Miksi Vallilanlaakso jätettiin vaille omaa ratikkapysäkkiä?

Note for our international audience: This post deals with public transportation connections around our campus in Kumpula / Helsinki. As the matter is local, we publish this post in Finnish only.

Otimme hiljattain kantaa uuden Kalasatama-Pasila ratikan pysäkkisijoitteluun Vallilanlaaksossa.

Tausta:

  • Helsinkiin on valmistumassa uusi poikittainen raitiotielinja Kalasatamasta-Pasilaan, jota parhaillaan rakennettaan. Linja ohittaa myös Kumpulan kampuksen.
  • Kumpulan kampuksen saavutettavuudesta on keskustelu siitä lähtien, kun kampus valmistui vuosituhannen alusta. Myös me tutkimme jo 13 vuotta sitten Kumpulan kampuksen saavutettavuutta. Tuloksia julkaistiin esimerkiksi raportissa Solmukohta vai pussinperä? – Kumpulan kampus pääkaupunkiseudun joukkoliikenneverkossa
  • Nykyisellä suunnitelmalla, uuden raitiotielinjan varrella on 14 pysäkkiä noin 250 metrin välein.
  • Vallillanlaaksossa kampuksemme kohdalla pysäkkien välinen etäisyys on kuitenkin yli 1 km. Se on pisin etäisyys Helsingissä raitiotielle ilman pysäkkiä (tilanne ennen uuden pikaratikan käynnistymistä lokakuussa 2023).
  • Keskeinen argumentti julkisessa keskustelussa on ollut, että lisäpysäkki hidastaa ratikkaa “liikaa” ja että “puistossa ei ole ketään”.
  • Argumentoimme, että
    • Pysäkittömyys jättää merkittävän määrän potentiaalisia raitiotien käyttäjiä huomiotta niin Kumpulan kampuksella, kuin Vallilanlaaksoa ympäröivillä kasvavilla asuinalueilla. Myös viheralueen käyttäjät ja esimerkiksi Valillanlaakson jalkapallokenttien käyttäjät tarvitsisivat mielestämme pysäkkiä.
    • Kalliin raitiotielinjan suunnittelu ensisijaisesti kulkuneuvon nopeuden näkökulmasta on yksipuolista suunnittelua. Joukkoliikenteen tavoitteena on palvella kulkijoita myös reitin varrella, mahdollistaen lyhyet ja laadukkaat pysäkkimatkat.
  • Olemme koonneet alle:
    • Alkuperäisen kannanottomme Helsingin Sanomissa 21.8.2023
    • Helsingin liikenne- ja katusuunnittelupäällikkö Reetta Putkosen vastineen 23.8.2023
    • Oman aikaisemmin julkaisemattoman vastineemme Reetta Putkosen kirjoitukseen

Alkuperäinen kannanottomme HS 21.8.
Miksi Vallilanlaakso jätettiin ilman omaa ratikkapysäkkiä

Helsingin kaupungin vastine

Helsingin liikenne- ja katusuunnittelupäällikkö Reetta Putkonen kirjoitti vastineen kannanottoomme otsikolla “Vallilan­laakson pysäkki pienentäisi matkustaja­määriä” (HS 23.8)

Kirjoituksista on käyty myös aktiivista keskustelua esimerkiksi “Lisää Kaupunkia Helsinkiin”-ryhmässä:

Vastineemme Helsingin kaupungille

Kannustamme kaupunkia kokeiluun Vallilanlaaksossa

Julkaisemme ohessa vielä vastineemme Helsingin kaupungille kannustaaksemme kaupunkia kokeiluun Vallilanlaakson pysäkin osalta nyt rakennustöiden ollessa vielä käynnissä.

Helsingin liikenne- ja katusuunnittelupäällikkö Reetta Putkonen vastasi 23.8. aiempaan kirjoitukseemme Vallilanlaakson ratikkapysäkistä (HS 21.8.).

On hyvä kuulla kävelyä parantavista ratkaisuista puiston reunoilla. Pysäkin osalta Putkonen toteaa: ”Kun pysäkin mahdollisten käyttäjien määrä on ratkaisevasti pienempi kuin ohittavien matkustajien määrä, pysäkki todennäköisesti pienentäisi eikä kasvattaisi joukkoliikenteen matkustajamäärää kokonaisuutena.”

Eikö lähes aina joukkoliikennevälineen kyydissä ole enemmän ihmisiä kuin mitä yksittäisellä pysäkillä jää pois tai nousee sisään? Reitille on nyt rakenteilla 14 pysäkkiä. Jättäisikö merkittävä määrä Kalasatamasta Pasilaan mieliviä nousemasta kyytiin, jos reitillä olisi tuo 15. pysäkki? Nyt yli kilometrin mittainen väli taitaa olla pisin pysäkitön ratikkamatka Helsingissä, vaikka muuten pysäkkejä on keskimäärin 250 metrin välein reitillä.

Vilkkaan puistoalueen läpi päivittäin kulkevina ja sen asukas- ja liikuntadataan sekä Kätilöopiston suunnitelmiin perehtyneinä meidän on vaikea uskoa, etteikö käyttäjiä sille olisi. Putkosen kommentti edustaa aikakeskeistä liikennesuunnittelua, jossa ihmisten väliset erot ja pysäkkien läheisten liikkumisympäristöjen merkitys jää laskelmissa huomiotta. Pysäkittömyyden taustalla oleva laskelma itsessään on eittämättä tehty huolella, mutta mittaamalla vain matka-aikaa sekunneissa ja pysyviä asukkaita, ei tavoiteta esimerkiksi viheralueiden saavutettavuuden moninaisia hyötyjä.

