124 Santos, B. d. S., Meneses, M. P. G., & Nunes, J. A. (2004). Introdução: para ampliar o cânone da ciência: a diversidade epistemológica do mundo. Semear outras soluções: os caminhos da biodiversidade e dos conhecimentos rivais. Porto: Afrontamento, 19-101. Smith, L. T. (2013). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples: Zed Books Ltd. Souza, M. L. d. (2006). Together with the state, despite the state, against the state: social movements as “critical urban planning” agents. City, 10(3), 327-342. Souza, M. L. d. (2011). Da “diferenciação de áreas” à “diferenciação socioespacial”: a “visão (apenas) de sobrevôo” como uma tradição epistemológica e metodológica limitante. Cidades, 4(6). Souza, M. L. d. (2012). Ação direta e luta institucional: complementaridade ou antítese. Lastro. Vainer, C. (2014). The coloniality of urban knowledge and city models. In S. Parnell & S. Oldfield (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook on Cities of the Global South (pp. 48-56). London and New York: Routledge. ID 1465 | THE PRAXIS OF CREATING LEITBILDER (GUIDING VISIONS) FOR SPATIAL PLANNING PROJECTS IN METROPOLITAN ZURICH Celina Martinez-Cañavate 1 1 University of Liechtenstein, Institute of Architecture and Planning Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse celina.martinez@uni.li 1 INTRODUCTION When we think about the future, we automatically conjure up images in our minds. These images can and will shape our future actions. Visions of the future are closely linked to the particular ideals held by each individual and must be seen as closely linked to the associated current technological possibilities (Foraita 2013). Visions of the future also arise with respect to the spatial development of regions and cities. Since the 1950s, visions of how cities and regions should further evolve have increasingly been defined by public-sector experts on architecture and spatial planning, and then documented in so-called Leitbilder (Giesel 2007). 1.1 THE CHANGING MEANING AND FUNCTION OF LEITBILDER The use of the term Leitbild is on the rise. In the German-speaking world, it has in recent decades been increasingly discussed in the context of spatial planning. Even though the debates among professionals about visions of what should constitute a city had already begun as the discipline of urban design was first taking shape in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the concept of a Leitbild did not achieve currency until later. According to Kuder (2002) and Naegler (2003), there are two generations of Leitbilder: The first generation of Leitbilder was shaped in the 1940s by the post-war era and did not enter the planning profession until later, in the 1950s. At the time, Leitbilder were virtually equated with the dictatorial past and its authoritarian control mechanisms, from which one distanced oneself a few years later. For a long time, what resulted was criticism that Leitbilder have “a faint military tone” (Adorno, 1967, p. 7) and serve to enable strong figures to assert subjective political vested interests in a democratically constituted but repressively structured age. The second generation of Leitbilder arose mainly when faced with the demands for participation made by a large number of actors and the resulting increase in complexity. Initial attempts were then undertaken to use Leitbilder as a strategic planning tool. This so-called renaissance of Leitbilder in the early 1980s can be explained by the shift to open planning processes, in which a problem- oriented and pragmatic approach was sought. Literature research shows that the constantly recurring discussion about Leitbilder originates from a mixture of global developments and from local options and constraints: At the centre of the disputes are different interpretations and understandings of the term Leitbild, which elicit imprecision and contradictions. First and foremost, a theoretical debate about Leitbilder in spatial planning takes place in Germany (Engelhardt, 1975; Giesel 2007; Knieling 2000; Kuder 2002; Lendi 1995; Naegler 2003; Sieverts 1998; Streich). But in Switzerland, too, the Leitbild is a topic of growing interest. mailto:celina.martinez@uni.li 125 1.2 LEITBILDER IN SWISS PLANNING DISCOURSE Switzerland has been experiencing rapid development of settlements for decades, and this growth has further accelerated in recent years. Whereas the settlement areas expanded nationally by 13 km² per year in the period 1980–2002, to more than 2000 km², this value doubled to 27 km² per year in the period 2002–2008, yielding a settlement area of more than 2500 km² (Müller-Jentsch, Rühli, 2010, p. 3). Due to its high population density (198 inhabitants per km²) and the extreme topography (half of the country is not amenable to settlement), Switzerland has a special need for effective spatial planning. In 1979, the first building law on spatial planning was formulated, thus increasing pressure on the cantons and municipalities regarding sustainable development of urban areas and settlement in general. The objectives additionally formulated in May 2014 in Article 1 of the Spatial Planning Act (Raumplanungsgesetz; RPG), namely “to direct settlement development inward, with due regard to an adequate quality of living” and “to create compact settlements” (Bundesrat Schweiz, 2014) poses new challenges in this regard for those responsible. Entire city districts are being newly built, and some neighbourhoods are experiencing perceptible densification. More and more people are increasingly using the public realm more intensively. This can lead to conflicts: Different ideals and utilization demands collide with one another. Swiss spatial planning entails various procedural steps for spatial