URBAN WATERFRONT ASSESMENT:
CASE STUDY OF THE SPREE RIVER IN BERLIN
Job Sijbrandij 2200740 Bachelor thesis Spatial Planning and Design University of Groningen Supervised by Paul van Steen 5th of July 2017
The (re)development of waterfronts has become a popular strategy in urban planning. The (re)development of the waterfront of the Spree river in Berlin started later if it is compared with other major waterfronts in Western Europe and did not result in a sustainable waterfront yet. This is partly due to the erection of the Berlin Wall which blocked the waterfront of the Spree. Nowadays the local government is speeding up the process, but core characteristics of a sustainable waterfront – for example the importance of public access, public participation and the mixed-use principle – are not integrated in every waterfront (re)development project in Berlin. Waterfront (re)development should be executed in an integrated way – with public participation as an extraordinary opportunity for cohesion – to create a sustainable waterfront. A questionnaire with one hundred inhabitants helped to find out in which way waterfront (re)development is executed in Berlin, to know opinions of inhabitants about this (re)development and find out if inhabitants are attracted to the waterfront and in which way inhabitants want to use the waterfront of the Spree. The questionnaire showed that there a still a few aspects of the waterfront of the Spree the local government needs to improve, like creating more public access to the waterfront in the neighbourhoods and all over Berlin, integrate the public in the planning process and value the mixed-use principle. If the city listens to the demands of inhabitants and take them serious the city will be able to develop a waterfront which will sustain for the next couple of decades.
1. Introduction and motivation for research 4
1.1. Backgrounds to the research 4
1.2. Aim 5
1.3. Social and scientific justification 5
1.4. Structure of the research 5
2. Theoretical Framework 6
2.1. Waterfront (re)development 6
2.2. Urban waterfronts 6
2.3. Sustainable development of urban waterfronts 7
2.4. Social impacts on urban waterfront (re)development 8 3. Situational analysis and organisations of the fieldwork 9
3.1. Data collection 9
3.2. Organisations of the fieldwork 9
4. Waterfront (re)development in Berlin 11
4.1. Development of Berlin’s waterfront 11
4.2. Public access to the waterfront of the Spree 12
4.3. Mixed use principle 14
4.4. Social impacts on (re)developing the waterfront of the Spree 15
5. Conclusion 16
References 17
1.1. Backgrounds to the research
The renovation of waterfronts has become popular in a growing number of countries since 1970.
Since then a lot of neglected and abandoned industrial sites - which are called brownfields - have experienced urban redevelopment (Barnes et al., 2013). Waterfronts which were located at important rivers and harbours changed in a way that led to more public access to the waterfront (Hidding & Van der Vlist, 2009). The waterfront of the Spree also experienced waterfront redevelopment, but in a different way if it is compared with waterfront (re)development projects of other major cities in Europe. First, the renovation of waterfronts in Berlin started later than 1970.
This is due to the fact that during the period of the Berlin Wall the water of the Spree also functioned as a natural border between the eastern and western part of the city (Bonhorst & Demke, 2011). Second, the waterfront development alongside the Spree did not create more public access but rather less. Figure 1 shows the Spree river which flows through the inner city of Berlin.
The city of Berlin itself is known - especially in the last decade - for its continuous change where several hotspots have been created in the inner city like Potsdamer Platz and the new central railway station Hauptbahnnhof. Temporary uses of brownfields at the waterfront - like creative workspaces, bars and clubs - resulted in several hotspots and created different identities to waterfront areas of Berlin (Der Spiegel, 2008). Nowadays the local government - in combination with major investors - is privatising parts of the waterfront throughout the city of Berlin (Media Spree Versenken, 2011). Inhabitants of Berlin - represented by organisations like Media Spree Versenken - are fighting against the privatisation of the waterfront of the Spree and increased the public attention to this negative development they observe (Media Spree Versenken, 2011). The local government is barely focussing on the topic of waterfront development and the unique quality of the river Spree. In an inter-agency report of seventy-five pages by the Senate Department for Urban Development and Housing (2013) the word water has been used sixteen times and the word waterfront has only been used four times. Other unique qualities of the city like the diversity of the city, the presence of a lot of parks and the history of Berlin are well discussed but, according to many, too little attention is paid to the waterfront of the Spree.
Figure 1: the Spree river in Berlin
Source: ArcGIS Online
1.2. Aim
This research aims to analyse and evaluate the significance of waterfront (re)development at the Spree river for inhabitants of Berlin. It especially aims to determine whether inhabitants of Berlin are aware of the changing waterfront of the Spree and get to know inhabitants opinions about Berlin’s way on executing waterfront (re)development. In order to achieve the research goal, the three research questions are:
1. In which way is waterfront (re)development executed in Berlin?
2. Do inhabitants of Berlin feel attracted to the waterfront of the Spree?
3. In which way do inhabitants of Berlin want to use the waterfront of the Spree?
1.3. Social and scientific justification
The renovation of waterfronts has been a successful tool in urban planning to revitalise less successful parts of a city (Lacilla & Ordeig, 2016). Waterfront (re)development projects have been well discussed in scientific research, but the waterfront situation of the Spree river in Berlin is less well-known. This study fills the gap in scientific research by focussing on opinions of inhabitants of Berlin about waterfront (re)development at the waterside of the Spree. The conclusions made in this study highlight the different approach Berlin followed on (re)developing the waterfront of the Spree.
1.4. Structure of the research
The second chapter of this study will provide a literature review about the development of waterfront (re)development and success factors to establish an attractive waterfront. Chapter 3 will discuss the way primary data has been collected and in which way it contributes to the secondary data of the previous chapter. Chapter 4 will link the collected data on urban waterfronts to the outcome of the questionnaire where inhabitants answered several questions concerning the waterfront of the Spree.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. Waterfront (re)development
A study of Van der Knaap and Pinder (1992) divides waterfront (re)development into four periods.