Pysäkin tarvetta on Putkosen mukaan jouduttu selvittämään jo monesti, mikä viittaa epävarmuuksiin asian ympärillä. Kun koneet vielä möyrivät Vallilanlaaksoa kokonaan uuteen muotoon, kannustamme kaupunkia ketterään urbaaniin kokeiluun ja laittamaan väliaikaisen pysäkin jalkapallokenttien tasoristeyksen läheisyyteen. Jos nousijoita ei ole riittävästi, voi pysäkin myöhemmin ottaa pois. Kokeilun avulla saatu päätös perustuisi todelliseen käyttötietoon.

Elias Willberg
Christoph Fink
Tuuli Toivonen

 


Kuva 1. Vallilanlaakson ratikkapysäkin puuttumista on perusteltu mm. sillä, että “puistossa ei ole ketään”. Kuvassa on esitetty joitakin käyttäjäryhmiä, jotka analyyseissä on jätetty huomiotta. Kumpulan kampuksen dynaamisen väestön kaavio perustuu tieteellisessä artikkelissa kuvattuun matkapuhelinaineistoon.

 

– – – – –

The Digital Geography Lab is an interdisciplinary research team focusing on spatial Big Data analytics for fair and sustainable societies at the University of Helsinki.

The MOBI-TWIN project kick-started!

Mobi-Twin logo

 

What is it about

The Horizon Europe funded MOBI-TWIN – Twin transition and changing patterns of spatial mobility: a regional approach – sets out to redefine regional attractiveness in the context of significant global transition processes such as the green and digital transition. The project aims to analyze the changing drivers of spatial mobility and examine the effects of twin transitions on regional attractiveness and human (im)mobility.

The twin transition presents both opportunities and challenges for regions across Europe. As certain areas become more alluring due to the emerging prospects brought forth by the green and digital revolution, others risk being left behind. By utilising advanced information and computer modeling techniques, MOBI-TWIN seeks to comprehensively understand the impact of these changes on different regions of Europe and develop innovative policies that promote balance and inclusivity by harnessing the positive effects of Twin Transition.

A primary focus of MOBI-TWIN is to unravel the underlying factors that influence individuals’ decisions to relocate and how these factors may evolve in response to global changes. By analyzing various types of moves, including permanent relocations, commuting patterns, and temporary stays, the project aims to gain insights into the intricate dynamics and implications for different European regions.

How we do it

Taking a step further, MOBI-TWIN employs a specialised computer model to simulate the potential outcomes of people’s mobility in the face of the Twin Transition. This includes assessing the potential influx of individuals into specific locations, the types of jobs they may acquire, and the subsequent impact on regional populations, social structures, welfare system, and labour markets. By leveraging these findings, MOBI-TWIN aims to propose policies that harness the positive aspects of these changes and maximise the benefits for different areas. Of particular importance is the examination of how the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit have affected freedom of movement between EU regions.

Our objectives

  • UNDERSTAND patterns, drivers, and forms of spatial mobility during Twin Transition.
  • REDEFINE regional attractiveness under the effects of Twin Transition and develop novel typologies of EU regions.
  • ANALYSE the effects of spatial mobility on EU demographics, society, welfare systems and labour market using microsimulation and agent-based modelling.
  • INITIATE an open policy discussion and engage stakeholders and society on the effects of Twin Transition on spatial mobility for addressing regional inequalities across EU regions.
  • MAXIMISE MOBI-TWIN’s impact by disseminating project’s outcomes to a wide audience and engage multiple types of stakeholders.

The role of DGL

At University of Helsinki, the Digital Geography Lab (DGL), based in the Department of Geosciences and Geography, provides expertise on spatial mobility and big data analytics to the project and gives special focus to cross-border regions, multilocal living and remote working. The lab provides understanding on when and where mobility flows from various forms (migration, commuting, temporary mobility) between the EU regions take place and what factors describe the mobility differences over time. The lab is also responsible for creating and managing the complete database of the project and carrying out one of the pilot studies in the North & East Finland (e.g., South Savo). The project from DGL part is led by Olle Järv (PI) and carried out by closely working together with Tuomas Väisänen.

The consortium

The MOBI-TWIN project runs until May 2026 and brings together 9 partners from Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Cyprus, and Finland: White Research SRL, Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Universitat de Barcelona, Helsingin Yliopisto, Fondation Europeenne de la Science, Politecnico di Milano, Erevnitiko Panepistimiako Institouto Periferiakis Anaptixis, Acceligence Ltd.

MOBI-TWIN has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement N° 101094402, with a total budget of 2.91 million euros.

Follow MOBI-TWIN’s journey

Check out the project’s website at www.mobi-twin-project.eu and be updated via Twitter (@MobiTwinProject) and LinkedIn (@mobi-twin-project-heu).

 

– – – – –

The Digital Geography Lab is an interdisciplinary research team focusing on spatial Big Data analytics for fair and sustainable societies at the University of Helsinki.

Travel Time Matrix 2023 for Helsinki Metropolitan Area is out

We have published the Travel Time Matrix 2023 for the Helsinki Metropolitan Area

What’s new?

  • Updated travel times for Walking, Cycling, Public Transport and Private Car based on 2023 situation
  • More variation within travel modes (e.g., slow, average and fast walking) to reflect different life realities
  • A new computation framework that allows us to easily produce travel time matrices for other cities

The dataset extends the history of travel time matrices from the region produced by the Digital Geography Lab (since 2016, before that ‘Accessibility Research Group’). This also marks the 10-year anniversary of the first travel time matrix, published in 2013. Matrices were also published in 2015 and 2018.

