Mapping Values
How can cities become more pandemic-ready?
What is Mapping Values?
Mapping Values is a British Academy-funded pilot project that explores how cities could become more pandemic-ready and recover more quickly from difficult conditions like the Covid-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on the area of Kilburn, Greater London.
We are interested in how people use and relate to public spaces, looking to use this information to understand how individuals view different spaces and places around the borough. It combines participatory map-making, digital humanities, oral history, and walking workshops to do so. By charting public perceptions of social value around health and inclusivity in urban, public spaces, we aim to use this information to inform participatory policy-making in our case study area.
The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed various social and spatial inequalities, having transformed how people use and relate to urban public spaces, and highlighted the important role of cities in reimagining the organisation of such spaces. This project will therefore explore whether better urban governance is achievable with a better understanding of how people perceive ‘good’ places within their immediate urban environments. It will make an original contribution to understanding what a good city is by connecting values associated with human wellbeing in the city to the values embedded in policymaking, using participatory design as infrastructure to support the inclusive governance of urban space.
This storymap will detail one of the research methods used to collect data during one of the phases of the project. Nicknamed the "spraycan", it is an online participatory method designed to collect people's values of identified places.
Kilburn, Greater London
Where is Kilburn?
Kilburn is located in the north-west of London and sits across two of London's boroughs, the Borough of Brent to the west and the Borough of Camden to the east. It is also bordered to the south by the Borough of Westminster.
Kilburn is split down the middle by Kilburn High Road, being the Roman road that acts as the border between the two boroughs.
Why Kilburn?
According to the 2011 Census, the populations of Kilburn in both the Brent and Camden boroughs has grown significantly between the 2001 and 2011 census. For example, Kilburn (Camden) has grown by approximately 13.3% to roughly 13,600 people, whilst Kilburn (Brent) has grown by approximately 19.9% from 14,165 to 16,989 people. Collectively, this means that the population of Kilburn covering both boroughs, stood at about 30,5000 in 2011. Understandably, this figure is expected to have grown even more.
Population growth is not the only factor contributing towards the interest in Kilburn as a research location. Below is a list of facts and figures, detailing key characteristics of both ward areas. Notably, both areas are culturally diverse and have similar demographic structures and are both described by the Office for National Statistics as being an "inner-city multicultural neighbourhood".
Kilburn, Camden
Population (est. 2020): 15,169
Mean Age: 38 years
Population Density: 199 persons per hectare
Ethnicity: Asian 13.6%, Black 13.7%, Mixed/Multiple 5.3%, White 59.9%
Religion: Christian 47%, Muslim 22.8%, Hindu 1.7%, Jewish 3.2%, Buddhist 1.1%, None 23.4%
Spoken Languages (2011): English 72.6%, Arabic 3.6%, Albanian 2.2%, Bengali 2.1%, Somali 2%, Spanish 1.6%, French 1.6%, Chinese 0.5%
Median Housheold Income (2019): £29,509
Kilburn, Brent
Population (est. 2020): 16,771
Mean Age: 32 years
Population Density: 180 persons per hectare
Ethnicity (2011): Asian 11.4%, Black 24.6%, Mixed/Multiple 6.9%, White 50%
Religion: Christian 52.2%, Muslim 18.3%, Hindu 2.2%, Jewish 1.6%, Buddhist 1.2%, None 23.7%
Spoken Languages (2011): English 71.8%, Arabic 3.6%, Somali 2.3%, Portugese 2.1%, Polish 1.7%, French 1.4%, Spanish 1.6%, Tagalog/Filipino 1.1%
Median Household Income (2014): £30,895
The Research Method
Map-Me PPGIS
The research method used in this part of the project is a participatory method combined with geographic information systems (GIS). Known as a participatory geographic information system (PGIS), the tool itself was created using a web-based platform called “Map-Me” (“Mapping Meanings”), and was designed by Huck, et al. (2014).
In this project, the tool has been suitably nicknamed the "spraycan", as it allows users to design online surveys and collect vague spatial data (Huck, 2022) by “spraying” their thoughts/feelings onto a map, subseuqently creating exploratory visualisations of this information. Participants are able to present their own spatial knowledge in more creative ways.
Once the user has "sprayed" their reposnses on to the map, the data is stored via a “Multi-Point-and-Attribute” structure, where each individual dot of paint is stored and linked to various attributes, including spatial/aspatial properties and the user (Huck, et al. 2014).
The figure here illustrates the PGIS of a participant community affiliation in Belfast, presenting the results for those who self-identified as ‘Catholic’, ‘Protestant’, or ‘Mixed’ (Huck, et al. 2018). On the left is the resulting "spray" map alongside a choropleth variation, showcasing the spatial distribution and community concentrations of participants who self-identify with one of the three religious affilisations.
