(PDF) Geodesigning Our Future: Urban Development Dynamics in Israel

The Urban Book Series

ShlomitFlintAsheryEditor

Geodesigning

Our Future

Urban Development Dynamics in Israel

The Urban Book Series

Editorial Board

Margarita Angelidou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Fatemeh Farnaz Areﬁan, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL, Silk

Cities, London, UK

Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK

Simin Davoudi, Planning & Landscape Department GURU, Newcastle University,

Newcastle, UK

Geoffrey DeVerteuil, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University,

Cardiff, UK

Jesús M. González Pérez, Department of Geography, University of the Balearic

Islands, Palma (Mallorca), Spain

Daniel B. Hess , Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at

Buffalo, State University, Buffalo, NY, USA

Paul Jones, School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, Institute of

Technology Bandung University (ITB), Bandung, Indonesia

Andrew Karvonen, Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH Royal Institute

of Technology, Stockholm, Stockholms Län, Sweden

Andrew Kirby, New College, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Karl Kropf, Department of Planning, Headington Campus, Oxford Brookes

University, Oxford, UK

Karen Lucas, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Marco Maretto, DICATeA, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of Parma, Parma, Italy

Ali Modarres, Tacoma Urban Studies, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma,

WA , U S A

Fabian Neuhaus, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary,

AB, Canada

Steffen Nijhuis, Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of

Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Vitor Manuel Aráujo de Oliveira , Porto University, Porto, Portugal

Christopher Silver, College of Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Giuseppe Strappa, Facoltà di Architettura, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome,

Roma, Italy

Igor Vojnovic, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing,

MI, USA

Claudia van der Laag Yamu, Oslo, Norway

Qunshan Zhao, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow,

Glasgow, UK

The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research

worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments

in the ﬁeld, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for

urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development.

The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainabil-

ity, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urban

and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, transport

systems, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It

also invites research which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics

on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as

comparative and applied research.

The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects,

policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of

contemporary urban studies and innovations in the ﬁeld. It accepts monographs,

edited volumes and textbooks.

Indexed by Scopus.

Shlomit Flint Ashery

Editor

Geodesigning Our Future

Urban Development Dynamics in Israel

Editor

Shlomit Flint Ashery

Department of Environment,

Planning and Sustainability

Bar-Ilan University

Ramat Gan, Israel

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic)

The Urban Book Series

ISBN 978-3-031-52234-5 ISBN 978-3-031-52235-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52235-2

Switzerland AG 2024

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether

the whole or part of the material is concerned, speciﬁcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse

of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microﬁlms or in any other physical way, and

transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar

or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication

does not imply, even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant

protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book

are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or

the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any

errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional

claims in published maps and institutional afﬁliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Paper in this product is recyclable.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Israeli Ministry of Science grant, Environmental

Sciences, Agriculture and Water: Planning Resilient Cities using Digital Climate

services (PRCC) Project coordinator: Prof. Itamar Lensky (0004944).

v

Contents

1Introduction .................................................. 1

Shlomit Flint Ashery

Part I Planning Between Collective Action and Public

Engagement

2Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects .................... 9

Ora Bloom

3Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where

the Heart Is ................................................... 31

Ayelet Sapir and Eyal Yaniv

Part II Geodesigning Holistic Planning

4Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting

to Climate Change Through Negotiation and Collaborative

Planning ..................................................... 51

Rinat Steinlauf Millo

5Digital Collaborative Planning as a Path Toward Holistic

Planning: A Case Study of Jerusalem’s Beit Safafa

Neighborhood ................................................ 69

Marianna Sigalov-Klein and Michael Sofer

Part III The Use and Impact of Geodesign in Applied Fields

6Smart Mobility and Geodesign in Urban Life .................... 89

Michelle Specktor

7Facilitating Walkability in Hilly Terrain: Using the Geodesign

Platform to Integrate Topographical Considerations

into the Planning Process ...................................... 109

Miri Jano Reiss and Anat Tchetchik

vii

viii Contents

8Geospatial Analyses of the Geological and Geographical

Impacts upon the Settlement and Evolution of Bet Safafa

from a Small Village to an Arab Suburb of Western Jerusalem .... 131

Joel Roskin and Rotem Elinson

9Life Cycle Assessment of a Regenerative Reuse Design ............ 143

Laura Riegle

Part IV Geodesign in the Social Sciences and Humanities

10 Complexity Theory as the Meeting Point Between Urban

Planning and Psychoanalysis: Joy in Beit Safafa ................. 163

Esti Dinur and Shlomit Flint Ashery

11 Urban Aesthetics in Jewish Religious Law: Thoughts

on the Role of Jewish Law in Urban Planning .................... 185

Shlomit Flint Ashery and Yossi Katz

Contributors

Ora Bloom Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Esti Dinur Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Rotem Elinson School of Environmental Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa,

Israel

Shlomit Flint Ashery Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Miri Jano Reiss Bar Ilan University, Municipality of Jerusalem, Israel

Yossi Katz Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Laura Riegle Bar Ilan University, Alfa Sustainable Projects Ltd, Israel

Joel Roskin Department of Environment, Planning and Sustainability, Bar-Ilan

University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Ayelet Sapir Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Marianna Sigalov-Klein Bar Ilan University, Municipality of Jerusalem, Israel

Michael Sofer Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Michelle Specktor Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion, Israel Institute

of Technology; The Israeli Smart Transportation Research Center (ISTRC), Haifa,

Israel;

School of Sustainability, Reichman University, Herzliya, Israel;

Tel Aviv University for Youth, Tel Aviv, Israel;

IPgallery Urban Mobility, Ra’anana, Israel

Rinat Steinlauf Millo Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Anat Tchetchik Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Eyal Yaniv Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction

Shlomit Flint Ashery

Abstract Due to mounting social and environmental pressures, the demand for efﬁ-

cient and secure urban and rural land uses has noticeably increased (Ewert et al. in

Sustainability 12:8098, 2020). Thus, planners and policymakers are called upon to

work with diverse policy and management structures, as well as NGOs, private busi-

ness actors, issue-oriented interest groups, locally based citizen groups and ordinary

citizens. They must also confront shifting and sometimes conﬂicting territorial inter-

ests within the national, regional or local context (Milanovic in Global inequality: a

new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press, 2016). Many

times, decision-makers tend to focus on speciﬁc issues, e.g. climate forecasts, over-

looking the mutually entangled socio-economic and political effects (Tollefson in

Nature, 2022). It is becoming clear that there are no “one-size-ﬁts-all solutions” for

regions and cities because of the very speciﬁc local conditions (location, population

density, ﬁnancial and human resources, and stakeholder interests). Moreover, scien-

tists and decision-makers need to support the communities’ autonomy, since the

effectiveness of the planning strategy depends on community participation (Pisor

et al. in Nat Clim Change 12(3):213–215, 2022). Therefore, regional and local

communities must have the ability to understand the local impacts of candidate

solutions and modify them as needed (Flint Ashery and Steinlauf-Millo in Urban

informatics and future cities. Springer, 2021; Flint Ashery and Steinlauf-Millo in

Micro-segregated cities. An international comparison of segregation in dense cities.

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2022), while developing their own vision for their

future. In terms of hierarchical planning systems and decision-making processes,

these policy and management structures can be broadly classiﬁed into the “top-down”

planning approach, whereas NGOs, private business actors, issue-oriented interest

groups, locality-based citizens groups and ordinary citizens constitute the “bottom-

up” approach, although these distinctions are often not absolute. In both instances,

the stakeholders must negotiate since consensus is crucial to the long-term resiliency

of the decision-making process. This book, therefore, brings together researchers

across various ﬁelds to explore scenario-driven designs and resolve negotiations

across different locations.

S. Flint Ashery (B)

Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

e-mail: shlomit.ﬂint-ashery@biu.ac.il

S. Flint Ashery (ed.), Geodesigning Our Future, The Urban Book Series,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52235-2_1

1

2S. Flint Ashery

Keywords Social and environmental pressures ·Urban and rural land uses ·

Interest groups ·Communities autonomy ·Future planning ·Geodesign ·Spatial

negotiation

1.1 Introduction

In the last few decades, there has been exponential growth and interest in scenario-

driven geodesign, a sustainable planning approach rooted in the history of planning

practice (Steinitz 2012; Geertman 2017; Pettit et al. 2020). It provides a framework

and set of tools for exploring issues from a transdisciplinary perspective and for

resolving conﬂicts between differing points of view and has led to the development

of several commercial and open-source software tools, including GDH. GDH is

a digital web-based workﬂow based on a systems approach. It is designed to foster

collaboration and negotiation among professionals and their clients and among teams

of professionals. It has a simple user interface which uses ubiquitous web technology

and communication systems. It easily incorporates existing and diverse data struc-

tures for both its inputs and outputs, and it enables users to collaborate in person

and/or over the Internet in real time to produce designs and assess them. Since plan-

ning is inherently future-oriented in its application, the implementation and clout

of a coherent and cohesive digital planning process may be able to provide the

needed mitigation and adaptation measures. GDH can act as the basis for proactive

processes through the minimization of response time between crisis and reaction. It

provides interactive and engaging methods for wide categories of stakeholders and

can consume open-data standards (adopted by Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

and are consistent with the EU INSPIRE Directive). It requires territory assessment,

transparency of decision, generation of alternatives, consultations and participation,

among other requirements. The software enables teams to create and share their

activities and the unique method walks them through a process where a consensus

on the way forward is built. It is often used as a mediation tool to resolve difﬁcult

differences between stakeholders. Generally, this type of work is done manually and

is extremely time-consuming and needs many meetings and deliberations along with

technical analysis work.

Studies have shown that integrating newer negotiation mechanisms into an

existing decision-making system (Asad and Le Dantec 2019) needs to be ﬂuid and

engaging while at the same time ﬁtting the slower pace of administrative mecha-

nisms used by decision-makers (Wilson et al. 2019). Despite the opportunities for

negotiation designed for planning, most digital platforms mirror traditional “one-way

provision of information” methods. Geodesign, however, uses modern digital tools

facilitating a bottom-up negotiation approach to help ensure the inclusiveness and

equality of stakeholders. The focus of the presented studies is on effective outreach

and uptake, providing data and comparing processes, and seeking possible solutions

1 Introduction 3

that can be implemented. The aim is to enhance the way digital technologies modu-

late local planning in a range of scales to improve transparency in decision-making

(Campagna 2020), and promote the equitable sharing of burdens and beneﬁts.

Negotiation is one of the most important methods for breaking down barriers

between conﬂicting interests and can be crucial in cases where resources are limited

and political and social conﬂict is intense (Flint Ashery and Steinitz 2022). Resilient

solutions are deﬁned as those for which there is the greatest compromise and agree-

ment among the parties (Smith et al. 2014). Negotiations are routinely utilized

in decision-making. However, negotiations and their outcomes tend to reﬂect the

existing power structures present in an area. The introduction of new digital tech-

nology and techniques to the negotiation process may help achieve more viable

outcomes and are particularly critical in the context of the intense social, environ-

mental and economic change facing our cities and regions. As funding for public

services comes under increased pressure, negotiations over spatial interests must be

done strategically to enable authorities to “do more with less.” Nevertheless, to make a

realistic judgement of planning effectiveness (Hopkins 2001; Alexander 2016), there

is also a need to assess potential areas of agreement or conﬂict among stakeholders

and to seek areas of possible collaboration. Many implementation experiments have

signalled that the weakest point of stakeholders’ involvement is their lack of interest

and representativeness (Sigalov-Klein et al. 2024). This is characteristic of top-down

planning approaches (Flint Ashery 2023). There is thus a need to develop the founda-

tional structures within a society for digital technology to be in a position to contribute

to the social processes of planning.

Digital negotiation in planning has the potential to build lasting trust between

residents and authorities over land uses in a process that reduces conﬂicts and irregu-

larities. Further, evidence and consensus-based policymaking lead to more efﬁcient,

ﬂexible, and tailored-made allocation of resources in municipalities to support the

residents. The overall aim of this book is to share knowledge on the use of digital

technology of GDH in land-use planning, policy, and implementation with a wide

range of concerned stakeholders. The work on these studies brought “the people of

the place” (e.g. residents, teachers, and parents incl. “unheard voices”), academics,

practitioners (e.g. planners, architects, appraisers), NGOs (e.g. environmentalists),

public representatives working in municipalities, policymakers and digital technolo-

gies’ experts together within our workshops to make decisions for a better future.

Although these academic and practical ﬁelds are highly interrelated, they have never

been brought together to explore scenario-driven designs for regional and local-scale

studies that address future global changes locally in the ever-changing landscape.

This book is based on geodesign workshops conducted for Jerusalem’s neigh-

bourhoods of Beit Tzafafa (the Israeli and the Jordanian parts), Talpiot, Talpaz, Ezrat

Torah, Ramat Shlomo and Neve Shaanan neighbourhoods in Tel Aviv. These neigh-

bourhoods represent different urban circumstances and house different populations:

In Jerusalem, Beit Tzafafa, Talpiot and Ezrat Torah are inner-city neighbourhoods

located within the 1948 border. While Beit Tzafafa is a Jerusalem enclave home

to a Muslim population representative of three tribes, Talpiot is home to a general

4S. Flint Ashery

population, and Ezrat Torah has a broad range of ultra-Orthodox communities. Alter-

natively, the Jordanian Beit Tzafafa, Talpaz and Ramat Shlomo are peripheral neigh-

bourhoods. While the Jordanian Beit Tzafafa is home to a rural Muslim population,

Talpaz is home to a relatively poor general population, and Ramat Shlomo was built

and populated by a strict ultra-orthodox population in one fell swoop during the

mid-1990s by the government. Tel Aviv’s Neve Shaanan neighbourhood, however,

serves as the “ﬁrst port” for foreign workers. Accelerated gentriﬁcation processes

are creating severe tensions between the veterans of the neighbourhood, the foreign

workers, some of whom are undocumented, and the incoming young professionals.

As cross-learning and assessment are essential, the ﬁrst part of the book deals

with the digital potential of collaborative planning. Ora Bloom uses a case study

of an urban renewal initiative that addressed safety concerns caused by structural

defects in their buildings as an example of the complexity involved in managing a

multiplayer system. Ayelet Sapir and Eyal Yaniv discuss how citizen engagement

contributes to a neighbourhood’s quality of life and well-being, and highlights how

mediation constructs may facilitate such engagement. The second part of the book

examines the role of geodesign in capturing and fostering comprehensive, inclu-

sive, efﬁcient and responsible planning processes that consider the impact of climate

change on the urban fabric. Rinat Steinlauf-Millo presents the geodesign planning for

Neve-Sha’anan, a dense urban fabric which, due to institutional, planning and socio-

economic factors, has developed into a complex and neglected neighbourhood that

suffers air pollution and ﬂooding. Mariana Sigalov-Klein and Michael Sofer examine

how citizen science can be used in planning future for Beit Tzafafa, to integrate knowl-

edge sources and increase minority participation in a directed, digital process that

leads to holistic planning. The third part proposes geodesign processes for addressing

the broader context of urban life and future planning. Michelle Specktor provides a

practical introduction to geodesign implications for leveraging urban developments

and supporting sustainable urban mobility plans. Miri Jano Reiss and Anat Tchetchik

examine whether and how digital planning practices can be implemented to promote

walkability in a hilly neighbourhood of Talpaz, despite the challenging physical

circumstances. Using geospatial analyses, Joel Roskin and Rotem Elinson analyse

the natural environment’s impact on Bet Safafa settlement and interpret how phys-

ical and archaeological factors played a role in the development of residential and

agricultural areas. Laura Riegle, however, focuses on the adaptive reuse of building

complexes to provide occupants with access to the outdoors, fresh food and social

interaction while reducing carbon emissions. The fourth part examines the reﬂec-

tion of ideal concepts in the geodesign planning process. Dinur and Flint explore

the relationship between joy and the peri-urban spatial structure and illustrate the

impact of relationships between the object and the subject—between the therapist

and the patient, planners and plans, as well as between individual users and the urban

fabric. Yossi Katz and Flint examine how the Levitical city beauty ideal has been

incorporated into the planning of the modern neighbourhood of Talpiot, Jerusalem,

based on two geodesign workshops regarding green infrastructure and agriculture.

I hope that this book will promote comparative testing of spatial negotiation

in different contexts considering inclusiveness, level of participation, number and

1 Introduction 5

quality of outcomes and long-term impact. In bringing these materials to print, I

have the great pleasure of thanking my dear colleague and friend, Dr. Hrishi Ballal,

the founder and lead developer of Geodesign Hub, as most of the illustrations were

created with GDH software. I would like to thank Prof. Mike Batty, my postdoc

supervisor at CASA UCL, as well as Prof. Carl Steinitz for introducing me to the

world of Geodesign, and the contributors to this book who shared the world of

geodesign with me.

References

Alexander E (2016) There is no planning—only planning practices: notes for spatial planning

theories. Plan Theory 15(1):91–103

Asad M, Le Dantec CA (2019) “This is shared work:” negotiating boundaries in a social service

intermediary organization. Media Commun 7(3):69–78

Campagna M (2020) Spatial planning and geodesign. In: Handbook of planning support science.

Edward Elgar Publishing

Ewert A, Brost M, Eisenmann C, Stieler S (2020) Small and light electric vehicles: an analysis

of feasible transport impacts and opportunities for improved urban land use. Sustainability

12(19):8098

Flint Ashery S (2023). The planning role in stretching the city: a tale of two london neighbourhoods.

