Innovative Governance For Urban Green Infrastructure - A Guide For Practitioners - 2017

July 2017
INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE
FOR URBAN GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE.
A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS
Suggested citation:
Ambrose-Oji, B., Buijs, A., Gerőházi, E., Mattijssen, T., Száraz,L., Van der Jagt, A., Hansen,R., Rall, E.,
Andersson, E, Kronenberg, J., and Rolf, W. 2017, Innovative Governance for Urban Green Infrastructure:
A Guide for Practitioners, GREEN SURGE project Deliverable 6.3, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
Work Package 6:
Innovative Governance for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation
GREEN SURGE Deliverable 6.3
Partners Involved: FCRA, WU, MRI, TUM, SRC, ULOD, FFCUL, UH, ICLEI, UNIBA, SLU
The content of this report is based on the results of research on innovations in green infrastructure
governance in Europe as part of the EU FP7 project GREEN SURGE (ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567; 2013-2017)
See more at: www.greensurge.eu
Guide Concept, Content Composition, Coordination: Bianca Ambrose-Oji (FCRA) with Arjen Buijs (WU)
Editorial Review: Barbara Anton, Alice Reil (ICLEI); Éva Gerőházi (MRI); Rieke Hansen, Emily Rall, Werner
Rolf and Eleanor Chapman (TUM)
Layout: Stephan Köhler (ICLEI)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to address our special gratitude towards all contributors to this guide, through their
direct participation, support or supply of valuable background materials.
Principal Contributors:
Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Alexander van der Jagt (FCRA)
Arjen Buijs, Thomas Mattijssen (WU)
Éva Gerőházi (MRI)
Luca Száraz (SLU)
Rieke Hansen, Emily Rall (TUM)
Erik Andersson (SRC) and Jakub Kronenberg (ULOD)
Image credits: Credits listed with associated images

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE FOR UGI 04
1.1. What is UGI governance? 05
1.2. Principles of UGI governance 07
1.3. What is this guide and who is it for? 08
1.4. How to use this guide 09
1.5. Resources 10
II CHAPTER 2: A TYPOLOGY TO MAKE SENSE OF INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR UGI 12

2.1. Introduction: Making sense of governance for urban green infrastructure 13
2.2. Technical know-how: Active citizenship is fundamental to governance 15
2.3. Examples in practice 18
2.4. Key messages for decision makers 22
2.5. Resources 23
II CHAPTER 3: ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AND NON-GOVERNMENT LED APPROACHES 24

3.1. What is non-government led governance? 25
3.2. Technical know-how 26
3.5. Resources 34
II CHAPTER 4: GREEN BARTER AND PPP: INVOLVING BUSINESS IN UGI GOVERNANCE 36

4.1. Introduction 37
4.2. Technical know-how: Getting businesses involved in green space creation and management 39
4.5. Resources 45
II CHAPTER 5: SOCIAL INCLUSION IN THE GOVERNANCE OF UGI 46

5.1. Introduction 47
5.5. Resources 59
II CHAPTER 6: GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND CONTINUITY: PLACE-KEEPING 62

6.1. What is place-keeping and how does it link to governance and active citizenship? 63
6.2. Technical know-how: Features of successful place-keeping 65
6.5. Resources 74
II CHAPTER 7: THE STRATEGIC BENEFITS OF ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP IN UGI GOVERNANCE 76

7.1. Introduction to the topic 77
7.5. Resources 89
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION TO
THE GUIDE AND
THE PRINCIPLES OF
GOVERNANCE
FOR UGI
4 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

1.1. WHAT IS UGI
GOVERNANCE? DEFINING UGI GOVERNANCE
Participatory governance of urban green spaces concerns the
Contemporary society is an urban arrangements in which citizens, entrepreneurs, NGOs or other non-
society. The majority of Europe’s governmental actors make decisions about and manage networks
people now live in cities, towns and of urban green spaces at different levels, with or without the active
urban areas. The role of urban involvement of government authorities and public agencies.
nature and urban green
infrastructure (UGI) has never The arrangements include the different mix of:
been more important to hundreds
of thousands of urban dwellers. • Actors: The specific people, organisations and agencies involved.
Individuals derive physical and • Resources: What is required in terms of time, money, skills, and
mental health benefits from UGI other tangible and intangible assets, who brings what, with what
such as public amenity spaces, and conditionalities, and what political and social relationships exist
at a community level UGI supplies around those resources.
a range of other ‘ecosystem • Rules of the game: The way relationships are managed as well as
services’ that can support urban the possibilities for action, including, e.g. legislation and
adaptation and sustainability in the regulation, social and cultural norms.
face of climate change and • Discourses: The beliefs, values, objectives and other main drivers
biodiversity loss. Traditionally it of action.
has been local government and
public authorities that held
primary responsibility for urban
green space planning, governance to green space decision-making use the rules of the game (e.g. a
and management. Things have processes and management city level green space strategy), to
changed. There has been activities. This shift from more top- support and promote the
increasing political and social down approaches to ones which management of a local resource
interest in strengthening liberal involve other stakeholders is (e.g. a park), by other actors (e.g. a
democratic processes; recognition described as a move from community group), representative
of the shortcomings of “government” to “governance”. of the local residents able to
instrumental top-down planning mobilise their own resources (e.g.
processes; reductions to public This definition and description of volunteers and charitable
sector budgets which have the different elements of funding). Decision making and
challenged local government and governance arrangements should power exist in different ways at
public agencies’ ability to deliver as make it easier to investigate and different levels around any
many services and functions as in describe who it is that has the particular kind of UGI.
the past. All of these different power and mandate to make
factors have pushed forward the legitimate and binding decisions This move towards governance
view that local communities, at different scale levels (i.e. site, has resulted in new forms of
enterprises and other non- neighbourhood, city). For interaction between government
governmental stakeholders can example, an actor (e.g. staff from bodies, citizens and other non-
also make important contributions the municipality), may be able to state actors. There are now a wide
INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 5

range of ways in which non-state non-state actors is either a Another important aspect of UGI
actors can become involved in guaranteed or an easy pathway to governance is the idea of social
green space decision-making success. The problems experienced inclusion and environmental
processes in Europe. These vary by local government and public justice. These principles are usually
from: formal consultation in city agencies will not automatically be woven into UGI governance
or site level planning; through to solved. When thinking about approaches and methods. It means
the public transfer of management transition to multi-stakeholder that those building UGI governance
responsibility and co-governance participatory approaches a very need to pay attention to the relative
of particular sites by civil society serious question must be asked. If power of people and communities,
and volunteer groups; through to experienced public agencies face and of the legitimacy of
forms of self-governance where financial and technical challenges representative bodies and
citizens and communities organise managing UGI, then is it sensible to organisations. It also means that
themselves around UGI decision believe that civil society there needs to be awareness that
making and management, and organisations and volunteers or changes in relationships between
keep the role of local authorities businesses are likely to do better at stakeholders and organisations
more distant and facilitating1. bringing the management and could mean that some are
European examples of non-state resources required? It is true that empowered while others are
stakeholders playing a role in governance or co-governance with disempowered2. The implications
delivering UGI can be found at all non-state actors often involves of this for both people and place
scales, from very small sites such very skilled, enthusiastic and need to be assessed. Governance
as tiny pocket parks, to much motivated actors many of whom can also bring about the risk of a
larger ones such as urban bring their professional “democratic deficit” when a local
woodlands, to actions that cover competencies and perspectives to decision-making process is not
neighbourhoods and those which the issues. But, it is still important well connected with formal
are part of city wide green to be realistic about any democratic decision-making
networks. assessment of what may or may institutions, for example if a
not be achieved by different committee organising UGI
Moving to governance of UGI does governance models in particular management works independently
not imply that the participation of contexts. of local government councillors
More and more European

people now live in cities. It is
vitally important to find
ways to govern and manage
green spaces, such as parks
like the Tivoli Gardens in
Ljubljana, so that they
continue to service the
needs of urban citizens. Image: Bianca Ambrose-Oji

and fails to take into account the • Recognising the different needs • Avoiding narrow interests
views of the local population3. and perspectives of individuals dominating governance
Changes to the balance of power and communities and ensuring processes and making sure they
and the outcomes for social these are addressed in are inclusive rather than
inclusion may also alter governance processes in a way exclusive,
significantly when the forms of which drives social inclusion.
governance applied rely heavily • Finding ways to manage trade-
on financial mechanisms, and are The contemporary challenge is for offs between the local site
then open to the imposition of the innovative UGI governance to specific views and the needs for
market and market rules, e.g. work to those principles whilst local government and public
paying for access to public parks also delivering a range of agencies to maintain city-wide
when volunteer groups and local significant functional benefits. The or regional strategic views, or
government are unable to best and most innovative between the generation of
generate funds to maintain them. approaches to UGI governance see income and green economy
complexity as a positive thing and initiatives against services that
1.2. PRINCIPLES OF UGI build on it to deliver: have traditionally been free,
GOVERNANCE
• Conserving biodiversity • Adjusting to the transfer of
In summary the principles of UGI power and responsibility from
governance are: • Adapting to climate change local government and public
agencies to other non-state
• Recognising the right for the • Promoting the green economy stakeholders which may mean
public and non-state actors to that local government and
take part in environmental • Increasing social cohesion public agencies less influence
decision making as conferred by and even less recognition as e.g.
the Aarhus Convention 1998, The challenges to be overcome in as branding etc changes,
any given context include:
• Ensuring decision making • Building governance approaches
processes and active • Finding the most appropriate that are sustainable and can
management work to deliver approaches to engage with non- maintain the quantity and
benefits to society and the urban state stakeholders, quality of UGI into the future
environment, and through social, economic
• Building integration between and environmental
• Providing opportunities for decision making processes of non- circumstances which are
inclusion of stakeholders in state actors with the formal and increasingly uncertain.
governance decisions that affect codified systems of government,
them or their immediate
environment, • Finding non-state actors with
the capacity and capability to
• Facilitating meaningful ways for engage in governance and active
stakeholders to participate and management – this will be a
become involved through particular issue in areas where
processes and methods they people are living with
want to engage with, deprivation or vulnerabilities,