development and has diverse instruments to manage it: Leitbilder are among the ‘informal’ regulatory planning tools that are primarily used at the beginning of any spatial development. They are ‘informal’ in the sense that they are not regulated by law in an obligatory, legally binding way – although in most cases, as will be seen later, they possess a certain binding character. They aid in pursuing spatial and urban development policies as network policy, act as a mediator between specialist departments, public authorities, and other actors, and act primarily as the basis for other, more binding planning steps, such as the cantonal structure plan. An initial investigation of metropolitan Zurich shows that the number of Leitbilder that have been created has increased since Article 4 of the Spatial Planning Act was implemented: The production of Leitbilder has, for example, consistently increased in the last 20 years (1996–2016) (fig. 1). Article 4 requires that “those public authorities who are entrusted with planning tasks […] [must] instruct the populace about the goals and course of the planning” and ensure that “[the populace] can contribute appropriately to the planning” (Bundesrat Schweiz, 1979). Figure 1: Development in the creation of Leitbilder in metropolitan Zurich (Quantity/Year) In Switzerland, the theoretical debate on Leitbilder is limited. As a research topic, the Leitbild praxis was first examined in 1970 by the Institute for Local, Regional, and National Planning at the ETH (Schweizer Nationalfonds, 1970). The focus was on the substantive identification of thematic priorities within the compilation of Leitbilder by means of examining six case studies. Nearly 20 years later, Koch (1988) contributed to the urban development discussion by examining the Swiss Leitbilder of the modernist period from 1918 to 1939. In the following years, no one dealt with Leitbilder within a theoretical context. Instead, in the mid-1990s the first brochures were made with instructions and assistance for compiling Leitbilder (Gerber, Michel, 1995; Amt für Raumentwicklung Kanton Uri, 2012). With a focus on the Leitbild as an instrument of spatial planning, they formulate fundamental principles and measures for the treatment of various topics. It is only in recent years that the discussion about Leitbilder in Switzerland seems to again be gaining interest: At the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), for instance, a research group has studied the planning method of ‘Leitbilder for urban neighbourhood development’ (Institut für Urban Landscape ZHAW, 2012). On the basis of investigations and case studies, the group developed a planning method that combines interdisciplinary content such as urbanism, planning theory, planning procedures, and participation procedures. The study resulted in a vade mecum, a guide for compiling spatial Leitbilder that is intended to support the authorities and technical planners in their work with Leitbilder (Institut für Urban Landscape ZHAW 2016). 126 On the terminology of spatial Leitbilder in the Swiss context and their transformation over the last 100 years, Martinez (2015) provides in-depth insight. The investigation shows that the development in the importance of Leitbilder and the process of creating them, which began in the 1990s, continues to have its effects even today. For example, Leitbilder are no longer understood solely as a visual representation of a targeted order. Rather, the process that is meant to lead to consensus in selected topic areas is itself the main focus. As an instrument for design and communication, Leitbilder have adopted many forms in recent years. However, they almost always consist of three components: (1) the Leitbild process, (2) the Leitbild in words and/or images as the product of this process, and (3) the subsequent concretization (Knieling, 2000, p. 8). This paper is based exclusively on the product – the “Leitbild document”, and on its contents and formats. 2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND RESEARCH DESIGN The topic of Leitbilder is by no means uncontroversial, and is in fact controversially discussed in debates on planning theory and social science and in praxis-related spatial planning discourses. Advocates point out that, contrary to earlier times, Leitbilder are no longer static or pictorial and have lost their normative character. Others voice the opinion that Leitbilder are empty formulas that hinder the implementation of planning. The aim of this study is to build a bridge between the theoretical backgrounds of Leitbilder and their concrete applications in praxis. The content analysis of the Leitbild documents, conducted within a theoretical framework, is intended to provide insight into the Leitbild praxis experienced in the Swiss context by considering the following questions: a) Function of Leitbilder: What functions are assigned to Leitbilder in today’s planning praxis? b) Binding character of Leitbilder: What tendencies can be observed in the implementation of Leitbilder? c) Contributions to the Leitbild procedures: What levels of participation can be discerned in Leitbild processes? d) Pictorial language in Leitbilder: What importance do images have in Leitbild documents? And what are the discernible tendencies regarding the type of images and their application? The investigation focuses on metropolitan Zurich. Within this geographic boundary, the case studies were selected according to the following parameters: (1) the examples are to be understood as Leitbilder (as processes and concepts that serve to formulate future spatial developments, which are not legally binding, and which are based on the consensus of a group of people), (2) they can