Springer International Publishing, Cham

Flint Ashery S, Steinitz C (2022) Issue-based complexity: digitally supported negotiation in

geodesign linking planning and implementation. Sustainability 14(15):9073

Flint Ashery S, Steinlauf-Millo R (2021) Geodesign between IGC and geodesignhub: theory and

practice. In: Geertman SCM, Pettit C, Goodspeed R, Staffans A (eds) Urban informatics and

future cities. The urban book series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76059-5

Flint Ashery S, Steinlauf-Millo R (2022) Planning vertical differentiation? Geodesign workshop in

the case study area of Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood in Tel Aviv. In: Maloutas T, Karadimitrio

N (eds) Micro-segregated cities. An international comparison of segregation in dense cities.

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

Geertman S (2017) PSS: beyond the implementation gap. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 104:70–76

Hopkins LD (2001) Urban development: the logic of making plans, vol 166. Island Press

Milanovic B (2016) Global inequality: a new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard

University Press

Pettit CJ, Shi Y, Han H, Ritternbruch M, Foth M, Lieske S, van de Nouwelant R, Leao S, Christensen

B, Jamal M (2020) A new toolkit for land value analysis and scenario planning. Environ Plan B

Urban Anal City Sci

Pisor AC, Basurto X, Douglass KG, Mach KJ, Ready E, Tylianakis JM et al (2022) Effective climate

change adaptation means supporting community autonomy. Nat Clim Change 12(3):213–215

Sigalov-Klein M, Marmor R, Sagron R, Roiburt Y, Spigel, N, Flint Ashery S (2024) How can digital

collaborative planning integrate knowledge sources towards holistic planning? The test case of

Beit Tzafafa neighborhood in Jerusalem Tichnun, 20/2

Smith M, Sykes O, Fischer T (2014) Derailed: understanding the implementation failures of

Merseytram. Town Plan Rev 85(2):237–260

Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. Esti Press, Redlands,

CA

Tollefson J (2022) Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought.

Nature

6S. Flint Ashery

Wilson A, Tewdwr-Jones M, Comber R (2019) Urban planning, public participation and digital

technology: app development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning

processes. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci 46(2):286–302

Part I

Planning Between Collective Action

and Public Engagement

Chapter 2

Collective Action in Urban Renewal

Projects

Ora Bloom

Abstract Urban renewal initiatives require the involvement of various parties with

differing interests, and their success is dependent on the management processes of

the overall stakeholder system, as well as collaboration between the parties involved.

The stakeholder system is constantly evolving, and the objectives and roles of the

actors may change over time. To promote consent and decision-making, effective

action strategies require the dissemination of knowledge to homeowners and other

relevant stakeholders. The collective knowledge of all parties involved is crucial to

the success of the project. There are various methods of knowledge transfer avail-

able. Several companies in Israel and around the word have developed technolog-

ical platforms to facilitate urban renewal processes and promote knowledge sharing

among stakeholders. Their objective is to redeﬁne the relationships between the

parties involved and enhance the ﬂow of information. The chapter highlights the

complexity of managing the multiplayer system involved in urban renewal projects

and presents a case study of a large-scale urban renewal initiative in a disadvan-

taged neighborhood of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. The project was initiated by the Clinic for

Housing Rights and Urban Renewal at the Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University—an

academic-professional body, with a social and pedagogical vision, that sought to give

legal assistance to residents in the neighborhood, addressing safety issues caused by

structural defects in their buildings.

Keywords Public participation ·Urban renewal ·Collective action ·Nonproﬁt

organizations ·For-proﬁt corporations ·Internalization of social values ·Decision

making apparatus ·Development companies ·Vacate-and-build project ·

Knowledge sharing ·Multi-stakeholder system

O. Bloom (B)

Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

e-mail: ora@bloomzone.com

S. Flint Ashery (ed.), Geodesigning Our Future, The Urban Book Series,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52235-2_2

9

10 O. Bloom

2.1 Introduction

Urban renewal projects represent complex human processes, as their implementa-

tion is contingent on a series of decisions made jointly between many stakeholders

with varied interests, as well as broad consent among affected homeowners. In order

to motivate all players toward collective action that ultimately leads to construc-

tion, development companies that are usually spearhead urban renewal projects are

required to adopt work practices that differ from routine business conduct. While in

most cases planning and construction of new buildings and neighborhoods does not

require that developers interact with local property owners, urban renewal projects

require them to maintain close contact with the homeowners for signiﬁcant timespans,

even several years.1 The relationship between the developers and the pre-existing

apartment owners is one of interdependency: On one hand, developers require broad

consent commitment to the project from affected owners. On the other hand, the

homeowners seek the best possible deal in terms of how the redevelopments will

improve their property to cater to their needs and interest (ﬂoorspace, amenities,

etc.). This delicate balance of interdependence requires the developers to establish

trust relations with the homeowners and to be attentive to the needs of the local popu-

lation. They must adopt practices that are usually foreign to their corporate identity,

and with which their personnel are unfamiliar and therefore generally lack the skills

for optimal management of these projects. Another challenge facing the developers

is consideration of the future owners of the housing units added through the project;

this new population often has a different proﬁle from the pre-existing population,

with different needs and aspirations. The larger the urban renewal project, the more

complex the interaction among stakeholders becomes. As the population involved

becomes more diverse and the number of stakeholders grows, the decision-making

and agreement mechanisms become more cumbersome and fragile.

In this chapter, I will ﬁrst discuss how development companies involved in urban

renewal projects are evolving their corporate identities, the challenges involved in

spurring stakeholders to collective action, and the various ways in which developers

gain the consent of property owners to allow the project to go ahead. In the second part,

I will present a unique case study: a large urban renewal project in a disadvantaged

neighborhood of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, which was initiated by an academic body within Tel

Aviv University. I will describe how it emerged and the special circumstances that

led to its progress. Although the project spanned many years, in this chapter I will

focus only on the ﬁrst stage, which included assembling a stakeholder system in an

attempt to spur collective action.

1 Urban renewal usually involves renovation redevelopment of multiowner apartment buildings.

In this chapter, the terms owners, apartment owners, and homeowners all refer to the owners of

apartments in such buildings.

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 11

2.2 Commercial Corporations as Social, Human,

and Public Bodies

Development companies that lead urban renewal processes communicate daily with

the owners of properties within the building or complex designated for renewal, ﬁrst

and foremost to obtain their consent to proceed with the project. In order to avoid

objections from property owners, they must develop their competency in listening,

building trust, and understanding delicate emotional situations. In addition, they must

evolve a social perspective that identiﬁes the needs and preferences of homeowners.

In other words, their involvement in these projects requires them to acquire new

skills and work patterns, and to embed social considerations into the corporation’s

decision-making apparatus. The need for corporations to commit to social values is

not enshrined in state laws or in contractual agreements; thus, this commitment is

not intuitively understood.

Rebecca De Winter asserts that corporations’ internalization of social values can

be explained by two parallel processes: In one process, the corporation attempts to

brand itself by creating imagery that portrays its operations as having human, social,

and moral traits. In this way, it creates a new identity that is disseminated in such a

way as to gradually permeate the public consciousness. The second process, which

takes place in parallel, is a gradual formation of a new internal corporate identity,

created by the internalization of the social image that has been presented outwardly.

When a corporation manages to brand its external identity through social and human

images, it becomes more exposed to public criticism of its conduct in relation to

the actual implementation of the social images it has adopted. Thus, the corporation

produces a kind of “rhetorical trap” that has an impact on its internal organizational

identity and decision-making apparatus.2

When a corporation is required to justify certain actions that it takes, its actions are

examined according to public standards; every action is judged as either legitimate

or illegitimate. The corporation’s involvement in these justiﬁcations challenges the

dichotomous division between the standards that are generally used in the private

market and those that are expected from parties who operate for and on behalf of

the public. When a corporation seeks to justify its actions in the language of social

values, it reframes itself as a “collective moral” player, which places it in a new

sphere in which the boundaries between the private and public spaces are blurred. The

corporate identity that results from this blurring of boundaries makes it impossible

to continue to deﬁne the corporation as an economic institution whose only purpose

is to maximize proﬁts.3

Peter French contends that the moral features of a corporation should be exam-

ined through observing its decision-making structure. This structure has two compo-

nents: One is the organizational structure, which deﬁnes the power relations among

2 De Winter (2001, pp. 108, 111).

3 Ibid., at p. 110. This form of rhetoric aligns well with the increasing trend of State transfer of

its traditional powers and functions to commercial corporations, which are supposed to provide

market-based social welfare solutions, subject to State regulation. Ibid. on p. 112.

12 O. Bloom

the different individuals that make up the corporation; the second component is the

“corporation policy,” which reﬂects the agreed-upon tenets inherent to the decision-

making apparatus.4 When this apparatus is activated appropriately, the internal

decision-making structure results in a synthesis of the various intentions and actions

of the individuals that make up the corporation. This synthesis creates a rational and

coherent template and enables actions and events that could present as the actions

of individuals to be attributed to the corporation as an abstract entity.5 Thus, the

corporations themselves, and not only their individual employees, must account for

their actions, in their capacity as moral entities.6

The expectation that corporations serve social goals in urban renewal projects,

therefore, obliges them to reconstruct their decision-making apparatus. This appa-

ratus is inﬂuenced by external requirements that are publicly dictated and imposes

new modes of conduct on real estate corporations involved in such projects. In other

words, the “rhetorical trap” that is deﬁned by a corporation’s external identity in the

public conception, requires it to gradually internalize new characteristics that are

likely to clash with the traditional purpose of maximizing proﬁts.

2.3 Collective Action

Urban renewal projects require collective action among several players that are inter-

dependent. The conduct of each of the players may inﬂuence the success or failure

of the project. In theory, all players involved in these projects have a common goal,

but the interests of each are likely different. When the interests do not overlap, even

initiatives that are considered to be “win–win” may fail. Therefore, the success of

urban renewal projects depends on the management processes of the overall stake-

holder system, together with cooperation among the various players. An example of

this is the collective action in the ultra-Orthodox inner-city neighborhood of Ezrat

Torah. The neighborhood was initially structured for the general population, but the

settlement of ultra-Orthodox communities created group pressure to shape its space

to meet their needs (Fig. 2.1).7

The stakeholder system of a given project is dynamic, and any of its actors may

change their objectives or roles along the way. The coalescence of various players

writes Michel Callon, indicates a dynamic and volatile process, rather than one that

is complete and stable. Any entity that has been earmarked as a relevant player may

commit to its deﬁned function and participate in the overarching plan, or alterna-

tively, may resist the plan—by deﬁning its identity, goals, or interests differently

from those it was assigned. Therefore, the lead actor who drives the system has the

important task of maintaining the actors within their assigned roles. Callon maintains

4 French (1979,p. 207).

5 Ibid. at pp. 211, 213.

6 Ibid. at p. 215.

7 Flint Ashery (2020)

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 13

Fig. 2.1 Agreed product in the geodesign workshop with the participation of planners and residents.

Cooperation among the various players led to consensus collective action despite the differences in

interests

that the deﬁnition of roles, objectives, and motivations are not processes that occur

independent of the actors’ environments, but rather occur as a result of interaction

with other actors. Therefore, in order to preserve stakeholders in a particular role, the

lead actor is required to guide the relationships they manage—to bring about “desir-

able” connections and oversee their management, and to ensure that undesirable

connections—which may divert the process from its path—are severed.8

2.3.1 The Actors

In addition to the developers and homeowners that are the lead actors, the stakeholder

system in urban renewal projects also includes public bodies such as planning insti-

tutions, local authorities, the urban renewal administration,9 and professionals such

as lawyers, architects, appraisers, engineers, and supervisors. Relatively new players

in the Israeli landscape are social consultants and community organizers. The role of

social consultants is to collect information about the local population and formulate

8 Callon (1986).

9 The Israeli urban renewal administrations were established in 2016 through the Governmental

Authority for Urban Renewal Law 2016. The administrations have been operating within the local

authorities since 2016. The duties of the administrations include making accessible and publishing

information and promotional materials to residents, developers, and professionals, including through

conferences; providing assistance to apartment owners in selecting a representative of their interests;

providing assistance to the owners in applying to developers and determining their parameters for

choosing a developer.

14 O. Bloom

recommendations to be submitted to the local planning committee, within a social

survey report, which presents vital information about the local population—their

needs and residential environment. The role of the community organizers is to attain

the apartment owners’ consent to carry out the project—initially, through the signing

of an in-principle agreement.

Some of these mentioned actors are in direct contact with the apartment owners

over the course of the project. As such, their conduct and methods will affect the

process of attaining the latter’s consent, and ultimately, the efﬁciency of the decision-

making process. For example, if the project architects present a plan that is out-

of-touch with the needs of the local population, the homeowners will likely have

reservations that will delay them giving consent, and these reservations might even

thwart the project. Similarly, attorneys who ignore the concerns of apartment owners,

and do not give a detailed explanation of the terms of the contract, will likely create

resistance among the owners and delay or prevent the project’s progression.

Thus, urban renewal projects create a delicate balance that requires actors from

different commercial ﬁelds to develop unique practices that are outside the realm of

their regular business activities. Each of these actors has an effect (to varying degrees)

on the implementation of the project, and each plays a role in a broad cooperative

system that is intended to lead to a common goal.

2.3.2 Nonproﬁt Organizations

Additional actors involved in urban renewal projects include nonproﬁt organizations

that take part when the project involves disadvantaged populations who do not have

the tools or resources to ensure that their interests in the project are represented. These

organizations can take different forms, including nonproﬁt associations, neighbor-

hood committees, social activists, and academic bodies. Given that the case study

presented in the following section deals with such an organization, I will brieﬂy

address the perceived role of these bodies.

The accepted view is that nonproﬁt organizations best advance the interests of

homeowners, as their motives, unlike those of for proﬁts actors, are not ﬁnancial

but rather focused only on promoting important social goals. Their strategies for

action concentrate on building trust and knowledge transfer, ensuring that the apart-

ment owners are informed regarding each of the stages that are expected in the

process, including their signiﬁcance and implications. The purpose of building an

infrastructure of trust is to make the apartment owners full of partners in decisions

making regarding the apartments they own, and to recruit them to commit and take

responsibility in the overall process.

On the basis of the information that apartment owners receive, they are able to

make an informed decision regarding the project’s progression. Thus, it is essen-

tial that homeowners receive information not only regarding how the project will

affect their lives during planning and construction, but also regarding its potential

implications for their future, post construction—such as high maintenance costs, or

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 15

the dramatic changes anticipated to their living environments. Providing this type of

support to apartment owners requires a deep understanding of social processes as well

as experience working with disadvantaged populations—characteristics generally

associated with nonproﬁt organizations.

2.3.3 Comparing the Roles of Nonproﬁt Organizations

and For-Proﬁt Corporations

While the primary goal of real estate companies in urban renewal projects is to

persuade the apartment owners to agree to sign up to the project, nonproﬁt organi-

zations are not orientated toward the goal of attaining the apartment owners’ agree-

ment. Rather, their main role, as stated, is to transmit the knowledge that is necessary

for apartment owners to make an informed decision regarding whether to agree to

the advancement of the project. The common perception is that the not-for-proﬁt

approach may harm the economic efﬁciency required for the implementation of the

project, since nonproﬁt organizations lack the necessary economic incentive.

The question arises—is this perception, that sees the roles of for-proﬁt corpora-

tions and nonproﬁt organizations as dichotomous, anchored in reality? Experience

shows that no, not necessarily. Real estate companies understand the need to build

trust and to transmit knowledge to apartment owners as effective strategies that will

eventually lead to the highest rates of enlistment to the project. It may be that those

representing the developers do not have the same skills and experience as nonproﬁt

staff in all that pertains to working with disadvantaged populations, but the reality

of urban renewal forces them to adopt these types of skills, even if to a lesser extent.

On the other hand, we can assume that nonproﬁt organizations are not constantly

working only to further social goals, and that their involvement in market ventures

requires them to acquire new action strategies that change the rules of the game that

affect their conduct.10

2.4 The Legal Procedure Regarding Obtaining Consent

The ﬁrst phase in promoting an urban renewal project is to obtain broad consent for

the project from the apartment owners. The higher the rate of consent, the more likely

it is that the project will occur, and that the construction will end in a relatively short

timeframe. The legal arrangements in Israeli law regarding urban renewal projects

determine the threshold rate of consent. When this rate is achieved, apartment owners

who are interested in progressing the project may apply to the court in an attempt

10 For more on this topic see Kennedy (2002).

16 O. Bloom

to compel the remaining homeowners to consent.11 The threshold rate of consent

varies according to the type of project planned. In the past, the central principle

that guided the legislator was that the greater the project’s impact on the property

rights of homeowners, the higher the threshold rate of consent. The roots of this

principle are in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), which stipulates,

in Section 3, that “the property of a human being shall not be violated.” According

to this law, every person has the right to do as they wish with the property they own,

and to prevent other people from violate their rights, as long as their actions do not

harm other owners. Despite the elevated status of Israel’s Basic Laws, the legislator, in

considering the balance of the right to property against the public interest, determined

that the property right of an apartment owner in a condominium is not absolute, and

that the interest of the majority of homeowners justiﬁes a proportional impingement

on the property rights of those who refuse to consent to an urban renewal project. In

the explanatory notes to the Vacate and Build Bill, the legislator noted that the law’s

purpose is to assist in ﬁlling the socioeconomic need for more efﬁcient use of Israel’s

limited land resources, to address the decreasing quantity of open space, as well as to

assist in the rehabilitation of deteriorating urban complexes.12 In the spirit of the law,

the court ruled that apartment owners who oppose a vacate-and-build project do not

have the right to sacriﬁce the public interest nor the interest of the other homeowners

in favor of their personal interests, when the latter are not reasonable.13

In accordance with the key principle that guided the legislator whereby the greater

the violation to the property right, the higher the threshold rate of consent, the

Vacate and Build Law previously determined two different rates: In “vacate-and-

build” (demolition and reconstruction) projects, the threshold rate was 80%, while in

projects that involved refurbishment of existing buildings—including reinforcement

of the structure and the addition of a relatively small number of dwelling units—the

threshold consent rate was 66%. In 2021, the Israeli legislature approved an amend-

ment to the law that lowered the threshold rate of consent for the former—vacate-

and-build projects—to the same low rate that applies to the latter—refurbishment.