1.3. WHAT IS THIS GUIDE
AND WHO IS IT FOR? The guide is organised into seven chapters (in addition to this
introduction) as follows:
This guide aims to provide a tool
for navigating through some of → CHAPTER 2: KINDS OF GOVERNANCE
these important UGI governance Deciding why and how to build governance is important. The range
questions and issues. The guide of different, innovative and evolving types of UGI governance
synthesises results from the arrangements across Europe is described. A typology of governance
European research project GREEN arrangements explains the governance context and opportunities
SURGE on the current state-of-art for municipalities to engage with different types of governance. The
of knowledge and innovative concept of Active Citizenship is introduced.
practice of UGI governance (see
also: www.greensurge.eu). It → CHAPTER 3: CITIZEN-LED GOVERNANCE
addresses the interests of a broad This chapter looks at innovative initiatives that are initiated,
range of urban stakeholders and developed and led by citizens, civil society organisations and
practitioners, but the primary organisations, and what they offer in terms of potential benefits for
audience are those urban planners UGI and municipalities. The challenges to for municipalities are
and decision-makers from various outlined.
departments and areas who deal
with urban green spaces. → CHAPTER 4: INVOLVING BUSINESS
Introduces ways in which businesses can be included as part of UGI
The guide might also be of use for governance. The concept of Green Barter is investigated in some
allied professionals working in the detail, so show what municipalities and UGI can gain when
larger field of community businesses are involved in the delivery and maintenance of urban
development and community green spaces.
involvement in land management
and sustainable urban → CHAPTER 5: SOCIAL INCLUSION
development. In order to address The cross-cutting issue of social inclusion is described in some
this diversity of the guide’s detail, and examples are given which show how different kinds of
potential users, it intends to offer governance through active citizenship can have different kinds of
a careful compilation of material, outcomes for different groups of people in society at different scale
tools and information that may be levels.
tailored to individual interests,
capacities, backgrounds and → CHAPTER 6: STAINABILITY ISSUES
needs. Place keeping and continuity in UGI governance is discussed in this
chapter, covering ideas and examples of how different kinds of
active citizenship address the maintenance of UGI through time.
→ CHAPTER 7: BENEFITS OF GOVERNANCE

The social, economic and ecological benefits of active citizenship
associated with different kinds of urban greenspace is explored.
The chapter shows how different green spaces can provide multiple
benefits depending on how the interaction with active citizens, civil
society groups and businesses is organised.

1.4. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE Each chapter provides:
This guide is not produced as a step-by-step guide to building participatory • Headlines

governance processes. It is a resource that outlines some of the key • Overview of the topic area
questions and principles that those involved in green space governance • Technical know-how
should be considering. Evidence and good practice examples developed in • Practice examples using case studies
different parts of Europe make up a large part of the guide to demonstrate • Key messages for policy makers
how and why innovative governance approaches are successful. • Resources
TABLE 1:
PRACTICE EXAMPLES BY TOPIC COVERED AND LOCATION IN THE GUIDE
INITIATIVE, CITY, TOPIC CHAPTER,

COUNTRY COVERED PAGE NUMBER
Participatory budgeting, Lisbon, Municipal led social mobilisation around budget Chapter 2, Page 21
Portugal allocation for UGI
Active Neighbourhoods, Municipal led social mobilisation to build and Chapter 2, Page 20
Plymouth, England, UK maintain access infrastructure in city green spaces
Granton Community Gardeners, Creating better quality UGI on municipal land, Chapter 3, Page 31
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK through a grassroots initiative
Stopping-place, Szeged, Creating new social and green spaces through Chapter 3, Page 30
Hungary organisation initiated grassroots activities
Urban farming, Hyllie, Malmö, Creating new potential for UGI in a development Chapter 3, Page 32
Sweden zone, through a Green Hub
Lodz, Poland Green Barter, involving business in governance Chapter 4, Page 42
Oredea, Romania Green Barter, involving business in governance Chapter 4, Page 43

Hamburg, Germany BID, involving business in governance Chapter 4, Page 44
Green space planning in Social inclusion in a city-wide project, through social Chapter 5, Page 54
Utrecht, The Netherlands mobilisation and co-governance
Neighbourhood Planning, Social inclusion in a neighbourhood level planning Chapter 5, Page 58
Bristol, England, UK process, through co-governance
Barrhead Water Works, Social inclusion in a site level project, through social Chapter 5, Page 56
Glasgow, Scotland, UK mobilisation and co-governance
Boscoincittà, Milan, Italy Place keeping through co-governance Chapter 6, Page 67
De Ruige Hof, Amsterdam, The Place keeping through a grassroots initiative Chapter 6, Page 69
Netherlands
Duddingstone Field Group, Place keeping through a grassroots initiative Chapter 6, Page 71
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
River Stewardship Company, Social and economic benefits of city-wide Chapter 7, Page 85
Sheffield, England, UK governance of urban green and blue infrastructure,
co-governance involving a social enterprise
Arnos Vale Cemetery, Bristol, Social, cultural and economic benefits of site-based Chapter 7, Page 87
England, UK governance by a grassroots initiative

1.5. RESOURCES
Research papers
1. Arnouts, R., M. van der Zouwen, and B., Arts, Analysing governance modes and shifts —
Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 2012. 16: p. 43-50.
2. Swyngedouw, E., Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-
the-State. Urban Studies, 2005. 42(11): p. 1991-2006.
3. Bond, S. and M. Thompson-Fawcett, Public Participation and New Urbanism: A Conflicting
Agenda? Planning Theory & Practice, 2007. 8(4): p. 449-472.

CHAPTER 2:
A TYPOLOGY TO MAKE
SENSE OF INNOVATIVE
GOVERNANCE FOR UGI

2.1. INTRODUCTION:
MAKING SENSE OF HIGHLIGHTS
GOVERNANCE FOR
URBAN GREEN • Active citizens, civil society organisations and businesses can
INFRASTRUCTURE contribute to the objectives of municipalities around green space
creation and management
It is well argued that bringing
different groups of people and • Power relations between municipalities and other stakeholders
organisations together to work on differ as do their objectives for getting involved in UGI
specific issues can lead to social governance.
innovations that drive the
ecological, economic and social • Grassroots initiatives tend to act autonomously, while in co-
development of European cities1. governance approaches power is shared between all actors.
As we explained in the
introductory chapter the idea of • Sharing power also includes losing certainty or control over the
including citizens, civil society and outcomes
other groups or entities in
governance (i.e. decision making • To fully acknowledge the potential of working with active
and management of specific citizens, civil society organisations and businesses,
resources) has gained recognition municipalities need to acknowledge diverging objectives and
as “a good thing to do”. There is a organisational styles
general perception that including
citizens and civil society • Making sense of this diversity can be helped through the tools
organisations in governance that characterize and make clear differences in objectives and
means that UGI decision making power
and management will be more
democratic, provide better quality
green space open to more people,
and help the municipality to save These general assumptions and • How does participatory
costs. perceptions need to be examined governance of UGI relate to other
very closely. Municipalities need to wider policy objectives and
ask some key questions about strategies the municipality may
governance which will help to be trying to achieve?
define their approach and provide
clarity in the actions they should One of the many traps that
prioritise. These questions include: municipalities fall into is forgetting
that involving citizens does not
• Why should municipalities mean involving everybody, all the
support or facilitate governance time, in all levels of decision
with citizens and civil society making. By defining WHY citizens
groups? and civil society groups might be
included, and whose objectives are
• Whose objectives will be being served, it becomes easier to
realised, and how do these relate identify who specifically could or
to the objectives or strategic should be included. If for example,
functions of UGI of interest to there is clear and defined
municipalities? requirement to accommodate the

overlapping objectives and defines roles by the degree of explicitly articulate and clarify the
priorities of the municipality, the power and power sharing model of governance that is
community, and citizens in a between government and non- preferred, or to understand more
particular space, facilitating government actors. At one end of about the model of governance
governance involving all these the spectrum there are roles and that has already emerged at a site.
groups is appropriate (Figure 1). forms of governance where there Being explicit about whether the
The degree to which is greater government influence objectives are mostly those set by
municipalities involve themselves and control of objectives and the municipality rather than civil
in the governance process can processes. At the other end of the society, and agreeing what the role
vary. Whether municipalities or spectrum there is greater civil of civil society is, enables clear
citizens take the lead in society control of processes and discussion and decision making.
developing UGI governance there the realisation of objectives.
will always be a cost. Figure 2 illustrates this, providing If the objective is for the
an explanation about the role of municipality to transfer
Holding meetings, dialoguing and government and non-government responsibility for UGI creation,
communicating, negotiating actors, as well as naming the maintenance or management to
agreements, building consensus, associated types of governance. civil society as a resource saving
facilitating work on the ground, all measure, then organising a way to
carries a cost in time and money. This scheme may be very familiar. transfer responsibility and/or
Involving citizens and civil society However, that does not mean it is assets, and support co-production
organisations can then increase not relevant or useful. A scheme or citizen led governance may be
up-front costs in the short term. like this has great value when the better option for meeting
Many municipalities have found used as a tool for individuals citizen, community, and business
they do not have the time and working in public agencies to objectives too. If the objective is
resources to build governance
processes themselves. In many
situations they find that their role
is evolving away from the hands- FIGURE 1: WHOSE OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES
on management of governance, to ARE SERVED BY UGI GOVERNANCE?
a more facilitating role, overseeing
the decision making and
management of UGI from a
Community needs Citizen motivations
distance, and relying on civil
and priorities and priorities for
society organisations to act as go- linked to UGI UGI
betweens in the governance
process.
Different governance models
All of these issues suggest that

