Investigating Haaga resident’s opinions on public transport through social media

This week, Studio 1 students were tasked to prepare material to let others in the group know what each of us is aiming to study and what data and materials we will be using for our Haaga-oriented articles. After considering my options and skills in terms of what I could achieve in the short time-frame allowed for the work and ditching several other ideas in the process, I decided on a social science approach where I investigate the public transport opinions of Haaga residents based on the “Haagan ilmoitustaulu” Facebook group.

Preliminary research began last weekend, where I searched the Facebook group for any post regarding public transport. I achieved this with the search function, and used keywords such as: bussi, linja-auto, raitiovaunu, ratikka, joukkoliikenne, juna, hsl, etc. I then combed the results for anything of relevance, and added posts, summaries, dates of posts and anything else I felt was relevant to a spreadsheet. Fairly soon, themes or ‘codes’ began to emerge, and I was able to qualitatively group posts and data according to a theme or event.

In terms of background information, I have location data from open sources regarding public transport routes, services and usage in Haaga. In addition, I have general survey data on the environmental attitudes of Helsinki residents (containing e.g. thoughts on importance of mode for climate change mitigation), HSL customer satisfaction and more, but excluding car ownership data, it is hard to make inferences of how well this non-location data represents Haaga residents specifically. However, based on data extracted from the Facebook group, it might be possible to find explanations or contradictions to some of the trends found in the larger data sets.

From my preliminary findings however, it seems that the group has been active for sharing opinions regarding public transport, and even influencing transport planning. For example, due to the social momentum facilitated by the group, Haaga residents were able to pressure HSL to retain direct bus links from Haaga to Elielinaukio when all bus routes were being planned to be rerouted to Kamppi following the opening of Länsimetro. A brief literature search produces several results supporting the notion that Facebook groups can act as catalysts for social capital and translate to offline political and civic activism.

Knowing the limitations of this method is crucial for drawing conclusions. It is important to understand who may be excluded or underrepresented on social media, and conversely, who might be overrepresented. Facebook is also a public medium, and some may find posting with their real identities a threshold too great to participate in discussion, silencing some opinions. Maintaining an ethical approach to the research and anonymising informants is important even though all the data is publicly available online.

I am still trying to define and refine my final research question and investigate how access to the Facebook group material could be further utilised. Regardless, so far it would seem that with this approach I would be able to find some interesting conclusions.

Task for the mid-term: Preliminary research plan

Building resilience for a warmer world: What is the current spatial and social potential for urban farming in Haaga?

Global urban populations are growing at a substantial rate. More people live in cities than rural areas, and the proportion of urban dwellers is expected to reach 70% by 2050 (De Wit, 2014). This makes cities particularly vulnerable to effects of climate change-induced food shortage. Projected population increase in Helsinki appears to follow a similar growth trend, as the city continues to urbansie. As the desirable target of limiting average global temperature rise to 1.5 Celsius risks being missed on current trends, it makes sense to prepare for a warmer world by increasing the climate resilience of cities already today and on any level, as climate change can lead to catastrophic impacts on all spatial scales (IPCC, 2018).

Why urban farming?

Currently, global food supplies, especially in the developed world, are highly mobile and international. It could be argued that many western countries would not be able to sustain their populations with food produced within the countries themselves. The import-rate of the Finnish food market was 25% in 2012 (Knuutila & Vatanen, 2015), indicating that although most of our food is produced in Finland, we are arguably not free from reliance on global food trading. As most of the world’s land available for food production is nearing maximum usage (World Bank, 2017) and effects from climate change reduce the area suitable for food production, food self-sufficiency is growing in importance to ensure food security in light of these challenges.

Urban farming refers to growing food within municipal boundaries, including community gardens, shared garden plots, beekeeping and raising chickens etc. (Valley & Wittman, 2018). Urban farming can assist increasing food security on a local scale, therefore building up the resilience of an area for future climate-shocks. Additionally, they can promote the consumption of local food, reducing food miles, reliance on carbon-intensive imports and support provision of alternatives to environmentally problematic animal-based foods. Urban farming initiatives can be categorised under several management types. Cohen, et. al. (2012) classify these as commercial urban farms, volunteer-led community gardens and institutional farms for example managed by a school, prison, church or a non-profit organisation. Community farms and gardens can have numerous social benefits, such as narrowing the gap between the production and consumption of food (Mincyte & Dobernig, 2016), increasing connection with nature (especially with children), reducing allergies, and increasing social cohesion and sense of community, perhaps useful for developing a regional identity (Vierikko lecture 15.10.).