This change was justiﬁed on the basis of Israel’s housing shortage, which has intensi-

ﬁed in recent years, as well as the many bureaucratic barriers to implementing urban

renewal projects, at the heart of which is the matter of owner consent.

11 According to the Vacate and Build Law, when the required rate of consent is reached, the developer

or apartment owners may apply to the relevant legal court against the holdouts, in order to force those

remaining apartment owners to agree to the project. An application of this type can be a tort claim

in which the holdouts are sued for the amount of damage caused to the other apartment owners as a

result of their refusal, or an application for an injunction, where the court may compel the holdouts

to give their consent for the project. The legal process includes hearing the holdouts’ arguments, and

examining whether or not their objection to the project is based on one of the grounds that justify

a refusal. If the holdouts’ objections do not fall within the scope of the grounds set out as justiﬁed

by law, the court will rule that their objection is not justiﬁed and oblige them to pay compensation

to the other owners or order the project to proceed against their objections.

12 See: Explanatory Notes to the Vacate and Build (Compensation) Bill, 2005, Knesset 88, 198

(hereafter: the Bill).

13 See Judge Danziger’s ruling in Civil Appeal 3511/13 Regina Schwarzberger v. Shalom Marin

et al. [Hebrew].

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 17

The new legislation thus weakened the status of the right to property established

by the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, with the goal of removing barriers

and accelerating the pace of urban renewal projects. But the legislative change might

have the opposite-than-intended effect: When the law enables the project to proceed

in the face of a considerable rate of opposition, we can assume that the holdout

owners will do all in their power to obstruct the project, thus leading to delayed

implementation. For this reason, the developer has an interest in making every effort

to obtain the consent of the holdouts, without resorting to legal proceedings. As noted,

these efforts require interpersonal skills and good knowledge sharing and transfer

mechanism.

2.5 Knowledge-Sharing in Urban Renewal Projects

Action strategies that are effective in promoting the processes of obtaining consent

and decision-making in urban renewal projects require the ﬂow of knowledge both

to homeowners and to other relevant stakeholders. Collective knowledge is the key

to the success of collective action. There are various means of knowledge-sharing in

urban renewal procedures, as I will detail later.

2.5.1 Public Participation

One of the accepted means of knowledge transfer related to planning procedures is

public participation. Local authorities use public participation to transmit information

to residents and involve them in planning decisions about their living environments.14

Public participation serves local governments in that it can increase the legitimacy,

equity, and effectiveness of its actions, and can be a tool to empower residents and

strengthen the democratic process.15 The predominant notion is that residents who

take part in urban processes taking place in their environments become involved,

active, and inﬂuential citizens. In addition to fulﬁlling democratic values of sharing

and participation, it is also accepted that residents’ involvement may signiﬁcantly

contribute to identifying problems, contributing to planning solutions tailored to real

needs of the target populations, and recruiting residents as change agents who lead

and motivate planning processes in cooperation with the local government.16

14 In Israel, there is no formal requirement that local authorities involve the public in the decision-

making process, apart from in the Planning and Construction Law 1965, which contains a speciﬁc

procedure for public participation. The law requires the planning and construction authorities to

provide information to the public when they prepare a plan and provides the right to object to those

affected by the plan. See Carmon and Alterman (2011).

15 The literature written on the subject mainly deals with theories of public choice and collective

action and focuses on the relationship between local governments and residents.

16 For a discussion on this topic, see Nagid (2015, p. 18).

18 O. Bloom

While the local authority’s commitment to public participation processes is

common practice and the foundation of several theories, there is very little academic

or public discussion on corporate bodies’, particularly development companies’,

commitment to hold participation processes pertaining to their urban renewal

projects. In Israel, the practice of sharing information with apartment owners has

largely evolved from practice, and only since 2018 have developers been obligated

by law to hold an information session for owners before asking them to sign any

document. This session allows the developer to introduce themselves to all home-

owners affected by the project and to present them with the deal they propose to

offer.17

2.5.2 Community Forums, Representative Committees,

and Smaller-Scale Meetings

In urban renewal projects, knowledge transfer methods vary from project to project.

The most common is community forums, in which the developer and other profes-

sionals explain the project process to apartment owners. Another method is to select a

building committee whose role is to mediate between the developer and the apartment

owners, to assist in making collective decisions. Additional methods that developers

utilize to build trust with apartment owners include smaller-scale (one-on-one or

small group) meetings between developer representatives and owners, as well as

events and activities that contribute to strengthening the local community.

Community forums are known to create complexity. These events are steeped

in emotions, including anger, anxieties, and fears that are not necessarily assuaged

within the meeting time, often leading the forum to end with emotions running

high. Another major problem is that the information transmitted during the forum is

often unclear to participants: In forums with a large number of participants, many

homeowners ﬁnd it difﬁcult to follow the large quantity of complex information

conveyed, and they may not have knowledge of many of the concepts and language

used. These circumstances create a sense of helplessness and frustration.

The possibility of conveying knowledge within a large forum, despite the neces-

sity, is therefore limited and cannot come in place of smaller-scale meetings and

additional knowledge transfer methods. Selecting a representative committee is also

not an ideal solution for mediating knowledge, as often certain apartment owners do

not consider those selected as representative of them, and thus refuse to cooperate

with their decisions.

17 Section 1A, Amendment No. 6 to the Vacate and Build Law (Promoting Vacate and Build

Projects), 2006.

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 19

2.5.3 Mailing

Another means of knowledge transfer in the framework of urban renewal projects

is by mail—whether electronic or physical. Providing written material that includes

information and updates is of great importance, however, such material is often not

presented in clear language, and in many cases is not translated into the various

languages understood by the apartment owners. Another problem that is often not

addressed is the need to cater to owners who are illiterate.

2.5.4 Invitations to Project Meetings

Lead stakeholders may encourage apartment owners to take an active part in urban

renewal projects by inviting them or their representatives to participate in regular

project meetings, attended by key actors including the planning institutions and

various professionals. The effectiveness of this approach is debated: Some believe

that where the homeowners are highly involved, this may interfere with the project’s

progress and delay its implementation. On the other hand, there are those who claim

that when fully involved in the project, the owners have a greater commitment to

the process, thus ensuring it is condensed. Regardless of which of these theories is

correct, very few developers take the step of inviting owners to project meetings,

though it would likely increase transparency and trust relations between the players.

2.5.5 Technological Means of Knowledge Sharing

Innovative information and communication measures that are being developed in

Israel and around the world allow for easy access to databases and serve as acces-

sible, affordable platforms for knowledge exchange and operationalization of multi-

participant consulting procedures. The ease of use and absence of time, distance, and

locational constraints, make it simpler for all participants to access information and

get involved.

In recent years, several technological initiatives have evolved in Israel, with the

goal of supporting urban renewal processes through knowledge sharing. Their aim

is to redeﬁne the relationship between the various stakeholders and allow knowl-

edge ﬂow. One such initiative is getStatus,18 which serves as a digital platform that

allows actors involved in urban renewal projects to build and manage a cooperative

knowledge base, and also provides apartment owners with key information using

various visual aids. For example, the owners can view a diagram online, at any time,

that allows them to understand the current statues of the project: Stages that are

complete are colored green, the current stage is colored blue, and future milestones

18 https://www.getstatus.online/.

20 O. Bloom

are colored gray. This color-coded snapshot provides clarity, increases transparency,

and minimizes the knowledge gaps that generally exist between the parties.

GetStatus’ technological platform allows the developer to share all general docu-

ments relevant to the project (e.g., legal agreements, renderings, plans) as well as to

share private ﬁles with individual homeowners. The owners can also upload docu-

ments to the system, such as their ID and other personal details. Thus, a two-way

information stream is created. The system also enables the developer and other actors

to send email and phone messages to owners, and to track the tasks they set for

themselves.

The system’s knowledge base is managed through smart dashboards based on

analytical data that includes statistics and trends, displayed visually. The informa-

tion displayed through each dashboard is derived from the various stakeholders’

data, which is managed by the source company, usually in an array of Excel spread-

sheets. The contribution of the smart dashboards to the project process is not only

in numerical data analysis: These dashboards are intended to provide the developer

and other stakeholders with tools that guide their conduct throughout the process,

including making improvements. These dashboards also assist to break up the process

of obtaining consent from apartment owners, either at the level of the entire project or

individual building. Thus, the getStatus platform is a technological tool for increasing

transparency, through bidirectional knowledge sharing. The goal of this transparency

is to build trust, and thus to gradually remove objections to the project.

The importance of this type of system is clear in light of the difﬁculties associated

with knowledge transfer by traditional means. The lack of certainty and of knowl-

edge ﬂow that characterizes many urban renewal projects cause affected apartment

owners to suspect that signiﬁcant information is being withheld from them. This

suspicion undermines the trust relationship, creating resistance to the project. And

yet, such technological platforms do not provide the required solution in all cases—

particularly when it comes to populations that are elderly, technology-challenged,

do not understand the language used, or are illiterate. There is no substitute for a

personal relationship between the developer’s personnel and the apartment owners,

especially when it comes to disadvantaged populations.

In the next section, I will describe a unique stakeholder system that was led by an

academic body that acted as a kind of knowledge mediator between the apartment

owners and the developer, in a large project involving a disadvantaged population.

2.6 Part Two—Case Study

The case study deals with a multistakeholder system in an urban renewal project in

the Jaffa C neighborhood, Tel Aviv-Jaffa. The project began as an initiative of the

Clinic for Housing Rights and Urban Development at the Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv

University—an academic-professional body, with a social and pedagogical purpose

that sought to assist residents of Kurt Tucholsky Street to deal with the ramiﬁcations

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 21

of safety concerns in the form of structural defects identiﬁed in their apartment

buildings.

2.6.1 Chain of Events

In January 2007, Tel Aviv-Jaffa municipality pronounced four buildings on Kurt

Tucholsky Street as hazardous, and issued orders against the apartment owners,

requiring them to correct a long list of defects within a short timeframe of 90 days.

The apartment owners, most of whom are elderly and of low socioeconomic standing,

were unable to fund the necessary repairs, and as a result, a few months later, the

municipality ﬁled indictments against them for failure to repair a hazardous structure

(a criminal offense with penalty of ﬁne or imprisonment).19

Following the indictments, representatives from the neighborhood contacted the

Clinic for Housing Rights and Urban Renewal (henceforth, “the Clinic”) requesting

legal assistance. In the ﬁrst phase, the Clinic approached the municipality in an

attempt to ﬁnd a ﬁnancing solution to repair the buildings. The proposal that the

Clinic submitted to the municipality included an arrangement whereby the home-

owners would receive a loan for which repayment would be spread over sixty monthly

payments without interest nor indexation. Following internal discussions with the

municipality’s legal advisor, the municipality expressed a willingness to help the

owners, given their economic position; however, the legal advisor expressed concern

that assisting by providing subsidized loans would set a precedent for owners within

other buildings pronounced as hazardous across the municipality. Thus, after further

consideration, the municipality decided not to adopt the Clinic’s proposal. But, appre-

ciating the difﬁculties faced by the apartment owners, the municipality contacted the

national Ministry of Construction and Housing with a proposal to establish a joint

fund to address the issue of hazardous buildings. The Ministry refused the proposal,

re-enforcing that the full responsibility for addressing such cases rests with local

governments.

The authorities’ inaction, in the face of ongoing criminal proceedings against the

Kurt Tucholsky apartment owners, led the Clinic to abandon accepted channels and

to look for alternative, market-based, solutions. In 2009, the Clinic conceived of a

planning solution that was based on the logic and beneﬁts of NOP 38—regulation that

allows construction bonuses to be provided in refurbishment projects that reinforce

19 The orders issued (known as Order 3) are a legal tool utilized by Tel Aviv Municipality in order

to maintain the resident safety and the maintenance of old buildings. Their role is to encourage

apartment owners to act together to manage the hazard. The orders oblige the owners to repair the

buildings’ defects within a limited timeframe of 90 days, at the end of which indictments are ﬁled

if the repairs are not made. The uniqueness of orders 3 is that they comprise a form of collective

punishment.

22 O. Bloom

existing buildings against earthquakes.20 The Clinic proposed that the reinforcement

works required would be undertaken by a developer, which would, in exchange for

footing the bill for those works, receive the buildings’ rooftop building rights. The

developer would use those rights to construct new apartments, which could be leased

to students studying at the nearby Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo. The proposal,

the Clinic’s members hoped, would lead to repair of the buildings’ defects with

minimal cost to the apartment owners, while advancing a social initiative—injecting

a young population into an aging, disadvantaged neighborhood.

2.7 Collective Action

The Clinic was the initiator and driving force of the project in its early stages. Its

initial motivation was to ﬁnd a solution to the problem of hazardous buildings, and

it was motivated only by social and pedagogical interests. In order to establish the

Clinic’s status as the lead actor that managed all stakeholders in the project, its

initial mission was to strengthen its relationship with the apartment owners, including

building trust and establishing its legitimacy in their eyes. To achieve this goal,

Clinic members visited the neighborhood twice a week and assisted the owners with

various legal issues. In addition, they held community meetings in each building,

where they presented key information to the homeowners. Once the relationship was

strengthened, the Clinic began to involve more stakeholders.

2.7.1 The Three-Way Cooperative Relationship Between

the Clinic, Developer, and Apartment Owners

The ﬁrst player that the Clinic brought in to connect with the apartment owners was

the developer. For several months, this relationship was fully mediated by the Clinic:

The team organized all meetings between the parties, acting as the “matchmaker,”

inviting both sides to meet. In addition, the Clinic team prepared each of the parties

20 National Outline Plan (NOP/“TAMA”) 38 grants additional building rights to apartment owners

whose buildings undergo reinforcement. The owners transfer these rights to a real-estate devel-

oper in exchange for the reinforcement, renovation, and upgrades (sometimes expansion) of their

apartments. The State also foregoes the homeowners’ purchase tax and capital gain tax, and the

local municipality pitches in by foregoing the betterment levy it is entitled to charge when tenants

obtain additional building rights. The homeowners get a reinforced, improved building that is more

resistant to earthquakes, overall renovation including both the building’s interior and exterior, and

sometimes signiﬁcant expansion of each apartment. An elevator is also added since the developer

constructs extra ﬂoors on the rooftop. It is common for storerooms to be built, as well as parking

solutions, all according to the physical and economic conditions of respective projects. Each project

is examined individually: its economic potential must be well explored in order to ensure, on the

one hand, that the developer stands to gain rather than lose from it, and, on the other hand, that

apartment owners receive maximum beneﬁts.

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 23

for the meetings and attended every meeting as an active participant. The meetings

themselves were mediated by the Clinic team, which included a group of third-

year law students in addition to Clinic staff. At each meeting, the Clinic team made

sure to introduce all participants, set and explain the agenda, and to intervene either

when tempers ﬂared or when they identiﬁed a knowledge gap between the parties.

The most interesting aspect of these activities was how the Clinic prepared each

side for the meetings. This preparation aspect embodied the Clinic’s endeavor to

develop the foundation for the relationship between the owners and the developer,

even before the initial encounter between the parties took place. The message that

the Clinic conveyed to the apartment owners at the ﬁrst preparatory session was that

they would meet a developer whose key motivation to join the project would be

ﬁnancial, but that nevertheless, the developer could be a partner who would beneﬁt

them by signiﬁcantly improving their living condition. Given this paradigm, the

Clinic encouraged the homeowners to think and act as consumers, as a legitimate

partner in the transaction, and as lead negotiators who could also make demands:

“You need to understand that you hold a lot of power in your hands.”21

Another aspect of attempting to mold the relationship between the owners and

developer came to light when residents raised questions that were beyond the Clinic’s

role and responsibility. In directing these questions to the appropriate party, the Clinic

delineated the roles and responsibilities of each of the stakeholders. The Clinic

encouraged the apartment owners to form a direct communication channel with

the developer, through which they could ask their pressing questions. That encour-

agement took a form that was not only verbal, but also demonstrated in practice, as

evidenced by the following case: At the outset of the second stakeholder meeting, the

Clinic’s law students sat among the apartment owners, rather than sitting separately

as they did in other meetings. This arrangement was spontaneous, rather than a result

of a decision made by the Clinic staff. During the meeting, the students asked the

developer several tough questions about the project plans—the vast majority of which

were from the perspective of the apartment owners and about neighborhood inter-

ests. The students did not pretend to be apartment owners, but their placement among

them, along with the nature of the questions they asked, challenged the developer’s

representatives, leading them to supply complete answers to the apartment owners.22

The students later discussed the meeting among themselves. They noted that they

had made sure to ask the developer all the “tough” questions that the apartment

owners should have raised but did not do so. By voicing the concerns that indeed

needed to be heard, the students created a model for apartment owners to emulate,

presenting the latter with a mode of behavior that they may not have considered

possible.23

21 From Galia Rattner’s thesis, “Attempting to ﬁnd solutions to the problem of dangerous buildings:

sociology of ‘partnership’ at the Yaffo Gimmel project.” Rattner accompanied the clinic as part of

her practicum in the framework of her master’s degree and documented all the meetings that took

place over an entire year.

