Optimal solution hypothesis

As we have seen, there is more dissent among stakeholder groups on sustainable than on unsustainable districts. The urban planning scenarios with the highest desirability and utility forallstakeholdergroupsaresustainabledistricts.Sustainabledistrictsare not less probable for stakeholders than business-as-usual districts. There is dissent between stakeholder groups in

Desirability Probability Desirability dissent Desirability dissent Probability dissent 3.2 Returnee district (strongly sustainable) 3.1 Family district (moderately strongly sustainable)

2.2 Social district (moderately weakly sustainable)

2.1 Upmarket district

(weaklysustainable)

1.2 Transitory district (weakly unsustainable) 1.1 Profit failure district

(strongly unsustainable) Probability dissent

theassessmentofthereturneedistrictbutnotofthefamilydistrict.Therefore,stakeholders view a family district to be the best starting point for Erlenmatt from the set of scenarios studied.

4.4 Discussion

In the following section, we present the implications of the results and discuss the lessons learned for the planning of urban transitions.

4.4.1 Detailed individual assessment

Thesustainabilityhypothesis(H1)wassupportedforErlenmatt.InlinewiththefindingsofEvans andJones(2008),ourdetailedindividualassessments showed that sustainability of scenarios is positivelycorrelatedwithdesirabilityandutility. At the same time, this result suggests that our systematicallyvariedscenarioswere in fact recognizable as representing different quality with respecttosustainability.Moreimportantly,andincontrasttoEvanandJones(2008),wealsocan show that sustainable scenarios are judged to be as probable as business-as-usual, at least for Erlenmattandthesetofscenariosstudied.AsBulkeley(2006)notes,thiscouldbeduetochanging legislation and regulation, but it also could be due to changing societal views and business strategies concerning sustainability. The latter might make the perception of the feasibility of sustainable urban transitions equally as probable as other possible future development paths.

Thecognitivesystemhypothesis(H2),whichclaimsthat theintuitive assessment of a scenarioishigherthantheanalyticalassessment,wassupported.This suggests that the intuitive andanalyticmodesofthinkingdifferfromeachother(Scholz,1987).Decisionsintherealestate sector are to be more based on analytical than on intuitive processing, as the consequences of poordecisionscanhavelong-termdetrimentaleffectsontheirindividualbenefit.Itisinstructive to design studies that aim at intuitive and analytic assessments of stakeholders. The utility assessmentforErlenmattis,infact,generallylowerthanthedesirabilityassessment. This would suggestthat simple preference ratings might lead to an overestimation. As future studiesare restrictedto collectingstatedratherthan revealedpreferences (cf.Adamowicz,Louviere and Williams,1994),furtherresearchhastoshowwhetherrevealedpreferencevaluesareclosertothe intuitive or the analytical assessment. However, basedontherationalepresentedabove,such decisionsmighttendtobeanalytical,atleastforthenon-profit&publicsectorandhousingsuppliers.

4.4.2 Social conflict analysis

The dissent hypothesis (H3) was supported by substantial dissent among the assessments of stakeholder groups. The non-profit & public sector is more pessimistic about the probability of sustainable districts for Erlenmatt, but desires them more. Housing suppliers, on the other hand, show less desire for a strongly sustainable district. This finding ispossiblyrelatedto the failure to implement sustainabledevelopmentduetomarketprofitorientations(Mangahas and Guerrero, 2002). This finding suggests a belief that higher quality means higher cost or decreasein financial return, which does not always hold true (Seokijn and Nakhai, 2008). The greatest dissent exists between the housing target groups and the non-profit & public sector. Housing target groups are the most optimistic about sustainable development for Erlenmatt. This finding could be related to a high expectation of sustainabilityin publicparticipation (Marschalek, 2008). With respect to the housing target groups, however, we have to be cautious in interpreting any difference, because this group response rate was substantially lower than in the otherstakeholdergroups. In fact, itwasmoredifficulttorecruit respondents from the general public. Many of them were less interested, professionally less concerned or less motivated than housing suppliers or the non-profit & publicsector to participate in an intensive interview session on urban planning.

All thesedifferencespointtopotentialfieldsofsocialconflict.Desirabilitydissent can lead to different scenarios being supported by lobbying for one over the other or by trying to delay or block the development of a less desired alternative. A difference in probability assessments among stakeholders can aggravate or complicate this social conflict, because peoplemight act on the basis of their expectedutilityassessment(i.e.,utilitymultipliedbyits probability) rather thanontheirutility assessmentalone. Therefore, thenon-profit&public sector, forexample, could take sidesagainst housingtarget groupswithrespect tothesocial district, not because they desire it less, but because they perceive it as less probable. We argue that knowing about the different social conflict patterns allows for a more informed and focused discourse on sustainable urban transitions.

Theoptimalsolutionhypothesis(H4)wassupportedbyresultsshowingthatamoderately strongly sustainable district offers an optimal solution for Erlenmatt from the set of scenarios studied. Ithasthehighestdesirabilityandutilitytogetherwithastronglysustainabledistrict, but shows no substantial dissent among stakeholder groups. Therefore, such moderately strongly

in the Erlenmatt area. The results also indicate a creative potential with which to reframe and coalesce the discussion of dissent (Evans and Jones, 2008; Priemus, 2007) by systematically designing aset of alternative scenarios and offering them for a detailed individual assessment.