Research background

Based on the work of others, we already have a narrative of development leading to the Haaga we know today. We know that nature forms a strong piece of the Haaga identity and interspersing the district with green areas has been important in its development. Several allotment gardens already exist in the area (Aino Achtens Park, Korppaanpuisto), indicating that it could be reasonable to expect supportive attitudes and sufficient space for urban farms.

Posts of others have highlighted a lack of identity and low density as major problems in Haaga. Identity is of course formed over long periods of time, and any one plan cannot directly create an identity for a place. A great potential for infill development has been identified for the area. Could this mean that there is also a great potential for space for urban farming sites? Could these sites start to help form a deeper social identity for Haaga by gradually introducing neighbours to each other? Bearing in mind how few services and recreational activities there are available in Haaga to facilitate this sort of social mixing currently, activities allowing the locals to integrate better among each other could help create social cohesion and act as a catalyst to create identity over time. Posts this week have also highlighted segregation in Pohjois-Haaga, as inhabitants of low incomes and education levels are clustered in the area. Is there perhaps scope for social initiatives to reduce the negative effects of this segregation?

Research plan

To re-iterate, the present research question seeks to assess the spatial and social potential for urban community farming in Haaga. The components describing research objectives below have intentionally been left vague to allow for refining later.

Spatial – This component of research would seek to identify the geographical areas suitable for potential urban farming. These could be parks, yards, vacant lots or even rooftops. Knowledge of suitable tenure type, property rights and relevant permissions would be required for any identified location. GIS-analysis to identify areas potentially suitable to use or convert to farming space would be used to perform this part of research. Results of this component would ideally be presented as maps and figures.

Social – This component would explore attitudes of Haaga residents toward urban farming in their neighbourhoods using questionnaires. We would seek to find out who might be interested to take part, who might be opposed, general level of knowledge on urban farming, whether they feel it could improve a sense of community, environmental concerns etc. Differences between age groups, education levels, gender and other demographic variables might provide insight on the potential members, financiers and beneficiaries of such community projects, as well as those who may become disadvantaged in some way. In addition, knowledge of preferred management type (cooperative, rented allotments etc.) and perceptions of potential conflicts and threats like vandalism could be discovered. Collection methods could include both online and on-location data collection. Results from this component would be used to assess existing social capital and momentum for community farming to take place.

Alternatively, these two components could be split in to individual studies


Planned urban farming spots in Helsinki:

Battery Park urban farm (NYC)

Why We Should be Urban Farming:

Battery Urban Farm in Manhattan, NYC (

Solefood Urban Farm in Vancouver (


Cohen N, Reynolds K and Sanghvi R (2012) Five Borough Farm. Seeding the Future of Urban Agriculture in New York City. New York, NY: Design Trust for Public Space.

IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. (Online). Accessed: 15.10.2018. Available from:

Knuutila, M. & Vatanen, E. 2015. Elintarvikemarkkinoiden tuontiriippuvuus. (Online). Accessed: 15.10.2018. Available from:

Mincyte, D. & Dobernig K. 2016. Urban farming in the North American Metropolis: Rethinking work and distance in alternative food networks. Environment and Planning. Vol. 48(9). Pp. 1767-1786

De Wit, M. M. 2014. A lighthouse for urban agriculture. University of California Press Journals. Vol. 14(1). Pp. 9-22

Valley, W. & Wittman, H. 2018. Beyond feeding the city: The multifunctionality of urban farming in Vancouver, BC. City, Culture & Society.

Urban GIS and Visual Tools – Density Analysis (Practical 3)

The maps tell us that the most dense part of the Helsinki region is the central southern part, the peninsula. The density is reduced in areas peripheral to the centre, especially in the areas of green fingers, where the sparsity ratio is higher. Areas along transit trunk routes remain somewhat denser. The green areas throughout Helsinki are clearly visible as low-efficiency areas.