be viewed online, and (3) they were developed during the time frame 1996–2016. The sample contains 50 Leitbild documents. The methodological approach employed here was a summarizing and structuring content analysis as outlined by Mayring (2000): In a first step, evaluation aspects that have been fixed through a reductive process and are theoretically substantiated were applied to the material, in order to ultimately assign, in a second analysis step, the deductively obtained categories in a methodologically sound way. In a third step, the selected Leitbild documents were scrutinized for their suitability with respect to the research question. The case studies that were classified as suitable were recorded using the MAXQDA analysis tool (software for computer-aided qualitative and quantitative data and text analysis) and separated into three time frames (Z1/1996–2002; Z2/2003–2009; Z3/2010–2016). This enables a precise investigation of development trends. In a fourth step, sections of text about a specific topic were assigned to a parent category that serves as the basis for the coding of further differentiations and the structuring of specific groups. Finally, in a fifth and last step these groups were compared within the three time frames (Z1; Z2; Z3) and tendencies were extracted. 3 TENDENCIES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF LEITBILDER IN PRAXIS The initial analyses and the findings thus obtained are explained below. The examinations are based on a theoretical framework that serves as an introduction to the individual topics. 127 3.1 FUNCTIONS OF LEITBILDER Leitbilder are assigned various functions. The first element that should also be mentioned, which is solely attributed to Leitbilder, is the utopian moment. In Leitbilder, Engelhardt sees “[…] a pioneering and practicable category of utopias geared to positive action” (Engelhardt 1972, p. 169). Streich (1986), by contrast, ascribes normative properties to Leitbilder. He sees their role in the formulation of comprehensive, consolidated, and visually comprehensible target concepts that represent a framework that provides guidance for decisions and evokes sufficiently concrete mental images. He also attributes a kind of quality assurance and control to Leitbilder. After a concrete implementation of planning goals, the Leitbild can, as a superordinate reference system, take over the the task of checking the achievement of goals (ibid.). At the end of the 1990s, Becker observed that Leitbilder are based much more on cooperative and consensus-oriented processes, and that they comprise formulated objectives and principles of action (Becker, 1998). Knieling (2000), too, sees Leitbild processes as procedural components that serve as the basis for further planning steps. In a communicative and open planning process that relies on cooperation among the actors, Leitbilder contribute to the coordination of the collective action (ibid., p. 215). The consensus building takes place not only within the planning team but also beyond it, by involving the public. In this sense, the Leitbild is also an indispensable communication tool for dialogue between the world of politics, administrative authorities, and citizens. (Sieverts 1998, p. 21; Gerber 1995, p. 481). In addition to fulfilling the functions of guidance and communication, one of the tasks of Leitbilder is to provide motivation, since they “[…] [are able] to stimulate engagement and motivate to action” (Kahlenborn, 1995, p. 18). Lastly, Knieling (2000) attributes the functions of reflection, innovation, and marketing to Leitbild processes. On the question of what functions are assigned to Leitbilder in today’s Swiss planning practice, an inductive content analysis was conducted on the topics of function, goal (operational, not substantive) and purpose. In the 50 case studies examined, all but one author assigned functions to the Leitbild: The analysis shows that in the first time frame (Z1/1996–2002), the normative functions of Leitbilder were predominant (fig. 2). Thus all the Leitbilder (100%) from Z1 were assigned the task of providing guidelines (governing parameters): “With these Leitbilder, additional governing parameters are to be created […]” (Bezirk Einsiedeln, 1996, p. 6). And: “Urban design principles [point] the way for further planning and realization” (Amt für Städtebau Stadt Zürich, 2000, p. 3). Moreover, in three-quarters (75%) of these case studies, the role of serving as the basis (procedural component) for other planning steps is assigned to the Leitbild: “With the goal of maintaining and improving the attractiveness of the old quarter of Wil, the municipal council has […] commissioned the elaboration of appropriate basic principles and governing parameters” (Stadt Wil, 1998, p. 3). And: “With the Leitbild, the intention is to define general basic principles for planning and building development in the perimeter area […]” (Bezirk Einsiedeln, 1996, p. 6). Although these functions were also regarded as important (35–60%) in two other time frames (Z2 and Z3), guidance and direction attained more importance (about 90–100%) as a task of Leitbilder: “These are the values to be striven for. The concepts that one may never reach, but which can give one orientation” (Gemeinde Zollikon , 2008, p. 13). And: “The Leitbild offers guidance and provides evaluation criteria for future construction projects” (Stadt Zürich, 2011, p. 2). Communication as a function of Leitbilder is only given attention (almost 30%) in the third time frame (Z3): “[The development concept] is, however, also to be understood as a process and thus as a tool for dialogue” (Gemeinde Wetzikon, 2010, p. 4). And: “As used, the Leitbild should serve as a means of