22 Rattner, Ibid.

23 Rattner, Ibid.

24 O. Bloom

As mentioned, the developer also participated in preparatory sessions organized by

the Clinic, prior to ﬁrst meeting with the apartment owners. Part of the preparation

was informative in nature: The Clinic team handed over the minutes of meetings

it had held with the owners, as well as a list of questions and issues raised by

the apartment owners (moderated by the Clinic). Another part of the preparation

focused on presenting the Clinic’s vision and gradually building the developer’s

social awareness regarding the needs of the homeowners.

The Clinic staff believed that by maintaining an ongoing relationship with the

developer, the latter would absorb some of its values and its worldview. Shortly after

the Clinic’s relationship with the developer began, the former’s staff proudly noted

that the developer called itself a “social developer.” This sense of pride emerged

from the Clinic’s goal to ascribe a speciﬁc role and identity to the developer; one

that appreciates the need to contribute positively to the lives of the apartment owners

and of the entire community.24 From the developer’s perspective, pronouncing itself

as a social developer was the ﬁrst step toward adopting social values as part of the

company’s social identity.

The Clinic team’s experience in guiding the relationship among the stakeholders

and their different identities was at times deﬁned by success, and at other times

deﬁned by episodes of failure and loss of control over the stakeholder system, as

discussed below.

2.7.2 Moments of Success in Guiding the Stakeholder

Relationship

From the ﬁrst drafts, the architectural plans included the installation of elevators as

an integral part of the refurbishment of the buildings. The introduction of elevators

is a fundamental aspect of plans prepared under NOP 38. But in the case of Kurt

Tucholsky Street, this feature was perhaps the most signiﬁcant that the developers

could supply for the beneﬁt of apartment owners, in particular the elderly and ailing

among them, to improve their mobility and quality of life. When the developer ﬁrst

presented the plans, the owners were told that the architects had found that the

only way to install an elevator would be through pre-existing concealed laundry

hanging spaces located on external walls outside each apartment’s kitchen.25 When

the developer noted the intensity of the owners’ objections to this proposal, they

organized a meeting between themselves, the owners, and the architect. The latter

claimed that given the constraints of the buildings, there was no other option, to

which claim the owners responded in anger and opposition. The owners had two main

claims: (a) that it is not appropriate to have guests enter each apartment through the

24 Rattner, Ibid.

25 It is quite common in Israel, particularly in older buildings, to hang laundry from clothes-

lines suspended on external walls. Often these clotheslines are concealed with metal or concrete

latticework.

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 25

kitchen and (b) that they require the laundry spaces, as most of them hang laundry

there rather than using an electric dryer. Thus, the owners’ opposition provided a

vivid illustration of a clash between cultural and social perceptions. The unequivocal

message the owners conveyed to the developer and the architect was that they should

be attentive to the former’s needs, because otherwise the project would not come to

fruition.

Although the developer and architect reiterated that there was no alternative and

that the solution that they were presenting was the best they could ﬁnd, the subject

remained highly sensitive. In the two weeks following presentation of the plans,

students from the Clinic held small-scale meetings with each family individually, in

which the subject of the location of the elevators arose repeatedly as a signiﬁcant

complication. Finally, after repeated objections, the developer set the architect the

task of ﬁnding another creative s olution that would better suit the homeowners’

demands. Such a solution was indeed found: The alternative architectural plan placed

the elevators at the front of the building, allowing entrance to the apartments directly

to their living rooms (and not their kitchens). This placement of the elevator would

lead to a slight reduction in the size of the living room window in each apartment,

but as a “compensation”, the plans add a sun terrace to each apartment.

The apartment owners responded enthusiastically to the new plans. The Clinic

saw the change to the plans as an achievement on the part of the owners, congrat-

ulating them on their great success. The change to the plans in response to the

demands of the owners was thus marked out among the Clinic staff as one of its

key successes. From the Clinic’s perspective, the achievement was twofold: First,

the communication between the owners and developer was conducted in the spirit

that the Clinic had worked to instill, and just as signiﬁcant—the plan change took

place without threatening the stability of the project system. Second, the achievement

demonstrated one of the means by which the power relations between the developer

and homeowners are formed: Through the Clinic’s design and management of the

relationship between the developer and owners, and through its encouragement and

support, the owners acquired power vis-à-vis the developer. And yet, in the recog-

nition of that power, a disquieting question arose in the background: In the future,

would the owners be capable of bringing about a similar process themselves, without

the Clinic’s assistance?26 This question remains unanswered.

2.7.3 Moments of Failure in Steering the Stakeholder

Relationship

The Clinic managed to steer the relationships between the various stakeholders, as

long as the process was under its control. The issue of the elevators discussed above

demonstrates a case in which the communication between the developer and the resi-

dents was conducted in accordance with the Clinic’s design. And yet, the Clinic did

26 Rattner, Ibid.

26 O. Bloom

not have full control to manage the relationships among the stakeholders throughout

the process.27 For example, various market limitations dictated new conditions for the

project. When the architectural plans came before the District Planning Committee

for approval, its appraiser formed the opinion that the project was not economically

viable in its then-format and therefore, that additional ﬂoors should be permitted.

This decision conﬂicted with the Clinic’s standpoint, as it had aimed to control the

ﬂow of new dwellers in the buildings, so that the pre-existing social and cultural

fabric would not be signiﬁcantly impacted. The Clinic team also feared that the addi-

tion of a signiﬁcant number of apartments would signiﬁcantly increase the buildings’

maintenance costs, to the extent that the original owners would face ﬁnancial harm

in the future.

Another example of the Clinic’s lack of control in steering the system was the

change of plans regarding the population that would live on the newly ﬂoors to be

added to the buildings. As mentioned, the original plan was that the new, upper

ﬂoors would be designated as rental housing for students from the nearby academic

college. The Clinic team’s vision was that the students who would live in the new

apartments would integrate into the community, even contributing their time to assist

local residents, under the College’s volunteer program. However, despite the fact

that in the early stages of the project, there was full cooperation between the Clinic,

the developer, and the College, the College eventually withdrew from the project.

The College’s withdrawal, together with other market constraints, led to the new

apartments being sold on the open market rather than rented to students. From that

moment on, the Clinic was no longer in control of the social elements of the project,

and thus was unable to direct the social enhancements that the team had envisioned.

2.7.4 The Dynamism of the Stakeholder System

The project began as a social initiative by the Clinic’s team, but branched out over

time, with more and more stakeholders coming on board, compounding the various

interests in, and expectations from, the project. The plan became more sophisticated,

more complex, and more detailed. To understand the dynamism of the stakeholder

system, one must recognize the many ways in which the project was constantly

evolving.

The project’s general action plan changed several times along the way. For

example, as described above, the Academic College, which was initially involved,

found alternative housing solutions for its students, leading to cancelation of the

plan to rent the new apartments to students. The project’s construction plan also

changed frequently, being often r edesigned according to both the bidding of various

stakeholders and market constraints. In addition, each of the stakeholders changed

their positions over time and changing circumstances: For example, at the outset, the

apartment owners simply sought a solution to their indictments and to their buildings’

27 Rattner, Ibid.

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 27

safety defects; over time, their focus widened to the “grand plan” for urban renewal.

The Clinic also underwent a change: At ﬁrst, it was highly involved in promoting

the project, but over time, the staff began to doubt their level of involvement in

the process. Understanding that the project would drastically change the apartment

owners’ lives led the team to feel an increased sense of responsibility and concern

for the owners’ future. When the project reached the stage in which the developer

and owners signed contractual agreements, the Clinic took a step back and the devel-

oper managed the signing process. At that point, the Clinic team limited its role to

explaining the contract and its terms to the owners. Over time, as the involvement

of the Clinic diminished, the developer became the dominant actor conducting the

project.

Individual stakeholders sometimes took on multiple standpoints simultaneously.

For example, the municipality ﬁled indictments against the owners, but at the same

time was a partner in the attempt to ﬁnd a solution to repair the hazardous buildings.

There was also signiﬁcant dynamism in the relationships between the various players.

These relationships ranged from cooperation and even friendship, to mistrust and

even hostility. For example, the developer’s relationship with the apartment owners,

which was originally fully mediated at by the Clinic, became at times independent

and disconnected from the Clinic’s inﬂuence. The owners’ original hesitation and

suspicion of the developer were superseded by trust and direct communication. The

Clinic’s relationship with the developer was also variable: At times, there was full

cooperation between the two, but at other times the Clinic staff felt the need to

be cautious and to put limits on the developer’s power. All of the above portrays a

complex stakeholder system. Uncertainty, tension, suspicion, and competing interests

were present alongside the cooperative effort.28

Despite the attempts to supervise, and to direct relationships and communication,

the Clinic was unable to control the stakeholder system at will. The large number

of actors and constraints created a vibrant and changing system; relationships were

created and dissolved, and each of the actors had the power to undermine, as well as

to inﬂuence the project’s character.

2.8 Conclusions

From the outset, the urban renewal project for buildings on Kurt Tucholsky Street

involved the formation of a stakeholder system that was made up of multiple actors

that both inﬂuenced and were impacted by the project. In the early stages, the key

players were the apartment owners, the Clinic, and the municipality, who were then

joined by the developer followed by the Academic College, which was searching

for residential solutions for its students. Additional stakeholders, who joined later,

were lawyers and the project architect. But this list does not represent the entire

stakeholder system; rather, this system was ﬂuid and transformed frequently, as over

28 Rattner, Ibid.

28 O. Bloom

time different players took on more or less central roles, or their association with the

project ended.

The collective action that the Clinic attempted to spur had both successes and

failures. In its undertaking, the Clinic was required to take a series of actions: Initially,

it had to deﬁne the problem and the solution in service of which the stakeholders

would come together, and also frame the story and vision that justiﬁed the initiative.

Next, it had to recruit the stakeholders through a variety of means. In order to ensure

that the stakeholder system operated as planned, the Clinic also worked to guide the

communication among the actors. Thus, the Clinic’s team brought about, shaped,

and encouraged the relationships it saw as desirable—those that would ensure that

the parties would adhere to the roles it had assigned them.29

The Clinic had a speciﬁc vision for the relationship between the stakeholders,

which s haped its expectations from each of them. Having a role within the system, as

well as the speciﬁc relationships that the team developed with both the developer and

apartment owners, allowed the Clinic to be broadly involved in their relationship and

to function as a knowledge mediator that sought to minimize differences between the

parties. But this role did not guarantee that the players fully adhered to their assigned

roles. As demonstrated, over time the relationship slipped out of the Clinic team’s

control and developed in new directions, often to the Clinic’s dismay.

As an active player in the market that has awareness of its forces from a critical

perspective, the key tools available to the Clinic were the use of the empowerment

mechanisms that it developed in its work with the apartment owners: Instilling them

with new skills for negotiation with the developer, regularly transferring knowledge

at all stages of the project, and knowledge mediation between the different stake-

holders. The Clinic also played an important role in shaping the developer’s corporate

identity by creating expectations among the apartment owners. Those expectations

became enshrined in the company’s decision-making apparatus, and even served the

developer in future projects that it obtained based on its new self-ascribed identity.

Looking back, it seems that these are the only means left for nonproﬁt bodies

such as the Clinic—those that seek to create social change within the conﬁnes of the

market and ﬁnd themselves bound by power relations and market constraints that

do not necessarily align with their goals and values. The Clinic made every effort to

direct the project to the extent possible, but ultimately the system took on a life of its

own through the actions of the various stakeholders. A few years following the story

told in these pages, construction began on this signiﬁcant project and at the time of

writing, it has reached its ﬁnal stages.

29 Rattner, Ibid.

2 Collective Action in Urban Renewal Projects 29

References

Callon M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and

the ﬁshermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief: a new sociology of

knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp 196–233

Carmon D, Alterman R (2011) Will my voice be heard? Public participation and the right to be heard

in planning procedures in Israel. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion [Hebrew]

De Winter R (2001) The anti-sweatshop movement: constructing corporate moral agency in the

global apparel industry. Ethics Int Aff 15(2):99–115

Flint Ashery S (2020) Spatial Behavior in Haredi Jewish Communities in Great Britain. Springer,

Cham. ISBN 978-3-030-25857-3; 978-3-030-25858-0

French P (1979) The corporation as a moral person. Am Philos Q 16(3):207–215

Kennedy D (2002) The limited equity coop as a vehicle for affordable housing in a race and class

divided society. Harv Law J 46:85–125

Nagid M (2015) Public participation in local government: practical experience and lessons learned.

Policy paper 110. The Israeli Institute for Democracy, pp 1–129 [Hebrew]

Chapter 3

Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being:

Home Is Where the Heart Is

Ayelet Sapir and Eyal Yaniv

Abstract Cities are challenged by the growing need to improve their management

skills to maintain a high quality of life and well-being for their residents. In their

ambition to achieve this goal, they set to become smart cities and therefore implement

citizen engagement methods as part of smart governance as well as reach smart cities

3.0 evolvement (Flint Ashery in Scales of change, pp. 185–192, 2023). Implementa-

tion of citizen engagement takes different forms and capacities from consulting the

public to cocreation of solutions for the city by citizens, city managers and other stake-

holders. Neve Sha’anan neighborhood in Tel Aviv Yafo was chosen as a case study to

discuss aspects of citizen engagement and its relationship with well-being. Citizen

engagement in the neighborhood was implemented using Geodesign to develop a

plan for the central bus station (see Steinlauf-Millo’s chapter). The process is used

to analyse the mediation between citizen engagement and well-being through moti-

vational and cognitive factors. These factors include satisfaction, place attachment

and service quality. Conclusions indicate the importance of citizens in the decision-

making of the local habitat and the need to include the different communities that

reside in a place.

Keywords Citizen engagement ·Smart cities ·Well-being

3.1 Introduction

Populations in cities have boomed signiﬁcantly over the past few decades (OECD

2020). Most of humanity is living in cities (Chourabi et al. 2012) with a forecast

approaching 70% by 2050 (United Nations 2018). Therefore, cities are challenged by

A. Sapir (B) · E. Yaniv

Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

e-mail: ayeletsapir10@gmail.com

E. Yaniv

e-mail: eyal.yaniv@biu.ac.il

S. Flint Ashery (ed.), Geodesigning Our Future, The Urban Book Series,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52235-2_3

31

32 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

the growing need for municipal services that require them to improve their manage-

ment skills if they aim to maintain a high quality of life and well-being for their

residents.

The need to acquire new management skills was a catalyst for a new ﬁeld in

research, namely smart cities. Smart cities is a term that describes cities whose goal

is to provide their citizens with better quality of life and well-being by investing in

technologies, communication, mobility governance and human resources (Caragliu

et al. 2011; Irungbam 2016; Kummitha 2019; Kummitha and Crutzen 2017). Indeed,

the six dimensions upon which smart cities performance is usually measured are:

smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living and

smart governance (Caragliu et al. 2011).

One of the methods employed within these dimensions is citizen engagement

as part of smart governance (Gifﬁnger et al. 2007a). Citizen engagement, meaning

the active participation of citizens in the decision-making process of their city, was

found to have a positive effect on the well-being of citizens (De Guimarães et al.

2020). Furthermore, citizen engagement is part of the evolution of smart cities. Liter-

ature describes three generations for smart cities development. Smart cities 1.0 was

technology driven and led by technology companies. Smart cities 2.0, Technology

enabled, city led and ﬁnally smart cities 3.0 citizen cocreation, where citizens engage

with the city in creating services they need (Apanaviciene et al. 2020; Cohen 2015).

Cities implement citizen engagement at different levels, methods and ﬁelds of

interest. These levels refer to the involvement and power citizens have in the process

from passive information recipients to codevelopers of solutions for the city (Arnstein

1969). The methods used to gain citizens’ input are also versatile. Citizen engage-

ment can be facilitated using surveys, group consultations, brainstorming accelerator

programs and more. Lastly, the ﬁelds of interest that can beneﬁt from citizen engage-

ment are as wide as the cities’ management issues, for example design of urban

spaces, a decision on utility for areas, creation of new services, usage of city data

and much more.

This chapter will discuss the case study of the Neve Sha’anan neighborhood in

Tel Aviv Yafo where citizen engagement was employed for urban planning using

Geodesign methods (Ashery and Steinlauf 2018). This discussion aims to contribute

to the development of the citizen engagement theory. First, it will discuss how citizen

engagement contributes to the quality of life and well-being in the neighborhood.

Subsequently, mediation constructs will be reviewed to illustrate the mechanisms that

may facilitate such a contribution. Moreover, the discussion raised in this chapter

aims to make a practical contribution to the understanding of municipal managers.

The goal is to provide them with an understanding of how urban planning using

citizen engagement can assist them to tune with the expectations of their citizens.

They will gain a better understanding of the motivation to join citizen engagement

initiatives as well as the contribution of the initiatives to the well-being of their

constituents.

This chapter begins with the deﬁnition of citizen engagement explaining its signif-

icance and the different formations that citizens can contribute to their city’s decision-

making process. Then, quality of life and well-being are discussed to address the

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 33

relationship between these two constructs. The next section is dedicated to the moti-

vational constructs (satisfaction and place attachment) and the cognitive construct

(service quality) that are suggested to mediate the relationship. Then, the Neve

Sha’anan case study is described along with the Geodesign method used for urban

planning in the neighborhood. The theoretical considerations are described through

the prism of the case study to demonstrate how Geodesign methodology aims to

improve citizen well-being and quality of life. Finally, the chapter is concluded by

thoughts and recommendations for future research.