These four periods are based on a case study which was executed in The Netherlands and according to Van der Knaap and Pinder (1992) parallels with the development of several waterfronts in Western Europe. The first period they observe - between 1950 and 1970 - is about clearance and reconstruction of waterfront areas. Waterfronts in Western Europe were mostly functional, economically driven and renovation of waterfronts rarely occurred. From 1970 till 1980 waterfront areas experienced rehabilitation and renovation. This was due to the decreasing demand of labour that changed the social situation in port and urban waterfront areas. The third period they observe has a duration of approximately six years. Policy was focussed on improving the supply of labour in waterfront areas to rehabilitate the social structure. Besides improving the social structure Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) point out that due to the inaccessibility of urban waterfronts local governments also focussed on improving the urban structure. The last period and the period we are still in - which started mid 80’s - is about city management (Van der Knaap & Pinder, 1992).
Because of global trade changes and the increase of public-private partnerships, governments felt the urge to improve the city economics as a whole. Abandoned and neglected waterfront areas were integrated in the planning process with the rest of the city. Waterfront areas were - and still are - spaces for entrepreneurialism, potential places for high-class residential development and new touristic attractions (Jauhianen, 1995).
2.2. Urban waterfronts
Several cities in Europe have acknowledged the importance of a vital urban waterfront. Urban waterfronts - at a river or at a sea - are located in the core of the city or close to the inner city. The waterfront in Berlin is defined as an urban waterfront because the water of the Spree flows not only through the periphery of Berlin, it also crosses the city centre. A vital waterfront brings extra quality to the city and is able to attract not only inhabitants to the waterside, but also tourists (Lacilla &
Ordeig, 2016). Even though a waterfront is unique for every city, they all have some similar features and have a great potential for urban planning. Giovinazzi and Giovinazzi (2008) state that a waterfront is not only the interaction between land and water, but it is more.
“The waterfront should not be simply considered as a line, but should be more correctly envisaged as a network of places, functions, additions and hinges between the coast and the city, between the port and urban activities” (Giovinazzi & Giovinazzi 2008, p.179).
So a waterfront - and especially an urban waterfront - is not only the interaction between the two different systems of land and water, but it is also the interaction between several systems which are interacting in a network. This implies that properties can also interact with a waterside even if they are not directly located at the waterfront. Breen and Rigby (1994) point out that not only properties with a physical connection to a waterside are part of the waterfront, but properties with a strong visual connection too. So properties with a strong visual connection do also interact with the waterside even though they are not physically connected. Both Breen and Rigby (1994) as Giovinazzi and Giovinazzi (2008) agree a waterfront is not only the straight line of blue infrastructure with its adjacent areas, but a waterfront should be considered as the interacted environment of the blue infrastructure. This means that waterfront (re)development should also be executed in a broad aspect of urban planning and not as an isolated aspect in the urban environment.
2.3. Sustainable development of urban waterfronts
A study of Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) highlights ten principles for sustainable development of urban waterfronts. These principles have been developed in collaboration with Wasserstadt GmbH Berlin and have been approved during the Global Conference on the Urban Future (URBAN21) which was held in the summer of 2000 in Berlin (Giovinazzi & Morreti, 2010). Wasserstad GmbH Berlin was a public-private company that focussed on managing urban development in five designated waterfront areas (Berlin Stadtentwickelung, 2012). In 2012 the local government decided to stop the collaboration because the five waterfront (re)development projects were completed. A paper Niemann and Werner published in 2016 - where they use the principles as guidelines - shows that these principles are still relevant.
The influence of public-private partnerships, the importance of international knowledge of waterfront renovation, an integrated approach, securing the water quality and preserving the historic identity of the waterfront are examples of the principles that, according to Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010), are essential if a local government wants to achieve sustainable development. A few principles are extra important for this study, because they are remarkable for the way Berlin is dealing with the waterfront of the Spree and the difference in the way successful and sustainable waterfront (re)development is executed.
One of the principles Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) state is that public access to a waterfront is a prerequisite. Accessible for all age groups, income groups and both inhabitants as tourists. Not only physically accessible, but also visually (Giovinazzi & Morreti, 2010). This corresponds with Breen and Rigby (1994) that a waterfront is not bound to physical structures. Niemann and Werner (2016) also add to the importance of public accessibility, the presence of public space. For example, back in 1960 the city of Baltimore which is located in the United States of America created a public promenade to transform the derelict industrial harbour. The new public spaces - the main promenade but also smaller public parks and gardens - became popular. It attracted new companies and created a new supply of mobility (Niemann & Werner, 2016). Nowadays public space and public accessibility are two main principles to (re)develop a waterfront in sustainable way. A lot of successful waterfronts - like the ones in Hamburg and Amsterdam - can be used as examples. In Baltimore’s 2013 updated masterplan to restructure the harbour the main focal points were still expansion and continuation of the central promenade to sustain the importance of the public urban space (Niemann & Werner, 2016). That is why public spaces and public access will always be relevant if a city wants to attract people to a waterfront and wants people to stay there. It will make an urban waterfront attractive and vital.
The second principle Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) state is the mixed-use principle. Also Niemann and Werner (2016) prioritise this principle because they believe that a waterfront should offer a diversity of commercial, residential and cultural uses. Uniting different type of usages will result in a more divers area. A social mix should be made within the type of usage - for example in residential uses - to make it more attractive for different kind of people to go there. One exception has been made by Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) for waterfront activities: functions that require physical access to the waterside should have priority. Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) do not say anything explicit about the importance of facilities for the public near the waterfront. They do mention the importance of water-related functions as waterborne transport, entertainment and culture.
Besides creating public access and uniting different type of usages is it important that waterfront (re)development projects are executed in a sustainable way. Sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.41.). Waterfronts are according to Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) challenges for more than just one single generation and should be considered as long-term projects. This agrees with the official definition the World Commission on Environment and Development defined already thirty years ago. Using the situation in Baltimore as an example: the generation that updated the masterplan is still able to continue and even expand the public space. The way the generation that designed the masterplan more than fifty years ago seems to be sustainable, because there were still enough possibilities for the generation that designed the masterplan in 2013 to choose out.
