buildings in the areas and the vicinity of the areas.	Property owners. Private value or public value in case of municipal property.
Socio-economic values		A positive influence on the settlement of new actors in the areas.	Authorities aiming to stimulate the local economy and redevelopment of the areas. Public value.
Social values	General social values	Increase of well-being/health of actors with personal issues due to voluntary work (impact of subcases 1.1 + 2.2 only).	Volunteers and society in general. Private and public value.
	Socio-spatial values	An acceleration of, and influence on the directions of the further spatial development of the areas (WSK and M4H).	Authorities, local society. Public value.
		Broad appreciation of the created values, leading to influences on municipal policies regarding the redevelopments (of M4H and WSK) and other, broader spatial policies. Mostly aimed at retaining or reproducing values.	Authorities aiming further development of the areas, users of areas and specific groups of actors (e.g. creatives). Public value.
		Innovations in urban development, e.g. new collaborations or organizations aiming to facilitate area-wide developments or new financing methods (e.g. revolving fund called Stadmakersfonds).	Stakeholders in, and users of the areas and authorities. Public value.
Socio-environmental values		Increased attention for circularity (effect of subcase 2.2).	Society in general. Public value.

Figure 5. Empirical impact pathways.