The grid map is more spatially precise than the region map. It shows variances within districts as the region map shows one value for density per district. E.g. Kaisaniemi park is indicated as densely built on the region map, but we can see on the grid map that this is, in fact, not the case. The same goes for the northern part of the Töölönlahti area. In Lauttasaari there are notable differences in different parts of the island.

The building efficiency ratio shows all floor space and is a great indicator of floorification, but tells us nothing about the type of built environment and how it is perceived by inhabitants, passerbys or others in contact with the area. The concept of “urbanity” is not defined here. It would make sense to say that “urbanity” has to do with the specifics of how the environment is actually built, not just having something built there.

Efficiency ratio doesn’t really tell us anything about how the actual space is used, only that within certain space there is a certain amount of floor space. Efficiency ratio tells us nothing about the type of built environment, and can actually be misleading. E.g. if an area has some high rises and lots of parks and green areas it will show up as just as densely built as an area of separate houses or town houses with small yards.

However, if having floors built is what is meant with “urbanity”, then it works perfectly. Of course efficiency ratio likely correlates with people describing the area as urban, but as such it is not sufficient. A single tower house on an empty field would read as urban as a fully built medium-height urban block if we were to look only at the building efficiency ratio.

Helsinki building density grid map

Helsinki building density regional map

Group members: Johannes, Eetu and Fanny


When tasked to choose a feature of diversity related to either a good or bad urban environment, there is a myriad of available possibilities. I have chosen the factors that influence travel choice as my measure of diversity. Whatever travel-related choices one makes, there are related transactions, trade-offs and costs and benefits related to the urban environment, some of which can be measured, some of which cannot.

Conventionally, transport planners have considered travel to be a demand derived solely from activities differentiated by space (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001) and the act itself as an inherently negative cost (Paez & Whalen, 2010). Conventional planning approaches would likely measure this cost as time and money, and the models used would assume that all users being rational, users will choose a route that gets them from their origin to their destination for the lowest amount of money and time spent (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001). Money and time are of course important considerations when making route and mode choice decisions, but evidence suggests that we consider a much greater number of factors than this (Ory & Mokhtarian, 2005), never mind the fact that we are certainly not rational decision makers as we are bound by the knowledge we have and the cognitive limits of our minds.

What mental transactions do people make when making transport decisions? Ory and Mokhtarian (2005) list several reasons aside from money and time, including variety-seeking (desire to vary from one’s routine), independence (ability to travel on one’s own), exposure to environment and the therapeutic value of movement. The relative importance of such factors are weighted differently by people and are likely dynamic, changing over time. No doubt the form of the urban environment can have a profound effect on how these factors are considered. The therapeutic value of movement, for example, is unlikely to be achieved by bicycle if the urban form doesn’t allow intuitive and safe travel. Similarly, the urban form can both limit and provide opportunities to break from one’s routine, for example by facilitating or not facilitating alternative routes, possibilities to switch modes etc.

It could perhaps be argued that diverse infrastructure facilitating a broad range of transport options (e.g. abundance of cycle- and walkways, bus lanes, trams, private vehicles…) allows for the most diverse manifestations of these mental transactions. Is this good or bad? From a free market economist’s perspective, it might make sense to allow the most favoured and optimal travel modes to gain precedence if they provide the most utility to citizens. However, from an ecologist’s perspective, it may make sense to limit individual freedoms and use push-policies to steer citizens away from certain modes with more environmental impact (congestion charge, non-motorised streets). These judgements are value-laden and perhaps considered differently by minds from different disciplinary backgrounds.

How can we measure diversity of travel options in Haaga? Simple approaches exist, such as measuring the density of bus services, cycle- and walkways or the road network, analysing census data on vehicle ownership in a region etc. What may pose a greater challenge is measuring the effect of those diverse and subjectively weighted personal considerations that influence what travel option we choose, which would arguably be valuable to know from a multidisciplinary transport planning perspective. Perhaps social psychology approaches, such as use of the theory of planned behaviour, could work as a way. Bamberg, et. al. (2003) have sought to do so in their study of bus use among students, where they asked informants to answer questions ranging from how easy it is to use the bus, to how the other people in their lives would react to them doing so.

Morgantown personal rapid transit system


Bamberg, S., & Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. 2003. Choice of Travel Mode in the Theory of Planned Beahviour: The Roles of Past Behaviour, Habit and Reasoned Action.  Basic and Applied Social Psychology. Vol: 25(3). Pp. 175-187.