A strong public participation – which is part of an integrated approach – is the final principle that is extra important for the waterfront of the Spree. Public participation is necessary to prevent waterfronts from short-term interest and from economical unpredictably (Giovinazzi & Moretti, 2010). This corresponds with the view of Giovinazzi & Giovinazzi (2008) and of Niemann &
Werner (2016) that waterfront (re)development should be an integrated process in urban planning where public participation is part of sustainability. From the start on inhabitants and other stakeholders should be informed about the planning process and be involved in discussions a local government is having and decisions a local government is planning to take. Nowadays – as Niemann and Werner (2016) state – inhabitants are mostly informed in a late stadium or are not really involved in the planning process at all. Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) point out the interesting role waterfront (re)development is able to play:
“The regeneration of waterfronts represents an extraordinary opportunity for cohesion and for stitching the territory together, where water – a collective legacy – can play a central role and become the engine for sustainable development (Giovinazzi & Morreti 2010, p.64).”
If a local government does not include the public in the planning process could it lead to less active discussions and a less successful collaboration between the government, investors and inhabitants (Giovinazzi & Morreti, 2010). These authors also state that if a local government is integrating the opinions and demands of the public in the planning process it will result in a different dynamic and probably a more successful outcome.
2.4. Social impacts on urban waterfront (re)development
Urban waterfront (re)development projects were in 2006 when Sairinen and Kumpulainen published their article examples of new styles of governance. New policies were needed, because the issues were too complex and a lot of local planning debates resulted in conflicts. This article is still relevant eleven years later. This is because more governments want a more facilitating role instead of controlling role and waterfronts are still located in complex areas close to city centres (Hidding & Van der Vlist, 2009). Sairinen and Kumpulainen (2006) state that it is hard to determine the social impact on a city. Most of the time waterfront (re)developments projects demand customised solutions. A neglected brownfield can have different values for different people - on personal level and on group level - which are hard to measure. That is why policy should approach a waterfront (re)development project bottom-up unless it is really necessary to approach the situation top-down. Otherwise it could cause social irregularities.
3. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS AND ORGANISATIONS OF THE FIELDWORK 3.1. Data collection
Data has been collected in two different ways. First, secondary data of different sources like (inter)national newspapers and websites. This helped to get a clear insight of the current situation of the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin and of consequences of ongoing (re)development projects alongside the Spree river. Combining that information with scientific research which was executed in other cities – because there is hardly any scientific research on the waterfront of Berlin – resulted in a framework where the characteristics of the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin have been stated.
This helped to answer the question in which way Berlin (re)developed the waterfront of the Spree.
Second, a face-to-face survey with one hundred inhabitants of Berlin was conducted. Primary data of the fieldwork helped to answer the question if inhabitants are attracted to the waterfront of the Spree and in which way inhabitants want to use the waterfront. Primary data and secondary data have been combined to check if the current waterfront situation of the Spree in Berlin is indeed sufficient to satisfy inhabitants of Berlin. The observations that have been made in the theoretical part of this study have been compared with the answers of the questionnaire. The combination of primary data and secondary data increased the validity and reliability of the outcome of this research (Clifford et al., 2010).
3.2. Organisation of the fieldwork
The survey (see appendix 1.1, – 1.3.) was conducted in the third and fourth week of January 2017. It contains open and closed questions. Data has been collected by the principle of clustered sampling. Clustered sampling means that the researcher first selects different groups and once they have been selected they are randomly sampled (Clifford et al., 2010). The four streets - the groups - that have been selected are displayed in figure 2. The selected streets are: An der Bucht, Rotherstraße, Quedlinburger Straße and Essener Straße. The selected streets are not directly located at the physical of visual waterfront of the Spree. This is relevant for this
study, because inhabitants who live directly at the waterfront have a strong visual or physical connection to the waterfront (Giovinazzi and Morreti, 2010). So executing a survey with inhabitants that do not live directly at the visual or physical waterfront will make the outcome of the questionnaire more realistic because it represents the majority of Berlin’s inhabitants that do not live directly at the waterfront. The respondent could also check an option that they live in another street as the four selected streets, but if the respondent chose that option they were thanked for their time and told that the interviewer only needed to collect answers from people who are living in one of the selected streets. The respondents – inhabitants of the four selected streets – are randomly chosen.
The interviewer randomly selected twenty-five respondents per street. Fifty respondents live the eastern part of Berlin, twenty-five near the inner city and twenty-five a bit further away. The same principle applies for the western part of Berlin. The second requirement is that every respondent is an inhabitant of Berlin. Tourists do sometimes also live, even work, move and recreate in the city, but they are not included in this survey because they do it for a shorter period of time. That is why the first question of the questionnaire asks the respondent if he or she is an inhabitant. If the respondent answered “no” they were told that the interviewer only needed inhabitants of Berlin for his questionnaire and were thanked for their time.
The four waterfronts are displayed in figure 3. The waterfront of the neighbourhood Rummelsburger Bucht – where also the street An der Bucht is located – seems to be more green if it is compared with the waterfronts near the other three streets.
Quedlinburger Straße Essener Straße Rotherstraße An der Bucht
There are three important ethical considerations which are relevant to this research. First, the language gap between the interviewer and the respondent. Almost eighty percent of the respondents answered the questionnaire in the German language. The rest answered in English. The interviewer is fluent in English and his level of German is sufficient, but not perfect. The questionnaire contained a lot of closed question which decreased the likeability of language errors. Second, the influence of the weather conditions. Because the survey is executed in winter could it be that inhabitants are less optimistic about the waterfront. The last consideration is the risk of generalisation. Berlin is known for its extraordinary population. There is a probability that the sample size of one hundred inhabitants is not sufficient to represent the mixed population of Berlin.
Moore and McCabe (2006) state that a sample size of minimal fifty respondents is sufficient to represent a population. Still this issue needed to be mentioned – even though the problem is covered – because the diverse population is one of the core characteristics of Berlin.
Figure 3: The closest waterfronts near the four selected streets
Source: Google maps (2017)
4. WATERFRONT (RE)DEVELOPMENT IN BERLIN 4.1. Development of Berlin’s waterfront
The four periods of waterfront (re)development Van der Knaap and Pinder (1992) observe in their case study are also applicable for the development of the waterfront in Berlin. The difference is the distribution of periods. Industrial sites in Berlin were before 1961 - when the Berlin Wall erected - mostly functional, economically driven and located near the waterfront, just like similar cities in Western Europe (Włodarczyk, 2012). Other waterfronts in Europe started to experience rehabilitation and renovation around 1970, but because of the political situation in Germany the waterfront of the Spree did change in a different way if it is compared with other cities in Western Europe. In former East Berlin - where the water of the Spree was used as a border - the physical waterfront was designed as a so-called death strip (Bonhorst & Demke, 2011). The death strip was the zone between the Eastern Wall and Western Wall and the zone between one of the Walls and the water. Everybody who was living or working there needed to move (Bonhorst & Demke, 2011).