Read more about the data and download it

https://www.helsinki.fi/fi/tutkimusryhmat/digital-geography-lab/paakaupunkiseudun-matka-aikamatriisi-2023

DOI:10.5281/zenodo.7907548

Featured in City of Helsinki’s magazine Helsinki Quarterly (Kvartti)

The dataset is featured also in the newly published autumn issue of Kvartti-magazine (in Finnish):

Fink, Willberg & Toivonen (2023). Sujuvaa, helppoa, hidasta vai epäekologista? Avoimesta matka-aikamatriisista ymmärrystä pääkaupunkiseudun liikenneyhteyksiin ja saavutettavuuteen. Kvartti 3/2023. https://kaupunkitieto.hel.fi/fi/sujuvaa-helppoa-hidasta-vai-epaekologista-avoimesta-matka-aikamatriisista-ymmarrysta.

Travel Time Matrix 2023 was produced with the support of City of Helsinki

– – – – –

The Digital Geography Lab is an interdisciplinary research team focusing on spatial Big Data analytics for fair and sustainable societies at the University of Helsinki.

Workshop on changes on nature visitation and the potential of Mobile Big Data for visitor monitoring

How will nature-based tourism change in Finland in the upcoming years? What will be the implications for nature conservation and visitor management? What is the potential of Mobile Big Data for visitor monitoring?

If you would like to discuss more about these topics, join us on 28th September in Porthania Urbarium. The event is organized by the University of Helsinki’s Digital Geography Lab.

Find more information below in Finnish.

Työpaja luontovierailujen muutoksista ja massadatan kävijäseurantapotentiaalista

Aika: Torstaina 28.9.2023, klo 9.45–16.30

Paikka: Porthania Urbarium, Yliopistonkatu 3, Helsinki

Ilmoittautumislomake: https://elomake.helsinki.fi/lomakkeet/125029/lomakkeet.html

Työpaja on kohdennettu virkistys- ja suojelualueiden parissa työskenteleville, erityisesti kävijäseurantatietoa kerääville tai tarvitseville asiantuntijoille. Tavoitteena on kartoittaa asiantuntijanäkemyksiä seuraavista teemoista:

  • Havaitut ja tulevat muutokset luontovierailuissa (kävijämäärissä, -profiileissa, aktiviteeteissä ym.)
  • Kävijäseurannan nykyiset ja tulevat tietotarpeet
  • Massadatalähteiden käyttö kävijämuutosten seurannassa: mahdollisuudet ja esteet

Työpajan tavoitteena on tuottaa kansainvälisesti kiinnostavaa tieteellistä tietoa luontovierailujen muutoksista ja niiden seurannan keinoista. Työpajassa saadun ymmärryksen ja laajemman tutkimuksen perusteella tuotetaan myös tieteeseen perustuvia suosituksia, joilla kävijäseurantaa voidaan jatkossa kehittää.

Työpajan järjestää Helsingin yliopiston Digital Geography Lab osana MOBICON-hanketta (Mobiilimassadatojen käyttö luontovierailujen ymmärtämiseen). Työpaja tarjoaa keskustelu- ja verkostoitumismahdollisuuksia tuomalla yhteen luontovierailujen ja kävijäseurannan parissa työskenteleviä asiantuntijoita järjestöistä, kunnista, julkishallinnosta, Metsähallituksesta ja virkistysalueyhdistyksistä. Tilaisuuden lopuksi tutkijat kertovat mobiiliaineistojen tarjoamista mahdollisuuksista luontoalueiden kävijäseurannassa. 

Päivitämme ohjelmaa lähiviikkoina: viimeisin versio on aina näkyvissä tässä julkaisussa.

Työpajan pääasiallinen kieli on suomi.

Ilmoittauduthan viimeistään 19.9. ilmoittautumislomakkeella

Tervetuloa!

Lisätiedot: Aina Brias (aina.briasguinart@helsinki.fi)

– – – – –

The Digital Geography Lab is an interdisciplinary research team focusing on spatial Big Data analytics for fair and sustainable societies at the University of Helsinki.

Super Week for our Doctors 2023!

This week has been special for the Digital Geography Lab and our Doctors 2023 group! The faculty councils of the Faculty of Science and Faculty of Biosciences did the following official decisions:

🌟 Elias‘s thesis Measuring sustainable accessibility: Geospatial approaches toward integrating people and the environment was accepted with honors! Elias defended on the 2nd of June 2023 with Trisalyn Nelson, Jack and Laura Dangermond Endowed Chair of Geography, University of California Santa Barbara, as the opponent.

🌟 Aina got permission to advance to the public defense with her thesis Shaking Environmental Education Paradigms. Practitioners’ narratives, contextual elements, and biocultural approaches. The public examination will take place on 20th September 2023, at 10 in Porthania (Yliopistonkatu 3), lecture room P674 or online. Senior Research Fellow Sarobidy Rakotonarivo, Department of Forestry and Environment, University of Antananarivo, Madagascar will act as the opponent. Aina did her PhD in the Global Change and Conservation research group.

🌟 Tuomas got permission to defend publicly his thesis Diversity of places and people: Using big data to understand languages and activities across geographical space. The public examination will take place on 10th November 2023.  Grant McKenzie, Associate professor of spatial data science in the Department of Geography at McGill University, will act as the opponent.

🌟 Kerli thesis Capturing segregation through space and time: New insights from the activity space approach and big data was sent for pre-examination. The tentative defense date is 24th November 2023!

