Comparing city practitioners’ and residents’ perceptions of a liveable neighbourhood in Finland

ABSTRACT Planning sustainable and liveable communities requires considering residents’ perceptions and preferences. However, practitioners’ values and preferences can also determine the development of neighbourhoods, which has rarely been recognized. Thus, we compared if residents’ and practitioners’ perceptions match regarding 1) factors they considered valuable for neighbourhoods and 2) the development needs of specific neighbourhoods. We studied three Finnish suburbs using practitioner workshops and residential surveys. In general, the practitioners’ and residents’ values matched well. Both groups rated cleanliness, non-traffic related safety, essential services, and green spaces as the most important factors. However, residents valued traffic safety and lighting of routes more than practitioners. The practitioners and residents mostly agreed on how to develop the neighbourhoods in the future. The resident views not fully considered in the practitioners’ development objectives were noise disturbances, and infill development as a threat to green spaces. This study underlined the importance of considering safety and access to green spaces in planning and developing suburbs. The study also revealed the complexity of integrating different aspects of liveability on an individual and neighbourhood/city scale. The integration of different dimensions of liveability in planning may require the use of participatory planning-support tools.


Introduction
Contemporary urban planning aims at sustainable and liveable communities.The liveability of a neighbourhood often refers to its residents' high well-being, life satisfaction and quality (Mittal, Chadchan, and Mishra 2020;Paul and Sen 2020).The liveability CONTACT Maija Tiitu maija.tiitu@syke.fiBuilt environment solutions unit, Finnish Environment Institute (Syke), Latokartanonkaari 11,Helsinki,Finland Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2263053.
of neighbourhoods has become an important research topic due to urbanization and densification of cities: the planning of many European, and especially Nordic, cities is increasingly dominated by infill development and compact city policies to reduce traffic-related emissions (Boyko and Cooper 2011;Haaland and van den Bosch 2015;Tiitu, Naess, and Ristimäki 2021).Liveability can be seen as a mesh of physical and socio-cultural factors that have the ability to improve living conditions (Jomehpour 2015;Paul and Sen 2020).In the European context, especially the physical aspects, such as the presence of facilities, are widely studied (Paul and Sen 2020).The socio-cultural aspects of liveability include e.g.social cohesion, interaction and mix, and safety (Lloyd, Fullagar, and Reid 2016;Mittal, Chadchan, and Mishra 2020).There is also a variety of dimensions incorporated in measuring liveability: infrastructure, transportation options, health relevant factors, culture and environment, housing quality, neighbourhood aspirations etc. (Mittal, Chadchan, and Mishra 2020;Paul and Sen 2020).
It is widely recognized that some physical neighbourhood features are beneficial for human well-being and health, such as walkability and access to green spaces, whereas others are harmful, such as air pollution (Bird et al. 2018;Frehlich et al. 2022;Sui, Ettema, and Helbich 2022;Twohig-Bennett and Jones 2018).The physical and socio-cultural dimensions of liveability are also intertwined: the physical features of a neighbourhood, such as housing design and density, land use mix, and the availability of public spaces, may lead to more or less opportunities for social interaction with neighbours affecting the well-being of residents (Brueckner and Largey 2008;Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016).This highlights the need to consider the liveability and healthiness of communities in urban planning.Particular attention should be paid to neighbourhoods with low socio-economic status (SES) since less affluent groups are more often affected by inadequate housing conditions or higher adverse exposures, such as poor air quality or high noise levels, in their residential neighbourhoods (Braubach and Fairburn 2010).
Liveability is also a subjective concept since everyone has different values on the important aspects of their life (Carmichael et al. 2007).Thus, when improving liveability, it is essential to consider which neighbourhood characteristics (referred to later as comfort factors) residents value in their living environment.Moreover, peoples' preferences and experienced satisfaction with the residential environment vary according to their sociodemographic and cultural background and their individual values, lifestyles, and perceptions (Hasanzadeh, Kyttä, and Brown 2019;Jansen 2013;Neal 2021;Walker and Li 2007).For example, Finnish urban residents valued most the neighbourhood's transport connections, availability of natural environments, peacefulness, outdoor recreation opportunities, and access to services (Strandell 2017).A case study of American suburbs found similar characteristics to be most valuable for residents: access to civic and public spaces and recreation facilities, local food production, and walkable streets (Stanislav and Chin 2019).At the city scale, European residents also valued access to amenities, including green spaces and public transport, along with inclusiveness and safety (Castelli et al. 2023).Nevertheless, people's preferred housing environment is often different from their current neighbourhood due to, for example, life situations and financial constraints (Hasanzadeh, Kyttä, and Brown 2019;Schwanen and Mokhtarian 2004).Examining the preferred neighbourhood comfort factors that reflect the underlying values not necessarily available in the current home neighbourhood and people's opinions on their current neighbourhoods can feed information to local planning, for example, regarding desired housing supply (Hasanzadeh, Kyttä, and Brown 2019).
Like in many other European countries, public participation in land use planning is required by legislation in Finland.However, it is acknowledged that some aspects valued by the residents, such as green spaces, may be neglected or overruled by other interests, such as housing construction, during the planning process (Di Marino et al. 2019;Haaland and van den Bosch 2015).In addition to objective data on the planning site, land use planning is often based on subjective value-based choices (Godschalk 2004).Further, planning always involves multiple objectives, alternatives, social interests, and preferences (Bantayan and Bishop 1998).This raises the question of whether practitioners responsible for land use planning have the same perceptions of the desired neighbourhood characteristics as residents.
Thus, we investigated the determinants of a liveable neighbourhood in three case studies.We focused on the comfort factors of neighbourhoods and excluded characteristics of apartments.Our case studies represent three Finnish suburbs, mainly built during rapid rural-urban migration in the 1960s and 1970s, that are increasingly associated with socio-economic disadvantage and other problems (Stjernberg 2019).To collect views and values from local practitioners, we used the planning-support tool StrateGIS (Tiitu et al. 2021).We used postal and participatory surveys to collect views and values from the residents.By comparing the views and values of local practitioners and residents, we first investigated whether residents and practitioners value the same factors regarding neighbourhood liveability.Secondly, we explored if the practitioners' views on how a specific neighbourhood should be developed (e.g.new buildings, services or maintenance of public spaces) match the residents' views.