communication and as a basis for the planning and construction standards of the resident community of Cham” (Einwohnergemeinde Cham, 2011, p. 2011). The functions that imply the cooperation of people (coordination, process orientation, cooperation) are only attributed to a small portion of the Leitbilder (around 10–15%). They first appear in the time from 2003 to 2016 and express themselves, inter alia, as follows: “[The Leitbild serves to] find consensual solutions, and to involve citizens in the planning process from the outset” (Stadt Bülach, 2004, p. 4). And:”[The goal of the spatial development concept] is […] to coordinate and reconcile the main priorities of urban design, open space, and transport” (Gemeinde Wetzikon, 2010, p. 4). Lastly, the function of promoting identity is attributed to the compilation of Leitbilder in two cases (6%): “[The Leitbild] should create a positive image and become a source of identity” (Amt für Städtebau Stadt Zürich, 2012, p. 3). And: “The participatory process [of creating a Leitbild] supports the culture of togetherness and leads to identification” (Stadt Brugg and Gemeinde Windisch, 2014, p. 10). 128 Figure 2: Functions of Leitbilder, as share of codings (%) per time period. 3.2 THE BINDING CHARACTER AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LEITBILDER Leitbilder are often criticized for the growing discrepancy between vision, planning, and implementation (Burckhardt 1980). According to Streich (1988, p. 73), however, Leitbilder serve the implementation of planning, meaning they provide control and guidance for deriving concrete goals in subsequent planning processes. Hence the implementation of Leitbilder is equated with control and guidance. Dierkes et al. (1992), by contrast, shift the main focus of consideration from aiding control and guidance – for the architectural or spatial-structural implementation of the substantive contents of the Leitbild, for example – to the creative development process for the substantive contents of the Leitbild. For them, the implementation of the Leitbild lies in the process itself. Thus the degree of binding force depends in no small way on the goals formulated in the Leitbild. According to Gruber (1995), a binding character is needed more for generally formulated development goals and concepts than for action guidelines. While the former explicitly establishes a target–means relationship (Lendi, 1995, p. 625 and Knieling, 2000, p. 29), the flexibility to act with regard to problems and situations is more important for the latter. Weeber et al. (1985), too, move away from the definition of a Leitbild as a single, generally applicable concept and speak of Leitbilder (in the plural) as scenarios for spatial developments that exist in parallel. The question of what models can be identified for the practical implementation of Leitbilder was examined on the basis of the codings implementation/measures/basis/binding character (fig. 3). The investigation showed that a first group (U1) conceives the implementation of Leitbilder by means of concepts and plans that simultaneously serve to verify if the goals have been achieved. In all the time frames (Z1–Z3), this group is represented most frequently (70–100%) and entails comments like these: “The evaluation of future building permit applications in the area covered by the Leitbild takes place at the municipal level in accordance with the provisions and recommendations in the enacted Leitbilder” (Bezirk Einsiedeln, 1996, p. 66). And: “[…] the Leitbild [serves] as the basis for the pending revision of the regional structure plan and as a basis for evaluating the proposed revision […]” (Planung Limmattal, 2007, p. 2). A second group (U2), which conceives implementation as the setting of goals within Leitbild processes, has the lowest representation with approximately 6–7% in the time frames Z2 and Z3. Here, immediate implementation does not seem to be expected. Rather, the process is the focus of the procedure, as attested by the following statements:: “In five workshops between April and October 2010, the community of interest […] has dealt with questions of urban development. The results of the process are visions of the future and sketches dealing with specific subjects and spaces […]”(G RUV, 2010, p. 1). And: “[…] the group [elaborated on] the goals and subgoals for the most important issues and developed ideas for measures and problem-solving approaches […]” (Gemeinde Zollikon, 2008, p. 4). Finally, in a third group (U3), both of the above-mentioned implementation models (U1 + U2) are combined in one procedure: This group mainly gains importance (23%) in the third time frame (Z3). In this case, the Leitbild creation process includes studies and test planning in which the positive aspects of several scenarios are brought together in one Leitbild, as illustrated by the following quotes: “Together, [we have] continued the initiated cooperative planning process […] and conducted the test plan ‘Leutschenbach- Mitte’, whose synthesis is used as the basis for the new Leitbild. It sets the stage […]” (Amt für Städtebau der Stadt Zürich, 2012, p. 2). And: “Based on the input from the populace and the spatial planning 129 analysis, […] a thesis paper with objectives […] was developed” (Stadt Brugg and Gemeinde Windisch, 2014, p. 4). Figure 3: Tendencies in the implementation of Leitbilder, as share of codings (%) per time period 3.