Hooray & hugs to #Doctors2023🥳🤗

Elias heading to defend his thesis on the 2nd of June. Tuuli as custos and Trisalyn as the opponent follow. Photo by Christoph Fink.

– – – – –

The Digital Geography Lab is an interdisciplinary research team focusing on spatial Big Data analytics for fair and sustainable societies at the University of Helsinki.

Contributing to the development of Geography Master’s degree curriculum

The Digital Geography Lab has been participating actively in the curricula development of the Geography MSc and BSc Programmes. During 2020-2022 Tuuli acted as the Director of the Geography Degree Programmes.

Therefore it makes sense to share an article covering the renewal process of the Geography MSc degree programme structure in the Digital Geography Lab blog. The article has been translated from the original publication in Finnish:

Toivonen, T., Kainulainen, H. T., Kosonen, K., & Ruth, O. (2023). Havaintoja maantieteen maisteriohjelman uudistamisprosessista. Terra, 135(2), 98-105. [https://terra.journal.fi/article/view/130170/80100]

Observations on the reform process of the Master’s Curriculum in Geography

In this article, we describe the process aimed at reforming the curriculum of the Master’s Programme in Geography at the University of Helsinki. The reform process was carried out during the years 2021–2022 and it was coordinated jointly by the Degree Programme Director, Deputy Director, Education Planner and one dedicated university teacher. The impetus for documenting the process in the form of this article came from the leadership studies by Professor Tuuli Toivonen. Toivonen served as Degree Programme Director and Olli Ruth as Deputy Director during the reform. The roles changed in summer 2022. Coinciding with this change, the processes moved from planning the structure of the curriculum to planning the implementation of courses.

Background of the curriculum reform

Teaching at the university is defined by the curricula of study programs. Typically, the curricula define the general degree structure and study tracks, as well as the learning outcomes, contents, scopes and competence assessment methods of study modules and courses – as well as the teachers responsible for the courses.

The curricula of the University of Helsinki have been in transition during the past 20 years. In the turn of the Millenia, European countries started the so-called Bologna process that aimed at harmonising the university degrees in Europe. This led to degree reforms at the University of Helsinki first in 2005 to be continued in the mid-2010s. The aim of these reforms was to make the bachelor’s and master’s degrees clearly separate, thus improving students’ opportunities to move from one degree programme to another between these study stages. In addition, efforts were made to strengthen the link between studies and working life. In the next phase, in 2017, the University of Helsinki implemented a reform called the Big Wheel, which introduced new system of three-year curricula. The old majors were replaced by degree programmes and minor subjects by elective study modules. The first curriculum period of the reform was 2017–2020 and the second 2020–2023.

The third Big Wheel iteration will be 2023-2026 and for this, the curricula were planned during the years 2021–2022.

During this third recent iteration, it was decided that the curriculum of the Master’s Programme in Geography would be examined thoroughly and developed further. The previous structure Programme dated back to a time when students continued directly from a bachelor’s degree in geography to a master’s degree programme, and there were hardly any students transferring from other degree programmes. At that time, teaching at the master’s level was divided into three study tracks: physical geography, human geography and geoinformatics. Those studying to be geography teachers followed one of these study tracks and took teacher’s pedagogical studies as minor subject. The students identified with their study tracks quite strictly, which hindered the development of geographer identity.

For the degree program boards, curriculum development is typically one of the greatest endeavors during their four-year term. The aim of the curriculum reform for 2023–2026 was, on the one hand, to strengthen the distinctiveness of the programme by strengthening geographical thinking and geographer identity. On the one hand, the aim was to create an opportunity for versatility in studies allowing students to either specialise deeply or to create expertise as a generalist. Overall, the wish was to allow students to follow their interests instead of forcing them to study following predefined study lines.

The curricula reforms tend to be laborious processes, especially when significant changes are made to the curriculum. The matrix organisation of the University of Helsinki adds an extra spice to reform processes: teaching and research staff work in departments or other units, and they contribute to one or more degree programmes. Hence, the director of the degree programme does not have a supervisory position with the teachers but needs to negotiate with them and the head of department about their availability for teaching duties.

The curriculum reform was a joint effort

According to the university’s bylaws, the board of the degree programme is responsible for preparing and presenting the curriculum to the responsible faculty. In practice, however, curriculum reform is a joint process of the entire teaching staff, and it benefits from close interaction with students. Therefore, at the beginning of the process, we identified six key actors.

Coordination group: Degree Programme Directors Tuuli Toivonen and Olli Ruth, Education Coordinator Katariina Kosonen and University Instructor Heli Kainulainen, who had time dedicated for  curriculum development, formed the curriculum reform coordination group.

Programme Board: An eight-member Master’s Programme in Geography Board with a four-year term of office, covering as wide a range of different areas of geography as possible.. Student representatives also participate in the management group of the degree programme.

Teachers: All teachers teaching in the Geography degree programme, including permanent staff responsible for content (professors, university lecturers and university instructors), researchers with a 5% teaching obligation, and part-time teachers hired separately on a course-by-course basis.

Students: All geography students were invited to participate in the planning. The changes now made to the curriculum will only partially affect students who have already started their studies, as students have the right to graduate during the next three-year curriculum period according to the curriculum that was in force when they started their studies. However, students have the best practical expertise in, for example, overlapping teaching content or the functionality of alignment and scheduling.

Other stakeholders: Employers hiring newly graduated geographers have occasionally expressed wishes regarding the content of teaching. As geographers are employed in many positions and fields in society, the consultation of this group took place indirectly through the consultation of teachers having collaborations with stakeholder, and students already in working life outside the university.