Mokhtarian, P.L. & Salomon, I. 2001. How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research Part A. Vol: 35(8). Pp. 695-719.

Ory, D.T. & Mokhtarian, P.L. 2005. When is getting there half the fun? Modelling the liking for travel. Transportation Research Part A. Vol: 39. Pp. 97-123.

Páez, A. & Whalen, K. 2010. Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes. Transportation Research Part A. Vol: 44. Pp. 537-549.

GIS and Visual Tools – Practical 2: Töölö Tour

In this specific task teamwork was easy. The group was dynamic and effective, and the task was easy to divide between the group members. QGIS provided some tough situations, but it had mostly to do with learning how to do new things efficiently or according to QGIS logic. At first, we decided to pick the Olympic games as a theme, but we then decided to elaborate and make the tour stretch throughout Töölö, since the area provides several attractions for different groups of people regardless of age, background or interests. Our free exploration areas are the Sibelius park and the Old Jewish Cemetery, since they are conveniently along the route and they are interesting for several reasons to many different groups of people. Anyone can participate in the walking tour. The route should to our knowledge be accessible to anyone. The tour takes approx. 3 hours and is 4,3 km in length, depending on how much time is spent in the free exploration areas. Tours are organized during the summer, between 1st May and 30th Aug 2018, on Wednesdays at 12 & 18 and Sundays at 12, except on public holidays.

Group members: Johannes, Eetu and Fanny

Beyond Wikipedia

This week’s task is to find a document from which it is possible to extract information important for past and present development. I have chosen Eliel Saarinen’s 1915 work “Munkkiniemi-Haaga ja Suur-Helsinki : tutkimuksia ja ehdotuksia kaupunkijärjestelyn alalta”, in which he discusses his comprehensive plans for the development of both Haaga and Munkkiniemi, as my source.

Surprisingly dense plan containing a mix of industrial, office and housing zones in Munkkiniemi and Haaga (Saarinen, 1915).

By looking at the area of Munkkiniemi and Haaga today, it is obvious that Saarinen’s plans have for the majority not been realised. Certain features, such as the Länsiympyrä roundabout, Huopalahdentie and the Huopalahti railway station exist (although dissimilar in architecture), but most of Saarinen’s streets and dense construction, which arguably give the plan much of its character, are missing. Saarinen was commissioned by a private developer to devise the plan, and the idea was not to construct everything at once but provide a framework for the natural expansion of the area over several decades (Koivuranta, 2017).

The Saarinen plan is comprehensive, covering everything from zoning to transport planning. Given the dense nature of the residential area, innovative transport solutions were required. Initial thoughts on constructing an under- or overground rail system are presented in the work, designed to save space in the dense urban environment. Saarinen explicitly states that due to the spatial needs of the residents at ground level, conventional at-grade railway lines were not acceptable due to their inefficiency. Perhaps in anticipation of the underground rail link discussed in this plan, the unfinished Munkkivuori light-metro station exists today.

Saarinen’s plans of a dense urban environment interspersed with green areas can be argued to mirror some of the new-urbanist planning ideals of today. The secondary roads in the area are designed largely for pedestrians to use without fear of being struck by motor vehicles, and the comprehensive tram line network is considered an essential element of the urban form. Of course, a century ago, western ideals of mainstream private car ownership and mobility were still distant, making public transport provision a necessity. It is interesting to see how new urbanist principles are in a sense returning to these old ideals present in Saarinen’s work, which were probably just considered common sense at the time. In light of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, urban air quality and noise pollution issues, Saarinen’s transport and dense planning solutions are in some ways highly relevant to cities today.

It could be argued that currently, Haaga also suffers from a lack of a characterful identity. Could this have been different if Saarinen’s plan had been more completely realised? Paunonen, et. al. (2009) briefly note the importance of enclosed yards in the working-class tenements of Sörnäinen as meeting points and zones of integration especially for the children, evidenced partially by the difference in slang used in the yards and at home or school. The Helsinki City Museum’s “Helsinki Bites” exhibition also echoes the importance of these yards and argues that in light increasing space used for parking, the role of these yards as facilitators of social mixing is reduced, and neighbours remain increasingly unknown to each other. Saarinen’s plan is abundant with apartment blocks with inner yards, acting as semi-public and semi-private spaces, perhaps facilitating this sort of social mixing to take place. This mixing and integration could boost a sense of community and the eventual creation of a unique identity, similar to how Kallio did the same through the formation of small communities like sports clubs, strengthening the region’s public social capital.