Neighbourhoods
Two of the studied neighbourhoods, Kannelmäki and Koivukylä, are located in the Capital Region of Helsinki, while the third one, Ristinummi, is in the medium-sized city of Vaasa (Figure 1).The outer boundaries of these neighbourhoods used for this study are partly based on existing administrative borders of the city districts and partly co-created with the local city planners at the beginning of the workshops (see Section 2.2).Kannelmäki and Koivukylä are located along a railroad with their own train stations, while Ristinummi has a railroad crossing through the area but no station.
The study areas are dominated by a high percentage of blocks of flats, rented apartments, carless households and population groups speaking languages other than Finland's official or indigenous languages (Finnish, Swedish, Sami) as their first language (Table 1).Koivukylä features the highest proportion of the population with non-native languages, 45%, more than double the average in Vantaa (22%).Kannelmäki has the largest population and highest population density.Despite being densely built, almost a third of the total land area is covered by public green spaces.The share of green spaces is the highest in Ristinummi, which has the lowest population density and the lowest proportion of carless households and blocks of flats (Table 1).The spatial delineation of Ristinummi affects these figures, which covers more of the surrounding low-density settlements than the other two areas.The mean age of the adult (≥18 years of age) population in the study areas ranges between 47 and 51.

StrateGIS workshops for evaluating practitioners' perspectives
Practitioners' perspectives on liveable neighbourhoods were collected through a series of 13 workshops (Supplementary Table 1) using the StrateGIS method (Tiitu et al. 2021).It is based on the spatial multi-criteria approach being a simplified version of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tools.The method comprises setting a main objective for the development of an area and selecting appropriate criteria to achieve that.The criteria are  grouped into themes with their own sub-objectives, and all the objectives and criteria are designed as a value tree.The participants weight both the importance of themes and criteria.
The workshops (4-5 per neighbourhood) were organized separately for each neighbourhood.Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, they were held online.The selected practitioners worked for different sectors of the municipality, and their work was related to one of the three study areas: Kannelmäki, Helsinki (N of participants = 7); Koivukylä, Vantaa (N = 10); and Ristinummi, Vaasa (N = 9) (Figure 1).There were also additional practitioners (3 in Kannelmäki, 3 in Koivukylä, and 2 in Ristinummi) who attended two or three workshops but not the weighting due to time constraints or personnel changes.Private actors were not involved in the workshops.
In the first workshop, the practitioners co-produced and set the main objective for developing the neighbourhood (Supplementary Table 1).Then, the practitioners were asked to select and group comfort factors as the criteria they found relevant to reaching the objective.As a base for their selection, they were provided with factors selected from the academic literature and established national sets of indicators (Supplementary Table 2).In all the study areas, the practitioners also contributed additional factors to the value tree based on their expertise.Since the method also aimed at spatial outputs (maps), one requirement for the selected comfort factors was that they could be presented as spatial data.The experience from the first two case studies (Kannelmäki and Koivukylä) indicated that the selection and grouping of comfort factors would benefit from more time.Hence, two workshops were dedicated to this in the last case study (Ristinummi).
In the second stage, the main objective was fine-tuned, and the themes were provided with more specific sub-objectives.Between the second and third stages, the practitioners were allowed to comment on the objectives, comfort factors and their spatial representation (i.e.maps) using the visual collaboration online platform Miro.In the last workshop, the changes to the value trees and maps done by researchers based on the online comments were presented, and the weighting process was instructed.
Each practitioner weighted each comfort factor individually using an Excel sheet template.An allocation of 100 points was used for each theme and then for individual comfort factors within each theme.After the weighting, the researchers calculated mean values for each theme and comfort factor.As the number of comfort factors ranged between 5-7 under each theme, a correction factor was used to account for bias: the points allocated to criteria in themes with five criteria were multiplied by 1, points allocated to criteria in themes with six criteria were multiplied by 1.2, and points allocated to the criteria in themes with seven criteria were multiplied by 1.4.according to the formula: where C p = correction factor for points P 5max = the highest equal number of points allocable for all the criteria in a theme with five criteria (20) P nmax = the highest equal number of points allocable for all the criteria in a theme with N criteria The material from the workshops thus consisted of co-produced main objectives set by the practitioners to develop the neighbourhood, the themes consisting of sub-objectives and individual comfort factors with mean weightings.In addition, the researchers carefully documented all the discussions in the workshops.

Surveys for residents