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CREATION OF LEITBILDER Sieverts (1998) sees the spatial Leitbild as a kind of ‘agora’ that can engender democratic participation in politics. In the complex undertaking of spatial planning, he thus ascribes a political nature to Leitbilder and sees their task as indispensable in fostering an understanding of correlating actions and objectives (Sieverts, in: Becker, Jessen, Sander, 1998, p. 21). In Switzerland, Leitbilder are employed at various planning levels: They vary from closed to open procedures. Some are developed by an expert team working without public involvement, whereas others are based on a participatory process where involvement of the populace is at the centre of that process. However, participation can be implemented in different stages: In his multi-stage model, Selle (1996) distinguishes among four levels that build on each other: (1) information for and consultation with those involved (in the process), (2) information for the general public through democratization of the planning, (3) a participation procedure to stimulate motivation and the mobilization of endogenous potential, and (4) cooperation, meaning collective problem handling through synergy effects. Cooperation as the last stage entails a shift of the decision-making process, moving it from within the political-administrative system to the outside, where it is designed by numerous actors. When considering participation procedures in Swiss planning processes, it is important to remember that the choice of the form and means used to disseminate information and foster participation is at the discretion of the planning authority. The principle anchored in Article 4 of the Spatial Planning Act (1979) – “those public authorities who are entrusted with planning tasks must inform the populace about the goals and course of the planning” and ensure that they “[…] can contribute appropriately to the planning” – is interpreted variously. That is because the term “appropriately” leaves open to a large degree both the practical implementation of participation procedures and the degree of participation. In order to explore the tendencies of participation procedures in the planning praxis within metropolitan Zurich, a content analysis was undertaken with the following coding: Information/contribution/cooperation/participation/workshop. The results of the investigation (fig. 4) reveal that a first group of Leitbild documents (25–33%) contain no statements about participation procedures (M1). Time frame Z1 is characterized primarily (50%) by Leitbilder that were developed and concluded with contributions from landowners (M2) and can be recognized by statements like the following: “The affected landowners […] were informed by the building authority about the process of developing the Leitbild; they had the opportunity to submit proposals for creation of the Leitbild” (Bezirk Einsiedeln, 1996, p. 42). And: “The landowners concerned had the opportunity […] to submit proposals […] that [were] taken into account in the pertinent Leitbilder” (Bezirk Einsiedeln, 1996, p. 5). The landowner-oriented procedures are hardly present (0.03–0.07%) in the following years (Z2 and Z3) and are replaced (29–33%) by self-contained participation procedures conducted among communities of interest (M3): “The work has been supported by a broadly assembled supporting group, in which the parties, the neighbourhood and local associations, and various interest groups were represented” (Stadt Frauenfeld, 2008, p. 5). And: “Around 40 stakeholder representatives participated in […] the two workshops. Remarks, ideas, and feedback were gathered about development scenarios for Wollishofen […]” (Amt für Städtebau der Stadt Zürich, 2011, p. 4). Distinct tendencies are observable in time frames Z2 and Z3, in which Leitbilder are used as a basis for contributory participation (M4) and therefore the notification and the call for participation are announced in the document itself (7–20%): “With this in mind, I invite you to participate in the planning process, to partake in the discussion and in the decision-making. Share with us your wishes and suggestions for urban 130 development”(Stadt Luzern, 2007, p. 11). And: “Now, as citizens it is your turn: take part and contribute. Identify the things important to you [and] also any objections.” (Gemeinde Beromünster, 2014, p. 7). On the other hand, a clear trend in Leitbilder can be observed, in which the participation procedures play an important part in the whole process and are therefore already documented in the Leitbild itself or in a supplementary report (M5): “The results of both participation procedures were summarized in two contribution reports […]” (Stadt Luzern, 2008, p. 7). And: “The team from the ETH led the workshops, prepared them, followed them up, and continually documented the results in this project manual” (ETH Professur für Architektur und Städtebau Christiaanse, 2014, p. 7. Figure 4: Tendencies of participation procedures in the creation of Leitbilder, as share of codings (%) per time period. 3.4 PICTORIAL LANGUAGE IN LEITBILDER In the process of designing Leitbilder, textual and visual components interact. Images, as conveyors of knowledge, have the potential to transform information and insights into a form accessible to the senses and thus to present complex topics in a simplified way (Dierkes, Marz, Hofmann 1992; Schuck-Wersig et al. 2014). Yet images also contain codes that are frequently hard for laypeople to decipher, especially when they are abstract and symbolic (Ballstead 1996). When using maps and plans as a means of communication, for example, it can be observed that it is often very difficult for laypeople to decipher (decode) the information, meaning to transfer it to their own world of experience (Rambow 2004; Wissen 2009). Especially when it comes to communicating contributions of spatial planning developments, images are an important means of understanding. These can be fundamentally distinguished as follows: those