there needs to be clarity in
understanding the different
models of governance that might Local government Business potential
be applied in different situations, objectives and and objectives
priorities for UGI linked with UGI
and to meet the different
objectives identified. The most
common scheme for doing this is
the spectrum of involvement. This

for the municipality to keep 2.2. TECHNICAL KNOW- active citizenship initiatives.
control over a process because the HOW: ACTIVE Businesses may also involve
outcome needs to be assured or CITIZENSHIP IS themselves in active citizenship
aligned with their processes and FUNDAMENTAL TO where they provide opportunities
objectives, then the better options GOVERNANCE for their employees and staff to
are to be found at the government- take part in voluntary
led or co-management end of the Active citizenship is about programmes, or where they
spectrum. individuals and civil society sponsor projects, initiatives or
organisations taking an active role activities that provide some
The important point is for in community life and making a public or community benefits.
municipal actors to be clear about positive contribution to society. Active citizenship can become a
what they are working towards. Ways in which individuals can powerful way of meeting citizen’s
Being explicit and unambiguous achieve active citizenship include needs and priorities. By bringing
then leads the way for finding the taking part in voluntary work, in untapped community
appropriate practice tools for involvement in community resources, involving enterprises
making it happen3. organisations and engagement and organisations and the
with local and national politics4. resources they are able to offer,
Civil society organisations and and working to provide bespoke
social enterprises are part of the solutions to local issues linked
active citizen mix where they with UGI, active citizenship can
provide opportunities for active achieve better outcomes than
citizenship, or where they lead or traditional models of green space
guide a community to develop governance.
FIGURE 2: SPECTRUM OF GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENT

ROLES IN DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS2
Government Leading Enabling None/
actor role regulatory
Form of Non- Information Consultation Involvement Partnership Empowerment

government
actor
participation
in
governance
Non- Provide information Some Shared roles Leasing or Management
government and views about UGI involvement and purchasing agreement,
actor role plans and projects as in planning, responsibilities of public leasing or
part of decision making management, around land purchase of
process care and planning and private land
maintenance management
of UGI of UGI
Governance Government actor led Co- Co- Non-government actor led
model Consultative management governance/ governance
Democratic processes co-production Self governance
Consensus
oriented

Expressions of active citizenship in governance of UGI work with different degrees of connection with
established non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
Including citizens, civil society groups, social and charities or other associations. Citizens will also
enterprises and businesses in active citizenship means have different perceptions about the amount of contact
that there is a significant diversity in the arrangements they wish to have with municipal authorities and local
and ways in which active citizenship is organised. government. The same will be true of the NGOs, other
Citizens may act together as loose collectives, or as civil society organisations, social enterprises, and
informal or formalised community groups. They may businesses.
FIGURE 3: TYPOLOGY CHARACTERISING DIFFERENT KINDS OF

ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP APPROACHES IN UGI GOVERNANCE
Governance Active Citizenship Description
model approach
Non- Grassroots Relatively small scale initiatives, focused on a specific site,
Government initiatives usually located on public or municipal land. Initiatives are
led approaches normally started and maintained quite autonomously by
local residents. Serve citizen and community objectives.
Organisation initiated NGOs or social enterprises mobilise active citizenship and

grassroots initiatives community action. Usually conducted on public or
municipal land, or on land with public access. There is
power sharing between the organisation and citizens and
there may be some coordination with municipalities.
Serve citizen and community objectives. May serve
strategic municipal objectives.
Green Hubs Experimental, creative coalitions of public and private
organisations, social enterprises, businesses and citizens
building networks and creating knowledges to develop
UGI on public and private land that serves community and
municipal objectives.
Co-governance Co-governance Partnerships between citizens or citizen organisations and

municipalities with power being shared between those
involved. Usually located on municipal land and may
involve additional public assets. Sites may be large as well
as small. Serves municipal as well as citizen and
community objectives.
Green Barter Businesses develop and/or maintain green space in
exchange for a formalised right to use the values of those
spaces for business purposes and profits. May involve
small as well as medium sized sites. Serves municipal as
well as business objectives. May serve community
objectives.
Government led Municipalities mobilising Municipality led initiatives which invite grassroots and
processes and social capital individual citizens to participate in strategic or site level
co-management actions, which may be about consultation and information
sharing, involvement in planning, or contributions to
management and maintenance (i.e. place keeping) of
green spaces. Primarily serves municipal objectives, but
also serves community and citizen objectives.

However, the diversity in active It is useful to distinguish between arrangements, it does represent
citizenship arrangements and the the different active citizenship what emerged through the
objectives that they are working to arrangements to see where research to be the six most
delivers different kinds of benefits. opportunities to allow, support frequently occurring models
In addition this broad range of and collaborate might exist. The concerned with urban green
arrangements means a diversity of typology of active citizenship space encountered across Europe.
people with different motivations, arrangements we present here The six models and how they
perspectives and skills will be may help municipalities to do this. relate to the spectrum of
included. The resources, capacity The typology makes reference to governance are described in
and capability they have, and what the governance models presented Figure 3, they are:
they are able to do in different in the spectrum of government
greenspaces will vary accordingly and non-government roles shown • Grassroots initiatives
too. Some active citizen groups in Figure 2. The typology is based
involve people who are highly on research investigating and • Organisation-initiated grassroots
knowledgeable and experienced, characterising UGI governance initiatives
while others may still be across 12 European countries, and
developing their skills and uses case studies from that • Green Hubs
expertise. The involvement of civil research to provide concrete
society organisations, social illustrations of the different types • Co-governance
enterprise and businesses will add of active citizenship groups,
a different level of capacity and organisations, partnerships and • Green Barter
capability, which can often agreements5. Although this
reinforce the potential for typology may not capture the full • Municipalities mobilising social
innovation, and the opportunity to diversity of active citizenship capital
work at different scale levels. Cities
and municipal authorities therefore
have much to gain from supporting
a large variety of types of active FIGURE 4: AREAS OF INNOVATION
citizenship to be present. However, IN THE GOVERNANCE OF UGI
it is exactly this diversity in the
array of active citizenship
arrangements in the city that
makes it a challenge for many
municipalities to understand,
connect and collaborate with active Uses, functions Organisational
citizenship initiatives. and activities structures,
relationships and
legal arrangements
Problem solving, Resource

maintenance and allocation, funding
management and staffing

Some of these active citizenship 2.3. EXAMPLES IN Non-governmental led
arrangements might be easy PRACTICE approaches
recognisable, grassroots initiatives
for example. However, these The following sections look at Most forms of active citizenship
examples may incorporate one, or some examples of the active consist of approaches in which
a number of the four key areas of citizenship arrangements in the citizens, not municipalities are in
innovation shown in Figure 4. typology. Specific attention is the lead. If indeed citizens have
For example: given to examples of initiated the project and are the
municipalities who have lead actors, we speak of Grassroots
1. The green space initiatives developed explicit strategies to initiatives. Sometimes larger
themselves may be innovative, encourage the development of NGO’s take the initiatives to
involving new ideas about the grassroots organisations and activate citizens and communities
creation, function and use of improve collaboration through the to self-organise. We have named
greenspaces – examples are mobilisation of social capital. these Organisation initiated
common amongst Grassroots Other Chapters in the Guide look grassroots initiatives. An
initiatives and Organisation at active citizenships through non- additional category is the recently
initiated grassroots initiatives. government led approaches emerged Green Hubs, which focus
(Chapter 3) and co-governance, on innovative solutions for
2. The connection between local specifically Green Barter sustainability issues, including
authorities or public agencies (Chapter 4). UGI, by creating experimental and
and the citizens, groups and
other stakeholders involved in
an initiative may be based on
new or innovative relationships,
partnerships, or legal
arrangements – examples
emerge in Grassroots initiatives,
Co-governance and Green Barter
arrangements
3. New methods may be used to

support decision making and
resource allocation for UGI –
examples emerge in Co-
governance approaches and
where Municipalities mobilise
social capital
4. The initiatives involve

experimentation with new
ideas, concepts and principles
to tackle particular challenges
in the governance of UGI at
specific scale levels – examples
are found with Green Hubs
Image: Forestry Commission 2019193