We collected data on residents' views with two types of surveys.A postal survey was sent to a random sample of 500 residents aged at least 18 years in each neighbourhood.The survey was part of a more extensive postal survey data collection that included a wider sample (of 6,000 residents, covering also other suburban and urban areas in Finland) and a wider range of topics some of which were outside the scope of this study.The postal survey included a cover letter in Finnish with a link to an online (Webropol) survey and a paper survey, or a cover letter in Swedish, English or Russian with a link to the online survey depending on the respondent's nationality.We received altogether 453 valid responses from the three study neighbourhoods, resulting in 30% response rate.
Environmental factors were evaluated with a question: 'In general, how important do you consider the following aspects of your residential area?' followed by a list of 15 comfort factors.Likewise, views on 12 services were asked with a question: 'In general, how important do you consider the following services in your residential area?'The rating options were 1 'very important', 2 'important', 3 'no opinion', 4 'less important', and 5 'not important at all'.A list of considered comfort factors in the postal survey is provided in Appendix 1.
Satisfaction with the same factors in the neighbourhood was asked with a question: 'How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your residential area?' with rating options 1 'very satisfied', 2 'satisfied', 3 'neither satisfied nor dissatisfied', 4 'dissatisfied', and 5 'very dissatisfied'.Concerning the services, we asked: 'Are the following services sufficiently close to you in your residential area?' with options 1 'yes', 2 'no', and 3 'no opinion'.
Whether respondents considered their neighbourhood liveable was asked with a question: 'In your opinion, how comfortable is your residential area?' with rating options 1 'very comfortable', 2 'comfortable', 3 'neither comfortable nor uncomfortable', 4 'uncomfortable' and 5 'very uncomfortable' (a more intuitive translation, comfortable, for the Finnish word viihtyisä, was used in the surveys instead for liveable).
In addition, the respondents were asked sociodemographic background questions, including gender and birth year.At the end of the survey, respondents could write down comments regarding the topic of the survey.
In addition to the postal survey, local participatory surveys on neighbourhood liveability were conducted in the three suburbs.These surveys had two objectives: (1) to complement the results of the postal survey by reaching residents or people who work or visit the area regularly, primarily focusing on groups who often do not answer postal surveys, and (2) to enable comparison of the practitioners' and residents' views on those comfort factors that were not included in the postal survey because the survey that included a wider range of topics would have become too heavy for respondents to fill in.
The researchers organized or attended 5-7 events per neighbourhood.Researchers and the associations organizing the events advertised the events on social media.Depending on the nature of the event, the researchers either filled in the survey together with respondents, let them answer the survey in situ or at home or gave presentations about the project and let people fill in the survey afterwards.Also, the researchers recruited participants from local places such as residential activity facilities, libraries, and grocery shops.In total, 292 participants completed the local participatory surveys (Table 2).
The local surveys were designed separately for each neighbourhood and translated into the different languages common in each neighbourhood, including Finnish, English, Swedish, Arabic, Albanian, Estonian, Russian, and Somali.The survey was based on sub-objectives and comfort factors that practitioners had chosen in their value tree, and the practitioners were involved in planning the surveys.Thus, surveys differed slightly between areas (see complete lists of comfort factors in Appendix 1).The comfort factors were grouped under each sub-objective, and respondents were asked, 'Are the following aspects important for you to feel comfortable in your neighbourhood?' on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was 'not at all important' and 5 'very important' for each factor.The respondents could also answer 'no opinion'.Participants were also asked to add comfort factors not included in the list.The wordings of the objectives and criteria were slightly altered for simplicity from the original wordings set by researchers and practitioners together, and some of the original comfort factors were divided into multiple sub-factors.At the end of the survey, respondents could either mark on a map or describe in their own words the most comfortable and uncomfortable places in their neighbourhood and why (only Kannelmäki and Koivukylä) and provide feedback on the survey.
Online surveys were done at the request of a few residents that could not participate in the events.The online surveys for Koivukylä and Kannelmäki were carried out with the Harava online map-based survey tool (in Finnish, English, and Swedish) and the Ristinummi survey with the Webropol survey tool (in Finnish, English, Swedish, Somali, and Russian).
To complement the Ristinummi participatory survey, we used the data from a mapbased survey conducted by the city of Vaasa with 508 respondents.The questions concerned pleasant and unpleasant places as well as unsafe, restless, and untidy places, and places of vandalism.The survey also included open-ended questions about the development of the neighbourhood and descriptions of current housing and the future of housing in the area (City of Vaasa 2022).
The two types of residential surveys (postal and participatory) were merged into a single dataset to interpret residents' values on the neighbourhoods' comfort factors.The total number of respondents was 750 (280 in Kannelmäki, 234 in Koivukylä, and 236 in Ristinummi).The postal and participatory surveys included 27 common factors, and the participatory survey data contained 17 additional factors (Appendix 1).Background information was available for both datasets regarding age, gender, native language, and whether the respondents considered their neighbourhood liveable.