Faculty and University Study Administration: The preparation of the curriculum and its administrative practices are supervised by the Rector of the University and the Dean of the Faculty. The Faculty Council approved the final curricula.

Mapping development needs

At the beginning of the process, we mapped the current state of geography teaching and curriculum reform needs. We did this firstly by 1) the director personally interviewing all permanent teachers, 2) discussing development needs in the degree programme board, and 3) asking students for their thoughts on development needs through a questionnaire sent to them. Secondly, we assessed the key indicators and statistics and their developed over the recent years: the degree programme’s annual budget, the statistics of the number of applicants, student satisfaction according to the course feedback, intake vs. graduation statistics, job satisfaction survey of the university staff, and statistics on the employment of graduates compiled by the faculty’s alumni network.

The mapping showed that there had been relatively little joint discussion on the objectives of the degree programme during previous curriculum rounds, as the three-year curricula had remained largely unchanged at least since the beginning of the Big Wheel reform. As the teaching staff had gradually changed, the understanding of the study plan and degree programme structure had partly disappeared. Based on the interviews, the teaching and research staff wished for more clarity and alignment in the structure of the study plan. On the other hand, there was a wish to lower the borders between the existing study tracks. Both teachers and students called for more flexible studying and a change to a broader picture of geography. There were also concerns about the attractiveness of studying geography with the establishment of new multidisciplinary degree programmes, despite strong belief in the importance of geography in society.

In terms of human resources, statistics showed that geography had fewer teaching staff per student than other degree programmes at the faculty. Many teachers suffered from a high workload and a feelings of inadequacy, and some felt that teaching responsibilities were unevenly distributed. On the other hand, it was found that the budget available for hiring hourly teachers had remained sufficient and that the faculty had reacted well to the shortcomings. Still, the shortage of university lecturers was clear.

The statistics showed that the number of student applicants had remained high, and geography had maintained the high number of applicants. Statistics and student surveys also show that geography students at the University of Helsinki are satisfied with their studies and the percentage of graduates relative to student intake is high compared to the other programmes at the Faculty of Science. According to statistics, geographers are also well employed in jobs corresponding to their education after their studies.

The actual curriculum reform process

The process of reforming the curriculum had fours phases:

1) Creating a strategy for geography degree programs

We began the actual development of the curriculum for 2023–2026 by creating a strategy for the Geography degree programmes (both BSc and MSc). The strategy guides the work of the Board in particular. The first version of the strategy was created within the Board, after which the entire geography staff and the students were invited to comment and modify the text. The strategy follows the university’s higher-level goals and identifies the values of the discipline, including tight connections to science and research, as well as individuality, community spirit and encouragement to try and experiment.

2) Getting organisanised for the curriculum reform

We agreed on various team configurations to advance the development of the curriculum. The coordination group made a proposal in which, after minor changes, the following forms of organisation were identified:

The coordination group meeting on a weekly basis. The degree programme director, the study coordinator and university instructor dedicated for the development work were responsible for preparing the process meetings and managing the process. The coordination group actively made suggestions and ensured that the process proceeded on time. The agenda for the meetings was constantly open online, and everyone was able to enter matters requiring discussion there in advance.

Smaller planning groups were created for the study tracks and joint courses, which held meetings as needed. Although efforts were made to partially get rid of the old study tracks, it was still sensible to develop teaching in smaller groups based on the old study tracks. The groups were formed from teachers interested in developing human geography, natural geography, geoinformatics and teacher education. Some of the teachers were in several groups and each group was represented in the management team.

The degree programme board continued its monthly meetings. A standard item “Progress of curriculum development” was added to the agenda. As the management group included a contact person for each smaller planning group, they coud report on the advancements. Additionally, the university instructor dedicated to the curriculum work was invited to the meetings as an expert participant.

All teachers met together four times a year. The joint teacher meetings provided a platform to follow and discuss about the progress of the curriculum reform. The teacher meetings already have a long tradition, but now the meeting schedule was created for the entire year, the scheduling was made in accordance with the curriculum reform timeline and the meetings were titled to follow the phase of the reform.

Student meetings were originally planned to be held once a semester. During the process we noticed that more frequent meetings were needed. The student meetings helped to assess how the reformed curriculum would look from the student’s perspective. They helped to take better into account, for example, exchange studies and the need for flexibility arising from different life situations. The teacher education was modified extensively based on students’ comments.

The study administrations of the faculty and the university actively steered the process, as all the university’s degree programmes revisited their curricula simultaneously. During the academic year 2021–2022, the Faculty directors’ forums for the study proframmes allowing the vice dean, the stidy administration staff and the degree programme directors to meet, ensuring a two-way exchange of information.

Figure 1. Timetable of the process during the academic year 2021-2022, as illustrated for the process participants.

3) Actual development work

Based on the needs identified in the initial assessment, three major changes were made to the curriculum. First, space was made in the degree structure for new joint geography studies that are compulsory for all students. The aim is to connect the students and strengthen their geographer identities regardless of the their background studies. Secondly, a module-based structure was implemented in order to move from strict study tracks to a looser structure that better respects the diversity of geography. The module structure allows students to build their degrees to provide either deep specialisation or broad expertise. The modules helped to distribute teaching responsibilities and visibility more evenly, as each professor was given responsibility for at least one module. The third reform concerned teacher education. A separate study line was built for teacher students to allow gaining the subject and pedagogical competence needed for teacher qualification even with the minimum number of credits for the degree.