People who tried to flee to the other side and crossed the “death strip” were shot by the border police. Brownfields and several areas of the waterfront became places of no uses and of economic decline after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (Włodarczyk, 2012). Temporary hotspots were created in and near brownfields which resulted in a whole different dynamic at the waterfront and created a new identity (Der Spiegel, 2008). The waterfront of the Spree became according to Włodarczyk (2012) an open - sometimes even green - space for people to go to. Nowadays the local government is trying to integrate the process of revitalisation of the Berlin waterfront with the rest of the city economics (Włodarczyk, 2012). Sometimes in an odd way because some of the brownfields experienced renovation and became urban obstacles for the local government, because the surrounding neighbourhoods were and sometimes still are attached to those brownfields (Włodarczyk, 2012). So, the two periods of revitalisation and improving the city economics as a whole are two separate periods of waterfront (re)development according to Van der Knaap and Pinder (1992), but in Berlin they are overlapping and they also start later. This could also be one of the reasons why there is less scientific research on characteristics and consequences of waterfront (re)development of the Spree in Berlin. Even though this development is relatively new the process of (re)developing the waterfront of the Spree is speeding up the last few year (Media Spree Versenken, 2011).
Both Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) as well as Niemann and Werner (2016) state the importance of sustainable development of urban waterfronts. The ten principles that have been created during the URBAN21 conference in Berlin are based on scientific knowledge and examples of successful waterfront (re)development projects. Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) briefly name the waterfront situation of Berlin. They mention the strong connection with the element of water, the architecture on and near water, the extraordinary landscape of the city and the unique way the waterfront has been integrated in the public space. All these qualities are based on two important projects of Wasserstadt GmbH Berlin. That is why it is interesting that they are stating these qualities while the principles to achieve sustainable waterfront (re)development are different if it is compared with the way Berlin was and sometimes still is executing waterfront (re)development. The city’s extraordinary landscape is partly due to the strong connection with the element of water, but as one of the respondents of the questionnaire stated (appendices 1.4.) that the waterside of the Spree sometimes still feels like a border does not match with the successful integration of public space Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) stated. Eighty-four percent of the respondents of the questionnaire believe that a significant improvement of the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin would increase their residential satisfaction. And only five percent of the respondents do not think it is important to improve the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin. This is a clear signal by respondents that an improvement of the overall quality of the Spree would be highly appreciated.
4.2. Public access to the waterfront of the Spree
One of the ten principle Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) stated is the importance of public access to a waterfront. A significant improvement of public access would be highly appreciated by respondents of the questionnaire. Ninety-one out of one hundred respondents stated that their residential satisfaction would increase if the accessibility of the waterfront would be improved. The number of respondents who believe a significant improvement of the accessibility of the waterfront would increase their residential satisfaction is even higher than the number of the respondents – eighty-six out of one hundred respondents - who answered that their residential satisfaction would increase if the overall quality of the waterfront of the Spree would be significantly improved. So, improving the accessibility of the waterfront by creating more public access is not only relevant in scientific research - where Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) labelled public access as a prerequisite for sustainable waterfronts – but it is also relevant for inhabitants of Berlin to increase their residential satisfaction. Respondents who were asked in which way they want the waterfront of the Spree to be improved mostly preferred a cleaner, more attractive and open waterfront. A few of the respondents had even specific demands like more benches to sit on, more bars to choose out or a less windy waterside. Also, a small group of the respondents did not have a specific solution for improving the waterfront or did not even answer the question at all.
Table 1 shows the level of satisfaction of public access to the waterfront of the Spree all over Berlin. Only fifty percent of the respondents is satisfied or very satisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin. Remarkable is the distribution of respondents. The number of respondents who are satisfied or very satisfied with the public access of the Spree is almost identical in the four selected streets. In each of the four selected streets are twelve or thirteen out of twenty- five respondents satisfied or very satisfied with the public access of the Spree all over Berlin.
However, this also means the other twelve or thirteen respondents of the selected streets are very dissatisfied, dissatisfied or neutral about the waterfront accessibility of the Spree.
Table 1: Level of satisfaction of public access to the waterfront of the Spree in general (so, all over Berlin) for four selected streets
An der Bucht
(East) Rotherstraße
(East) Quedlinburger
Straße (West) Essener Straße
(West) Total (%)
Very dissatisfied /
dissatisfied 6 2 1 2 11
Neutral 7 10 11 11 39
Satisfied / Very
satisfied 12 13 13 12 50
Total 25 25 25 25 100
Table 2 shows the level of satisfaction of public access to the waterfront of the Spree in the respondent’s neighbourhood. Respondents are more satisfied with the waterfront accessibility in their own neighbourhood if it is compared with the waterfront accessibility all over Berlin. Fifty- eight percent is satisfied or very satisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in their own neighbourhood. The excellent public access of the waterfront in the neighbourhood Rummelsburger Bucht – where the street An der Bucht is located – is one of the causes why respondents are more satisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in their own neighbourhood instead of the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in general. A more detailed table on the level of satisfaction of public access in the respondent’s neighbourhood and of the public access all over Berlin are visualised in the appendices in table 4.