Comparison of practitioners' and residents' views
The practitioners' and residents' views on comfort factors were compared according to 1) the proportion of residents finding each factor as 'important' or 'very important', and 2) the corrected mean values for each comfort factor from the practitioner weightings (see Section 2.2).In order to make the data of different scales comparable, the values were converted into z-scores, and fourfold table visualizations were made using the mean values (z-score = 0).The comfort factors considered only in a single case study were left out from the comparison, including all the suburbs (see Appendix 1).In addition, the factor 'social control' was excluded since the wording of the survey question ('sense of safety in the streets') enabled ambiguous interpretations compared to practitioners' more technical viewpoints (social control of the building/streets, e.g.residential windows facing the street).
To assess residents' views on the neighbourhood's development, we used the openended questions of the residential surveys and the map markings and open-ended answers in the report by the city of Vaasa (2022).We also analysed the feedback questions of the surveys as some development ideas were written under this question.To comprehend the practitioners' views, we analysed the documented workshop discussions.
The qualitative analysis was conducted with NVivo 1.3 software using coding.The topics that arose from the open-ended questions in the resident surveys were used as preliminary descriptive codes.After this, new codes were created from the practitioner's discussion data by inductive coding.The comparison of views was summarized as a table where residents' and practitioners' views were structured under the themes and objectives of the value trees drawn by the practitioners in the workshops (see Section 2.2).