4) Development of communication practices

During the curriculum renewal process, efforts were made to also improve the internal communication of geography degree programmes. We took several measures to improve communication, most of which were minor changes to existing practices: 1) The management group meetings and their contents were communicated more systematically than before by distributing agendas and minutes in accordance with uniform practices, 2) all material related to the curriculum reform was collected to a dedicated Moodle site, to which all geography teachers had access, 3) public notes were written from each teahcher meeting and 4) emails related to the curriculum process were systematically titled so that they could be easily searched later in one’s own mail archives, regardless of the sender.

The outcome and evaluation of the curriculum reform process

The end result of the design process

The new Master’s programme structure was completed on time in spring 2022 (Figure 2). After this, during summer 2022, the teachers wrote module and course descriptions following the new curriculum. The Faculty Council approved the new module-based curriculum with course descriptions in November 2022. The actual testing of the functionality of the curriculum will take place in 2023–2026, when the module-based model and new joint master’s degree courses in geography will be taught for the first time.

Successful implementation of the curriculum still requires pedagogical planning and meetings with teachers even after the study plan has been approved. A large part of the pedagogical solutions related to the content of the new courses were made from the faculty’s point of view after the curriculum design process had already been completed. In winter 2022–2023, the Master’s Programme in Geography organised two meetings intended for the entire faculty, where they discussed together the alignment of courses, scheduling for different teaching periods and study-related workload. The new module structure was found to increase the need to develop study counselling, as a result of which the PSP guidance (personal study plan) for master’s studies was redesigned to better support the different stages of study.

Figure 2. A general view of the module-based structure of the new Geography Master’s programme curriculum.

Self-assessment of the design process

The new curriculum will only be ready after it has been tested in practice. Table 1 presents our self-assessment and identifies some successes and failures associated with the process, as we see them at the moment, just before the teaching according to the new curriculum starts. We build our self-assessment on the leadership frameworks identified by Bolman & Deal (2008) and Gallos & Bolman (2021), and evaluate the outcome and the process through four frameworks: 1) structural, 2) human resources, 3) political and 4) symbolic. (In the Finnish version, we use the translations by Vuori (2011), who has examined the frameworks in the context of universities of applied sciences in Finland). We consider this multiangle examination beneficial, as the set of frameworks offers the opportunity to examine both the process and the end result from many different perspectives. We also combine the frameworks with the classic SWOT terminology, and identify challenge/strength and threat/opportinity of the process and the outcome. We hope that this self-assessment, combined with the description of the process, will help others to get ideas for their participative reform processes.

 

 

Table 1. Our self-assessment of the implementation of the curriculum reform process  and the new curriculum. We have broken down  the table through the four management frameworks of Gallos and Bolman (2021) and  apply concepts familiar from SWOT analysis: We consider the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum reform process, and the opportunities and threats in terms of the end result.

 

FRAME curriculum reform process reform outcome – the new curriculum
STRUCTURAL  FRAME

METAPHOR: MACHINE

Did the reform process or will the future curriculum work so that process was clear and structured, like an oiled machine?

STRENGTHS:

The responsibilities were successfully divided between the participants and the schedule and stages of the process were communicated effectively. The meetings were planned well in advance and participants’ time was used efficiently.

 

WEAKNESSES:

It’s hard to find time in busy people’s schedules,  and not everyone was always able to show up. As a result, time-taking reiterations were needed and there was not always time to discuss everything as planned.

OPPORTUNITIES:

If successful, the module structure is attractive to the student and demonstrates the multidisciplinarity and possibilities of geography.

 

THREATS:

The modular structure may appear confusing to students and/or teachers, and instead of alignment, it can feel unclear. Efforts will be made to combat this by clear web descriptions and tutoring.

 

HUMAN RESOURCES FRAME

METAPHOR: FAMILY

Did we / will we succeed to identify the strengths of the faculty and distribute responsibilities fairly?

STRENGTHS:

The teachers were committed to participating in all phases. There was a feeling of working together, which further strengthened the discipline and improved opportunities for developing things jointly also in the future. We were able to increase resources through negotiations, which facilitates implementation.

WEAKNESSES: Occasionally the meetings had too much content and there was no time for proper hearing of all the parties. Some conflicting views surfaced when fundamental issues were discussed and there was not time to address all of these in detail.

OPPORTUNITIES:

In the modular structure, everyone has a clear place, visibility for their own research theme or interest, and the responsibilities are spread more equally within the professor community.

 

THREATS:

The structure may be vulnerable if the module relies heavily on input from one teacher and changes take place. The inherent staff turnover can pose challenges to the teaching resources of individual modules, especially if the modules are strictly research-oriented, and hence depending on those active in the respective research.

POLITICAL FRAME
METAPHOR: JUNGLEDid we / will we succeed to strengthen the competitiveness of geography and internal and external networks?
STRENGTHS:

The organization into working groups allowed the balanced development of the curriculum. The link to the university-level process was handled smoothly and transparently through the study coordinator.

 

WEAKNESSES:

It would have been interesting to engage stakeholders outside the university in the process. However, the range of stakeholders was broad and varied that extensive consultation had to be abandoned.

OPPORTUNITIES:

The degree programme become more fresh, which makes it even more interesting and competitive than earlier. The new module structure allows diversity to flourish. Studies from Aalto University were also integrated into the degree, which increases students’ opportunities and networking possibilities.

 

THREATS:

Different modules may compete internally for students. While competition is not necessarily negative, it may weaken the cohesion of geography. The planning of joint studies with different disciplines and actors outside the university could have been even more extensive.