The Spraycan
The spraycan was deployed to investigate how people use and relate to urban public spaces and understand how individuals view their surrounding environments. To do so, we invited participants to identify areas around Kilburn that they felt were welcoming, safe, and familiar.
Split into two parts, the first is a demographic survey that asks for details including age, gender, ethnic origin, education, employment status, income, and location. This enables the aggregation of any collated data regarding the thematic questions that we ask, for example, responses from female participants only regarding safety.
The second part introduces the first of four mapping questions that participants were instructed to spray their responses on the maps provided. With the provision of a comments box, participants could provide further detail about their responses, if they so wished to. The questions included:
- Please identify the areas that you feel are welcoming.
- Please identify the areas that you feel are unwelcoming.
- In which areas do you feel unsafe at any time, day or night?
- Which areas do you feel are most familiar to you?
These questions are arguably highly political questions and one-sided. However, they need to be direct so that participants are able to identify places on the provided map, in regard to that specific feeling/emotion.
The Results
The Sample
During the data handling and analysis, it became apparent that of the collected sample, only some individuals had completed both parts of the spraycan tool. Seven individuals had completed the demographic survey whilst eight had completed the spraycan mapping exercise. Only five individuals had completed both parts, hence the demographic data presented here showcases their information.
The Demographics
To summarise, here are the demographic results for the figures shown to the left:
Age:
- 18-26 @ 1
- 27-45 @ 2
- 46-65 @ 2
Gender:
- Male @ 1
- Female @ 4
Ethnic Group:
- White @ 4
- Mixed/Multiple @ 1
Highest Level of Education Obtained:
- College or Equivalent @ 1
- Postgraduate Degree @ 4
Employment Status:
- Full-Time Employed @ 4
- Student @ 1
Total Household Income (£):
- 10,001-20,000 @ 1
- 20,001-30,000 @ 1
- 30,001-40,000 @ 2
- 40,001-50,000 @ 1
The final question, which is not presented here, regards where the participant was when they completed the spraycan. By providing the first half of their postcode, it was possible to consider either, a) did the participant still live in Kilburn and was therefore describing their thoughts/ feelings more directly about the area, or b) had they had moved away and were providing reflective answers based on prior knowledge and experience.
As with the very small sample size, unfortunately this question received a very low response rate. Only three postcodes were provided; NW6 (Kilburn area), CB7 (North-east Cambridge), and NE8 (Gateshead, south of Newcastle upon Tyne). Whilst no clear summaries or conclusions can be made from this, there is a small inclination that the collected data came from participants based both within and beyond the research location, being spatial distributed across the country.
The Combined Results
The figure to the right showcases the responses for all four themes which were asked of participants. The pink layer represents areas identified as "welcoming", purple is for "unwelcoming', red identified "unsafe" areas, and the blue spray is for "familiar". Here, the spraycan visualisations have been produced using the data collected from all participants who completed the mapping exercise, irrespective of the demographic survey.
There are five clusters of overlaid spray visible in the figure;
- High Road (from the north to south ends)
- East of High Road (the residential area)
- Kilburn High Road Station into North Maida Vale
- Paddington Cemetery
- Queen’s Park
There are also six to seven other individually identified areas seen across the Kilburn area.
Areas Identified as “Welcoming”
The figure here presents the results for areas that participants felt were "welcoming".
There are eight clusters of spray identifiable across a wide spatial area, including;
- Queen’s Park
- Greenspace between Canfield and Greencroft Gardens
- Alexandra Road Park
The strongest clusters appear in the following areas;
- Kilburn Grange Park
- Paddington Old Cemetery
- South of High Road into North Maida Vale
- Abbey Road to Grove End Road
Areas Identified as “Unwelcoming”
Here, the results presented regard areas identified as "unwelcoming".
There are three very clear patterns of spray observed here;
- High Road
- Sheriff Road
- Brondesbury Villas to Belsize Road
The densest clustering is observed at the south end of High Road, with some also recorded at the northern end. These areas are;
- North Maida Vale
- Kilburn High Road Station
Areas Identified as “Unsafe”:
The fourth figure presents the findings for areas that participants identified as being "unsafe", with the spray covering a greater area than these observed previously.
There are five cluster patterns of spray distinguishable in this figure;
- Kilburn High Road
- East of the High Road
- Paddington Old Cemetery
- Queen’s Park
- Paddington Recreation Ground
The densest spray, however, covers a majority of the High Road, with additional patterns to the eastern side;
- Kilburn Grange Park
- Residential areas between High Road and West End Lane
- North Maida Vale Commercial Area
Areas Identified as “Familiar”
The final figure presents the findings for areas which participants felt were "familiar" to them.