Comparison of residents' and practitioner's views on comfort factors
The average age of the respondents for the combined residential surveys was 59 years (58 for Kannelmäki, 57 for Koivukylä, and 61 for Ristinummi).The majority (61%) of the respondents were women.The proportion of non-native languages among respondents was 10% (11% in Kannelmäki, 13% in Koivukylä, and 6% in Ristinummi).Of the respondents, 73% considered their neighbourhood liveable (78% in Kannelmäki, 67% in Koivukylä, and 71% in Ristinummi).
According to a background survey sent to the practitioners, 28% reported being experts in land use planning, 10% in health and social services, 10% in housing, 7% in environment or nature, 7% in culture, 7% in management, 7% in knowledge production and maintenance, 3% in youth services, 3% in education, 3% in sports, and 14% had other fields of expertise.
Figure 2 compares the residents' and practitioners' values on each comfort factor for all the studied neighbourhoods.Comfort factors that had high values among practitioners and residents were, for example, cleanliness, safety (other than traffic-related), health and social services, grocery shops, green spaces, and good maintenance of routes.Factors that the practitioners did not find as important as residents were, e.g.recycling points, few obstacles blocking walking, the energy efficiency of buildings, low noise levels, and cultural services.On the other hand, factors that the residents did not appreciate as much as practitioners were, e.g.indoor meeting places, diverse dwelling sizes, house types and housing tenures.According to residents and practitioners, the least appreciated factors included city bikes, restaurants, building-lined streets, and public bicycle parking.
The practitioners' views were the most unified about the number of benches (SD = 4.3 points), restaurants (SD = 4.7), and city bikes (SD = 5.2) and the least unified about buildings of different decades (SD = 14.6), public transport (SD = 14.1) and cleanliness (SD = 12.6).The resident views were the most unified about non-traffic related safety (SD = 0.62 points), cleanliness (SD = 0.62), and good maintenance of routes (SD = 0.68), and the least unified about kindergartens (SD = 1.36), schools (SD = 1.33) and public computer and internet services (SD = 1.31).
There were no large differences concerning views between different resident groups.Table 3 presents the top ten comfort factors for each resident group and practitioners.Five out of ten of the most important comfort factors were common for all resident groups and practitioners: cleanliness, non-traffic related safety, health and social services, grocery shops, and green spaces.Traffic safety and lighting of routes were among the top ten most important factors for each resident group but not for practitioners.Diverse dwelling sizes, house types, and housing tenures were in the top 10 for practitioners but not for resident groups.Comfort factors that were considered important (top ten) for only one of the resident groups were: 1) accessibility of routes (for residents over 65 years old), 2) walking and cycling path density and cultural services (for non-native residents), and 3) private green spaces (for respondents that consider their neighbourhood liveable).
The appreciation of different comfort factors was rather similar in all the studied neighbourhoods.The fourfold tables on resident and practitioner value comparisons Table 3. Top ten factors for practitioners and different resident groups.Grey colour indicates factors that belong to the top ten for practitioners and in all the resident groups.Orange colour stands for the factors valued in the top ten in every resident group but not among practitioners.Blue colour represents the factors that only belong to the top ten in only one of the groups.The rest of the comfort factors are presented in white colour.
for each of the three neighbourhoods of Kannelmäki, Koivukylä and Ristinummi are presented in supplementary Figures 1-3.

Kannelmäki
Residents' views on how to develop Kannelmäki were first studied by comparing the residents' satisfaction with the current state of comfort factors in the neighbourhood in relation to their importance for residents (Figure 3).The comfort factors below average level of satisfaction but above average level of importance were considered the primary development needs.The comparison was made only for the 27 comfort factors included in the postal survey.Many of the factors the residents considered important were those they were also currently satisfied with, such as traffic safety, grocery shops, green spaces, and public transport.The development needs included cleanliness, non-traffic related safety, low noise levels, and accessibility of kindergartens and recycling points.The residents were also dissatisfied with many other comfort factors, such as indoor and outdoor meeting places, and outdoor art, but they were not considered as important as the above-mentioned factors.
The practitioners of Kannelmäki formulated the following main objective for developing the neighbourhood: 'The different and distinctive parts of Kannelmäki form a unified neighbourhood that enables smooth mobility.The area will be developed to be attractive, safe, natural, and clean in terms of urban spaces, services, and yards to reduce inequality'.The sub-objectives for each theme and practitioner views based on the workshop discussions, along with residents' views based on the open-ended survey questions, are presented in Table 4.Most resident views were very similar to practitioner views or were to be considered in the planning according to the objectives drawn by the practitioners, such as the importance of green spaces, cultural services, and improving maintenance, safety, and cleanliness in certain areas.The resident views that were not fully covered by the practitioner views concerned traffic-related and construction noise, the adverse effects of infill development, and wishes for certain services, such as cafés, restaurants, and speciality shops.

Koivukylä
The comparison between the importance and satisfaction with comfort factors showed that Koivukylä residents were satisfied with many factors that they considered important (Figure 4).According to resident surveys, cleanliness, exercise facilities, and the number of benches were the primary development needs.Of the factors not considered important, the residents were dissatisfied with, for example, meeting places, urban agriculture, city bikes, and public computer and internet services.
The practitioners of Koivukylä set the following main objective for the neighbourhood's development: 'Koivukylä will develop into a communal, attractive, and safe area that offers versatile forms of living and easily accessible green areas, comfortable public outdoor spaces, and services for residents of different ages.At the same time, the characteristic features of the area are preserved, the general appearance of the environment improves and the well-being of the residents increases'.The residents' views on the neighbourhood's development based on the open-ended survey questions were rather similar (Table 5): the importance of green spaces, traffic safety and disturbances near the central parts of the neighbourhood were recognized among both practitioners and citizens, as well as the need for renovation and better maintenance of buildings and public urban spaces.Concerns about new development in green spaces were raised among residents but not among practitioners.Residents wished for more restaurants, cafés, cultural services, and sports facilities, whereas the practitioner discussions focused more on essential services such as schools and health care.