Table 2: Level of satisfaction of public access to the waterfront of the Spree in the respondent’s neighbourhood for four selected streets
An der Bucht
(East) Rotherstraße
(East) Quedlinburger
Straße (West) Essener Straße
(West) Total (%)
Very dissatisfied /
dissatisfied 0 6 4 4 14
Neutral 2 11 10 5 28
Satisfied / Very
satisfied 23 8 11 16 58
Total 25 25 25 25 100
The public access to the waterfront of the Spree really differs in Berlin. The waterfront in the western part of Berlin is a bit messy, but at a lot of places – visual and physical – accessible. Still does a majority of the respondents who lives in the western part of Berlin - in Quedlinburger Straße and in Essener Straße - state that they do not use the waterfront of the Spree often, sometimes go there to relax or mostly see the waterfront when they use public transport (appendices 1.4.). It became clear during the last question of the questionnaire why respondents of the western part are less attracted to the waterfront of the Spree. Respondents doubt the quality of the waterfront of the Spree in the western part. According to them it is not approachable, dirty, in bad condition and an overwhelming amount of bricks and concrete is visible which makes the waterfront less attractive.
One of the reasons why the quality of the waterfront is not optimal could be that the western part of the city never functioned as a death strip during the period of the Berlin Wall (Bonhorst & Demke, 2011). After the fall of the Wall buildings and infrastructure were still located at the waterfront – instead in the situation in the eastern part – which maybe resulted in a kind of boring and outdated environment. The waterfront in the city centre is at a lot of places publicly accessible - not always physically but often visually - which results in a strong connection with the element of water.
In the eastern part of Berlin two major projects are situated that are representative for the difference of public accessibility of waterfront areas in Berlin. It shows an image of two extremes. The first project is the neighbourhood Rummelsburger Bucht where also the street An der Bucht is located.
As one of the five designated projects from Wasserstadt GmbH Berlin this project is a perfect example of an integrated waterfront approach that led to more public access to the waterfront (Ruimtevolk, 2010). Originally the project was design for the Olympic Games in 2010 as the Olympic Village. After Berlin missed out on hosting the Olympic Games the local government decided - in combination with Wasserstadt GmbH - to reduce the size of the project (Ruimtevolk, 2010). The respondents of the questionnaire also value the waterfront of the neighbourhood Rummelsburger Bucht. The street An der Bucht – located in Rummelsburger Bucht – got the highest number of respondents who are satisfied or very satisfied with the public access of the waterfront in their neighbourhood (table 2). At the same time do those respondents have a more negative attitude – as displayed in table 1 – towards the public accessibility of the waterfront of the Spree all over Berlin.
The second development is also located in the eastern part of Berlin in the district Friedrichshain.
The most well-known developments here are the newly build Universal Studios, the Mercedes-Benz Arena and the Media Spree. The historic East Side Gallery is located on the other side of the Media Spree. The Media Spree is still under construction, but will result in a decline of public space and of public accessibility (Media Spree Versenken, 2011). Action groups like Media Spree Versenken demand a less car-friendly area and at least fifty meters of public spaces near the waterfront (The Local Europe, 2008).
Not a single respondent that was living in Rotherstraße - which is located in Friedrichshain near the Media Spree - was very dissatisfied with the public accessibility in their neighbourhood, only six respondents were dissatisfied and eleven respondents answered neutral (table 4 in the appendices).
The odd thing is that a during questionnaire in 2008 with 35.000 inhabitants of the districts Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg eighty-five percent endorsed the demands of Media Spree Versenken (The Local Europe, 2008). So there is a likability that the respondents are indeed satisfied with the public access close to their homes, but dislike the development that is going on at the Media Spree.
Even though the action group is well organised and was able to increase the public attention, it did not result in more public access or more public spaces. According to Franz Schulz who is the mayor of the districts Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg developments that are privatising the waterfront are necessary to raise more awareness to the issue of the decreased public accessibility to the waterfront in Berlin (The Local Europe, 2010). This overlaps with the outcome of the survey where the majority of respondents answered to the question in which way they presently use the waterfront that they only see the waterfront when they travel by public transport and do not really visit the waterfront (appendices 1.4.). At the same time respondents state that the waterfront access in general, so all over Berlin, is worse if it is compared with the waterfront access in their own neighbourhood. But still only 11 percent of the respondent is dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree all over Berlin (table 2). It appears that the accessibility of the waterfront is not a major issue for Berlin’s inhabitants or that the waterfront accessibility of the Spree is indeed sufficient. The accessibility is not perfect either.
4.3. Mixed use principle
Another principle Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) state is the importance of developing the waterfront according to the mixed- use principle. Respondents of the questionnaire would also prefer mixed uses near the waterfront, because the majority of the respondents checked multiply usages instead of just checking one single usage. Especially recreational uses near the waterside are popular (table 3). Authentic waterfronts - when the waterfront was mostly functional and economically driven - are not that popular anymore as table 3 shows that industrial and transportational usages are the two least preferred usages in the questionnaire. Only nine percent would prefer industrial usages near the waterfront. One major remark is that transportational usage is a broad concept and respondents who checked that option mostly encouraged infrastructure near the waterfront that
is focussed on connecting the infrastructure of pedestrians and cyclist. So instead of developing the city with projects that mainly focus on one or two uses - like the Media Spree mainly focusses on media companies in combination with high class residential living - respondents would rather see a mixture of different uses. Also they embrace the idea of a mix within the uses which will make the waterfront attractive for different income groups (Media Spree Versenken, 2011). Facilities in the mixed use area are also preferred by the respondents of the questionnaire. Only five percent of the respondents does not agree with the importance of facilities near the waterside. Fifty-four percent of the respondents believes that facilities for the public are important and twenty-two percent state it is very important. This is also one of the major issues of not using the waterfront. A lot of respondents told in that their main reason for not using the waterfront is that it is boring, nothing is happening, hardly any restaurants and bars and similar answer (appendices 1.4.). Even though those answers are all framed in a different way it contains that the absence of facilities at the waterfront of the
Table 3: Preferred type of usages next to the waterfront of the Spree
Usages Percentage
Industrial 9
Transportational 22 Institutional 27
Commercial 50
Residential 68 Recreational 88
4.4. Social impacts on (re)developing the waterfront of the Spree
Inhabitants were able to express their ideas about the consequences of the changing waterfront - for example the decrease of public access of projects like the Media Spree - and increased the public attention. But as the action group Media Spree Versenken (2011) communicates on their website the local government is still ignoring them. The local government and private investors did not include the public in the beginning of the planning process and hardly listened to the demands of Berlin’s inhabitants in the final phase of the planning process (The Local Europe, 2010). Even when 35.000 inhabitants gave the local government a clear message and as Niemann and Werner (2016) stated that inhabitants and other stakeholders should be integrated in the planning process from the start on. This will result in a better outcome of the project instead of when the waterfront project is executed as an isolated aspect in the urban landscape. In the end inhabitants were not able to create a less car friendly Media Spree with more public access to the waterfront and did the local government missed out an extraordinary opportunity for cohesion with its inhabitants (Giovinazzi &
Morreti, 2010). Also with the project of Rummelsburger Bucht the local government missed out an opportunity for cohesion. The project was designed as an Olympic Village with fences around the area - almost as a gated community - and hardly integrated with the rest of Berlin. It is not designed for inhabitants of Berlin or with Berlin’s inhabitants. The outcome of the survey shows that only 31 percent of the respondents is satisfied in the way the local government is listening to the opinions of inhabitants towards urban renewal next to the waterfront of the Spree. Still the majority of the respondents is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. A lot of respondents also state that they are not really informed enough to give a well-considered answer. That is why Berlin should include public participation and integrate it in all stages of the planning process to develop in a sustainable way. It may help to prevent inhabitants from starting an action group or a counter movement. Just as Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) point out that the public opinion is necessary to prevent waterfronts from short-term interest. Especially in Berlin’s case is this extra valuable, because the periods of revitalisation and improving the city economics are overlapping (Van der Knaap & Pinder, 1992).