that portray the existing condition and thus aid the analysis, and those that also portray objectives, strategies, and targeted measures, that is, planning and draft planning. Part of this final analysis is a consideration of how important images are in the Leitbild documents and what pictorial language is employed for understanding the content. The investigation of the relationship between text and image reveals that particularly the Leitbilder that were created early-on (Z1) are text-heavy (fig. 5); the documents consist (in terms of graphic space) of about three-quarters text (72%) and roughly one quarter images (28%). In subsequent years the ratio levels out, such that documents from the time frame Z3 already consist of 42% images. Upon investigation of the types of images and their importance in Leitbild documents, the following can be discerned (fig. 5): Over the entire period of examination (Z1–Z3) and beyond, 2D plans and photographs are the two types of images used most widely. Especially in Z1, they account for the largest share, with 91%. The other types of images (3D visualizations, tables/diagrams, sketched depictions, and photographs that document participation processes in Leitbild developments) first gain importance beginning in Z2 and Z3. Figure 5: Types of images and graphic share (%) in Leitbild documents 131 4 CONCLUSION The integration and function of Leitbilder in the planning structure is largely discussed at the theoretical level. Nevertheless, the praxis involving them is not fully understood because due to their informal character, Leitbilder are used in diverse ways. The theory-based content analysis aims to extract tendencies in the Leitbild praxis by examining case studies in metropolitan Zurich. The investigation of the functions of Leitbilder shows that the authors primarily assign a normative character to them and view the Leitbilder as guidelines for action that serve as the basis for further planning steps. Leitbilder are also awarded the task of guidance and quality assurance in multi-stage procedures. Statements on the role of the Leitbild as a medium of communication in cooperative processes are rather rare. This is also reflected in the praxis of implementing Leitbilder, where three tendencies (U1/U2/U3) stand out: U1: In most cases, the planners equate the implementation of Leitbilder with the creation of concepts and plans. This serves to verify if the goals of the formulated fundamental principles have been achieved in the subsequent implementation. U2: Leitbild procedures that are understood only as a process for setting goals for spatial development are extremely rare. And nevertheless, it can be observed that such procedures are increasingly understood as supplemental to U1. U3: In this spirit, a new model emerges of a Leitbild consisting of two parts: a normative part and a processual part. Most Leitbilder are referred characterized as binding for the authorities, which admittedly facilitates their implementation. However, if other legally binding instruments apply – such as a structure plan – Leitbilder lose their distinctive profile vis-à-vis these planning instrument, although theoretically they would clearly be distinguishable. Leitbilder could still be seen much more in a complementary relationship with other planning instruments such as concepts, plans, or programs: While they are increasingly deemed to have a normative content with defined guidelines, the elaboration of scenarios is value neutral, inasmuch as they only portray the various possibilities for future development. Finally, Leitbilder have the potential to create a framework that is comprehensible for all stakeholders, within which a discussion about the future of the built environment can take place. Whether in expert circles or participation procedures: Leitbilder serve as instruments for coordination and communication and can aid in the search for future prospects, ideals, and a high-quality living environment for the consensus of all those involved. Yet this possibility has not yet been fully exploited. The following tendencies can be discerned in the implementation of participation procedures: M1: About one third of the Leitbilder were developed inside the planning authorities and without public involvement. M2: Especially in the first years (Z1), Leitbilder are developed with the involvement of the landowners. M3: Most Leitbilder are developed in the presence of various interest groups, in which, for the most part, members of the local population are represented as a group. These participation procedures commonly take place at the beginning of Leitbild processes and regularly include organized workshops within more or less closed circles. Not until the end of the process is the final Leitbild (document) presented to the public at large and adopted by a legislative consultation process. M4: In a few solitary case studies, an intention to involve the public in the planning processes is solely declared. In such cases, the Leitbild document forms the basis for discussion. M5: And lastly: within Leitbild processes, a tendency can be discerned in which the contributions are at the core of the idea finding. In such cases, the Leitbilder document the participation procedures and outcomes. Lastly, the investigation of the pictorial language of Leitbilder reveals that the development tends to shift from technical/planning-related portrayals to visual/spatial (3D) depictions and diagrams. This enables laypeople to develop a better understanding of future spatial scenarios and thus creates the basis for communication, on a level playing field, between experts and the public. Among the conflicting priorities of environment, society, and politics, the Leitbild, as an informal instrument, seems to have assumed an important place in the Swiss planning praxis. Spatial planning is influenced from two sides. On the one side, by overarching legal provisions and planning goals at the federal, cantonal, and regional levels, and on the other side, by the concerns, desires, and ideas of the affected population. Here, the compilation of a Leitbild can enable the establishment of an initial basis for defining common goals. 