Ristinummi
According to the Ristinummi resident surveys, the two primary development needs were cleanliness and public transport services (Figure 5).The residents were satisfied with many factors that they also considered important.The surveys were conducted before health services (the factor residents were the most satisfied with) were moved out of the area.
The practitioners of Ristinummi set their main objective as follows: 'A socially and ecologically sustainable, age-and child-friendly and coherent neighbourhood that supports the well-being of residents regardless of their age, ability to function or background, and whose  The comfort and quality of the residential environment are maintained and enhanced + New development, services and housing were seen as positive − Social distractions near the railway station − Noise levels related to traffic and the railway were mentioned but not elaborated on − Insecurity near the railroad station, market square and old mall.The station area was described as uninviting, restless, and untidy.Some of the respondents avoid the area in the evenings.6).The importance of green spaces, the lack of public transport, meeting places and other services, and the need for improved traffic safety and building and route maintenance were acknowledged.Both the practitioners and residents wished for more detached houses in the area.Practitioners saw the accessibility of services, reasonable house prices, new construction, and high-quality green spaces as possibilities to improve the area's image and reduce deprivation.A few residents felt that the area was better than its reputation.However, according to the residents, substance use, vandalism and a bad reputation also impacted its attractiveness.The view not fully covered in practitioner discussions was the residents' need for outdoor facilities, such as places for outdoor exercise and activities, along with cafés and cultural services in popular parks.

Discussion
In this study, we compared the residents' and practitioners' views of determinants of a liveable neighbourhood using three Finnish suburbs as case studies.In general, the

Enabling participation and communality
+ Enabling a sense of community through events in the main square, public participation, multiculturalism, and art − Promoting social inclusion, integration of immigrants, and visibility of many cultures through a sense of community, art, and planning of new services + The importance of residential activity facilities, meeting places and leisure activities − More meeting places for people of all ages, immigrants and the unemployed to reduce loneliness and improve well−being are needed