The questionnaire shows that inhabitants of the four selected streets are not really integrated in the process of waterfront (re)development. Most of the inhabitants state that they do not use the waterfront or do not really have a clear idea of what is going on near the waterfront and this is odd because the Spree rivers flows right through the city. The river seems to be not really integrated with the rest with the city and not integrated in the mind of its inhabitants that they should have an influence on (re)developing the waterfront of the Spree.
5. CONLUSION
The (re)development of the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin is executed in a different way if it is compared with similar waterfronts in Western Europe. First, the two periods of revitalising the waterfront and integrating the waterfront with the rest of the city started later than the four periods of waterfront (re)development Van der Knaap and Pinder (1992) observed. The presence of the Berlin Wall on and near the waterfront of the Spree resulted in several waterfront areas of no-uses and of economic decline. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the waterfront of the Spree needed to be integrated with the rest of the city economics and experienced revitalisation. Second, the waterfront of the Spree did not develop as a sustainable waterfront – like the ones in Amsterdam or Hamburg – where more public access to the waterfront has been created, where the waterfront is designed according to the mixed-use principle and where inhabitants participated in the planning process of (re)developing the waterfront.
Inhabitants of Berlin feel attracted to the waterfront of the Spree, but a few improvements would help to create a better connection between the waterfront of the Spree and Berlin’s inhabitants.
Respondents of the questionnaire mostly mentioned activities near the waterfront that were not on regular basis when they were asked in which way they used the waterfront of the Spree. This seems a bit odd, because the Spree river flows through the inner city of Berlin which would made it logical if the respondent used the waterfront of the Spree on regular basis. Inhabitants value the presence of the waterfront of the Spree, but at the same time clearly mention the positive consequences for their residential satisfaction if the waterfront of the Spree would be improved. Eighty-six percent of the respondents believe an improvement of the overall quality – and even ninety-one percent of the respondents believe an improvement of the waterfront accessibility – would increase their residential satisfaction. Improving the quality of the waterfront and creating more public access are not only relevant in scientific research where Giovinazzi and Morreti (2010) labelled them as one of the ten principles, but are also relevant for Berlin’s inhabitants. Even though the respondents of the questionnaire are more satisfied with the public access in their own neighbourhood if it is compared with the waterfront accessibility of the Spree all over Berlin the local government should operate all over Berlin if they want to create a sustainable waterfront. The public – inhabitants, action groups and other stakeholders – should participate and be integrated in the planning process from the start on. Public participation - in the beginning of the process and during the planning process is part of sustainability. The local government should integrate this extraordinary opportunity of cohesion while renovating the waterfront of the Spree to prevent the waterfront from short term interest and economical unpredictability.
So besides creating more public access to the waterfront and improving the overall quality of the waterfront inhabitants would also want to see the waterfront as a mixed-use area with multiple facilities. Respondents preferred a mixture of different usages, because they checked multiply usages instead of just checking one singular usage. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents would like to see recreational uses near the waterfront of the Spree and the least preferred are industrial uses near the waterfront.
To conclude and show once again the importance of improving the waterfront of the Spree: only five percent of the respondents believes it is not important to improve the waterfront of Spree. This shows the relevancy of this research and the urge to improve the waterfront of the Spree. Further research should focus on the diverse characteristics of inhabitants of Berlin and how they want to use the waterfront, focus on the possibility of sustainable transportation at the waterfront or could focus on the effects of action groups like Media Spree Versenken on the final design of the
REFERENCES
ArcGIS Online (27-05-2017). World Topographic Map. Accessed on 27-05-2017 through https://www.arcgis.com/home/index.html.
Barnes, M., Forrester, S. & Leone, M. (2013). A city looks to its past to discover its future: a retrospective case study examining the evolution of an artificial white-water river development.
Managing Leisure, 18(1), 16-30.
Berlin Stadtentwickelung (31-07-2012). Städtebauliche Entwicklungsmaßnahme “Wasserstadt Berlin-Oberhavel” abgeschlossen. Accessed on 18-05-2017 through
https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2012/pressemitteilung.53931.php.
Bonhorst, S. & Demke, E. (2011). Die Berliner Mauer. Berlin: LISUM.
Breen, A. & Rigby, D. (1994). Waterfronts: cities reclaim their edge. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clifford, N., French, S. & Valentine, G. (2010). Key methods in Geography. 2nd Edition. London:
SAGE Publications.
Der Spiegel (11-09-2008). Building Spree: developers and dreamers battle over Berlin identity.
Accessed on 24-02-2017 through http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/building-spree- developers-and-dreamers-battle-over-berlin-identity-a-577649.html.
Giovinazzi, O. & Giovinazzi, S. (2008). Waterfront planning: a window of opportunities for post- disaster reconstruction. Proceedings of the 4th international i-Rec conference - Buildings resilience:
achieving effective post-disaster reconstruction, 178-193.