3D model of the Saarinen plan (

Depiction of Munkkiniemi in the Saarinen plan (Saarinen, 1915)


Helsinki City Museum. 2018. Helsinki Bites Exhibition

Paunonen, H., Vuolteenaho, J. & Ainiala, T. 2009. Industrial urbanisation, working-class lads and slang toponyms in early twentieth-century Helsinki. Urban History. Vol. 36(3).

Koivuranta, E. 2017. Maailmankuuluu Eliel Saarinen Piirsi Helsinkiin pienen Pietarin – Tältä Munkkiniemi ja Haaga olisivat näyttäneet. Yle Uutiset. (Online). Accessed: 28.9.2018. Available from:

Reconstruct Haaga (Pre-17th Century)

This week’s task was to gather information on the state of nature in Haaga before the 17th century and share perspectives on how such information could be obtained. Given that urban spaces in Finland are particularly well integrated with nature, it is relevant for planners in the country to consider what the composition of nature pre-urbanisation has been like in a place when developing new plans. As this knowledge would allow us to have a more robust understanding of the local ecology in Haaga, we may become better prepared to consider how green infrastructure could be used to devise environmentally sustainable plans. What methods and sources could we use to find out what stage the nature of Haaga was like before the 17th century, well before any meaningful urbanisation of the place?

Visual information of early structures and geometry can be gained through analysis of historical maps, some of which are preserved electronically by the City of Helsinki’s archives. Unfortunately, most of these are not old enough to directly tell us what Haaga was like four centuries ago, but they can still give an idea of what areas have been the first to urbanise and shed light on past forms natural elements in the area. For example, the map linked below shows the form of the gulf of Pikku-Huopalahti and one of its tributaries, as well as local topography


Perhaps by combining archived maps and other data with historical accounts on human activity, it could be possible to understand early use of the area’s ecosystem services and natural resources which may have led early settlers to the area. It may also be able possible to then extrapolate how these activities have had a broader effect on the local ecology.

(Hansson Hans, Helsinki City Archive)

This map shows settlements in Helsinki in the 17th century. Although historical maps can provide insight into past natural conditions, they must be regarded critically. Critical cartographers highlight the role of maps (especially historical) as tools to visualise areas disingenuously to that benefit the ruling class or those in power (Crampton & Krygier, 2006).

Historical accounts show that initial settlers to Haaga likely established dwellings there to seek opportunities for fishing and trade along the nearby coastline (Roos, 1950). Those settlers engaged in rudimentary agriculture and hunting, as well as trade with peasant sailor-traders (talonpoikaispurjehtijat) who had likely been active in the area since the end of the middle ages up until the mid 14th century (Roos, 1950). However due to unfavourable years, most settlements in the Haaga region were abandoned by the early 17th century due to the inability of inhabitants to pay taxes (Roos, 1950). Later, land in Haaga was primarily used for Villas. It is probably thus reasonable to argue that human influence on the land and ecology in Haaga had been quite minimal at least before Helsinki was appointed as the capital of the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1812, which marked the start of more meaningful urbanisation. Interestingly, Roos (1950) mentions that due to warfare and fire damage, a large set of historical accounts preserved by the church in the Helsinki region have been lost, reducing the pool of available sources to shed light on activities pre-1800 in Haaga.


Helsinki City Archives.

Krampton, J & Krygier, J. 2006. An Introduction to Critical Cartography. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies. Vol: 4(1). Pp. 11-33.

Roos, E.J. 1950. Haagan Kauppalan Historia. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Kirjapainon OY. Helsinki.

Urban GIS and Visual Tools Practical 1

Practical 1

Process – Green areas

The area of each small area in Helsinki were calculated in m2. This was done using the “$area” command in the field calculator, accessed through the “Helsinki small areas” layer’s attribute table.