132 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES Adorno, Th. W. (1967). Ohne Leitbild. Parva Aesthetica. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Amt für Raumentwicklung Kanton Uri. (2012). Arbeitshilfe Siedlungsleitbild. Retrieved from http://www.unterschaechen.ch. Müller-Jentsch D., & Rühli, L. (2010). Raumplanung zwischen Vorgabe und Vollzug: Inventar der kantonalen Instrumente zur Siedlungssteuerung. Zurich: Avenir Suisse. Becker, H., Jessen, J., & Sander, R. (Eds.) (1998). Ohne Leitbild: Städtebau in Deutschland und Europa. Stuttgart, Zurich. Ballstaedt, St-P. (2011). Visualisieren: Bilder in wissenschaftlichen Texten. Stuttgart: UTB. Burckhardt, L. (1980). Wer plant die Planung? Architektur, Politik und Mensch. Kassel: Schmitz Verlag. Dierkes, M., Hoffmann, U., & Marz, L. (1992). Leitbild und Technik: Zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 1992. Engelhardt, W. (1975). Die Bedeutung von Utopien und Leitbildern für sozialpolitische Konzeptionen und soziale Reformen. Sozialer Fortschritt, 24(8), 169–173. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Foraita, S. (2013). Bilder der Zukunft in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Wie entstehen Bilder der Zukunft? Wer schafft sie und wer nutzt sie? Bilder als designwissenschaftliche Befragungsform. IMAGE, 18(7), 206– 219. Gerber, A. (1995). Leitbilder als behördliche Führungsinstrumente in der kommunalen Raumplanung. Vermessung, Photogrammetrie, Kulturtechnik, 93(7), 481–482. Solothurn: VPK. Giesel, K. D. (2007). Leitbilder in den Sozialwissenschaften: Begriffe, Theorien und Forschungskonzepte. Berlin: Springer. Institut für Urban Landscape ZHAW (2012). Planungsmethode städtebauliche Quartierentwicklungsleitbilder. Research project at ZHAW, Architektur, Gestaltung und Bauingenieurwesen. Winterthur. Institut für Urban Landscape ZHAW (Eds.) (2016). Räumliches Leitbild erarbeiten: Ein Vademecum in 6 Phasen und mit 26 Fragen. Zurich: Triest Verlag. Kahlenborn, W., Dierkes, M., Krebsbach-Gnath, C., Mützel, S., & Zimmermann, K. W. (1995). Berlin- Zukunft aus eigener Kraft. Berlin: FAB. Knieling, J. (1997). Leitbilder als Instrument der Raumplanung. In B. Rauschelbach & P. M. Klecker (Eds.), Regionale Leitbilder: Vermarktung oder Ressourcensicherung? (pp. 33–38). Bonn: MAG. Knieling, J. (2000). Leitbildprozesse und Regionalmanagement. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kuder, T. (2002). Städtebauliche Leitbilder – Begriff, Inhalt, Funktion und Entwicklung, gezeigt am Beispiel der Funktionstrennung und -mischung. Dissertation at Technischen Universität Berlin. Retrieved from https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/891 Lendi, M. (1995): Leitbild der räumlichen Entwicklung. In G. Albers & W. Haber (Eds.), Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung, Akademie für Raumforschung & Landesplanung (pp. 624–629). Hannover: ARL. Martinez, C. (2015). Vorgabe, Vision oder Utopie? Die Geschichte der Leitbilder und ihre Wirkung mit Fokus auf Zürich. In Zürich – für eine neue Planungspraxis (pp. 46–53). Zurich: Archithese. Mayring, Ph. (2000). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Naegler, D. (2003): Planung als soziale Konstruktion: Leitbilder als Steuerungsmedium in Stadtplanungsprozessen. Berlin: Sigma. Rambow, R. (2000). Experten-Laien-Kommunikation in der Architektur. Münster: Waxmann. Bundesrat Schweiz (1979). Raumplanungsgesetz RPG. Retrieved from www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified- compilation/19790171/index.html Bundesrat Schweiz (2014). Raumplanungsgesetz RPG. Retrieved from www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified- compilation/19790171/index.html Selle, K. (Ed.) (1996). Planung und Kommunikation. Berlin: Bauverlag. Schweizer Nationalfonds (1970). Nationalfonds-Untersuchung städtebaulicher Leitbilder. Zurich: Institut für Orts-, Regional- und Landesplanung (ORL). Gerber A., & Michel S. (1995). Leitbilder in der kommunalen Planung. VLP Series (65). Bern: VLP. 133 Streich, B. (1988). Grundzüge einer städtebaulichen Leitbildtheorie. Universität Bonn. Weeber, H., Weeber, R., Mürb, R., & Wahmann, B. (1985). Städtebauliche Leitbilder: Problemaufriss unter Umweltgesichtspunkten. Berlin: Umweltbundesamt. Wissen, U. (2009). Virtuelle Landschaften zur partizipativen Planung. Optimierung von 3D Landschaftsvisualisierungen zur Informationsvermittlung. Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag der ETH Zürich. Leitbild documents: Amt für Städtebau Stadt Zürich (2000). Entwicklungskonzept Zürich West. Kooperative Entwicklungsplanung. Retrieved from www.stadt¬zuerich.ch/hbd/de/index/entwicklungsgebiete/zuerich_west/veranstaltungen_publikationen/ent wick lungskonzept_zuerich_west.html Amt für Städtebau Stadt Zürich (2011). Leitbild Wallisellenstrasse. Retrieved from www.stadt- zuerich.ch/hbd/de/index/entwicklungsgebiete/schwamendingen/veranstaltungen_publikationen/leit bild_wallisellenstrasse.html Amt für Städtebau Stadt Zürich (2011). Quartierentwicklungsleitbild Wollishofen. Retrieved from www.stadt- zuerich.ch/hbd/de/index/staedtebau_u_planung/planung/konzepte_leitbilder/wollishofen_quartiere ntwicklungsleitbild.html Amt für Städtebau Stadt Zürich (2012). Leitbild Leutschenbach. Retrieved from