Mobility and transport connections
The use of public transport is facilitated, a functional, safe, and good cycling and walking network − Importance of traffic safety, quality bike paths, and a safe walking network − The accessibility of public transport to decrease inequality − Improving traffic safety near the mall − Better bus connections values of practitioners and residents were similar: cleanliness, non-traffic related safety, good accessibility to essential services (health and social services, grocery shops) and green spaces belonging to the top 10 comfort factors among both groups.However, residents ranked traffic safety and lighting of routes higher than the practitioners, whereas diverse housing stock was valued higher by the practitioners.The views concerning the development of the neighbourhoods were also mostly in line between practitioners and residents.However, practitioners did not fully consider some critical factors for residents, such as noise disturbances and the negative effects of infill development.
Perceived safety in terms of traffic and social interactions in urban spaces was among the most crucial comfort factors among the residents, suggesting that other comfort factors in the neighbourhood are subordinate to their sense of security.This topic has been previously addressed in research focusing on walking environments.In the widely applied Alfonzo's (2005) hierarchy of walking needs, individual feasibility (such as physical constraints), accessibility, and safety come before comfort and pleasurability of the walking environment.Similarly, Gehl (2010) defines pedestrian protection as the fundamental condition for high-quality urban spaces that also emerge from comfort and  enjoyment.Actually, the practitioners of Ristinummi raised high car ownership (75% of households) to be one reason for decreased traffic safety in the neighbourhood.In addition, a decrease in perceived safety can worsen traffic safety if driving is favoured over walking.For example, Foster, Giles-Corti, and Knuiman (2014) found that the fear of crime decreased walking and pushed residents to use their cars in Australian suburbs.However, the average age of the respondents in this study was relatively high (10 years higher than the register-based average for the populations in the studied neighbourhoods), which may have affected the results on the importance of safety.Further, perceived safety often impacts the elderly more than the actual risk to their safety (Deniz 2016).The high age of the survey respondents probably also had other implications on our results, e.g.schools and kindergartens being more appreciated by city practitioners than residents.Our survey respondents were also predominantly female (61%) whereas the actual register-based proportion was 50%.This was also likely to emphasize the high valuation of safety (and lighting) among respondents, since female residents have been reported to rank these qualities higher than male residents, at least in the case of green spaces (Braçe, Garrido-Cumbrera, and Correa-Fernández 2021).Yet, it is generally argued that increasing the sense of personal security through urban planning and design is essential in creating inclusive urban spaces and one of the key ways to impact residents' happiness at the neighbourhood level (Navarrete-Hernandez, Vetro, and Concha 2021; Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016).
In the studied neighbourhoods, residents were often satisfied with the comfort factors they considered important.This implies that they live in a neighbourhood with characteristics they desire, which is supported by the high proportion of the survey respondents (73%) who considered their current neighbourhood as liveable or very liveable.Although the residents found some shortcomings in their residential environments, our study does not fully support the fact that people's preferences and actual living environments would be very different, as discussed by, e.g.Hasanzadeh, Kyttä, and Brown (2019), even in the context of low SES neighbourhoods.
The conflicting views between practitioners and residents of neighbourhood development concerned mainly infill development.The practitioners focused on the positive effects, such as maintaining services, while residents were more concerned about negative effects, such as decreasing the area of green spaces, on the neighbourhood comfort level.One reason for the practitioners' favourable views on infill development may be that in the Capital Region of Helsinki, the population is constantly increasing, and there is high pressure to build new housing.The studied suburbs of Kannelmäki and Koivukylä, situated near train stations, and thus are desired places among the practitioners for infill development since they enable sustainable mobility.Overall, it seemed that the practitioners had the interest of the whole city or city region in mind, whereas residents were the most concerned about the surroundings of their own home.Despite both considered green spaces important, only residents considered infill development as a threat to local green spaces, including decreasing nature and biodiversity in the neighbourhood.This concern is validated by rich scientific evidence on various health benefits of green spaces (e.g.Yang et al. 2021).In addition, access to open, natural, and green spaces within a neighbourhood are suggested to directly increase residents' happiness (Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016).Residents' concerns over nearby environments often indicates a strong attachment to a place, which increases people's awareness of the environment and resistance to development projects (Farnum, Hall, and Kruger 2005;Vierikko and Niemelä 2016).However, conflicting views and the rise of local conflicts can also be a result of long-lasting perceived social injustice or environmental degradation (Boone and Modarres 2006, 134-159).City practitioners, on the other hand, can be more pragmatic about the planning area and value it based on shared moral values (Vierikko and Niemelä 2016), such as considering densification as necessary for improving liveability and for climate.This different perspective on the neighbourhood may explain the conflicting views on infill development.
Further, the positive effects of infill development emphasized by the practitioners are more likely to take more time to emerge and are more difficult for residents to perceive than the negative ones.For example, in a neighbourhood whose population would have otherwise decreased, and a local grocery shop would have therefore left the area, the new population brought by a new development may have caused the service to remain and even facilitated the emergence of new services in the area over the long term.However, this positive effect of the new development is not visible, because the shop already existed, and the connection between the growing population and increasing services is not tangible.In contrast, a negative change in the landscape, such as a new development built on a plot that used to be attractive public open space, is very visible and abrupt, which makes it easier to perceive and object to.In general, planning of new developments does not always materialize according to the pre-defined objectives and values due to conflicting interests (Di Marino et al. 2019), which may lead to developing also on existing green spaces or not reserving enough space for green in new residential areas.In fact, despite growing knowledge of the diverse values of nature, societies worldwide are still struggling to acknowledge them in planning and decision-making (Pascual et al. 2023).
The comfort factors and development objectives related to the diversification of housing stock (house types, tenures, and others) were more important to practitioners than residents.Practitioners probably considered it as a solution to residential segregation, whereas the residents' comfort depended more on the provision of the specific type of housing that fits their own needs.Based on statistics on, e.g.tenure, the studied neighbourhoods are already rather diverse, so increasing their diversity might not be the most urgent development need.Nonetheless, preventing segregation in the suburbs with low SES will probably increase the residents' comfort in the long term if the actions are conducted in a participatory manner (Stal and Zuberi 2010).