creative partnerships. These forms tenancy. The Trust concentrated secured £2.4m by the Heritage
of non-government led approaches on promoting the need to protect Lottery Fund through its Parks for
have significant potential to push the site, locally and nationally, and People programme to support the
for innovation in governance, so also on improving the first phase of an ambitious £2.9m
are discussed in greater detail in understanding of the history and restoration scheme focused on the
Chapter 3. Just a short description nature of Penllergare whilst upper end of the valley.
of three different arrangements is building up a body of volunteers
given here. to take on maintenance and ii. Organisation-initiated
management tasks across a 100 grassroots initiatives
i. Grassroots initiatives hectare historic cultural
landscape, consisting of a rich Sometimes NGO’s feel the need to
Grassroots initiatives exist in some variety of trees, shrubs and exotic actively engage with local
number in probably all cities in plants, two lakes and a waterfall communities to empower citizens
Europe. Some examples include which functions as a green and stimulate active citizenship.
urban agriculture projects6 and corridor for a diverse range of For example a small NGO in the
guerrilla gardening, in which wildlife. At that time the majority Netherlands (Steenbreek; To
citizens improve wastelands of the valley was owned by the break stones in English)
without formal approval of the Llysdinam Trust, with other parts stimulates local communities to
owners7. Other examples focus on of the site owned by Swansea City organise and actively seek for
the development and maintenance Council. The Trust undertook their small patches of paved land along
of existing natural areas. For work on the basis of ad hoc road verges or offices, to remove
example, a local community group informal agreements, or no the paving and transform this into
in Wales, UK, has protected and agreements at all. The leases of small patches of green.
restored the Penllergare Valley Valley Woods were finally
Woods on the northern fringe of assigned to the Trust on 26 April iii. Green Hubs
Swansea, Wales’ second largest 2012, effectively securing them for
city. The Trust was formed by local public benefit until 2116, i.e. for Green Hubs are innovative
people in 2000, and they began to around 100 years. Securing theses coalitions between citizens,
care for the Valley Woods without leases meant the Trust could apply businesses, and non-governmental
either ownership or a secure for funding, which they did and organisations. Green Hubs often
play a brokerage role in the
exchange of resources such as
knowledge, creativity and money.
They are engaging stakeholders
with various social and
professional backgrounds. An
example of Green Hubs are several
groups in the Netherlands who
started to actively organise the
diversity of active citizen groups
in cities or across the country. For
example Green Wish started as a
small Green Hub organising and
connecting knowledge about
active citizenship across the
Netherlands. Based on their social
networks they developed
expertise about effective self-
organisation. Green Wish has now
Image: Shutterstock
developed into a network of small

social enterprises and individuals. benefit from parks, in the long Co-Governance approaches
Other examples include the term. The team used open
experimental ‘Gardens of Art’ engagement techniques to gain Co-governance approaches,
approach in Poland, which interest and enable businesses to including Green Barters are
developed a method with art and develop ways to improve the discussed in detail in Chapter 4
theatre to be used in participatory green park squares in and around (Green Barter) and Chapter 6
governance in order to stimulate Shoreditch. The goal was to (Place Keeping) where the focus is
stakeholders past stalemates in ensure business and community on innovation around Place
conversations and negotiations8. benefitted. One of the first Keeping. The two categories in the
In another example, during 2015 deliverables of the project was typology include:
Groundwork London, the London the establishment of the
Borough of Hackney, creative TreeXOffice in London’s Hoxton i. Co-Governance
landscape architects and artists all Square. The TreeXOffice was a
partnered with businesses across contemporary shared work and Co-governance is a partnership
Shoreditch to create and meeting space that could be hired between a local municipality and
implement new ways to raise out by business and raise money non-government actors, including
funds for parks. ‘ParkHack’ that was reinvested in the non-governmental organisations,
developed a method for Borough’s parks and green grassroots organisations and
businesses to contribute to, and spaces. active citizens. The coalition
STEPPING STONES AND ACTIVE NEIGHBOURHOODS, PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND, UK

The Stepping Stones to Nature Community Outreach Officers
project was a £1.065 million “mobilising” a volunteer workforce.
partnership project that ran The City Council also expected to
between 2009 and 2013. The see sustainable change to some of
objectives of the project were to the organisations involved in the
deliver improved opportunities to way that managers and community
access urban green space in and health professionals worked
around the city of Plymouth. The together to mobilise and connect
City Council worked with with the active citizens and citizen
communities to plan, then build and volunteers in the most deprived
manage access improvements to neighbourhoods where the initiative
green sites including the installation took place. This innovative approach
of paths, bridges, information has brought lasting change: The
Image: Pixabay
boards and new areas of planting. initiative continues as Active
Neighbourhoods, with a City Council
The project was based around an team continuing to support green Volunteers are being encouraged to
innovative partnership that included space management activities develop their social capital one step
professionals with expertise from through the work of a Community further and set up friends groups to
public health, parks, protected and Volunteer Officer and Urban take more ownership, and help
landscapes, neighbourhood Ranger (i.e. the equivalent of a improve the quality of five natural
renewal, play, rights of way, and Countryside Ranger, but looking green spaces for both people and
outdoor education. Communities after urban green spaces, wildlife. The initiative is moving into
and citizens were encouraged to woodlands and animal habitats, a different governance model of co-
take part through the efforts of while giving entry to the public). management.

between the partners is wetlands and low intensity relationship may continue for
formalised, but at least some of meadows, in which citizens and longer. The business partner is
the power and decision-making agrarians collectively take the allowed to profit in a certain way if
processes are shared between responsibility for the the services are delivered
municipality and the development and maintenance of according to agreement.
organisations involved. Across the area.
Europe, numerous such co- Government led approaches
governance structures exist. For ii. Green Barter and co-management
example the active citizen group
Mooi Wageningen (Beautiful Green Barters are partnerships There is one key arrangement in
Wageningen), the local between a local municipality and a the typology presented here:
association of agrarians, The private business. The partners are
State Forest Service and the sharing risks and responsibilities i. Municipalities mobilising
province of Gelderland in the equally. In most cases these social capital
Netherlands collaborate in a co- partnerships are formed over the
governance agreement for the short-term, e.g. for a renewal of a This type might be considered the
development of 300ha of green space. But in other cases the most “classic” top-down method
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING, LISBON, PORTUGAL

The Participatory budgeting in After the municipal evaluation the
Lisbon is a city-scale project started plans were presented to the citizens
in 2009 where any citizen can and everyone could take a vote on
submit their ideas about developing the one which he or she liked the
local public spaces. The municipality best. The plan that received the
set aside a 2.5 million Euros budget most votes was the one that was
to implement the winning implemented. In the first years of
proposals. The project was the programme, environmental and
established to improve participatory green space projects made up the
planning and give local residents an majority of the ideas put forward
opportunity to have a say in what and voted for. As such the
should be done in their city. Every programme has had a major impact
resident in Lisbon older than 18 on green infrastructure in Lisbon,
Image: Pixabay
years could participate via SMS or a for example through the park and
website. For people with less gardens created as an ecological
technological knowledge and access corridor linking Monsanto Forest first European city to try
the municipality organizes regular Park with Eduardo VII Park. Participatory Budgeting at such a
events where they explained the scale. Innovations in voting and
process and where citizens could In the 2013 edition the restoration ranking methods and the outreach
submit their ideas. After submitting of Lisbon Botanic Garden was techniques used to diversify the
the ideas the municipality first funded. The innovative aspects of kinds of people engaged have
evaluated them and selected those this case study centre on the policy widened the base of cultural and
which could actually be realized practice and process environmental values incorporated
(technical evaluation mostly). implementation. Lisbon was the in the successful projects.

of including citizens. It is often Adopting a typology that organises • Through the development and
included as part of formal and describes different forms of delivery of new projects
planning processes with a governance and different ways in involving partners who can
different degree of flexibility which the diversity and dynamics bring different social and capital
towards citizens. It also always of active citizenship is included, is a assets, and creative perspectives
happens on a bigger scale – city- useful tool for municipalities to that can lead to innovation in
wide or including many focus on exploring what kind of approaches
neighbourhoods. For these active citizenship arrangement
projects a strong commitment is they are looking to support, for • By creating the right conditions
required from the municipality to what purpose and in what UGI for active citizenship to flourish
engage local citizens in a planning context. Making this explicit helps beyond municipal involvement
and/or implementation process. with spotting opportunities, such as:
The power in decision-making is prioritising the use of municipal • Joining up similar initiatives or
mostly in the hands of the resources, and identifying what active citizenship groups
municipality, however, with some actions the municipality should be • Replicating and disseminating
level of flexibility and every citizen taking to bring about the ecological the best innovative ideas after
is entitled and invited to get and the social aims of both trying them out
involved. In some cases the municipality and citizens, civil • Finding innovative ways to
municipality developed the society groups and businesses. remove barriers to citizens,
structure and method for the Municipalities will then be able to organisations and businesses
citizen involvement, but citizens make better decisions about how using public spaces
were in charge of defining the active citizenship arrangements • Supporting initiatives with
more specific activities and aims. can be aligned: knowledge, skills, training and
other resources that can
2.4. KEY MESSAGES FOR • As part of existing municipal facilitate and promote active
DECISION MAKERS services citizenship
A generic approach to including

citizens, civil society
organisations and businesses in
UGI governance does not serve
municipalities well. It is
important for local government
to think through the reasons why
they are looking to support or
encourage innovative governance
approaches, to fully acknowledge
the potential of active citizenship
that the cultural diversity of
urban citizens and the diversity
of organisations and businesses
have to offer.
Image: Shutterstock