Giovinazzi, O. & Moretti, M. (2010). Port cities and urban waterfront: transformations and opportunities. TeMA. Journal of land use, mobility and environment, 3, 57-64.
Google Maps (07-06-2017). Google maps 3D viewer. Accessed on 07-06-2017 through https://www.google.nl/maps.
Hidding, M. & Vlist, M. van der (2009). Ruimte en water: planningsperspectieven voor de Nederlandse delta. 2nd edition. Groningen: In planning.
Jauhianen, J.S. (1995). Waterfront redevelopment and urban policy: the case of Barcelona, Cardiff and Genoa. European Planning Studies, 3(1), 3-21.
Knaap, G.A. van der & Pinder, D. (1992). Revitalising the European waterfront: policy evaluation and planning issues. In B. Hoyle & D. Pinder (Red.), European port cities in transition (pp. 155- 182). London: Belhaven Press.
Lacilla, E. & Ordeig, J.M. (2016). Waterfront public realm design: towards a sustainable identity urban projects in Vancouver and Portland. Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(2), 169-180.
Media Spree Versenken (2011). Initiativkreis Media Spree Versenken: Spreeufer für alle. Accessed on 05-02-2017 through http://www.ms-versenken.org/sonderausschuss.
Moore, D.S. & McCabe, G.P. (2006). Statistiek in de praktijk. Amsterdam: Academic Service.
Niemann, B. & Werner, T. (2016). Strategies for sustainable urban waterfront. In Brebbia, C.A. &
Galiano-Garrigos, A. (Red.), The sustainable city XI, (pp. 431-439). Southhampton: WIT Press.
Ruimtevolk (2010). Leren krimpen in Duitsland. Accessed on 02-04-2017 through https://ruimtevolk.nl/2010/06/13/leren-krimpen-in-duitsland/.
Sairinen, R. & Kumpulainen, S. (2006). Assessing social impacts in urban waterfront regeneration.
Environmental impact assessment review, 26(1), 120-135.
Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment (2013). Berlin Strategy: Urban Development Concept Berlin 2030. Accessed on 28-09-2016 through
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungskonzept/download/strategie/Berlin Strategie_Broschuere_en.pdf.
The Local Europe (14-07-2008). Berliners vote against massive Spree development. Accessed on 18-05-2017 through https://www.thelocal.de/20080714/13057.
The Local Europe (14-09-2010). Unpopular waterfront development plans still afloat in Berlin.
Accessed on 18-05-2017 through http://www.thelocal.de/20100914/29813.
Włodarczyk, A.M. (2012). Rebuilding of the western part of Berlin, Germany. Revitalisation of brownfields in the time of economical breakthrough. Architecture civil engineering environment, 5(1), 23-28.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. New York:
Oxford University Press.
APPENDICES
1.1. Questionnaire about waterfront (re)development in Berlin (English) 1.2. Questionnaire about waterfront (re)development in Berlin (German) 1.3. Questionnaire about waterfront (re)development in Berlin (Frequencies) 1.4. Most heard answers to the open questions
Table 4: Level of satisfaction of the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in the respondents neighbourhood and in general (so, all over Berlin) for four selected streets
Figure 4: conceptual model
1.1. Questionnaire about waterfront (re)development in Berlin (English) 1. Do you live in the city of Berlin?
a. No b. Yes
2. In which of the following streets in Berlin do you live?
a. An der Bucht b. Rotherstrasse
c. Quedlinburger Strasse d. Essener Strasse
e. Other street - thank you, but for this questionnaire I need to only collect answers from people living in one of the four streets mentioned above.
3. Are you satisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in your neighbourhood?
a. Very dissatisfied b. Dissatisfied c. Neutral d. Satisfied e. Very satisfied
4. Are you satisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin in general? (so, all over Berlin)
a. Very dissatisfied b. Dissatisfied c. Neutral d. Satisfied e. Very satisfied
5. In which way are you presently using the waterfront of the Spree?
………
6. Do you think the waterfront of the Spree gives a higher residential quality for people living nearby?
a. No b. Yes c. Neutral
7. What is your attitude towards the urban renewal next to the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin?
a. Negative b. Neutral c. Positive
8. Are you satisfied with the way the city government is listening to the opinions of the neighbourhood on urban renewal next to the waterside of the Spree?
a. Very dissatisfied b. Dissatisfied c. Neutral d. Satisfied e. Very satisfied
9. What type of usages would you prefer next to the waterfront of the Spree? (It is possible to check multiple answers)
a. Residential b. Commercial c. Industrial d. Institutional e. Recreational f. Transportation
10. How important are facilities for the public near the waterfront of the Spree to you?
a. Not important b. Somewhat important c. Important
d. Very important
11. Would your residential satisfaction increase if the quality of the waterfront of the Spree would be significantly improved?
a. No b. Yes
12. If you answered question 11 with “yes”: In which way do you want the waterfront of the Spree to be improved?
………
13. Would your residential satisfaction increase if the accessibility of the waterfront of the Spree would be significantly improved?