3.2 Literature Review

3.2.1 Citizen Engagement

Engagement is an interaction or dialogue that takes place between citizens and

organizations concerning the decision-making of the organization. It is a widely

studied area in marketing targeting consumer engagement (Calder et al. 2009;de

Oliveira Santini et al. 2020; Surprenant and Solomon 1987). Citizen engagement

has been widely studied in the ﬁelds of political science and public administration,

with research showing that active participation in decision-making processes leads

to better outcomes for individuals and communities (Caragliu et al. 2011;Cortés-

Cediel et al. 2019; De Guimarães et al. 2020). In the context of cities, this term refers

to the citizens and the decision-making procedures where they live (Chen et al. 2020;

Hatuka and Zur 2020; Zarei and Nik-Bakht 2021).

In 1969, Arnstein published a paper that introduced a ladder for citizen partici-

pation in governmental initiatives which measures activities according to the power

citizens have in the decision-making process. At the lower end of the ladder, the

citizens are merely passive participators receiving input from the municipalities that

either manipulate their behavior or inform the citizens regarding the municipalities’

activities. At a higher level, actual interaction with the citizens can be found when

the government asks for citizens’ contributions as information providers or consults

with them regarding their preferences on different topics related to the city. Finally,

at the top of the ladder, citizens have the ability to inﬂuence decisions when they

gain power and control to affect the decisions made.

In this chapter, the term citizen engagement, will focus on the higher levels of

the citizen engagement ladder and refer to a bidirectional interaction or discussion

between the government and citizens as part of the collaborative urban planning

process (Ashery and Steinlauf 2018; Bonsón et al. 2012; Cegarra-Navarro et al. 2012;

Hatuka and Zur 2020;Powelletal.

2009; Powell and Colin 2008). Engaging citizens

aims to give people more of a voice in the discussion over governance (Alizadeh

et al. 2019) thereby enhancing citizen power (Sierbers and Torﬁng 2018).

Citizen engagement is an integral part of the development of smart cities. It

contributes to smart governance which is one of the six dimensions smart cities are

34 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

measured by Gifﬁnger et al. (2007b). Citizen engagement acknowledges the impor-

tance of citizens being the heart of any urban community (Kummitha and Crutzen

2019). Undeniably, citizens are the foremost recipients of cities’ services that have

a direct effect on their day-to-day lives. Therefore, the importance for inclusion of

citizens in discussions and decision-making regarding their living environment is

recognized by researchers and practitioners (Callahan 2007).

Much work has focused on the participation of citizens in collaboration with

government activities (Ianniello et al. 2019; Pina et al. 2017). However, this refer-

ences the behavioral aspects of such activities. Meaning that it measures the number

of individuals that responded or the number of responses to an initiative. Engagement

on the other hand goes beyond participation. It is the degree of bringing one’s self

into the situation (Kahn 1990). Engagement is deﬁned as the emotional and cognitive

states individual people have concerning their participation (Calder et al. 2009; Paek

et al. 2013; Smith and Gallicano 2015).

Engagement is a bonding between participants and the organization. In the context

of cities, the organizations are local governments or municipalities that promote

advocacy by the end user who are the citizens. Moreover, engagement presents an

emotional connectedness that shows trust in the partner engaging with (Pansari and

Kumar 2017). This is the deﬁnition that the present study will use when studying

citizen engagement.

Promoting citizen engagement is a key factor for smart cities through smart gover-

nance (De Guimarães et al. 2020). Thus, making it an intriguing idea to study and

pursue. In General, engagement includes activities and communications that can be

taken by individual citizens to contribute to their local community (Cegarra-Navarro

et al. 2012) at different levels (Callahan 2007; Ianniello et al. 2019). These activities

allow for interactions between municipal governments and the citizens that reside in

the city (Zhu et al. 2022).

Citizen engagement encapsulates challenges and opportunities for both partic-

ipants, the city and the citizens. Initiation of citizen engagement activities has to

consider the complexity of the process along with the advantages and beneﬁts the

process may yield.

Citizens have the potential to contribute to many municipal activities including

participatory budgeting, urban planning, development of services and more

(Campagna et al. 2016; Ruesch and Wagner 2014). Their ability to affect decision-

making of municipal affairs depends on the power they are entrusted with (Arnstein

1969).

Citizen engagement can be implemented through a variety of instruments and

tools such as surveys, discussions, competitive events, conferences, or cocreative

processes. Some initiatives are implemented online while others are ofﬂine face-

to-face processes (Yetano and Royo 2017). Each is designed to provide different

outputs.

One of the options that is gaining popularity to implement citizen engagement

initiatives is a cocreative process. Cocreation, a term coined in marketing, is deﬁned

by having multistakeholder involvement at different stages of development (Alimamy

and Gnoth 2022; Buonincontri et al. 2017; Khan and Krishnan 2021; Vargo and Lusch

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 35

2004). The outcomes of cocreation procedures are the product that was developed by

the interaction among various actors (Sierbers and Torﬁng 2018) working together

(Ercsey 2017) to achieve a common goal.

Cocreation methods in urban planning involve actively engaging citizens, govern-

ment ofﬁcials, professional planners and other stakeholders in the planning of urban

spaces and decision-making processes for these areas. These methods aim to foster

collaboration, inclusivity and collective intelligence to create more sustainable and

people-centric urban environments. Commonly used methods are Charrettes Partici-

patory Mapping (Kim et al. 2020; Roggema 2014), Geodesign (Ashery and Steinlauf

2018; Campagna et al. 2016; Kuniholm 2020; Steinitz 2012) and surveys. They aim

to bridge the gap between professional urban planners, municipal managers and the

community to foster a common understanding in creating a plan for an urban space.

Examples of the contribution and involvement of citizens to urban planning to create

an impact on the design of the space (Campagna et al. 2016) can be seen in cities

like Winnipeg,1 Calgary,2 Kelowna,3 Tel Aviv Yafo4 and others involving citizens in

the development of the concept of new and existing city areas.

Regardless of the method used, citizen engagement at the higher levels described

in the participatory ladder (Arnstein 1969) is a complex and costly process for the

local government to organize such an activity. Therefore, as such it should have a

signiﬁcant beneﬁt to the city and its citizens. Since it is expected to contribute to the

well-being and quality of life of the citizens, makes the process worthwhile pursuing.

3.3 Well-Being and Quality of Life

Well-being refers to the happiness or pleasure level a person feels (Kahneman and

Krueger 2006; Medvedev and Landhuis 2018) reﬂecting satisfaction either in short-

or long-term periods (Hooghe and Vanhoutte 2011).

Well-being is an interesting ﬁeld of research for many disciplines like psychology,

medicine, economics and community (Cooke et al. 2016; Hooghe and Vanhoutte

2011; Kahneman 1999; Medvedev and Landhuis 2018). Economists ﬁnd that under-

standing the motivation and decision-making of people is related to well-being

(Kahneman and Krueger 2006; Medvedev and Landhuis 2018) making it an inter-

esting construct also in the context of citizen engagement and inclusion of citizens

in city planning.

Quality of life is a multidimensional construct associated with different factors like

satisfaction, sense of community, health, employment, safety, environment, transport,

noise, pollution, crime, governance, available services and more (Appio et al. 2019;

Ballas 2013; Macke et al. 2018; Weziak-Białowolska 2016).

1 https://engage.winnipeg.ca/river-stradbrook-wellington-road-renewal-and-protected-bike-lanes.

2 https://engage.calgary.ca/heritage.

3 https://getinvolved.kelowna.ca/north-end?tool=map#tool_tab.

4 https://shituf.tel-aviv.gov.il/#/.

36 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

Quality of life and well-being are considered by some researchers as interchange-

able terms while others suggest that quality of life refers to objective factors (Li

and Weng 2007) while well-being refers to subjective ones (Mouratidis 2020). Well-

being is considered at times as the outcome of positive situations that are referred to

by the quality of life for citizens (De Guimarães et al. 2020) while others consider

the terms interchangeable.

Smart city research recognizes that quality of life is essential for the development

of smart cities (Cortés-Cediel et al. 2019; De Guimarães et al. 2020; Gil-Garcia et al.

2015; Macke et al. 2018; Nam and Pardo 2011) and is in fact one of the goals for

smart cities in their race to become smarter (Appio et al. 2019; Yigitcanlar et al.

2018). Literature shows that participative projects have an impact on the citizens’

quality of life (Chourabi et al. 2012; Macke et al. 2019) recognizing the importance

of the citizens’ input to these projects (Cortés-Cediel et al. 2019).

Since smart city and participative projects affect citizens’ quality of life (Chourabi

et al. 2012; Macke et al. 2019) and urban planning was found to be connected with the

quality of life (Papachristou and Rosas-Casals 2019) it can be assumed that citizen

engagement in urban planning will have a positive impact on quality of life. The

theory presented here suggests that the relationship between citizen engagement and

well-being is mediated through motivational and cognitive aspects.

Several reasons could explain the connection between citizen engagement with

quality of life and well-being. For example, some explanations point to motiva-

tional factors while others suggest that the connection is facilitated through cogni-

tive factors. Motivational aspects include emotional and psychological factors. This

chapter explores the mediation role of motivational factors such as place attachment

and satisfaction from the design of the space as well as cognitive aspects like service

quality on the relationship between citizen engagement and well-being.

3.3.1 Satisfaction

Satisfaction is a sense of delight that reﬂects the level of expectations met. It demon-

strates a subjective evaluation by a person from the performance of a service or

product or the person’s assessment how much the performance met the expected

outcome (Corrado et al. 2013;Molm

1991; Nadeem et al. 2020; Sales-Vivo et al.

2020; Surprenant and Solomon 1987). Satisﬁed customers are content with the

offering they receive from the organization they are interacting with (Hollebeek

and Rather 2019).

The result of citizen engagement activities concerned with urban planning is a

design of the urban space by citizens collaborating with other stakeholders such as

governmental managers, urban planning professionals and other interested parties.

Satisfaction from the process reﬂects how delighted are the participants with the

process that has met their expectations. Although measurement of satisfaction in

such initiatives is challenging (Kuniholm 2020), it is interesting to learn the level

and origin of satisfaction of the citizens taking part in the process.

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 37

3.3.2 Place Attachment

Place attachment is a multifaceted construct that refers to a bond one has to a location

and its affection toward a place (Boley et al. 2021). Researchers have focused on

psychological aspects describing emotional connection and feelings that people have

with a place and how they identify with a speciﬁc geographical location (Boley et al.

2021; Corrado et al. 2013; Shin and Jin 2022; Williams and Vaske 2003; Woosnam

et al. 2018). A place is deﬁned both by physical factors such as size structures and

shapes as well as psychological factors reﬂecting their experiences and memories of

a place. People’s relationship with a place and the meaning they attribute to the place

becomes part of the placeness of a certain location. Indeed, it has been suggested

that the regeneration of urban surroundings has to consider the emotional connection

of those living or visiting the place to keep its sense of place (Ujang and Zakariya

2015). Therefore, citizen engagement in creating a place would provide the planners’

insights into the makings of a place in order to continue dwellers’ attachment to the

venue. Connection with a place may be based on a social basis where one depends

on the assistance of fellow citizens in the community at times of need. It may also

stem from a physical basis that considers the quality of the place. Another possible

connection could be based on cognitive factors such as memories one has with the

place (Corrado et al. 2013;Kan 2007; Scannell and Gifford 2010). Measurements

for place attachment are mostly focused on place identity and place dependence.

Whereas the ﬁrst implies the emotional connection and the latter the functional

connection (Boley et al. 2021; Williams and Vaske 2003; Woosnam et al. 2018).

Citizen engagement initiatives in urban planning can reveal the source of bonding

and build on it to enhance and strengthen attachment.

Place attachment is interesting for long-term citizens as well as those visiting

for shorter terms. Therefore, it is studied with regard to citizens living in a certain

location as well as tourists visiting a place (Shin and Jin 2022; Suntikul and Jachna

2016; Woosnam et al. 2018). Literature shows newcomers to a city are less satisﬁed

and more critical than citizens who have lived longer in a speciﬁc place (Weziak-

Białowolska 2016). Moreover, those living longer terms show more place attachment.

Figure 3.1 shows, for example, the proposed urban planning for the ultra-Orthodox

neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, in which personal identities were integrated into

the planning design of the space.

Literature suggests that place attachment is related to civic participation in citizen

engagement initiatives (Shin and Jin 2022). Moreover, there is also evidence that a

lack of belonging may be could be related to less participation (Hatuka and Zur 2020).

Thus, making the relationship between citizen engagement and place attachment

interesting to explore.

Turning now to consider the cognitive aspect that could explain the relationship

between citizen engagement and quality of life, the next paragraph will review the

evaluation of the outcome of the citizen engagement initiative.

38 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

Fig. 3.1 Final plan for Ramat Shlomo neighborhood as designed during the geodesign workshop.

The group identity is reﬂected in the division of the neighborhood into mini-complexes for each of

the ultra-Orthodox sect, including dedicated institutions (synagogues for each sect, separation of

schools between sects and genders) and facilities, extensive use of public transportation and bike

paths

3.4 Service Quality

Research suggests service quality mediates the relationship between citizen engage-

ment and well-being. At large, municipal outputs toward citizens are service-oriented

(Li and Shang 2020), making the quality of city services an important determinant

of well-being in urban areas. Such services can include for example online, social,

waste disposal, etc. Access to high-quality services such as public transportation,

affordable housing and healthcare are crucial for the health and well-being of citi-

zens. The utility and service expected from urban planning are shaping the public

space to address the needs of those using it. Service quality in the eyes of citizens in

this context is deﬁned by the ability of the space designed to comply with their needs

and requirements of that space. In smart cities, high quality of service is expected

(Zhu et al. 2022).

Service quality can broadly be deﬁned as an abstract concept for evaluating the

perceived performance of a service to the end user. According to Parasuraman et al.

(1985), the construct illustrates the gap between the expectations from a service to

the perceived performance.

Research has shown that citizens with consistent access to high-quality services

are more likely to be satisﬁed with their lives and report higher well-being. It is

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 39

generally expected that solutions that have a better ﬁt for those using them will be

more satisfying.

Citizen engagement by nature and speciﬁcally participatory urban planning

involves more people developing city spaces. This has the potential to improve quality

of outcomes developed using the wisdom of the crowds (Hong et al. 2016, 2020).

Cocreation, the collaborative creation of solutions, is considered an antecedent

of satisfaction (Nadeem et al. 2020; Sales-Vivo et al. 2020). Such satisfaction could

have an impact on the gap evaluated when assessing service quality.

The impact of satisfaction on the city changes in accordance with an implementa-

tion of services. Citizens that are not happy with city services such as transportation,

amenities and environment will report dissatisfaction with the city. However, citi-

zens that are satisﬁed with security show an impact on satisfaction with the city in

comparison to other areas of service such as transportation, amenities and environ-

ment (Mouratidis 2021; Weziak-Białowolska 2016). These aspects are especially

important when developing a plan for urban space and considering the diverse issues

that the space should provide to the residents and visitors.

3.4.1 Citizen Engagement: Geodesigning the Neve Sha’anan

Neighborhood

Citizen engagement is both a concept and a set of methods used to attract citizens

to participate in the planning process as will be further described in relation to the

Neve Sha’anan neighborhood.

Neve Sha’anan is a neighborhood located at the southern part of Tel Aviv Yafo.

This neighborhood founded in 1921 has evolved into one of the most complex

neighborhoods in the city, characterized by overcrowding, neglect and crime. Neve

Sha’anan is populated by communities of low socioeconomic status. An estimated

15,000 people live there, of which 10K are undocumented residents, refugees, asylum

seekers and foreign workers.

The Neve Sha’anan project discussed in this chapter is an interesting case study

that uses Geodesign to engage citizens. Geodesign is an approach to urban planning

and design processes that combines geospatial analysis, design and collaborative

decision-making (Ashery and Steinlauf 2018; Haddad 2015; Steinitz 2012). These

include surveys, consultations and cocreation (Davis et al. 2021). The Geodesign

workshop as it was performed in Neve Sha’anan (see Chap. 5) is an interesting

case study for examining citizen engagement as it encapsulates all constructs of the

model. The following paragraphs will review the theory of citizen engagement as it

is manifested in this case study.

40 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

3.4.1.1 Citizen Engagement

The engagement of citizens (as well as other stakeholders) can be examined and

assessed by their contribution and dedication to the workshops they participate in

and their involvement in articulating the priorities of the group that they represent. In

bringing these priorities and insisting on the ones important to them to the negotia-

tion discussions, they demonstrate their level of engagement. The Geodesign method-

ology allows citizens to engage in the planning process and create a planning solution

that is in line with their values and beliefs. Citizens in the process are equal part-

ners along with other stakeholder groups that contribute to the decision-making of

the ﬁnal planning solution created. The voice and opinions of the citizens are kept

throughout the planning process and their impact on the planning process is signiﬁ-

cant. The citizens’ work is in collaboration and communication with the government

ofﬁcials participating in the design. The consensus map that the process leads to

shows the inﬂuence of the citizens. In initiating a collaborative process of design,

the local government commits to smart cities and smart governance methodologies.

In literature, citizen engagement has been associated with well-being and quality

of life. The next paragraph will review how the implementation of Geodesign as a

citizen engagement methodology contributes to well-being and quality of life.

3.4.1.2 Well-Being and Quality of Life

Assessing well-being and quality of life is a complex task as an outcome of the

Geodesign planning process. Indeed, this outcome is a plan that has been accepted

by all stakeholders participating in the planning. However, until its implementation,

it only illustrates the vision or wishes of those involved for the best option plan.