2.5. RESOURCES
Guides and tools

The Community Planning Toolkit a guide for municipalities to help them understand an plan their working
with civil society to align efforts supporting public assets and services www.communityplanningtoolkit.org
Ambrose-Oji, B., et al., 2011, Public Engagement in Forestry: A toolbox for public engagement in forest and
woodland planning. Forestry Commission: Edinburgh. www.forestry.gov.uk/toolbox
The Sharing Cities Network connects local sharing activists in cities around the world for fun, mutual
support, and movement building. www.shareable.net
The Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC) is a non-profit organisation dedicated to supporting and
promoting the development of intentional communities and the evolution of cooperative culture. www.ic.org
The Beautiful Solutions Gallery and Lab is an interactive space for sharing the stories, solutions and big ideas
needed to build new institutional power and point the way toward a just, resilient, and democratic future.
https://solutions.thischangeseverything.org
Maker city – A practical guide for reinventing our cities. https://makercitybook.com
Research papers
1. Moulaert, F., Globalization and integrated area development in European cities. 2000, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
2. Ambrose-Oji, B., et al., Public Engagement in Forestry: A toolbox for public engagement in forest and
woodland planning. 2011, Forestry Commission GB: Edinburgh.
3. Van der Jagt, A.P.N., et al., Participatory governance of urban green space: trends and practices in the EU.
Nordic Journal of Architectural research, 2017. 28(3): p. 11-40.
4. Kearns, A.J., Active Citizenship and Urban Governance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
1992. 17(1): p. 20-34.
5. Buijs, A., et al., Innovative governance of urban green spaces. Learning from 18 innovative examples across
Europe. 2016, Wageningen University: Wageningen.
6. Schans, J.W. and J.S.C. Wiskerke, Urban agriculture in developed economies, in Sustainable food planning:
evolving theory and practice A.M. Viljoen and J.S.C. Wiskerke, Editors. 2012, Wageningen Academic
Publishers: wageningen. p. 245-258.
7. Adams, D., M. Hardman, and P. Larkham, Exploring guerrilla gardening: gauging public views on the
grassroots activity. Local Environment, 2015. 20(10): p. 1231-1246.
8. Karadimitriou, N. and I. Mironowicz, Reshaping Public Participation Institutions through Academic
Workshops: The ‘Gardens of Art’ International Urban Workshop in Wroclaw, Poland. Planning Practice &
Research, 2012. 27(5): p. 595-612.

CHAPTER 3:
ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AND
NON-GOVERNMENT LED
APPROACHES

3.1. WHAT IS NON-
GOVERNMENT LED HIGHLIGHTS
GOVERNANCE?
• Active citizenship may manifest in many different kinds of
Cities across Europe have for some organisation, diverging in aims, cultures and experience
time looked to increase public
participation in green space • Non-government led active citizenship initiatives require
management. However, in more municipal authorities and public agencies to be flexible in the
recent years, the involvement of application and interpretation of municipal rules and regulations
citizens in green space governance if the diversity of aims and cultures of these innovative
has developed from a focus on arrangements are to be part of the landscape of green space
public participation in government governance.
and local government policy
initiatives towards much more • In this way active citizenship can be a valuable addition to the
active citizenship. A major green space development and maintenance efforts of
innovation in UGI governance municipalities
emerging in many European cities,
is the way that municipalities are • Non-government led active citizenship contributes to
becoming much more comfortable environmental education, empowers individuals, communities
with the idea of recognising and and organisations, strengthens local social networks, and builds
supporting grassroots or trust between municipalities and citizens
community organisations where
they are working to enhance the
quantity or quality of urban green
spaces1. This is particularly true improve their local community or spaces across urban areas, but this
where citizen-led initiatives fit in a particular neighbourhood, or to of course suggests that
with the general objectives of local use UGI as a setting or resource municipalities would need to
government and city authorities. for activities and programmes that stimulate this through pro-active
But, where are the opportunities can bring benefits to particular and flexible coordination
for citizens to take the lead? What groups of people in a locality2. As activities. In addition, although
does this mean for municipalities such, active citizenship in these autonomy is a key feature of these
and local government? Is it contexts does not usually start citizen led approaches, financial
possible for citizen-led initiatives from government interventions. contributions or supply of other
to fit in with the way municipalities Citizens may themselves be the resources from municipalities can
organise their planning and UGI main actors in the governance help to focus citizen effort.
responsibilities? These are the key approaches, or it may be civil Because citizens and civil society
questions we focus on in this society organisations and NGOs or groups integrate both ecological
chapter, by looking at examples of charities that take the lead. Most and social objectives, active
how citizens and civil society citizen-led initiatives are not citizens contribute to the multi-
groups are the initiators and focused on multi-scale, city-wide functionality of urban green
drivers of UGI initiatives. initiatives. They tend to be site spaces. They often seek innovative
and locally specific. There is the combinations of ecological
Citizen and civil society led active possibility for citizen-led improvements with
citizenship emerges from local approaches to contribute to more environmental education,
communities where groups of strategic aims of municipalities, recreational use or actions in
people feel motivated to act to such as the connectivity of green support of social cohesion.

3.2. TECHNICAL existing greenspaces. Indeed the live close to the space care most
KNOW-HOW value of the amount of time deeply about it, and they usually
volunteered by active citizenship spot opportunities or problems
Motivations for active initiatives is shown to be very first. Municipalities may also be
citizenship in non-government significant in many European able to achieve some of their
led governance cities, particularly towards the strategic regional and national
day-to-day running costs of green level governmental policy goals
The motivations for individuals space management. There are through active citizenship.
and organisations to involve other benefits. It has been shown
themselves in urban green spaces that when citizens are involved in Including civil society
activities are very diverse. They creating and maintaining public organisations and social
will be related to the individuals’ spaces, the sense of ownership enterprises as part of the active
interests or the organisational and responsibility to the space can citizenship mix can have
objectives. Many examples across increase and the occurrence of particularly significant benefits.
Europe show that it is the threats vandalism reduces4. People who Urban regeneration and social
to urban green space or to local
biodiversity, as well as an absence
of functional green space which
are the main motivators for active
citizenship. Other than that
citizens and organisations gain
pleasure and satisfaction from
getting involved in nature, having
the opportunity to do practical
things outdoors, take part in
activities that have real tangible
outputs, and doing something
worthwhile for the local area.
Active citizenship may also be
driven by social benefits such as
collaborating with other local
residents, building new
relationships with people and
organisations, developing local
networks and also gaining new
skills and knowledge3.
Reasons for municipality

support for citizen-led
governance
For municipalities a common

motivation for allowing,
facilitating or supporting citizen-
led governance is the perception
that there will be significant
benefits, for example, cost savings
in the creation or improvement of
new green spaces, as well as the
maintenance costs associated with

development objectives may be Grassroots initiatives ownership or tenure over the land
facilitated by such organisations. and have some legal
The urban farming case in Malmö Grassroots initiatives are always responsibilities for the UGI. Active
described below illustrates how the started autonomously by citizens citizenship in this model may be
creative power of social enterprises volunteering their energy, through informal groups, but
may contribute to innovative commitment, time and resources. groups may also establish
solutions for challenges in urban The overwhelming majority of themselves more formally as a
development and regeneration. examples involve initiatives on means to access resources or
relatively small areas of public comply with specific legal
The focus in this chapter is on the land. In many cases the initiation requirements (e.g. acquiring
three different kinds of citizen-led of the activities will not involve insurance and managing volunteer
or civil-society led arrangements, discussions with, or the consent of safety).
illustrated in the typology the local municipality. However, in Benefits for municipalities can be
presented in Chapter 2, i.e: many successful examples they found in both the environmental
quickly gain the permission or and social outcomes of such
• Grassroots initiatives consent of the municipality to initiatives. Through free labour,
continue with their activities. In citizens produce environmental
• Organisation-initiated many examples, the municipality benefits beyond governmental
grassroots initiatives may even provide financial or efforts. This may contribute to the
some other form of support. creation of new greenspace, or the
• Green Hubs However, there is likely to be restoration, enhancement and
minimal formal contact between maintenance of existing green5. In
to illustrate the details of the the municipality and grassroots addition, grassroots initiatives
active citizenship governance initiatives. The decision making empower actors, strengthen local
arrangements and the particular and management rests with the social network and social
benefits and challenges offered to citizens, even though the cohesion, and build trust between
municipalities. municipality may hold legal municipality and citizens. Both
Local people often spot

opportunities to get involved in
the governance of UGI through
active engagement. From the
point of view of municipalities,
this can be useful in achieving
strategic objectives in both the
environmental and social
Image: Forestry Commission 1042983.012 outcomes of such initiatives.

environmental and social governance and place keeping). has public access. The
improvements can also contribute Whilst their efforts may be organisations leading the initiative
to an increasing value of real recognised, the ground they usually have some relationship
estate in the area6 Grassroots work on is not automatically with the municipality; however,
initiatives often work protected. they are not dependent on the
independently from municipalities local authorities. The benefits of
and tend to focus more on the Organisation-initiated organisation-initiated grassroots
small scale solutions in local grassroots initiatives are similar to grassroots
neighbourhoods, business parks initiatives. As the role of
or development areas. They have In this active citizenship municipalities tend to be bigger,
weak ties to institutions and arrangement, initiatives are including more financial
sometimes also to other developed, implemented and contributions, cost savings may be
grassroots organisations. guided by a civil society somewhat more limited. However,
Connectivity to the wider urban organisation such as an NGO or as coordination may be easier
green infrastructure may be social enterprise. The purpose is with these types of initiatives,
overlooked. The biggest challenge to involve local citizens in projects municipalities have more control
for municipalities is to find the that are relevant to them and their over the outcome. Consequently,
balance between letting go and neighbourhood. Much of the the benefits to municipal policies,
trying to coordinate in order to decision making power therefore either environmental or social
improve the environmental rests with the civil society policies, may also be bigger.
outcomes of grassroots initiatives organisation, but active citizenship Organisation-initiated grassroots
and their contribution to policy through volunteers and local initiatives show stronger ties with
aims. Continuity of citizen participants means that citizens local institution, including the
involvement through grassroots usually have some influence over municipality. Municipalities thus
initiatives may also be an issue, most decisions connected with the have more options for
although many show incredible development of the green space. coordination and collaboration to
flexibility and sustainability (see These initiatives often take place ensure the contributions to policy
for example Chapter 6 on co- on public land, or on land which aims.
Active citizenship is expressed