The amount of green area in each small area was calculated. This was done by using data from the Helsinki land cover data Corine and the zonal statistics function. In the zoning statistics dialogue box, the Corine file was selected as the raster layer, and the Helsinki small areas file was selected as the vector layer. After running the algorithm, a new layer was created (named “GinSA”) with data from the Corine file organised under the structure of the Helsinki small areas file using “GinSA_” as the prefix for new columns. The “GinSA_count” column indicated the number of Corine layer pixels in each Helsinki small area.

By knowing the number of pixels in each small area, it was possible to calculate the green area in m2 in each small area. From the metadata of the Corine layer, the pixel size was found to be 20×20, and therefore correspond to an area of 20m x 20m = 400m2. Finally, the number of pixels (GinSA_count column in the GinSA layer) was multiplied by 400 with the field calculator to produce a new column (GinSA_m2) containing the coverage of green areas in each small area in m2. The resulting values were divided by the total area of each small area and multiplied by 100 to work out the percentage of green area in each Helsinki small area. The column containing the proportion data was visualised as a map by selecting “Graduated” from the style tab and choosing an appropriate colour ramp.

Process – population data

The join attributes by location function was used to join the population data from Helsinki’s population grid 2017 (HSY) with the Helsinki small areas layer. “GinSA” was selected as the target vector layer, and the population grid was selected as the join vector layer. The contains box was ticked to include green areas contained within the small areas, and “take summary of intersecting features” was selected in order to sum the amount of population in each small area. This process produced several new columns, but the sum of the “asukkaita” column (sumASUKKAI) was of greatest interest, as it revealed the population of each Helsinki small area.

Using the field calculator, the “sumASUKKAI” column was divided with the GinSA_m2 column to work out the number of inhabitants for each square meter of green area per small area, the result of which represented the population pressure towards green areas. As m2 was too fine a scale to illustrate population pressure appropriately, results were multiplied by 1 000 000 to work out the number of inhabitants for each km2 of green area for each Helsinki small area. The column containing the population pressure data was visualised as a map by selecting “Graduated” from the style tab and choosing an appropriate colour ramp.


The 5 Helsinki small areas with the greatest population pressure to green areas are Punavuori, Kamppi, Kruununhaka, Kallio and Ullanlinna. The lowest five are Salmenkallio, Vartiosaari, Talosaari, Ultuna and Östersundom. The city should direct its efforts to improve the quality of green areas in the areas under highest population pressure, as they are likely to be perturbed the most by human interaction. Improving the quality of these green spaces would allow residents in these zones to benefit more from the positive effects of green space, such as increased opportunities for exercise (Storgaard, et. al., 2012).

The city should also consider improving green areas in some areas which are not indicated as pressurised by the analysis. Kluuvi for example, is not indicated as pressurised. This is because very few people (638) live in the area and it contains a large amount of green space due to the presence of the Kaisaniemi park. However, the area attracts a high number of visitors and commuters due to its geographically central location, and the park is thus arguably mainly enjoyed by non-residents whose interests are not represented by this analysis. This presents an issue with the analysis method, as it assumes that only residents of the small areas add pressure to green spaces, excluding the needs and effects of visitors. City centre areas tend to be visited often by non-residents, lowering the usefulness of this type of analysis for central locations.

Another issue is that the small area “Länsisatama” actually contains the 3 fairly distinct areas of Ruoholahti, Jätkäsaari and Hernesaari. A large zone of green space is concentrated in the northern end of Ruoholahti, lowering the pressure in the other two areas as well, even though those zones feature very little green space themselves. Jätkäsaari and Hernesaari should perhaps thus in reality be considered quite pressurised. Ensuring that the borders of the small areas represent appropriate borders between districts accurately is essential for this analysis.

A further issue with the analysis is that almost all zones peripheral to the city centre appear to have equal population pressure. Although these areas contain the most green area in general and low pressure is expected, the individual differences between the zones could perhaps be better illustrated with an analysis excluding the central areas. The same could also be achieved by increasing the number of classes. Experimentation revealed that 20 classes were required to differentiate differences in population pressure among the peripheral zones, but this became difficult to interpret for the user.

Storgaard, R. L., Glumer, C., Aadahl, M. & Hansen, H.S. 2012. Neighbourhood green space and leisure time sedentary behaviour – in a Danish population. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. Vol. 15. Supplement 1. Pp. S100-S101.