Although well-being may be affected by collaborative planning itself, it should be

considered that the ultimate goal of any planning process is the implementation of

the plan.

Research shows that the level of agreement for a plan is related to the likelihood

of its implementation (Steinlauf-Millo et al. 2021). Nevertheless, for the decision-

making process to be completed, might require the consequent acceptance of the

plan to implement and consequently the implementation itself. These are expected

to inﬂuence the quality of life of the citizens living in Neve Sha’anan or any other

area planned to use the Geodesign methodology.

3.4.1.3 Place Attachment

The place, its features and its functionalities are at the heart of the Geodesign process.

The concept encapsulates the idea that all stakeholders have a say in the development

of a plan for a speciﬁc location that would address their needs and wants to create a

better living environment. The function of a place is addressed in place attachment

by place dependence. While the identity of the place may be paramount for citizens

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 41

that look to impact their community and interact with others both within and other

stakeholders to introduce their wishes to the new plans.

Although most literature on place attachment discusses place identity and place

dependence (Boley et al. 2021; Woosnam et al. 2018), there is some evidence to

suggest that connection with the community increases place attachment (Lewicka

2011). Collaboration using the Geodesign methodology in GDH studios creates an

opportunity for citizens to connect with their communities and neighbors when plan-

ning an urban space that serves them. Moreover, the merging of groups that is done

during the different iterations of the process exposes them to other stakeholders in

the area such as business owners, government ofﬁcials and others that enable them

to have an even greater interaction with peers and increase their social network that

revolves around the area.

3.4.1.4 Satisfaction

Satisfaction is a sense of delight that reﬂects the level of expectations met. In Geode-

sign, the methodology designs a process which is navigated toward developing a

plan that meets the expectations of the participants by negotiation between them on

the issues important to consider in the area as well as to the group that they belong

to. Each stage of the process results in a consensus map and prioritization of the

discussed issues that impact the area.

However, since the plan does change through negotiations, and the ﬁnal result is

indeed a compromise that was reached by all parties involved in the process, it is

worth considering that there should be an assessment of the satisfaction level of the

participants after several rounds of planning and merging of groups. It is especially

intriguing to discover whether the changes in the results of each stage are reﬂected

in the satisfaction levels of the participants or, whether the fact that the changes

were made through a process of acceptance by participants has an impact on the

satisfaction that stays the same.

The Geodesign platform also allows separate evaluation of satisfaction for citizens

from the urban space. This feature allows the assessment of satisfaction during the

different stages of the process.

Place attachment and satisfaction are motivational constructs that are emotionally

oriented. The construct discussed in the following paragraph relates to the quality of

the plan being developed and is considered to illustrate the cognitive route.

3.4.1.5 Service Quality

The Geodesign process promotes a solution that is based on acceptance and agree-

ment by all participants involved. The expectations of all stakeholders are woven

throughout the process from the ﬁrst draft created separately by each group to the ﬁnal

uniﬁed urban plan. Beginning at the preliminary stage when the groups are formed,

participants are divided into groups according to their different identities, citizens,

42 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

government ofﬁcials, planners, etc. Such a division is aimed at creating closeness of

interests inside each group. In the next step, each of these groups performs an internal

discussion about their needs and requirements. The result is a consolidated vision

of the group’s priorities and maps regarding the designated area. In the following

stages, each group is teamed with another stakeholder group that is closest to it in its

prioritization. The new team negotiates a consolidated vision that considers all their

previous separate expectations and priorities and adapts them through discussions

and negotiation. The outcome of this stage, again, is aligned with the original expec-

tations of those participating in both groups. Using GDH enables tracing of changes

from each stage to the next. Although each iteration of the process and teaming of

new and bigger groups has an effect on the original plan, these changes are sewn

to the ﬁnal plan by discussion and acceptance of participants of the changes. Thus,

leading to a result that meets the expectations of participants. The linkage created

in the Geodesign process between the original plan and the outcome should ensure

that the gap Parasuraman et al. (1985) assesses will be kept as minimal as possible

and increase service quality.

3.5 Conclusion

The growing increase in population in cities has motivated city managers to seek

new governance and management methodologies to enable effective functioning

that contributes to well-being and quality of life. One of these methods is citizen

engagement which promotes the citizens into bringing their voices into the decision-

making process in the city.

This chapter used the case study urban planning of Neve Sha’anan neighborhood

in Tel Aviv Yafo that implemented Geodesign methodology using GDH to engage

citizens and demonstrate the considerations for citizen engagement theory. It char-

acterized the elements of citizen engagement in urban planning and Geodesign and

proceeded to propose the theory for citizen engagement relation with well-being

using these elements.

This analysis shows the rationality of the three proposed mediators in explaining

the relationship between citizen engagement and well-being. These mediators include

satisfaction, place attachment and service quality. While the ﬁrst two are motivational

constructs referring to the emotional connection with the process, the latter is a

cognitive construct that refers to the merit of the result. The chapter also indicates

why engagement should be assessed according to the emotional attributes rather than

the behavioral ones of participation.

However, this analysis sheds light on issues that require further investigation by

scholars. The main issue that requires attention involves the participants that choose

to take part in the citizen engagement initiatives. To gain the community’s point of

view on the matter of engagement, organizers ensure that a balanced representation

of residents will participate. Such a balance should consider gender, age, economic

status, homeowners and renters. In Neve Sha’anan, such considerations also include

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 43

the documented and undocumented residents as well as subcommunities and ethnic-

ities living in the area. Nonetheless, it raises the question of whether only those

residing in the neighborhood should be invited to the discussion. Indeed, urban space

has a major effect on those living in the neighborhood. Nonetheless, future research

should consider whether residents of adjacent neighborhoods using the area should

also take part in the process.

Another topic that requires elucidation that speciﬁcally arises from the case of

Neve Sha’anan is the differences in place attachment for different types of resi-

dents and how these differences impact the relationship between citizen engagement

and place attachment. Much work has been done on factors for place attachment

considering differences between tourists and residents (Aleshinloye et al. 2021;

Romão et al. 2018; Woosnam et al. 2018) as well as on citizen engagement with

tourists (Buonincontri et al. 2017; Mathis et al. 2016). Scholars have also consid-

ered differences between short-term and long-term residents in place attachment

(Weziak-Białowolska 2016). However, Neve Sha’anan residents have different types

of connections to the area since some of them are documented residents and citizens

while others have another legal standing (Flint Ashery and Steinlauf-Millo 2021,

2022). Nonetheless, undocumented individuals have community connections and a

vested interest in the area that may also impact their place attachment as well as their

citizen engagement considerations.

One thing that is clear is that different stakeholders have different considerations

when developing a plan, and it is worthwhile to collaborate with relevant stakeholders

to gain insights that beneﬁt the result.

References

Aleshinloye KD, Woosnam KM, Erul E, Suess C, Kong I, Boley BB (2021) Which construct is

better at explaining residents’ involvement in tourism; emotional solidarity or empowerment?

Curr Issues Tour 24:3372–3386

Alimamy S, Gnoth J (2022) I want it my way! The effect of perceptions of personalization through

augmented reality and online shopping on customer intentions to co-create value. Comput Hum

Behav 128:107105

Alizadeh T, Sarkar S, Burgoyne S (2019) Capturing citizen voice online: enabling smart participatory

local government. Cities 95:102400

Apanaviciene R, Vanagas A, Fokaides PA (2020) Smart building integration into a smart city

(SBISC). Energies

Appio FP, Lima M, Paroutis S (2019) Understanding smart cities: innovation ecosystems,

technological advancements, and societal challenges. Technol Forecast Soc Change 142:1–14

Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc 35:216–224

Ashery SF, Steinlauf R (2018) Planning vertical differentiation? Geodesign workshop in the case

study area of Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood in Tel Aviv, pp 272–283

Ballas D (2013) What makes a “happy city”? Cities 32:S39–S50

Boley BB, Strzelecka M, Yeager EP, Ribeiro MA, Aleshinloye KD, Woosnam KM, Mimbs BP

(2021) Measuring place attachment with the Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS). J

Environ Psychol 74:101577

44 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

Bonsón E, Torres L, Royo S, Flores F (2012) Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate

transparency in municipalities. Gov Inf Q 29:123–132

Buonincontri P, Morvillo A, Okumus F, van Niekerk M (2017) Managing the experience co-creation

process in tourism destinations: empirical ﬁndings from Naples. Tour Manage 62:264–277

Calder BJ, Malthouse EC, Schaedel U (2009) An experimental study of the relationship between

online engagement and advertising effectiveness. J Interact Mark 23:321–331

Callahan K (2007) Citizen participation: models and methods. Int J Public Adm 30:1179–1196

Campagna M, Steinitz C, Di Cesare EA, Cocco C, Hrishikesh B, Canﬁeld T (2016) Collaboration

in planning: the geodesign approach. Rozw Reg Polit Reg 35:55–72

Caragliu A, Del Bo C, Nijkamp P (2011) Smart cities in Europe. J Urban Technol 65–82

Cegarra-Navarro JG, Pachón JRC, Cegarra JLM (2012) E-government and citizen’s engagement

with local affairs through e-websites: the case of Spanish municipalities. Int J Inf Manage

32:469–478

Chen Q, Min C, Zhang W, Wang G, Ma X, Evans R (2020) Unpacking the black box: how to

promote citizen engagement through government social media during the COVID-19 crisis.

Comput Hum Behav 110:106380

Chourabi H, Nam T, Walker S, Gil-Garcia JR, Mellouli S, Nahon K et al (2012) Understanding smart

cities: an integrative framework. In: Proceedings of the annual Hawaii international conference

on system sciences, pp 2289–2297

Cohen B (2015) The 3 generations of smart cities: inside the development of the technology driven

city

Cooke PJ, Melchert TP, Connor K (2016) Measuring well-being: a review of instruments. Couns

Psychol 44:730–757

Corrado G, Corrado L, Santoro E (2013) On the individual and social determinants of neighbourhood

satisfaction and attachment. Reg Stud 47:544–562

Cortés-Cediel ME, Cantador I, Bolívar MPR (2019) Analyzing citizen participation and engagement

in European smart cities. Soc Sci Comput Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319877478

Davis J, Pijawka KD, Wentz E, Hale M, King DA (2021) Evaluating geodesign for community-

based tribal planning: the role of planners in marginalized communities. J Am Plann Assoc

87:527–541

De Guimarães JCF, Severo EA, Felix Júnior LA, Da Costa WPLB, Salmoria FT (2020) Governance

and quality of life in smart cities: towards sustainable development goals. J Clean Prod 253.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119926

de Oliveira Santini F, Ladeira WJ, Pinto DC, Herter MM, Sampaio CH, Babin BJ (2020) Customer

engagement in social media: a framework and meta-analysis. J Acad Mark Sci 48:1211–1228

Ercsey I (2017) The role of customers’ involvement in value co-creation behaviour is value co-

creation the source of competitive advantage? J Compet 9:51–66

Flint Ashery S (2023) Using negotiation to reduce the gap between planning and implementation.

In: Bevk T, Mojca G (eds) Scales of change. ECLAS, pp 185–192

Flint Ashery S, Steinlauf-Millo R (2021) Geodesign between IGC and geodesignhub: theory and

practice. In: Geertman SCM, Pettit C, Goodspeed R, Staffans A (eds) Urban informatics and

future cities. The urban book series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76059-5

Flint Ashery S, Steinlauf-Millo R (2022) Planning vertical differentiation? Geodesign workshop

in the case study area of Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood in Tel Aviv. In: Vertical cities. Edward

Elgar Publishing, pp 270–282

Gifﬁnger R, Fertner C, Kalasek R, Milanovi´c NP (2007a) Smart cities: ranking of European mid-

sized cities. In: Digital agenda for Europe, p 28

Gifﬁnger R, Fertner C, Kramar H, Meijers E (2007b) City-ranking of European medium-sized cities.

Cent Reg Sci 9:1–12

Gil-Garcia JR, Pardo TA, Nam T (2015) What makes a city smart? Identifying core components

and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Inf Polity 20:61–87

Haddad MA (2015) Review: a framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. J Plan

Educ Res 35:228–230

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 45

Hatuka T, Zur H (2020) Who is the ‘smart’ resident in the digital age? The varied proﬁles of users

and non-users in the contemporary city. Urban Stud 57:1260–1283

Hollebeek L, Rather RA (2019) Service innovativeness and tourism customer outcomes. Int J

Contemp Hosp Manag 31:4227–4246

Hong H, Wang AG, Du Q, Fan W, Xu D (2016) Crowd wisdom: the impact of opinion diversity and

participant independence on crowd performance. In: AMCIS 2016: surﬁng the IT innovation

wave—22nd Americas conference on information systems, pp 1–9

Hong H, Ye Q, Du Q, Wang GA, Fan W (2020) Crowd characteristics and crowd wisdom: evidence

from an online investment community. J Am Soc Inf Sci 71:423–435

Hooghe M, Vanhoutte B (2011) Subjective well-being and social capital in Belgian communities.

The impact of community characteristics on subjective well-being indicators in Belgium. Soc

Indic Res 100:17–36

Ianniello M, Iacuzzi S, Fedele P, Brusati L (2019) Obstacles and solutions on the ladder of citizen

participation: a systematic review. Public Manag Rev 21:21–46

Irungbam RS (2016) The model of smart cities in theory and in practice. J Stud Manag Plan

2:156–187

Kahn WA (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement at work. Acad Manag J 33:692–

724

Kahneman D (1999) Objective happiness. In: Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology,

pp 1–23

Kahneman D, Krueger AB (2006) Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. J

Econ Perspect 20:3–24

Kan K (2007) Residential mobility and social capital. J Urban Econ 61:436–457

Khan A, Krishnan S (2021) Citizen engagement in co-creation of e-government services: a process

theory view from a meta-synthesis approach. Internet Res 31

Kim G, Newman G, Jiang B (2020) Urban regeneration: community engagement process for vacant

land in declining cities. Cities 102:102730

Kummitha RKR (2019) Smart cities and entrepreneurship: an agenda for future research. Technol

Forecast Soc Change 149:119763

Kummitha RKR, Crutzen N (2017) How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary

perspective. Cities 67:43–52

Kummitha RKR, Crutzen N (2019) Smart cities and the citizen-driven internet of things: a qualitative

inquiry into an emerging smart city. Technol Forecast Soc Change 140:44–53

Kuniholm M (2020) Evaluating participatory and technological integration in geodesign practice.

J Digit Landsc Archit 2020:439–446

Lewicka M (2011) Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? J Environ Psychol

31:207–230

Li Y, Shang H (2020) Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use intention

regarding egovernment: Empirical evidence from China. Inf Manage 57:103197

Li G, Weng Q (2007) Measuring the quality of life in city of Indianapolis by integration of remote

sensing and census data. Int J Remote Sens 28:249–267

Macke J, Casagrande RM, Sarate JAR, Silva KA (2018) Smart city and quality of life: citizens’

perception in a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 182:717–726

Macke J, Rubim Sarate JA, de Atayde Moschen S (2019) Smart sustainable cities evaluation and

sense of community. J Clean Prod 239

Mathis EF, Lina H, Uysal M, Sirgy JM, Prebensen NK (2016) The effect of co-creation experience

on outcome variable. Ann Tour Res 57:62–75

Medvedev ON, Landhuis CE (2018) Exploring constructs of well-being, happiness and quality of

life. PeerJ e4903

Molm LD (1991) Affect and social exchange: satisfaction in power-dependence relations. Am

Sociol Rev 56:475–493

46 A. Sapir and E. Yaniv

Mouratidis K (2020) Commute satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, and housing satisfaction as

predictors of subjective well-being and indicators of urban livability. Travel Behav Soc 21:265–

278

Mouratidis K (2021) Urban planning and quality of life: a review of pathways linking the built

environment to subjective well-being. Cities 115:103229

Nadeem W, Juntunen M, Shirazi F, Hajli N (2020) Consumers’ value co-creation in sharing

economy: the role of social support, consumers’ ethical perceptions and relationship quality.

Technol Forecast Soc Change 151:119786

Nam T, Pardo TA (2011) Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and

institutions. In: ACM international conference proceeding series, pp 282–291

OECD (2020) OECD regions and cities at a glance 2020. OECD

Paek HJ, Hove T, Jung Y, Cole RT (2013) Engagement across t hree social media platforms: an

exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign. Public Relat Rev 39:526–533

Pansari A, Kumar V (2017) Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences.