a. No b. Yes
14. Do you think it is important to improve the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin?
a. Not important b. Somewhat important c. Important
d. Very important
15. What is the main reason that you are not using the waterfront of the Spree?
………
1.2. Questionnaire about waterfront (re)development in Berlin (German) 1. Leben Sie in Berlin?
a. Nein b. Ja
15. In welcher der folgenden Strassen in Berlin leben Sie?
a. An der Bucht b. Rotherstrasse
c. Quedlinburger Strasse d. Essener Strasse
e. Andere
16. Sind Sie zufrieden mit dem öffentlichen Zugang zum Spree-Ufer in Ihrer Nachbarschaft?
a. Sehr unzufrieden b. Unzufrieden c. Neutral d. Zufrieden e. Sehr zufrieden
17. Sind Sie im Allgemeinen zufreiden mit dem öffentlichen Zugang zum Spree-Ufer in Berlin?
a. Sehr unzufrieden b. Unzufrieden c. Neutral d. Zufrieden e. Sehr zufrieden
18. Auf welche Art nutzen Sie das Spree-Ufer momentan?
………
19. Denken Sie, dass es einen positiven Einfluss auf die Wohnqualität hat, nahe der Spree zu wohnen?
a. Nein b. Ja c. Neutral
20. Wie ist Ihre Einstellung gegenüber der Stadterneuerung neben dem Spree-Ufer in Berlin?
a. Negativ b. Neutral c. Positiv
21. Denken Sie, dass die Regierung genügend auf Meinungen der unmittelbaren Nachbarschaft der Stadterneuerung eingeht?
a. Sehr unzufrieden b. Unzufrieden c. Neutral d. Zufrieden e. Sehr zufrieden
22. Welchen Nutzungstyp würden Sie für das Spree-Ufer bevorzugen?
a. Wohnnutzung b. Kommerziell c. Industriell d. Institutionell e. Recreational f. Transportational
23. Wie wichtig sind Ihnen öffentliche Anlagen am Spree-Ufer?
a. Nicht wichtig
b. Einigermaßen wichtig c. Wichtig
d. Sehr wichtig
24. Wären Sie zufriedener mit Ihrer Wohnlage, wenn sich die Qualität des Spree-Ufers deutlich verbessern würde?
a. Nein b. Ja
25. Wenn Sie die Frage 11 mit “ja” beantwortet haben: Auf welche Weise würden Sie das Spree-Ufer verbessern wollen?
………
26. Würde Ihre Zufriedenheit mit Ihrer Wohnsituation steigen, wenn sich der Zugang zum Spree-Ufer deutlich verbessern würde?
a. Nein b. Ja
27. Denken Sie es ist wichtig, das Spree-Ufer in Berlin zu verbessern?
a. Nicht wichtig
b. Einigermaßen wichtig c. Wichtig
d. Sehr wichtig
15. Was ist der Hauptgrund, wieso Sie das Spree-Ufer nicht besuchen/nutzen?
………
1.3. Questionnaire about waterfront (re)development in Berlin (Frequencies) 1. Do you live in the city of Berlin?
a. No 0 %
b. Yes 100 %
28. In which of the following streets in Berlin do you live?
a. An der Bucht 25%
b. Rotherstrasse 25%
c. Quedlinburger Strasse 25%
d. Essener Strasse 25%
e. Other street - thank you, but for this questionnaire I need to only collect answers from people living in one of the four streets mentioned above.
29. Are you satisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in your neighbourhood?
a. Very dissatisfied 0%
b. Dissatisfied 14%
c. Neutral 28%
d. Satisfied 41%
e. Very satisfied 17%
30. Are you satisfied with the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin in general? (so, all over Berlin)
a. Very dissatisfied 4%
b. Dissatisfied 7%
c. Neutral 39%
d. Satisfied 33%
e. Very satisfied 17%
31. In which way are you presently using the waterfront of the Spree?
………
32. Do you think the waterfront of the Spree gives a higher residential quality for people living nearby?
a. No 6%
b. Yes 90%
c. Neutral 4%
33. What is your attitude towards the urban renewal next to the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin?
a. Negative 16%
b. Neutral 62%
c. Positive 22%
34. Are you satisfied with the way the city goverment is listening to the opinions of the neighbourhood on urban renewal next to the waterside of the Spree?
a. Very dissatisfied 4%
b. Dissatisfied 11%
c. Neutral 54%
d. Satisfied 31%
e. Very satisfied 0%
35. What type of usages would you prefer next to the waterfront of the Spree? (It is possible to check multiple answers)
a. Residential 68%
b. Commercial 50%
c. Industrial 9%
d. Institutional 27%
e. Recreational 88%
f. Transportation 22%
36. How important are facilities for the public near the waterfront of the Spree to you?
a. Not important 5%
b. Somewhat important 19%
c. Important 54%
d. Very important 22%
37. Would your residential satisfaction increase if the quality of the waterfront of the Spree would be significantly improved?
a. No 14%
b. Yes 86%
38. If you answered question 11 with “yes”: In which way do you want the waterfront of the Spree to be improved?
………
39. Would your residential satisfaction increase if the accessibility of the waterfront of the Spree would be significantly improved?
a. No 9%
b. Yes 91%
40. Do you think it is important to improve the waterfront of the Spree in Berlin?
a. Not important 5%
b. Somewhat important 29%
c. Important 53%
d. Very important 13%
15. What is the main reason that you are not using the waterfront of the Spree?
………
1.4. Most heard answers to the open questions
5. In which way are you presently using the waterfront of the Spree?
Relaxing (especially in summer time)
Going for a run / Going for a walk
Not really using the waterfront
I see it when I pass by (often by public transport)
Enjoying the waterside
Enjoying the sun
Leisure
Sunday walks
12. If you answered question 11 with “yes”: In which way do you want the waterfront of the Spree to be improved?
Cleaner waterside
More atmosphere
More trees, more grass to sit on
More bars, restaurants
More spaces for residents, less for tourist
No idea
Structures to block the wind
More places to sit on (like benches)
Keep it like it is, do not modernise it
Improve the road next to the waterfront (boulevard)
41. What is the main reason that you are not using the waterfront of the Spree?
No need to go there
It is dirty
It is boring
Most of the times it is not close to public transport
The parks are in better condition
It is not attractive (especially with bad weather)
Water of the Spree divides the city (border)
There are cooler places to go to
There is nothing to do there
It is not the first option I think of
I already use the waterfront
I use some parts of the city’s waterfront, quality is not everywhere bad.
Table 4: Level of satisfaction of the public access to the waterfront of the Spree in the respondents neighbourhood and in general (so, all over Berlin) for four selected streets
An der Bucht (East)
Rotherstraße (East)
Quedlinburger Straße (West)
Essener Straße (West)
Total (%)
Total (%) Neighbourhood General Neighbourhood General Neighbourhood General Neighbourhood General Neighbourhood General Very
dissatisfied 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4
Dissatisfied 0 5 6 1 4 0 4 1 14 7
Neutral 2 7 11 10 10 11 5 11 28 39
Satisfied 13 7 8 10 9 8 11 8 41 33
Very
satisfied 10 5 0 3 2 5 5 4 17 17
Total 25 25 25 25 100
Figure 4: Conceptual model