through grassroots organisation
around the governance of De
Ruige Hof, a community run
nature reserve, outside
Image: Martijn De Jonge
Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Green Hubs resilient than single organisation addition, Green Hubs may have
initiated grassroots projects. access to additional resources
Green Hubs are innovative from non-governmental actors
coalitions between citizens, Finding creative solutions for such as businesses, including
businesses, and non- sustainability issues is often the money, knowledge, and
governmental organisations, key objective of Green Hubs. This manpower. Finally, if Green Hubs
sometimes also municipalities. creativity may be the most are connected to or based on
They are related to the recent rise important benefit for social enterprises, they create new
of social enterprises, in which municipalities. In addition, Green jobs, although the size usually is
often single individuals try to Hubs can be seen as the “playing rather small. Again, coordination
combine moral responsibility for ground” for experimenting with with Green Hubs may be a
e.g. sustainability issues with such new solutions, which is often challenge for municipalities. Also
developing a small enterprise to very difficult for municipalities. continuity of Green Hubs may be
develop income. Green Hubs Consequently municipalities can an issue. As such, municipalities
often play a brokerage role in the learn from these experimental may not want to depend on Green
exchange of resources such as partnerships and chose to align hubs for important, ongoing policy
knowledge, creativity and money. with successful experiments. In aims.
They are engaging stakeholders
with various social and
professional backgrounds. Green
Hubs focus on experimenting
with new ways of social and
professional interaction while
striving for sustainable land use
and neighbourhood integrated
learning. Through the
development of strong social
networks, with institutional
actors, local communities and
NGOs they have access to and
combine resources from different
groups. Successful Green Hubs
know how to develop and
connect these networks and
resources in order to initiate new
and often innovative projects.
The decision-making power

between these actors may differ.
Key characteristics of Green
Hubs is their focus on
experimenting with new ways of
social and professional
interaction, while creating
sustainable land use in the city
in a very interdisciplinary way.
By their interdisciplinary
membership with
representatives of more than one
organisation, they may be more

3.3. EXAMPLES IN PRACTICE
Across Europe, many examples exist of grassroots initiatives, organisation led grassroots initiative and Green
Hubs. We will now illustrate these types with examples from within the GREEN SURGE project.
ORGANISATION INITIATED GRASSROOTS INITIATIVE:

STOPPING-PLACE, SZEGED, HUNGARY
The Stopping-place is a community motivation derived from the
centre and a community garden neighbourhood’s poor accessibility
located behind the building of the of both community areas and green
centre; both started in 2014. places. Both the building and the
Stopping-place was started and has surrounding garden are owned by
been maintained by a NGO called the municipality of Szeged,
MASZK Association. The NGO however, the maintainer of the area
applied for and won a tender from is a company called Environmental
Image: Pixabay
the European Commission that Management of Szeged, which is
funded the development of the completely owned by the local
initiative. The community centre is municipality. Environmental others. Before they started the
open for any residents of the local Management established an garden,there was a forum about it
district called Tarján – with about agreement with MASZK Association where anyone interested in taking
7000 residents. Anyone can join the which says that they are entitled to part in the community garden could
events and programme organized in use, renew and maintain part of the come and learn about the ideas and
the community centre. On the other building and the rear garden for opportunities.
hand, the community garden is their purposes for a certain amount
much more closed because they of rent. The garden and the The initiative has developed a much
have a limited number of plots. company still have a strong appreciated place for the district
Here 11 families from the relationship, the company residents. With the help of the
neighbourhood have the right and frequently helps the garden out resources and mobilizing force of a
the long-term responsibilities to with lending them equipment, local NGO, the municipality got help
take care of the garden and grow providing some materials like in strengthening the social
their own vegetables and herbs. The mulch, giving advice about integration among local citizens.
centre and the garden have a strong gardening, or providing help with Even though the community garden
relationship; all gardeners are active bigger maintenance tasks. only has 11 active families, these
in events organized there, and the families have gained much more
people visiting the centre have an When the centre and garden were than spending time outside and
appreciation for the garden which founded, the NGO started to producing vegetables. They have
used to be an unmaintained grass mobilize local citizens. The have built a community with events and
plot. gave out flyers, advertised on everyday contacts, building social
Facebook and with posters, and by ties. Furthermore, many nearby
The main focus of the NGO initiating more traditional ways, simply just residents have visited the centre
this project is to introduce and aid talking with the residents nearby. because they have noticed the
innovative, creative communities, This communication was on-going, change in the garden from their
and to organise cultural events for for example, every month about window or from the street. Many of
the residents of Szeged. In the case 2000 flyers were distributed by them stayed to get involved in the
of Stopping-place their main volunteer high school students and community centre programme.

GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES: GRANTON COMMUNITY GARDENERS, EDINBURGH, UK
Granton Community Gardeners are
an association of people located in
one of the most socially deprived
areas of Edinburgh, Scotland.
Granton Community Gardeners was
a group started 10 years ago by local
residents who were unhappy about
two issues. Firstly, not having access
to their own private gardens for
Image: Pixabay
fruit and vegetable growing, and,
secondly, a lack of diversity in the
type of local public green spaces in support that fits in with a national engaging citizens from a wide range
their locality. They also wanted to policy desire in Scotland to support of ethnic and economic backgrounds
help the local neighbourhood community management of local to take part in communal cultivation,
through a period of financial assets including green spaces. The harvesting and cooking/eating
austerity, and felt it was important letter of support was significant. It projects, evaluations show that
to find ways of building a sense of prompted those involved to set up cultural and local ecological
community on the former social Granton Community Gardeners as a knowledge exchange is supported,
housing estate. The Community community group with a contributing to the building of urban
Gardeners took matters into their constitution. Organised in this way conviviality, social integration, social
own hands and started planting and with the letter of support from and cultural capital.
gardens in their neighbourhood on the Council, the group could start
public street corners, verges and applying for funds for tools, to This example shows that for a
small areas of mowed grass around improve their communications, and degree of flexibility in the use of
residential buildings, and to run “grow your own fruit and Council owned greenspace, and a
abandoned areas of wasteland. vegetables” courses. All of this modest level of support, i.e. the
These patches of land were mostly activity raised their profile and letter of approval and small financial
owned by the city council. The increased the number of people inputs through the Community
impact of the Community involved and volunteering to help. Grants Fund (e.g. £4,700 between
Gardeners was quite dramatic 2012-2014), the benefits to the
changing the appearance as well as After six years of operation the municipal authority Edinburgh City
the biodiversity value of the Granton Community Gardeners now Council were:
neighbourhood. manage 10 gardens on local
authority land, most of which are • Increased levels of understanding
Not long after the first gardens publicly accessible. Active and trust between the Council
appeared, The City of Edinburgh citizenship means the members and and the local residents in Granton
Council North Neighbourhood supporters of Granton Community • A more aesthetically pleasing
office, which is officially responsible Gardeners grow healthy and neighbourhood which improved
for the maintenance of these sites, nutritious food for local residents, the reputation of the area
provided a letter of support to the providing an alternative to food • Reduced UGI maintenance costs
group to show their consent that banks for the most vulnerable • Involvement of vulnerable and
the Community Gardeners maintain members of the community, as well disadvantaged groups, building
these green spaces. However, this is as being a route to environmental social cohesion
not a formal agreement between education. The gardens themselves • Realisation of wider Scottish
the citizens and the municipality. It have been important in positively Government policy aims for
is a non-binding statement of changing the image of Granton. By community involvement

GREEN HUBS: URBAN FARMING IN HYLLIE, MALMÖ, SWEDEN
Image: Pixabay
In 2015 the urban agricultural After developing the concept, and finding channels to selling the
initiative “Stadsbruk” (Urban Xenophilia sought collaborations products. Sites are developed for
Farming in Swedish) was started on with the municipality of Malmö and both commercial and for leisure
some urban development sites in the Swedish University of Agricultural farming. The leisure farming is not
the neighbourhood called Hyllie on Sciences (SLU). To reach the goals, part of the business model
the outskirts of the city of Malmö. the three main actors needed to find development, it is established to
The project aims to create interested unemployed residents create an attractive green structure
innovative solutions that fight who would be willing to learn and do for the local residents. According to
unemployment and develop farming as their job. They also plans, the farming areas are located
sustainable solutions for land which needed to find the suitable land where public green spaces are going
sits unused for long periods of time within the derelict area, and ways to to be in the future, once the district
between designation of a sell the crops of the future farmer. is completely built. Because these
development status and the actual Because of this, Xenofilia, SLU and areas would lay barren for many
commencement of construction the City have set up three work years to come, the initiative creates
work. packages: Farming, green space values even before the
Commercialization and Strategy. The area is built up.
The concept of developing urban first one, Farming deals with finding
farms in these temporary urban both suitable land and interested The lessons for municipalities from
green spaces was first proposed by citizens. The Commercialization focus this case are that there could be
a small social enterprise called is to find good ways for packaging, other actors other than them to look
Xenofilia that has experience distributing and other tasks for when trying to start an urban
developing social innovations that regarding utilizing crops. The work greening initiative which involves
create job opportunities. So a key package Strategy is compiling all citizens and requires some
objective of the temporary urban lessons learnt from this process and knowledge which is missing or hard
farming was to create a business also identifies other municipalities to come by their own resources.
model that could help the local that would be interested to Thus, they can look for partnering up
unemployed citizens and citizens implement similar solutions for with local social enterprises, NGOs
living on social welfare by providing unemployment and temporary and universities even if they don’t
an opportunity to grow and sell derelict land. have an idea but are just looking for
organic crops. They were also a solution for a problem – in this case
looking for a way to overcome the Not long after the initiative was local unemployment and how to use
problems of valuable but temporary started it had quickly became temporary derelict lands the best
unused land. successful in growing organic crops way together with citizens.