 

SYMBOLIC FRAME – METAPROR: THEATRE/TEMPLE

 

Did we / will we succeed to strengthen the geographer indentities?

 

STRENGTHS:

There was a strong spirit of co-creation of curriculum. The teachers were committed to considering not only issues close to them, but also the broader picture. For the first time, a strategy for geography written. Students were participating throughout the process and gave constructive feedback and development ideas.

 

WEAKNESSES:

Fixed term researchers had a clear place in the process, but from their position, participation in curriculum work can be difficult. The expertise of this group was not necessarily heard in the best possible way, and the opportunity was missed to strengthen their participation in the development of the discipline at the department.

OPPORTUNITIES:

The students’ geographer identity is strengthened through joint studies and diverse selection joint opportunities. The new structure also supports those who have transferred from elsewhere to the Master’s Programme in Geography. The new module structure appear relevant to real-world problems. The planning of joint studies also brings teachers together, which will strengthen cohesion and collegiality.

 

THREATS:

The modular structure may allow teachers to focus only on their own subject without greater collegiality. On the other hand, as courses of several teachers are gathered to the modules, discussion between teachers and cohesion will be ensured.

 

 

REFERENCES

Bolman L.  G. & Deal T.  E. (2017) Reframing Organisations. 6. p. Jossey-Bass, New Jersey.

Vuori, J. (2011) University of Applied Sciences immediate supervisor leading change. Management Research 30(3), 191–206. <https://journal.fi/hallinnontutkimus/article/view/99367> 5.6.2023.

Gallos J. V. &; Bolman, L. G. (2021) Reframing Academic Leadership. 2. p. Jossey-Bass.

 

– – – – –

The Digital Geography Lab is an interdisciplinary research team focusing on spatial Big Data analytics for fair and sustainable societies at the University of Helsinki.

New article out! Measuring just accessibility within planetary boundaries

Our new article Measuring just accessibility within planetary boundaries has been published in Transportation Reviews! The paper was the led by Elias Willberg and it was the last paper of his PhD to be published. The paper suggests that we should measure and evaluate accessibility in a more comprehensive way, expanding from time-based measures to measures that take into account the environmental costs and impacts on social justice.  The paper was a fantastic collaboration between Digital Geography Lab and Henrikki Tenkanen (Aalto University), Rafael Pereira (Institute for Applied Economic Research, Brazil) and Harvey Miller (Ohio State University).

Please find the press release below!

Press Release: Doughnut thinking supports sustainable mobility planning

Transport and mobility produce a significant part of cities’ carbon emissions and other environmental burdens, but at the same time enable the satisfaction of many basic needs, from going to work to meeting friends.

The scientific article, carried out in collaboration between Finnish and international researchers, shows how the doughnut model, which examines the overall sustainability of societies, can be applied to transport. The study published in Transport Reviews was led by Finnish researchers from the Digital Geography Lab of the University of Helsinki and Aalto University.

“The central idea of the doughnut model developed by the economist Kate Raworth is to provide the basic conditions for a good life for everyone without exceeding the critical boundaries of the environment,” says postdoctoral researcher Elias Willberg from the Department of Geography, who led the research. “We propose that this idea should also be applied in the transport sector, where reducing emissions has long been difficult. You only have to look at the current extreme weather around the world to notice that there is a great and urgent need for a change in ways of thinking and acting,” he continues.

The research published now focuses on promoting ways to understand and measure the accessibility of areas. Accessibility has become an integral part of the toolbox of urban and transport planners and a flourishing field of research.

However, social and environmental concerns are often treated separately in accessibility research. This easily leads to recommendations that consider only of the perspectives. “For example, it is often most effective to improve accessibility by investing in private cars, which increases an unsustainable load on the environment. On the other hand, if social dimensions are not taken into account in the promotion of sustainable transport modes including walking and cycling, it is easy to end up only to improve the mobility opportunities of the well-off,” Willberg continues.

One of the most central challenges are too narrow metrics. “Accessibility is still largely measured by only taking into account the travel time,” says Aalto University assistant professor Henrikki Tenkanen. “At the same time, the wider effects on the environment and people remain invisible in our measurements. Fortunately, the rapid development of geospatial data and tools has offered more opportunities to bringing these hidden costs to light, and we aim to advance this work”.

The contradictions related to the fairness of the sustainability transition are increasingly visible in the societal debate around transport. Transport emission reduction measures arouse heated emotions and opposition, especially in areas where the accessibility by other means than car is poor.

“The spatial accessibility can be improved in many different ways, but sometimes environmental and social goals inevitably conflict with each other,” says Professor Tuuli Toivonen, leader of the Digital Geography Lab at the University of Helsinki. Because of this, planners and decision-makers must have ways to find out whether it is possible to improve accessibility while simultaneously reducing emissions and how it could be done. “We show that accessibility research is capable of providing even better information and metrics to support this discussion. The key is that knowledge and know-how accumulating from this research are made available to society with open tools and data” she concludes.

 

The study is openly available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2240958

 

– – – – –

The Digital Geography Lab is an interdisciplinary research team focusing on spatial Big Data analytics for fair and sustainable societies at the University of Helsinki.

The case for the societal benefit of user-generated big data research – DGL responds to EU on research data access

Authors: Tatu Leppämäki, Tuuli Toivonen, Olle Järv together with other Digital Geography Lab members

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is legislation by the European Union that aims at protecting the users of and mitigating risks caused by online platforms, covering anything from social media sites to search engines and online retailers. It does this by obligating the platforms to, for example, be transparent about content recommendation systems, and effectively tackling content manipulation and spreading of disinformation. Due to their significant effect on our societies, the legislation sets more obligations for very large online platforms (VLOP): this class of platforms include social media giants, such as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Twitter, and Tiktok.