Here, there are also clear patterns of spray emerging from the dataset, including;
- High Road and to the east
- Paddington Old Cemetery, on the eastern side
- North Maida Vale
- Swiss Cottage along Finchley Road
- West side of West End Lane
The concentrations of spray are densest at;
- Priory Park Road
- East of the High Road into the residential area
- Central High Road
- Kilburn High Road Station
Conclusions
So, what does this mean?
From the presented data, it is clear that there are mixed responses to the four questions asked of participants pertaining to the area of Kilburn.
These include;
- High Road: identified across all four themes
- North Maida Vale/ Kilburn High Road Station: identified across all four themes
- Kilburn Grange: identified as “welcoming”, “unsafe” and “familiar”
- East of High Road: identified as “unsafe” and “familiar”
There were, however, other conflictions within the results;
- Queen’s Park: identified as being both “welcoming” and “unsafe”
Importantly, the key question to ask is why is this?
Reflective Comments
In Reflection...
Participatory mapping tools like the spraycan, are an effective tool for collecting information and they provide a plethora of opportunities for users more generally to make use of this within their own work.
Specifically, when considering planning and the drive to create a “pandemic-city”, researchers, practioners, and planner alike must learn from adversity and consider the challenges faced by communities, by providing people with the opportunity to participate directly (Alverti, et al. 2016).
The methods, approaches and creation of various data visualisations can facilitate conversations and enable the sharing of experiences between community members and policymakers. They enable us to visualise experiences and “see” what individuals internalise, stemming further into better understanding attachments to place and the connections both individuals and communities associate to place.
PGIS tools like the spraycan offer an alternative method of presenting knowledge without reducing community voices to just points, lines, and polygons on a map (Huck, et al. 2014). The spray itself is more representative of thoughts, feelings, and emotions, considering that our behaviours and responses are not confined to specific points and/or within boundary lines. They dissipate, alter, and change, as we move and traverse both across and within our surrounding environments. However… Tools like these are technologically dependant, unlike the alternative paper-based participatory methods that most are more familiar with. They require outreach, community engagement and an established rapport for participants to take interest and want to contribute their ideas to various research and/or projects.
The spraycan is also not a “new” method and councils, researchers, and other companies alike have deployed similar online tools for their own reasons and pruposes. There are pre-existing tools like this that target a specific audience, such as the “Kilburn Arches” project depicted in the illustration here. This regards the investment and regeneration of fifty-one arches that are managed by TfL, with the plan to transform these spaces and make them available for use by local businesses, communities, and so on.
In addition, whilst the spraycan tool is open access and free to use, the tool is restricted to the original configurations and cannot be entirely developed to suit the specific needs of a project. There are other options available and pathways to have tools designed for identified purposes, specifications, and objectives, but these can be very costly and time consuming.
References and Sources
Below is a list of the various references and resources used in the completion of this project and associated storymap.
Information
Alverti, M., Hadjimitsis, D., Kyriakidis, P., & Serraos, K. (2016). “Smart city planning from a bottom-up approach: local communities' intervention for a smarter urban environment.” Conference: Fourth International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment.
Crime in London (2013) "Kilburn Ward" http://crimeinlondon.com/camden/kilburn/profile/
Huck, J. (2022) "The Map-Me PGIS Platform." http://map-me.org/
Huck, J.J., Duncan Whyatt, J., Dixon, J., Sturgeon, B., Hocking, B., Davies, G., Jarman, N. & Bryan, D. (2019) “Exploring Segregation and Sharing in Belfast: A PGIS Approach”. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 109(1). Pp. 223-241.
Huck, J., Whyatt, D., & Coulton, P. (2014) “Spraycan: a PPGIS for capturing imprecise notions of place.” Applied Geography. 55. Pp. 229-237.
Transport for London (2022) "Kilburn Arches." https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/kilburn-arches
Data
Boundary Commission for England (2021) https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/data-and-resources/
Brent Open Data (2022) "2011 Census Ward Brief Kilburn." https://data.brent.gov.uk/dataset/emkky/2011-census-ward-brief-kilburn
Brent Open Data (2022) "Kilburn Diversity Profile." https://data.brent.gov.uk/dataset/29d11/kilburn-diversity-profile
Camden Open Data (2022) "Ward Profile Jan-2020 Kilburn Ward." https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/People-Places/Ward-Profile-Jan-2020-Kilburn-ward/r5y9-jvtd
London DataStore (2022) https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/statistical-gis-boundary-files-london
Thank You!!
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and find out more about the spraycan.
If you would like to know more about the project, please visit "The Mapping Values Project” link here , where you can find out more about our ongoing research.