3.4. KEY MESSAGES FOR citizenship is stimulated to fill in included in any formal or
DECISION MAKERS empty spots in the green space informal planning and
network, or the municipality coordination activities.
One of the big challenges could take responsibility for
associated with non-government developing connections between Another strategic issue is how a
led initiatives is whether the green spaces created and focus on active citizenship and
municipalities are aware of them, maintained by active citizenship. non-government led approaches
and how they relate to municipal In addition, scarce municipal may also impede inclusiveness.
scale objectives and strategies. resources could perhaps be Active citizenship critically
Even though Green Hubs and strategically targeted at important depends on cultural capital, that is
some organisation-initiated grass points in the ecological network. the capacity and capability of
roots initiatives may operate at people to take part in actions
neighbourhood or city-wide Building trust between around spaces they value7. As this
scales, the majority, particularly government and non-government capital is not distributed evenly
grassroots initiatives, focus more actors is key. Initial mistrust may across communities, the effect of a
on small scale actions in local exist amongst municipal actors retreating government and
neighbourhoods, business parks towards those organisations that increased reliance on non-
or development areas. This has are more economically or government led initiatives could
implications when considering politically powerful, but there lead to unintended impacts on
connectivity of UGI. Connectivity may also be mistrust around the environmental justice and the fair
to the wider urban green ability of grassroots initiatives to distribution of access to public
infrastructure may be overlooked. deliver actions and UGI green space. Municipalities may
Better communication and co- management of sufficient quality have a continuing role in
ordination with non-government and in line with legal obligations communication and coordination
led initiatives and active and accountability. Likewise, to ensure that non-government
citizenship could be beneficial and communities and active citizens led approaches are not overly
add value to municipal UGI may find it difficult to trust dominated by vocal and well
strategies. Better communication municipal administrators. Time organised interest groups to the
and coordination could for is a critical factor required to detriment of other groups in the
example, mean that active build trust and needs to be population.
Image: Shutterstock

3.5. RESOURCES
Guides and tools

Enabling Social Action: Guidance for the public sector (2015).
www.gov.uk/government/publications/enabling-social-action-guidance
Places to Be: Green Spaces for Active Citizenship (2014).
www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PlacesToBe-Final1.pdf
Research papers
1. Rosol, M., Public Participation in post-fordist urban green space governance: The case of community
gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2010. 34(3): p. 548-563.
2. Mihaylov, N.L. and D.D. Perkins, Local Environmental Grassroots Activism: Contributions from
Environmental Psychology, Sociology and Politics. Behavioural Science 2015. 5(1): p. 121-153.
3. Ryan, R.L., R. Kaplan, and R.E. Grese, Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship
programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2001. 44(5): p. 629-648.
4. Duff, C., On the role of affect and practice in the production of place. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space, 2010. 28(5): p. 881-895.
5. Colding, J., Urban green commons: Insights on urban common property systems. 23 (2013)5. Global
environmental change: human and policy dimensions, 2013. 23(5).
6. Kabisch, N., Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space
planning - The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy, 2015. 42: p. 557-567.
7. Buijs, A.E., et al., Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and
dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 2017.

CHAPTER 4:
GREEN BARTER AND
PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS:
INVOLVING BUSINESS
IN UGI GOVERNANCE

4.1. INTRODUCTION
HIGHLIGHTS
Public-private partnerships
(PPPs) have different definitions • Businesses can be involved in the creation and management of
in different fields. In the case of green spaces for public benefits through co-management or co-
creating, managing, and operating production governance arrangements with city authorities.
green spaces we refer to PPP as These are commonly known as public-private partnerships
the cooperation (risk and benefit (PPP).
sharing) of business entities with
public actors, even when these • In PPP schemes businesses (who do not usually specialize in
business entities are not green space management) assume responsibility for financing,
specializing in this field. As developing, and/or maintaining green spaces that the public
opposed to a PPP scheme, the have access to. For example businesses may create and maintain
relationship between public public parks, take care of the greenery in certain public areas,
organisations and companies and contribute to the financial sustainability of Non-Government
primarily focusing on green space Organisations (NGOs) that deal with public green spaces.
management (which is the most
usual form of business relations • PPP schemes yield benefits for both the private and public
between public and private actors. Public actors can complement public sources with private
actors) is usually outsourcing or ones while private partners may gain additional business
subcontracting, which opportunities in a direct or indirect way.
presupposes an unequal
distribution of decision making • On the other hand, mistrust around PPP solutions is common
power. In this situation the due to transparency problems and the common beliefs of the
businesses involved do not have a actors that the other party earns extra benefits while taking
business-independent motivation minimal risk. In order to increase transparency there is a need
to get involved; they simply for clear contractual relations (even though PPP projects are
implement tasks at the request of usually tailor made) and the result of interventions must be
public actors. clearly controlled and monitored. Public actors must be aware
that the inclusion of businesses in green space projects is not
There are several types of based on pure altruism; therefore business opportunities must
connections between businesses be provided in return (e.g. construction opportunities, touristic
and the public sphere. The main opportunities, advertisement opportunities).
types are represented below in
Figure 5, on a scale that displays
the shift between 100% public
decision making power and 100%
business decision making power.
Co-governance (common decision
making and risk sharing) falls
between the two extremities (the
extremes represent exclusive
forms of decision making, so
excluding cooperation).

FIGURE 5: SHIFT OF DECISION MAKING POWER
BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTORS
100% public 100% business

decision decision
Internal
Taxing Sponsoring BID intervention
Outsourcing Green Barter
Public-private mutual governance
Taxing and obligations: In this scheme the public sphere creates the legal framework that empowers it to
levy tax or other financial obligations on different actors for using green spaces. (This can be broadly
interpreted as environmental taxation). In this scheme business (and other) actors do not have a decision
making power; this solution is therefore not considered as PPP, but a private source of financing public
purposes.
Outsourcing: As mentioned earlier, outsourcing (which is a very common form of public-private
connections) is also not considered as a PPP, as the decision making power still belongs to the public actor,
which practically orders the work implemented by business organisations.
Sponsoring: In the case of sponsoring, the public actor (often in partnership with other actors) defines
green space development goals, and business actors have the opportunity to join the programme. They can
contribute financially or by implementing actions/interventions. Sponsorship can be realised by different
tools like charity events, direct sponsorship, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes, or
contribution certificates.
Business Improvement Districts (BID): A Business Improvement District is a legal and financial framework
for realising the complex development and/or high level of maintenance of open spaces in a certain urban
area. BIDs differ in their degree of public involvement. Sometimes they are run entirely by the business,
sometimes in collaboration with local governments. The aim of a BID is to upgrade urban areas (usually
shopping or touristic areas) that have the potential to generate additional financial gains after the
interventions. BIDs are mostly based on additional tax revenues from local stakeholders who directly benefit
from the added value of interventions. In most cases, BIDs are large scale interventions with short to long
term implementation. BIDs usually have their own formal management entity. (An example of a BID scheme
will be presented later on in this chapter.)
Green Barter: Green barter is located at the heart of PPP schemes in which both the goals and the way of
implementation are defined by the public and private partners together, and the parties also share the risks
and benefits of implementation. In most cases the outcome is spatially patchwork-like, typically resulting in
short term solutions. Green barters (even if they fit into a framework regulation and are based on contracts)
are mostly based on bi-lateral negotiations between the private and public partners. (This chapter presents
two examples of green barters later on.)
Internal intervention: In this scheme the business actor makes decisions regarding investments and
operation of green spaces, mostly directly affecting its own property.

PPP includes collaboration where cooperation of private owners is 4.2. TECHNICAL KNOW-
co-decision is made by the public essential. Finally, businesses are HOW: GETTING
and private actors together and able to generate funds in many BUSINESSES
both the risks and the benefits are cases where public actors cannot INVOLVED IN GREEN
shared. Sponsoring, green barter, (e.g. private actors can implement SPACE CREATION
and Business Improvement business activities in green spaces AND MANAGEMENT
Districts fall into this category. like tourism or catering), and can
The main reasons for entering therefore create the financial basis Businesses may enter into PPPs
into a PPP are different for private of cooperation, which is another based purely on their business
and public actors. reason for public bodies to interests, or on their sense of
cooperate with private entities. corporate social responsibility.
In the case of public entities, However, other incentives can also
limited funding for investment in From the private actors’ point of make PPP projects more
green spaces is the primary view, investment in green spaces attractive. First, it is important to
reason for entering into PPP may result in the reduction of highlight that businesses engaging
schemes. Public funding is rarely operational/investment costs (e.g. in a PPP must obtain direct
sufficient for green space meeting legal obligations in benefits from the project, as
development in most European alternative ways), improve their external benefits for the wider
cities, and this problem can quality or efficiency of operation public do not have an intrinsic
sometimes be grave; accordingly, (e.g. implementing storm water value for a private company.
the involvement of private actors management with the help of urban Direct, financially measurable
as co-financers can be of high green infrastructure), generate private benefits should be created,
importance. Besides financial financial gains (business activities like new business opportunities
reasons, the ownership of spaces on green space), or enhance their (e.g. in the field of tourism), or
can also be important is public reputation by advertising their advertisement for the company
services are to be made available investment into public goods. and improvement of its image on
on private property, or where the Businesses may contribute ‘only’ to the market.
ambition is to manage green financing of investment into green
infrastructure at a strategic level, spaces (as passive sponsors), but Besides these pull factors, legal
rather than green spaces at a site can also take active part in the and financial obligations may be
level. In these cases the implementation process. push factors leading businesses
Image: iStock