Conclusions
Based on our study, practitioners and residents agree on the importance of several determinants of a liveable neighbourhood, such as cleanliness, safety, and access to green spaces.However, some differences were observed, which underlines the importance of considering residents' perspectives in planning.Studies comparing the values of residents and practitioners in other countries and cities worldwide would be needed to make further conclusions.
The main limitation of this study was that the resident survey respondents were older and more typically female than the actual population in the studied neighbourhoods.
This means that some of the aspects of neighbourhood liveability, such as safety, was probably overemphasized in our results.However, based on both our results and previous literature, aiming for safe, walkable neighbourhoods and maintaining close-tohome green spaces is a good starting point for planning liveable neighbourhoods for all residents, considering protection from traffic and other disturbances.
This study revealed the dilemma of integrating different dimensions of liveability in planning: how to preserve the access to green spaces that are important for nature and residents and at the same time develop suburbs so that they support sustainable transportation and social diversity.Also, the liveability and needs of individual residents and the liveability of the neighbourhood or the city as a whole may be in conflict.To this end, along with citizen engagement, participatory planning-support tools are probably needed to ensure desirable outcomes of the integration of countless aspects in urban planning.Place-based information provided by these tools on the most-valued areas for residents, as well as on appropriate sites for new development in the opinion of residents, is potentially crucial for planning new developments (e.g. Brown and Glanz 2018;Kyttä et al. 2013;Tiitu et al. 2018.).Collecting information on residents' views and values at the early phase of the planning processes and respecting the diversity of place-specific values can enhance co-creative planning and empower residents to take part in local decision-making (Vierikko and Niemelä 2016).Further research is needed on the effectiveness of different planning-support tools in integrating residents' and other stakeholders' views in planning processes.
Appendix 1. Considered comfort factors and the related data sources with the number of respondents(N).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Location of the study areas in Helsinki, Vantaa, and Vaasa.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The values of practitioners and residents for 44 comfort factors in all the case studies combined.Practitioners' values are based on mean weightings for each factor in the workshops.Residents' values are based on the proportion of respondents considering the factor as important or very important in the surveys.The fourfold table is based on the mean values for both axes, z-score = 0 (20 points for practitioners' values, and 71% for residents' values).

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The importance of comfort factors to Kannelmäki residents compared to satisfaction with the current state of factors in the neighbourhood.The importance represents the proportion of residents who see the factor as important or very important in the two resident surveys.Satisfaction with comfort factors is based on the proportion of residents who answered to be very satisfied or satisfied with different comfort factors and that different services are located close enough.The gridlines show the mean values for the axes, z-score = 0 (75% for importance and 67% for satisfaction).
Traffic−related noise and pollution near large roads were a source of discomfort − Construction noise was perceived as unpleasant − Infill development was seen as negative by some respondents, especially in detached−house −dominated areas Indoor services Neighbourhood services are maintained and developed − The low service level of indoor exercise facilities − The differences in the accessibility of services in different parts of the area − The accessibility of schools was seen as important, and school trips should be made safer − There should be equal access to low−cost exercise facilities, especially for children and youth − The insufficient population base limits the further development of many services − More diverse indoor and outdoor sports facilities are needed + Services of the shopping centre − More cafés, restaurants, and speciality stores are needed, e.g.florists around the neighbourhood appeal and the maintenance of services are improved by new construction as well as highquality green areas and other public spaces'.Practitioners' development sub-objectives and views were very much in line with the residents' views (Table

Figure 4 .
Figure 4.The importance of comfort factors to Koivukylä residents compared to satisfaction with the current state of factors in the neighbourhood.The importance represents the proportion of residents who see the factor as important or very important in the two resident surveys.Satisfaction with comfort factors is based on the proportion of residents who answered to be very satisfied or satisfied with different comfort factors and that different services are located close enough.The gridlines show the mean values for the axes, z-score = 0 (73% for importance and 64% for satisfaction).

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.The importance of comfort factors to Ristinummi residents compared to satisfaction with the current state of factors in the neighbourhood.The importance represents the proportion of residents who see the factor as important or very important in the two resident surveys.Satisfaction with comfort factors is based on the proportion of residents who answered to be very satisfied or satisfied with different comfort factors and that different services are located close enough.The gridlines show the mean values for the axes, z-score = 0, z-score = 0 (70% for importance and 57% for satisfaction).

Table 1 .
Variables describing the three study areas in terms of urban form and population.Data sources: (BDR 2020; City of Helsinki 2021; City of Vantaa 2021; CLC 2018; SYKE & Statistics Finland 2019).

Table 2 .
Data collection via local participatory surveys.

Table 4 .
Comparison of residents' and practitioners' views of the Kannelmäki neighbourhood based on open-ended survey questions (residents) and workshop value trees and discussions (practitioners).Views: + = things that are currently at a good level − = things that need improvement.

Table 5 .
Comparison of residents' and practitioners' views of the Koivukylä neighbourhood based on open-ended survey questions (residents) and workshop value trees and discussions (practitioners).Views: + = things that are currently at a good level − = things that need improvement.

Table 6 .
Comparison of residents' and practitioners' views of the Ristinummi neighbourhood based on open-ended survey questions (residents) and workshop value trees and discussions (practitioners).Views: + = things that are currently at a good level -= things that need improvement.