J Acad Mark Sci 45:294–311

Papachristou IA, Rosas-Casals M (2019) Cities and quality of life. Quantitative modeling of the

emergence of the happiness ﬁeld in urban studies. Cities 88:191–208

Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its

implications for future research. J Mark 49:41

Pina V, Torres L, Royo S (2017) Comparing online with ofﬂine citizen engagement for climate

change: ﬁndings from Austria, Germany and Spain. Gov Inf Q 34:26–36

Powell MC, Colin M (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: what would

it really take? Sci Commun 30:126–136

Powell MC, Colin M, Powel M (2009) Participatory paradoxes: facilitating citizen engagement in

science and technology from the top-down? Bull Sci Technol Soc 29:325–342

Roggema R (2014) The design charrette. In: The design charrette: ways to envision sustainable

futures

Romão J, Kourtit K, Neuts B, Nijkamp P (2018) The smart city as a common place for tourists and

residents: a structural analysis of the determinants of urban attractiveness. Cities 78:67–75

Ruesch M, Wagner M (2014) Participatory budgeting in Germany—citizens as consultants. In:

Hope for democracy—25 years of participatory budgeting worldwide, pp 287–298

Sales-Vivo V, Gil-Saura I, Gallarza M (2020) Modelling value co-creation in triadic B2B industrial

relationships. Mark Intell Plan 38:941–955

Scannell L, Gifford R (2010) Deﬁning place attachment: a tripartite organizing framework. J Environ

Psychol 30:1–10

Shin J, Jin H (2022) Does residential stability lead to civic participation?: The mediating role of

place attachment. Cities 126:103700

Sierbers V, Torﬁng J (2018) Co-creation as a new form of citizen engagement: comparing Danish

and Dutch experiences at the local government level. Int Public Manag Rev 18:187–208

Smith BG, Gallicano TD (2015) Terms of engagement: analyzing public engagement with

organizations through social media. Comput Hum Behav 53:82–90

Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design

Steinlauf-Millo R, Flint Ashery S, Tchetchik A (2021) Reducing gaps between planning and imple-

mentation: planning the Neve Sha’anan neighborhood with geodesign. Tichnun 18(2):118–155

Suntikul W, Jachna T (2016) The co-creation/place attachment nexus. Tour Manage 52:276–286

Surprenant CF, Solomon MR (1987) Predictability and personalization in the service encounter. J

Mark 51:86–96

Ujang N, Zakariya K (2015) The notion of place, place meaning and identity in urban regeneration.

Procedia Soc Behav Sci 170:709–717

United Nations (2018) The world’s cities in 2018. In: The world’s cities in 2018—data booklet (ST/

ESA/SER.A/417), p 34

Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68:1–17

3 Citizens’ Engagement and Well-Being: Home Is Where the Heart Is 47

Weziak-Białowolska D (2016) Quality of life in cities—empirical evidence in comparative European

perspective. Cities 58:87–96

Williams DR, Vaske JJ (2003) The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability

of a psychometric approach. For Sci 49:830–840

Woosnam KM, Aleshinloye KD, Ribeiro MA, Stylidis D, Jiang J, Erul E (2018) Social determinants

of place attachment at a world heritage site. Tour Manage 67:139–146

Yetano A, Royo S (2017) Keeping citizens engaged: a comparison between online and ofﬂine

participants. Adm Soc 49:394–422

Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Buys L, Ioppolo G, Sabatini-Marques J, da Costa EM, Yun JHJ

(2018) Understanding ‘smart cities’: intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes

in a multidimensional framework. Cities 81:145–160

Zarei F, Nik-Bakht M (2021) Citizen engagement body of knowledge—a fuzzy decision maker for

index-term selection in built environment projects. Cities 112:103137

Zhu W, Yan R, Song Y (2022) Analysing the impact of smart city service quality on citizen

engagement in a public emergency. Cities 120:103439

Part II

Geodesigning Holistic Planning

Chapter 4

Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel

Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate Change

Through Negotiation and Collaborative

Planning

Rinat Steinlauf Millo

Abstract This research examines the role of digital negotiation in capturing and

fostering comprehensive, inclusive, efﬁcient and responsible planning processes

that consider climate change impacts on the urban fabric. The study focuses on

Geodesignhub (GDH), a digital interface for collaborative planning, as a method

for examining the challenges and opportunities inherent in the deep involvement

of the public in digital planning processes. Tel Aviv-Yafo’s Neve-Sha’anan neigh-

bourhood provides an example of a dense urban fabric which, due to institutional,

planning and socio-economic factors, has become a complex and neglected area

suffering from air pollution and rainfall ﬂooding hazards. This study examines the

current situation and reveals how a transparent, continuous digital feedback process

enables deep stakeholder engagement, while pursuing agreements through digital

negotiation.

Keywords Geodesign ·Digital negotiation ·Climate change ·Adaptation ·Urban

planning

4.1 Introduction

Planning strives to link scientiﬁc and technical knowledge with human actions in

public space and guides future actions in space (Friedman 1987; Alexander 2016).

The planning process is determined by systemic structural factors, regulates and

organizes spatial competition (Cullingworth and Nadin 2006; Wilson et al. 2019)

and mediates between the conﬂicting interests of the various stakeholders (Kiernan

1983; Forester 2006;Ruming

2012; Baarveld et al. 2015). However, how negotiation

processes can facilitate climate-adapted urban planning is not yet fully understood.

R. Steinlauf Millo (B)

Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

e-mail: millori@biu.ac.il

S. Flint Ashery (ed.), Geodesigning Our Future, The Urban Book Series,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52235-2_4

51

52 R. Steinlauf Millo

This research aims to examine how negotiation and collaborative planning can

be promoted by planning support systems (PSS) to foster agreed-upon planning that

reduces the present and future climate change impacts on the built environment.

Studies have shown that to reach agreements, a negotiation procedure can involve

several parties having a dispute trying to resolve it through communication (Lax and

Sebenius 1986; Claydon and Smith 1997; Fisher et al. 2020). With the development

of digital planning, a trend is developing in the western world that sees the planning

process as dynamic and continuous. As part of a comprehensive planning process,

development goals and objectives for the planning area are formulated through feed-

back process. Design alternatives are formulated via this process, offering efﬁcient

solutions responsive to changing circumstances, aided by simulations predicting

future scenarios (Hall and Tewdwr-Jones 2010). Creating alternatives through nego-

tiation, comparing them, and evaluating future scenarios can produce an optimal

planning system responsive to future changes. To enable fair negotiations, this system

requires transparency and involvement of various stakeholders and decision-makers

who update the goals and objectives to address evolving needs and local dynamics.

Based on urban data and insights, this research examines using Geodesign to

reach agreements through negotiation around fundamental issues. A knowledge gap

persists between planning practice and using negotiation to promote planning, partly

due to the theory-practice gap in planning (Steinlauf-Millo et al. 2021). A number

of researchers who have examined the theory-practice gap in planning explain that

planning involves creating reality in the physical space, whereas theory deals with

abstract concepts that are difﬁcult to translate into speciﬁc planning actions, there-

fore it progresses simultaneously and separately (Kiernan 1983; Alexander 1997;

Thompson 2000; Willson 2001; Kudva 2008;Watson 2008; Allmendinger 2017).

Incorporating Geodesign into a practical planning process that addresses the funda-

mental issue of climate change, we can strengthen the connection between theory

and practice. With regard to the chosen case study, the complex and neglected

Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood in Tel Aviv-Yafo, the research examines the role

of digital negotiation in the planning processes. The study describes the theoret-

ical aspects and elements of the method. It also describes its potential for enabling

adoption of a comprehensive and critical digital process for the neighbourhood. The

research discusses how planning teams break down their experiences and prefer-

ences into agreed-upon ideas while considering broad and local contexts, especially

regarding climate change. This process aims to involve various stakeholders and

promote extensive public participation in generating sustainable development plan-

ning alternatives. Through negotiation and by creating, comparing, and evaluating

alternatives and future scenarios, an optimal planning system responsive to future

climate changes can be developed. Critically, this system is transparent and involves

various stakeholders and decision-makers who address evolving l ocal needs.

4 Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate … 53

4.2 Theoretical Background: Negotiation in Planning

Development, Transportion, landscape, preservation of buildings, public policy,

economy, society, culture, environment and ecology are only some of the areas

integrated into the planning process. These are each represented by different stake-

holders, professionals, community members and politicians. With the multitude of

ﬁelds, opinions and actors involved, the decision-making process in planning has

become difﬁcult (Shmueli et al. 2008; Samsura et al. 2010; Baarveld et al. 2015).

Consequently, the planners role has become very complex. In addition to planning,

they must also mediate and ﬁnd compromise between diverse interests and profes-

sional, political and social opinions (Shmueli 2005). In fact, planning is a joint

decision-making process which progresses through negotiation (Shmueli et al. 2008).

Several urban planning researchers have recognized negotiation’s role and impor-

tance (Faludi 1985; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Forester and Stitzel 1989; Healy

1997; Claydon and Smith 1997; Verhage and Needham 1997). Many emphasize nego-

tiation’s importance for decision-making in a broad collaborative planning system

(Healey 1997; Hoch 2002; Shmueli et al. 2008;Ruming 2012). For example, in

“collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies”, Healy proposes a

joint planning procedure to build agreements that strengthen the integrative nature

of planning. The goal is to enable planners to reconcile social forces ranging from

globalization to local public opinion (Thompson 2000). The theory of negotiation in

planning developed from communicative planning. Researchers realized “dialogue”

or “conversation” represent only part of the communication needed in the planning

process (Sager 2013), and that “discussion” and “negotiation” are required to enable

optimal planning and reﬂect planning in the real world (Baarveld et al. 2015).

Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) pioneered the study of negotiation in urban plan-

ning. The collaborative planning approach is a consequence of their work which drew

inspiration from Fischer and Ury’s (1981) deﬁnition of principle-based negotiation

and attitude-based bargaining. They recognized interdependent parties in all planning

decisions, highlighting that promoting joint decision-making processes like negoti-

ation ensures mutual gains (Shmueli 2005). Later, Gresch and Smith (1985) recog-

nized that negotiation contributes to the management of conﬂicts in legislation at

the national level, while Sheldon and Claydon (1990) engaged in a systematic study

of negotiation processes in local authorities (Claydon and Smith 1997). Over the

years, urban planning researchers have deﬁned negotiation variously (Baarveld et al.

2015). Lax and Sebenius (1986) deﬁne negotiation as a process where conﬂicting

parties interact to cooperate and achieve better outcomes than non-cooperation. By

focusing on cooperation’s potential improvement, they emphasize its importance.

In other words, compromise’s whole exceeds the sum of its parts. According to

Fisher et al. (1991), negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from

others through back-and-forth communication, the goal of which is to achieve an

agreement when the participants have both common and conﬂicting interests. They

emphasize both joint communication and individual results. Claydon and Smith

54 R. Steinlauf Millo

(1997) describe negotiation as a process were parties attempt agreements, distin-

guishing negotiation itself from bargaining or compromise which can be part of the

negotiation process but are not the negotiation itself. Ruming (2012) deﬁnes nego-

tiation as a process in which elements of plans and of development are traded in an

effort to ensure a result. All deﬁnitions involve adversarial parties requiring agree-

ment to ensure an outcome. However, only Ruming centers the planning process

itself in his deﬁnition.

Baarveld et al. (2015) identify several common elements across the above deﬁ-

nitions: (1) At least two dependent actors are involved in the process; (2) They

have divergent interests; (3) There are conﬂicts between them; (4) They have several

common interests; (5) They communicate; (6) They strive to reach agreements. The

authors specify two negotiation approaches: integrative and distributive. They claim

real-world negotiation combine both approaches, examining negotiation processes

from two Dutch urban renewal projects (Baarveld et al. 2015). Within pathes towards

mutual agreement, forming shared aspirations and declaring intentions are both

essential.

When planning complex areas with difﬁcult stakeholder conﬂicts, like within

existing neighbourhoods, dialogue or discussion are insufﬁcient. Negotiation is

needed to yield binding agreements and compromises (Baarveld et al. 2015). There-

fore, Ruming’s (2012) deﬁnition is most relevant for examining how negotiation can

promote pre-agreed planning. His deﬁnition, situates negotiation within the planning

process itself, focused on ensuring outcomes or ﬁnal design versions.

Public involvement in planning is just emerging in Israel, and planning nego-

tiations are still in their infancy (Eshkol and Eshkol 2017). Israeli planning law

does not require a process of public participation or collaborative planning, only

plan publication for approval. Public participation processes, if existing at all, are

promoted on a voluntary basis by planning institutions (Shmueli 2005). Over the

past 20 years researching the Israeli ﬁeld of public participation in planning, Shmueli

concluded willingness exist, yet input minimally inﬂuences ﬁnal decisions and plans.

In a 2005 article, she examined the Israeli planning system’s readiness for collab-

orative planning by analyzing different types of public participation processes of

three district plans. Despite willingness for public participation, opinions remained

insigniﬁcant affecting ultimate planning. Shmueli et al. (2008) claim that since plan-

ning entails joint decision-making, planners can beneﬁt from using negotiation theory

to advance their goals. The authors advocate negotiation procedures in planning to

improve planning decisions and thereby increase implementation probability.

Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality is a pioneer in the ﬁeld of public participation and

collaborative planning in Israel. Since 2005, the city has operated a “municipal

program for public participation, with the goal of encouraging an organizational

culture that supports public participation and assisting municipal units in imple-

menting participation processes” (Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality website). In the ﬁeld

of urban planning, the municipality follows a “procedure for consultation with the

public in urban planning processes” designed to engage the public in the early plan-

ning stages. This public consultation procedure is mandatory and incorporated into

every upcoming urban plan, aligning with the recommendations of urban planners

4 Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate … 55

and receiving approval from a special municipal committee. However, the proce-

dure does not explicitly address the existence of a negotiation process between

stakeholders as an integral part of public participation. Additionally, t here is no

established process for integrating the voices of undocumented populations (Flint

Ashery 2023). As the next step in researching planning negotiations, it is necessary

to examine how these processes can be optimized using planning support systems

(PSS). The next section introduces the GDH interface as a prototype for PSS systems.

This system, has been selected as a case study in this research to assess the capa-

bility of a planning support system in optimizing planning processes and promoting

pre-agreed planning through ongoing negotiations.

4.3 Geodesign and Planning Support Systems (PSS)

The Geodesign method enables negotiation and collaborative planning in urban plan-

ning. The origins of the term “Geodesign” date back to the beginning of human settle-

ment when people chose to live near water sources, attempted to control nature, and

create and sustain a rich and diverse world that includes social structures and political

dynamics. A signiﬁcant impetus to the subject was given in Steinitz’s article from

1990 (Steinitz 1990), in studios and workshops, in which he deﬁned a methodolog-

ical and theoretical framework situated at the intersection between planning practice,

geographical sciences, information technologies and the “inputs of local residents”,

to continue an organic process of growth (Steinitz 2023). After the 2000s, Geodesign

became one of the most popular approaches to sustainable digital planning (Wilson

2015). In collaboration with Prof. Michael Batty, Prof. Carl Steinitz supervised Dr.

Hrishi Ballal in his doctoral thesis, in which Ballal provided a practical framework

for collaborative design through a digital web-based workﬂow based on a systems

approach. From this work developed an interface called Geodesignhub.com (GDH),

a computerized support system for planning (PSS).

An early deﬁnition of planning support systems was provided by Harris

(1989), who described PSS as “spatially-enabled information systems inte-

grating Geographic Information Systems (GIS), models, and user-friendly geo-

visualization interfaces—including sketch planning functions and dynamic dash-

boards—supporting the planning process”. According to Harris, such a system will

support the planning process and will not be satisﬁed with one of the characteristics,

but will strive to answer all of the requirements. Harris’s article remains ground-

breaking even today, as it deﬁnes the need of the planning domain for a system

that provides a fully digital platform for planning. Since then, many PSS have been

created, mostly focusing on knowledge creation or impact assessment aspects of the

planning process (Flint Ashery and Steinlauf-Millo 2021, 2022; Flint Ashery and

Steinitz 2022).

The innovative GDH fully aligns with Harris’s deﬁnition. GDH was developed as

a digital internet interface for planning, aimed at fostering collaborations and negoti-

ations among professional teams and their clients, policy-makers and the general

56 R. Steinlauf Millo

public. The interface is utilized to generate design alternatives as a response to

changing circumstances, actively measuring and comparing their effects. Contin-

uous updating of the planning alternatives during negotiations results in a dynamic

circular planning process that is frequently updated as the planning area develops.

Simulations for real-time assessment and future forecasting enable decision-makers

at the relevant public level to actively participate, regularly and transparently update

goals and objectives to meet changing needs. The system is adaptable to various

scales, allowing the introduction of local knowledge from the public, combined with

insights and lessons derived from big data. Despite the extensive knowledge behind

the system, the user interface is simple, and using the system does not require prior

knowledge. This enables policy-makers, professionals from different ﬁelds, and the

general public to collaborate using a common planning language, promoting commu-

nication, objectivity, transparency and responsibility towards future generations, as

well as fostering the accumulation of local knowledge for “good planning”.

GDH is a practical framework for collaborative planning through an open digital

workﬂow based on a systems approach. The software offers ﬂexibility and infrastruc-

ture that actively supports the drafting of plans and planning procedures, facilitating

collaborations between professional disciplines and the public (Goodchild 2010). As

demonstrated in the research, DGH enables the advancement of complex planning

procedures subject to dispute through negotiation.

Commonly employed for public policy and urban planning purposes, GDH

addresses areas such as infrastructure investments, environmental management and

climate change adaptation (Nyerges et al. 2016). This software serves as a medi-

ator and negotiator for socio-political issues related to location, allowing a focus

on results and proposing planning strategies that contribute to the establishment

of sustainable communities. GDH’s unique developments and tools enhance negoti-

ation and collaboration capabilities. The integration of project management interfaces

and collaboration tools within GDH ensures the implemention of negotiation results

and transparent coordination of associated activities.

4.4 Neve-Sha’anan Neighbourhood

Neve-Sha’anan was established in 1921 based on the principles of the garden city,

designed in the shape of “The Menorah” (temple lamp), being one of the initial

Hebrew neighbourhoods formed in the southern part of the expanding city of Tel

Avi v (F ig. 4.1). From its inception, Neve-Sha’anan has struggled with various orga-

nizational, spatial, social and economic challenges. In particular, the division between

two municipalities—Tel Aviv and Jaffa—until 1950, resulted in distinct development

trajectories for the north and south areas of Neve-Sha’anan (Fig. 4.2). These differ-

ences are reﬂected in master plans which contradict the ideals of the neighbourhood

as a “garden city” and in the absence of open and built public spaces. Over time, the

area has evolved into one of the city’s most complex regions.