www.stadt- zuerich.ch/hbd/de/index/entwicklungsgebiete/leutschenbach/veranstaltungen/leitbild_2012.html Amt für Städtebau Stadt Zürich (2012). Leitbild Leutschenbach. Retrieved from www.stadt- zuerich.ch/hbd/de/index/entwicklungsgebiete/leutschenbach/veranstaltungen/leitbild_2012.html Bezirk Einsiedeln (1996). Leitbilder „West“, „Sternenplatz“, „Haupstrasse Ost“. Retrieved from www.ortsplanung.ch/einsiedeln/leiein/indexein6.html Bezirk Einsiedeln (1996). Leitbild Langrüti Nord. Retrieved from www.ortsplanung.ch/einsiedeln/leiein/indexein3.html Einwohnergemeinde Cham (2011). Städtebauliches und Architektonisches Leitbild. Retrieved from www.cham.ch/dl.php/de/5671490ed7f77/150622_Bauliches_Leitbild_Website.pdf ETH Professur für Architektur und Städtebau Christiaanse (2014). Projekthandbuch Entwicklungsstrategie Zumikon I. Retrieved from https://polybox.ethz.ch/index.php/s/JLYv3Q8SMYeok4C Gemeinde Beromünster (2014). Räumliches Entwicklungskonzept Beromünster. Retrieved from www.beromuenster.ch/docs/Bauamt/REK_Flyer_Beromuenster_A4.pdf Gemeinde Wetzikon (2010). Räumliches Entwicklungskonzept. Retrieved from www.wetzikon.ch/verwaltung/bau/stadtplanung/rek Gemeinde Zollikon (2008). Zollikon lebt! Entwicklungsprozess 2006–2008. Retrieved from www.zollikon.ch/dl.php/de/51cc2810c0e99/ZKZ_Broschure_Zollikon_lebt_2008.pdf IG RUV-Interessensgemeinschaft Raumentwicklung und Verkehr (2010). Bericht Zukunftsbilder und Skizzen. Retrieved from www.rapperswil¬jona.ch/dl.php/de/4dc808cdcb1f8/3_RJ_Bericht_Stadtentwicklung.pdf Stadt Brugg und Gemeinde Windisch (2014). Raum Brugg Windisch. Räumliches Entwicklungsleitbild (RELB). Retrieved from www.raumbruggwindisch.ch/domains/raumbruggwindisch_ch/data/free_docs/Ber_RELB_150331_d ef_ohne_Anhang.pdf Stadt Bülach (2004). Leitbild Bülach Nord. Retrieved from www.buelach.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/Planung_und_Bau/leitbild_buelach_nord_2004.nbf.pdf Stadt Frauenfeld (2008). Leitbild Siedlung und Verkehr Frauenfeld. Retrieved Sept. 22, 1016, from www.frauenfeld.ch/documents/Leitbild_Siedlung_und_Verkehr1238416886537.pdf Stadt Luzern (2007). Die Stadt Luzern im Jahr 2022. Retrieved Sept. 22, 1016, from www.stadtluzern.ch/dl.php/de/0d0b0-m90xpk/Luzern_2022.pdf Stadt Luzern (2008). Raumentwicklungskonzept 2008. Retrieved from www.stadtluzern.ch/dl.php/de/0d0b0-iw2n1x/Raumentwicklungskonzept2008.pdf Stadt Wil (1998). Leitbild Altstadt Wil. Retrieved from www.stadtwil.ch/dl.php/de/54537ffb7fd6c/Leitbild_Altstadt_Wil.pdf 134 Zürcher Planungsgruppe Limmattal (2007). Leitbild Limmattal 2025. Retrieved from www.zpl.ch/index.php/leitbild.html ID 1480 | PLANNING FOR CREATING A PEACE PARK; PEACE PARK BETWEEN TURKEY AND GEORGIA AS CASE STUDY Sahar Pouya 1 ; Basak Demires Ozkul 1 1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture pouya@itu.edu.tr 1 INTRODUCTION There are a whole host of environmental issues for biota along the political borders. Many international borders, not only appear on maps, but are bounded by fences or other obstacles that fragment landscapes and ecosystems. More or less, many international borders have been caused ecological issues including biodiversity reduction; the fragmentation of habitat (particularly for endangered animals which both require wide open spaces to survive and maintain gene pool diversity); habitat destruction through land filling and extensive service roads and invasive vehicular patrolling (Cunningham, 2012). In these situations removal of border obstacles and creation of designated corridors to facilitate animal movement has sometimes proven to be a worthwhile solution. However, cross border conservation solutions have been used more. Typically solutions like this are called Transboundary Conservation Areas (TBCA’s) which is also known as peace park. Following the World Parks Congress in 2003, a Global Transboundary Protected Area Network was established by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and based in South Africa. IUCN defines a Transboundary Protected Area (TBPA) as: “an area of land and/or sea that straddles one or more borders between states, sub- national units such as provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limit of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent parts are especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed cooperatively through legal or other effective means”. In addition to TBCA’s, two other types of transboundary areas have been classified. Table 1 quantifies all three typologies (Mayoral-Phillips, 2002). Table 1- Typologies of Conservation Transboundary Areas (Source: Singh, 1999) TBPA itself can be developed based on a wide variety of different cross-boundary arrangements including:ational Park in the USA and the Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada (Mayoral-Phillips, mailto:pouya@itu.edu.tr T01 | Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges And Planning Evaluation ID 1465 | The praxis of creating Leitbilder (guiding visions) for spatial planning projects in metropolitan Zurich 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE CHANGING MEANING AND FUNCTION OF LEITBILDER 1.2 LEITBILDER IN SWISS PLANNING DISCOURSE 2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND RESEARCH DESIGN 3 TENDENCIES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF LEITBILDER IN PRAXIS 3.1 FUNCTIONS OF LEITBILDER 3.2 THE BINDING CHARACTER AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LEITBILDER 3.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CREATION OF LEITBILDER 3.4 PICTORIAL LANGUAGE IN LEITBILDER 4 CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ID 1480 | Planning For Creating A Peace Park; Peace Park between Turkey And Georgia As Case Study 1 INTRODUCTION