As a research group that has successfully applied user-generated data to study multitude of topics, our interest in the legislation stems from its sections that obligate VLOPs to give means to access data uploaded on their platform for appropriate research purposes (Article 40 of the act). While these purposes are limited for scrutinizing the systemic risks caused by the platforms in the legislation, we believe there is much potential for social good through responsible research employing public user-generated data.

The European Commission recently asked for feedback on the implementation of researcher data access under the DSA. Drawing from a decade of big data research, our response argues for the benefits of researcher data access beyond studying systemic risks. The response is split into a short opinion text and direct responses to some of the questions posed by the Commission (find the guiding questions here). You can read our response below or via the feedback service. If you’re a researcher using or curious about data from online platforms, or just an interested citizen in Europe or elsewhere, you may give feedback until the midnight of Wednesday, 31st of May 2023. Continue reading “The case for the societal benefit of user-generated big data research – DGL responds to EU on research data access”

Elias Willberg defending June 2nd

Yay! Elias Willberg will defend his PhD thesis “Measuring sustainable accessibility: Geospatial approaches toward integrating people and the environment”

Opponent professor Trisalyn Nelson, Jack and Laura Dangermond Endowed Chair of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, custos Tuuli Toivonen

Time: Friday 2nd June, 12 o’clock noon
Place: Suomen Laki- sali, Porthania, Yliopistonkatu 3
Stream: https://video.helsinki.fi/unitube/live-stream.html?room=l62

Abstract of the thesis

The central challenge of our societies is how to satisfy people’s basic needs and guarantee a good life for everyone, while staying within the safe planetary limits. Spatial accessibility, meaning the potential of opportunities to interact with other people, activities, and places, is essential for social and environmental sustainability. During recent decades, measures of accessibility have become an everyday tool for urban and transport researchers. By examining the satisfaction of basic needs, accessibility strongly links to social well-being and equity. Accessibility-oriented planning can at best enable environmentally sustainable solutions, which do not increase travel demand but support shorter distances and thus the increase of walking and cycling. In reality, improving accessibility is often based on improving the conditions of motorised transport, and the results can be environmentally harmful. Such contradictions remain sparsely studied in accessibility research due to the lack of holistic approaches. Most often, social and environmental concerns are addressed separately, even if the integration of perspectives would be central to promoting sustainability.

In my thesis, I take up this integration challenge. I develop conceptual and methodological approaches to bridge social equity and environmental sustainability in accessibility research. Conceptually, I present a model for measuring accessibility that integrates social equity, environmental boundaries, and their tensions and trade-offs. Methodologically, I leverage the opportunities of new geospatial data and tools. I develop geographical measures of accessibility, which are sensitive to the variation between people and temporal conditions, as well as to the travel environment. Empirically, I approach the integration of social and environmental goals from the perspective of contemporary themes in sustainable accessibility. The themes include the idea of 15-minute cities, environmental exposures during travel, and bike-sharing systems as accessibility promoters. I use the Helsinki Metropolitan Area to test the new approaches empirically. Hence, my thesis also offers place-specific understanding on accessibility and mobility patterns in this area. I focus my thesis on walking and cycling due to their vital role for sustainable transport. The thesis consists of five scientific articles, the first of which is conceptual, the second an overview of data sources, and the last three empirical and methodological, located in Helsinki or in the wider metropolitan area.

The results of my thesis show the need, but also present means, to combine social equity and environmental sustainability when measuring accessibility. There is a need to diversify the ways in which the travel costs are measured. Accessibility should increasingly be measured not only through travel time, but considering its full costs, such as environmental impacts. Furthermore, measures based on travel time should be developed to be more sensitive to the temporal and interpersonal variation. My results show that this can yield more realistic presentations of accessibility, especially concerning the opportunities of less mobile groups to travel sustainably. Promisingly, new geospatial data and tools offer increasingly means for the necessary development work, supporting researchers and planners. However, there is a need for careful consideration in the selection of data sources, as limitations and biases abound. Finally, my thesis highlights that multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches are essential in accessibility research to support evidence-based decision-making that promotes real progress towards sustainability.

The thesis synopsis is available in HELDA: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/357760

The thesis contains the following scientific articles:

  1. Willberg, E., Tenkanen, H., Miller, H. J., Pereira, R. H. M., & Toivonen, T. (2023). Measuring just accessibility within planetary boundaries. Published as a preprint: https://osf.io/3h6wn/
  2. Willberg, E., Tenkanen, H., Poom, A., Salonen, M., & Toivonen, T. (2021). Comparing spatial data sources for cycling studies – a review. In M. Mladenović, T. Toivonen, E. Willberg, & K. T. Geurs (Eds.), Transport in Human Scale Cities (pp. 169–187). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800370517
  3. Willberg, E., Salonen, M., & Toivonen, T. (2021). What do trip data reveal about bike-sharing system users? Journal of Transport Geography, 91, 102971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102971
  4. Willberg, E., Fink, C., Toivonen, T. (2023). The 15-minute city for all? – Measuring individual and temporal variations in walking accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography 106, 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103521
  5. Willberg, E., Poom, A., Helle, J., & Toivonen, T. (2023). Cyclists’ exposure to air pollution, noise, and greenery: A population-level spatial analysis approach. International Journal of Health Geographics 22, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-023-00326-7