4 Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate … 57

Fig. 4.1 Neve-Sha’anan ‘Menorah’ layout, Tischler Josef, 1921

Neve-Sha’anan, characterized as a dense inner neighbourhood, stands as a “limit

case”, marked by marginalization and neglect. Covering a surface area of 760,000

m2, Neve-Sha’anan comprises 2% green public areas and 3% built public areas. With

a diverse population of approximately 15,000 residents, including various ethnici-

ties and ﬁnancial backgrounds, the neighbourhood is home to many foreign workers,

refugees and asylum seekers. Ofﬁcial statistics from the Central Bureau of Statistics

(CBS) and Tel Aviv Socio-Economic Research Centre (SERC) indicates approxi-

mately 4,900 documented residents and an additional 9,000–10,000 undocumented

foreign residents, encompassing family members. According to the socio-economic

index used for population classiﬁcation in Israel, considering factors like demog-

raphy, education, income, and employment, the socio-economic status of Neve-

Sha’anan rates at 3.6 out of 10, with an average monthly income of 3,124 shekels per

capita, excluding the undocumented foreign communities (SERC Statistics 2013).

In comparison, the socio-economic status of the entire city’s population is 8 out of

58 R. Steinlauf Millo

Fig. 4.2 Border between Tel Aviv and Jaffa dividing the “Menorah” layout, Tel Aviv map,

Sheinfeld, 1923

10. Moreover, the neighbourhood has relatively high levels of crime, prostitution

and drug use. Given the juxtaposition of high levels of neglect on the one hand, and

accelerated development on the other, the neighbourhood presents an interesting case

study for examining climate change effects and adaptation measures in a compact

area primarily driven by private development initiatives.

As examples of these private initiatives, there are two problematic central bus

stations. The “old central station”, constructed in the 1940s in the northern part

of the neighbourhood, was built on land donated to the municipality in exchange

for the right to develop a commercial centre. This resulted in the establishment of

a bustling and hectic commercial zone in the vicinity. The “new central station”,

located in the southern part of the neighbourhood, was constructed between 1967

and 1993, covering an area of 240,000 m2 dedicated to transportation and commerce

over seven ﬂoors. The construction of the new central station disrupted the delicate

urban layout of the “Menorah plan” due to its substantial size, and noisy and busy

nature, and the introduction of harmful pollutants into the neighbourhood (Fig. 4.3).

Presently, Neve-Sha’anan is undergoing signiﬁcant transformation owing to urban

4 Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate … 59

renewal plans, coupled with private initiatives, which could result in an additional

1,500,000 m2 of built area and approximately 7,000 residential units.

The combination of a complex and neglected urban area undergoing extensive

urban renewal positions this neighbourhood as an excellent case study. It provides

an ideal context for investigating the efﬁcacy of Geodesign as a tool to promote the

initial planning process in a conﬂicted area.

Fig. 4.3 Outlines of the Menorah plan, the old and new central bus stations on a buildings heights

map of Neve-Sha’anan. Steinlauf-Millo, 2023

60 R. Steinlauf Millo

4.5 Methodology

The methodology employed in this research is rooted in Steinitz’s method as formu-

lated in his 1990 article and his 2012 book “A Framing for Geodesign: Changing

geography by design” (Steinitz 1990, 2023). Steinitz’s method establishes an infras-

tructure for planning based on a speciﬁc geographical location, enabling the active

participation of a large number of stakeholders in the planning process. As described

above, this methodology was digitally transformed by Ballal into the GDH interface.

The GDH system was utilized in two planning workshops that engaged 24 repre-

sentatives from various ﬁelds relevant to the planning area. During the workshops,

participants were organized into four interest groups, each proposing planning alter-

natives for the Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood according to their initial interest. After

a process of presentation and selection of potential partners, the four interest groups

merged into two new groups. Through a negotiation process, these groups arrived at

a new collectively agreed-upon alternative. In the ﬁnal stage, all source groups were

consolidated into one large group, collaboratively planning the ﬁnal agreed design

alternative for the Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood.

The workshops placed emphasis on realistic planning, aiming for a high level of

implementation feasibility. The overarching objective was to create a robust planning

and decision-making tool tailored to the complexities of the ongoing planning process

in the area. The primary goal of these workshops was to formulate a planning alter-

native geared towards doubling the population from the current 15,000 people to an

anticipated 30,000 people expected to reside in the Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood

by the year 2035.

4.6 Research Findings

The technological leap over the last decade in the realms of communication and data

have enabled the integration of climate change research with the theoretical and prac-

tical domains of urban planning. The two Geodesign workshops focused on the future

planning of the Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood, drawing the participation of 24 indi-

viduals from diverse disciplines. This interdisciplinary team included city planners,

architects, community representatives, and environment and sustainability experts,

representing t he four key stakeholder teams relevant to the Neve-Sha’anan neigh-

bourhood: government and municipality, business and entrepreneurship, community,

sustainability and the environment.

Following the Geodesign workﬂow, both workshops involved stakeholder teams

creating their initial design versions based on the deﬁned priorities of each speciﬁc

team. The negotiation phases followed next. The ﬁrst negotiation phase in workshop

1 led to the collaboration of the sustainability and environment team (ENV) and the

business and entrepreneurship team (BEOD), while the government and municipality

team (AGOV) partnered with the community team (COM). Conversely, in workshop

4 Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate … 61

2 the negotiation phase resulted in collaboration between the BEOD and COM teams

versus the AGOV and ENV teams.

Following the ﬁnal round of negotiations, all teams in both workshops collab-

orated to formulate the ﬁnal design version. The ﬁnal design alternative of work-

shop 1 preserved the neighbourhood’s initial “Menorah” layout. The building of the

new central station was preserved and repurposed as a centre for energy production

and public uses. Mixed uses towers were strategically placed along Har-Zion Ave.

Medium-density residential housing was placed in the western part of the Congress

area, while mixed-uses structures were placed in the eastern part. The design incor-

porated public buildings and open green spaces, including the transformation of the

new central station’s overpass system into a linear park. Policy documents promoting

green building, rainwater retention, green roofs and solar panels were integrated

throughout the neighbourhood. New bike lanes were established to connect the

neighbourhood to the city centre (Fig. 4.4).

The ﬁnal design alternative of workshop 2 also preserved the neighbourhood’s

initial “Menorah” layout. Large-scale construction was allocated to the eastern part

of the neighbourhood along the Ayalon highway and Harakevet St. The character of

the neighbourhood was preserved while accommodating various small-scale initia-

tives. Agreements highlighting the importance of social justice led to the formulation

Fig. 4.4 Workshop 1, ﬁnal design version, 2020

62 R. Steinlauf Millo

of a building retroﬁt fund designed to protect rental housing throughout the neigh-

bourhood. The building of the new central station was preserved and repurposed

for diverse uses, including public and commercial functions, as well as serving as

a green roof. High-density housing, combined with affordable housing and open

green public spaces, were strategically placed along Salame St. Preservation efforts

included listing buildings for preservation, notably the well-houses (farmsteads),

which would serve as cultural centers and water systems. Integration of bike lanes was

achieved by incorporating them into existing roads, some of which would be closed

to vehicle trafﬁc. The ﬁnal design also integrated policy documents promoting green

construction, green roofs and solar panels on the roofs and facades of south-facing

buildings, and a policy for retaining runoff water along Har-Zion Blvd. (Fig. 4.5).

In both workshops, participants successfully achieved the design goals and

demonstrated proﬁciency in utilizing most of the tools of the interface. In both work-

shops, discussion spanned both macro and microlevel considerations. The partic-

ipants created policy documents dealing with the existing urban fabric and chose

to preserve the neighbourhood’s original Menorah layout. In addition, they created

policy documents focused on environmental concerns, green construction, sustain-

ability, the preservation of the existing population in the neighbourhood, and strate-

gies for reducing housing prices. In both workshops, the teams addressed climate

change issues while incorporating policy documents and projects to address current

and future challenges. Green shaded areas were added throughout the neighbourhood

and on buildings roofs aimed to reduce the urban heat island affect, and optimize

runoff water management to mitigate ﬂood risk. The inclusion of urban agriculture

Fig. 4.5 Workshop 2, ﬁnal design version, 2020

4 Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate … 63

areas was proposed to provide food for the community of low socio-economic status.

To reduce air pollution, a proposal was made to eliminate the use of the central station

building as a bus station, coupled with efforts to expand sidewalks and bike lanes to

encourage non-motorized travel. Policy documents were introduced to incentivize

the retroﬁtting and energy efﬁciency of existing buildings, aiming to prevent unnec-

essary demolitions which could contribute to environmental damage. Controlled

increases in construction volumes in deﬁned areas were suggested to avoid damage

to sensitive areas. Furthermore, policy documents and renewable energy production

projects were allocated throughout the neighbourhood.

The ﬁnal outcomes of the two workshops divide the neighbourhood into several

planning complexes, as indeed occurs in practice. The proposed addition of buildings

along both main and peripheral streets, coupled with substantial construction in the

eastern (Lavanda-Haharash) and the southern parts of the neighbourhood (along

Salame Road and the Congress complex), as well as in the northwest (the Shomron

complex) concur with the strategic plans for the neighbourhood. At the same time,

both workshops strived to re-unify the neighbourhood both socialy and cognitively

by preserving the original street layout of the Menorah plan (with the exception

of the new central station), preserving the original parceling in the north of the

neighbourhood, proposing economic solutions for the restoration and renovation of

existing buildings and preservation of heritage buildings.

In both workshops, participants chose to incorporate the approved master plans

into the ﬁnal design alternative, even if they had reservations about them. In both

workshops the issue of the insufﬁcient open and built public areas was central. In

both cases, participants chose to increase the inventory of open and built public

areas, beneﬁting both existing and new communities. Extensive open spaces, pocket

gardens, linear parks, bicycle lanes and public transportation routes were added to

enhance connectivity within the neighbourhood and promote mobility and acces-

sibility for all residents in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, in both workshops,

participants chose to transcend the boundaries of the neighbourhood, foregoing the

designated boundaries (“blue line”) of the plan and considering additional areas

to achieve the desired goals. This approach is impossible in traditional planning,

which is constrained by boundaries inﬂuenced by factors like source plots, costs,

and land designations, making it incompatible with the optimal planning procedure.

These collaborative planning processes that factor in climate change effects, as well

as social and economical aspects, are expected to mitigate potential hazards in the

future development of the neighbourhood.

64 R. Steinlauf Millo

4.7 Discussion

Serving as prototype for a planning support system (PSS), GDH proves to be suit-

able tool for promoting the initial planning process in conﬂicted areas, particularly

those requiring negotiations among numerous stakeholders to achieve comprehen-

sive agreements. The GDH interface enables the generation of multiple digital map-

based planning alternatives simultaneously by different stakeholders. It allows a

detailed comparison of these alternatives, emphasizing their advantages and disad-

vantages. Subsequently, the GDH interface supports collaborative planning through

discussions, and the formulation of a uniﬁed, agreed-upon design. This ﬁnal planning

alternative forms the basis for a more advanced urban plan that takes into account

anticipated climate changes and proposes adaptation solutions.

Neve-Sha’anan, a complex neighbourhood in Tel Aviv-Yafo, is subject to an

ongoing conﬂict. Therefore, it serves as an excellent case study for examining the use

of Geodesign, as a tool to conduct the initial planning process in a conﬂicted area.

The conﬂict that the neighbourhood faces between rapid development and the desire

to preserve architectural and social values, was reﬂected in the negotiation process

facilitated by GDH. Through GDH, the participants achieved a consensus regarding

the necessity for extensive development in the neighbourhood, outlining speciﬁc

areas conductive to development while concurrently preserving the overall layout of

the neighbourhood. During the workshops, GDH enabled placing the design ideas

of the stakeholders in the relevant areas, creating a visually accessible representa-

tion. Moreover, the interface enabled a negotiation process during which decisions

were reached regarding the preferred design alternative, gaining agreement from the

majority of participants.

The two workshops focused on the Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood, were attended

by city planners representing municipal interests, entrepreneurs, residents, and envi-

ronment representatives. These diverse stakeholders held opposing perspectives

regarding the future planning of Neve-Sha’anan. However, the workshops fostered

a constructive dialogue and negotiations that ultimately resulted in the develop-

ment of policy documents and projects addressing climate change. Importantly,

these initiatives garnered acceptance from all participants and were integrated into

the ﬁnal planning alternatives. The fact that issues related to climate change were

central to the consensus, without dispute, signiﬁcantly enhances the potential for

successful implementation of climate change adaptation strategies. This solidiﬁes a

foundation for the approval of future planning initiatives, gaining support from all

stakeholders involved.

The workshops highlighted that the ability to visualize the entire neighbor-

hood area on the GDH interface and address all dilemmas and challenges facing

planners simultaneously and in real-time fosters collaborative and inclusive plan-

ning. This approach enables a comprehensive examination of the entire area and its

potential, contributing to a more holistic and informed decision-making process.

4 Geodesigning Neve-Sha’anan, Tel Aviv-Yafo: Adapting to Climate … 65

4.8 Conclusions

This research focuses on the ability of collaborative planning and negotiation to

facilitate agreed planning solutions in addressing the impacts of climate change.

The research employs a structured methodological procedure and a prototype for a

planning support interface to illustrate how future planning of a complex urban area,

undergoing accelerated development processes, can be promoted through a short and

focused procedure of multi-participant negotiation procedure.

The research explores the use of digital technologies to establish a method for

substantial collaborative planning, shifting the emphasis from the planning product to

the negotiation process as the critical step in the urban planning process. Geodesign,

a leading decision-making approach (Steinitz 2014, quoted in Gottwald et al. 2020),

is highlighted as an optimal digital means for decision-led planning processes and

negotiations, particularly DGH, which is based on Steinitz’s methodology.

Conducting a comprehensive and critical digital planning process through GDH

workshops resulted in a decision-making procedure that assists teams in breaking

down thoughts into practical ideas, forming a common language, and maximizing

planning potential while considering both broad and local contexts. This inclusive

process, involving various stakeholders, enables agreements on fundamental issues,

such as climate change, during negotiations and promotes agreed planning based on

empirical knowledge and information.

The case study presented demonstrates a relevant example of digital planning

that contributes to existing urban planning methods, emphasizing the practical and

negotiable aspects through technology. The Geodesign interface allows for imme-

diate placement and display of the planning product in its geographical context,

enabling the examination of short and long-term consequences, updating planning

alternatives, comparing options, and selecting the best alternative for diverse stake-

holders. Therefore, this interface provides a continuous feedback planning process

that enables ongoing examination, self-criticism, repetition, and correction of plan-

ning processes, optimizing the planning process and improving the ﬁnal planning

products.

The future management of cities, infrastructures and residents will have a digital

component. To enable this digital transition successfully, it is imperative to under-

stand the organizational implications that come with it. The purpose of the workshops

is to encourage thinking with a spatial–temporal dimension, ﬂexibly and efﬁciently,

about the future of the Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood through planning alterna-

tives based on projects and policy documents. The workshops serve as an illustra-

tion of strategic thinking on complex issues like climate change, demanding nego-

tiation processes for resolution. The ability to foster consensus through a shared

process often acts as a mediating tool to address challenging differences among

stakeholders. Traditionally, this process is manual, requiring a substantial amount

of time, effort, and technical analysis. The introduction of a digital process in these

workshops has the potential to expedite the procedure, providing transparency and

critical understanding in preparation for decision-making.

66 R. Steinlauf Millo

The central question pertains to Geodesign’s potential contribution to Israeli plan-

ning and its seamless integration into the current system. While acknowledging the

necessity for additional research to tailor Geodesign to Israel’s planning system and

align Israeli planning with digital planning systems, this undertaking is deemed a

pivotal and indispensable step in the advancement of planning practices.

The future has arrived, and the digital component in the management of public

investments in cities, infrastructures and citizens is expected to become more and

more common. To bridge the technological gap effectively, there is a pressing need to

systematically comprehend the meaning and organizational implications of the digital

planning process. The central focus should be on understanding how the negotiation

process is embedded into planning, and identifying opportunities to incorporate tech-

nological methods into this process. This understanding becomes pivotal in shaping

the future landscape of planning activities and stands as a cornerstone of the planners’

skills in future.

References

Alexander ER (1997) A Mile or a millimeter? Measuring the ‘planning theory—practice gap’.

Environ Plan B: Plan Des 24(1):3–6

Alexander E (2016) There is no planning—only planning practices: notes for spatial planning

theories. Plan Theory 15(1):91–103

Allmendinger P (2017) Planning theory. Macmillan International Higher Education

Baarveld M, Smit M, Dewulf G (2015) Negotiation processes in urban redevelopment projects:

dealing with conﬂicts by balancing integrative and distributive approaches. Plan Theory Pract

16(3):363–384

Claydon J, Smith B (1997) Negotiating planning gains through the British development control

system. Urban Stud 34(12):2003–2022

Cullingworth JB, Nadin V (2006) Town & country planning in the UK, 14th edn. Routledge, London

Eshkol B, Eshkol A (2017) Participatory planning in Israel: from theory to practice. J Place Manag

Dev 10(3):213–239

Faludi A (1985) A discretion-centred view of environmental planning. Pergamon Press, Oxford

Fischer R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes. Houghton Mifﬂin, Boston

Fisher R, Ury WL, Patton B (1991, 2011) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in.

Penguin.

Fisher T, Orland B, Steinitz C (2020) The international geodesign collaboration: changing geography

by design. Esri Press, Redlands

Flint Ashery S (2023) What is the planning role in stretching the city? A tale of two neighbourhoods.

Springer, Cham