into PPP arrangements; but room important. Businesses consist of can be the involvement of more
for cooperation should still be people that are devoted to their public (e.g. national) financing, or
created to establish a partnership home town, to the green packaging multiple projects to
rather than just a pure obligation. environment, and to their involve more businesses at the
As experience shows, obligations community (and sometimes also same time (e.g. Business
alone (e.g. environmental to politicians). These emotional Improvement Districts can create
regulations, compensation for linkages should be emphasized investment packages).
environmental damages during when preparing a call for
construction, restricting businesses. Even if the majority of decision
advertisement possibilities on makers in a locality intend to build
open spaces) do not lead directly The interest of one business actor a closer relationship with business
to better quality green spaces, but to take part in financing/ actors1, general mistrust between
the fulfilment of these obligations developing/maintaining green public and private partners is a
can be turned into investments in spaces is usually limited as the major obstacle due to conflicting
green spaces in case of proper direct costs and benefits of the interests and information
negotiations (see some details of interventions must be balanced, asymmetry. The core of creating
this in the examples described and the direct benefits stemming efficient PPP relations is to
later on in the chapter). from green space development are balance interests, and to ensure
usually limited for one business transparency in the process.
Besides push and pull factors, the actor. It is thus important for
emotional incentives should not public actors to devise tools for One has to accept that there are
be underestimated. The financial upscaling individual projects, and conflicting interests between the
benefits of PPP may be important ensure green space development public and private actors. Figure 6
to businesses, but emotional with a larger scale impact than illustrates the key pressures in
factors can sometimes be just as patchwork projects. These tools PPP schemes.
FIGURE 6: CONFLICTING INTERESTS IN PPP SCHEMES
PUBLIC ACTORS’ USUAL NEEDS PRIVATE ACTORS’ USUAL NEEDS
• Creating fertile soil Quality of green spaces • Low development and

• Diversity of species maintenance costs
• Visual attractiveness
• Long term Short term vs
long term solutions • Short term visibility
sustainability
• Evaluating indirect Evaluation of the costs and • Evaluating direct costs

costs and benefits benefits of interventions and benefits

Despite the conflicting interests and other countries, as local both parties that these
and the mutual mistrust, there are circumstances matter to a large requirements are specified and
tools that enable the creation of extent. A strong local economy, for measured properly.
trust and transparency, such as a instance, creates more affluent
reliable contractual framework. businesses and more valuable The public sector has extended
The contractual framework on business opportunities through responsibility in establishing PPP
rights and obligations provides a green space development. relations. Public actors do not only
stable background for both represent their own interests, but
contracting parties; however, it is Trust is also based on transparent they are obliged to think about
important to note that PPP information on the results of the those of the general public,
projects have to be tailor made as intervention. One typical problem citizens and civil society
each case is different from the is that once green space organisations who will not have a
other and individual solutions development was implemented voice during the organisation and
must be elaborated. Meanwhile, and is being operated through a negotiation of the PPP
the broader policy framework that PPP contract, the quality of the arrangements.
provides the corner stones of output is not measured again.
negotiations (like local regulation However, this feedback would be The public sector can also take a
on “privatising” green spaces) can necessary to evaluate the lead in facilitating the
also be a stabilising factor. This fulfilment of the PPP contract, and implementation of green space
framework is not only able to also to ensure that both private development by businesses by
strengthen transparency, but can and public interests are met. providing information for those
also serve as a tool for Taking into account that the who do not have expertise in this
transferability as it creates quality and the quantity of green area. Useful information includes
opportunities for new businesses spaces to be developed/ demonstrating the costs and
to enter into PPP relations. At the maintained is the most critical benefits of green space
same time, it is important to note part both in the specification of interventions. Examples of this
that PPP solutions may not be PPP contracts and in monitoring kind include the green audits
easily transferable to other cities of the results, it is the interest of undertaken in London.
FIGURE 7: THE PARTNERS REPRESENTED IN PPP CONTRACTS
PPP CONTRACT
“Silent” Public Private
Stakeholders Actors Actors

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN HAMBURG, GERMANY
Tibarg is a central area of Niendorf
quarter in Hamburg, where
traditional retail activities became
endangered by a shopping mall that
was opened in 2002 at the northern
edge of the pedestrian street.
An organisation established in 1969

as an interest group of
entrepreneurs in Tibarg initiated the
establishment of a Business
Improvement District in the
neighbourhood by submitting an
application to the city municipality.
The municipality already established
the legal framework of BIDs in 2005
by adopting a local regulation on
the issue (Gesetz zur Stärkung der
Einzelhandels-, Dienstleistungs- und
Gewerbezentren).
The application was submitted in

2010, and the first phase of the
implementation of the BID was
accomplished between 2010 and
2015 with an estimated total cost of
€1.75 million. The activities
concentrated partly on investments
such as improved street lightning,
bicycle paths, installing street
Image: Matthias Friedel
furniture, increasing and improving
the green areas, and installing new BID interventions in the pedestrian area of Tibarg
playgrounds. It also improved improved the quality of green infrastructure.
services like more efficient cleaning
of the area and more efficient (Handel City- und 5 years in order to implement the
marketing activities. Based on the Standortmanagement BID GmbH) interventions (which increase the
success of the first phase of which closely cooperates with the value of their property in return.) In
intervention, a Tibarg II BID was also city management company. order to balance the inflow of extra
created for 2016-2021, a budget up taxes and the uneven schedule of
to €1.2 million and a focus on The financial basis of implementing costs, the BID company took on a
improving public space maintenance the Tibarg BID is an additional tax commercial loan as well.
and marketing for the area. levied on property-owners in the
BID area (which is defined by a local More information on Tibarg BID:
The planned activities are regulation). The property owners www.hamburg.de/bid-
implemented throughout a newly pay about 1.7% of the calculated projekte/4353920/bid-projekt-tibarg
established BID organisation value of their property annually for or www.tibarg.de/bid/bid_tibarg

GREEN BARTER IN LODZ, POLAND
Lisciasta Park Residence (Osiedle suggested that it would clear and
Liściasta Park in Polish) is a new rehabilitate the adjacent land,
residential area in the northern about 600 m² area that was heavily
part of Lodz, built between 2009 contaminated by construction
and 2013. The Residence has waste, partly as compensation for
seven buildings with 158 the trees that they had to remove
apartments. This residential area to build the Residence (such a
is bordered in the south and east compensation is legally required),
by a green space – a park with a and partly to improve the
small river (Sokolowka) and neighbourhood of the Residence.
several reservoirs. The City Office did not have
additional means for rehabilitating
The wilder parts of the park just by this area, which was another
the new residential area were argument for such an arrangement.
hiding a lot of construction waste In such circumstances, a public-
from the nearby estates built in the private partnership was established
1980s and the 1990s. Construction between the City Office and the
waste was deposited in the green Developer to rehabilitate part of
area and since then it overgrew the park adjacent to the Residence.
with shrubs, trees and other plants. This was a temporary arrangement,
Budomal (the developer company) undertaken to solve one single
started the construction of the problem; the land is still publicly Images: Tomasz Jochim
Residence in 2009. In 2013 – when owned and after rehabilitation its
The state of the area
the sales of the second batch of everyday management has been before and after the
apartments started – the company taken over by the City Office. intervention.

GREEN BARTER IN ORADEA, ROMANIA
In 2009 the municipality of Oradea the companies obtain a unique
decided to follow the experience of advertising opportunity.
some other Romanian cities in
letting private companies ‘adopt’ The demand for such green space
some smaller green spaces. development has been increasing
Companies sign contracts with the substantially (partly because
municipality for one year (which advertising possibilities in public
can be extended) on developing spaces are restricted in general, so
and maintaining smaller pieces of green spaces provide an
green spaces, and in return they exceptional opportunity).
can place their nameplates on Currently the companies are
them. In addition, these companies queuing for acquiring new places,
are exempt from fees that should but there are no more available
be normally paid for using public plots in the project framework. By
spaces for private purposes. By this May 2015, 56 pieces of green
means the residual public spaces space were ‘adopted’ by
are kept in a good condition (thus companies, out of which 18 were
public expenses are saved), while roundabouts.
Images: Éva Gerőházi
Examples of adopted
green spaces.
4.4. KEY MESSAGES FOR • can involve private property, strengthens the position of
PUBLIC DECISION where public actors would public actors,
MAKERS otherwise not be able to
intervene. • the process may start with the
Involving public-private pioneers and then be up-scaled,
partnerships in developing/ However, public actors should be
maintaining new pieces of green aware about the following aspects • multi-partner solutions are
space provides clear benefits for in generating PPP contracts: necessary to implement large
the public sector, as it: scale projects.
• the rights and obligations of the
• generates and contributes funds actors must be balanced,
which can extend public
budgets, • strong quality control must be
built into the process to ensure
• demonstrates that private actors transparency and set clear targets,
also have an interest in the
maintenance/management of • a strong strategic framework
green spaces, and strong legal background

4.5. RESOURCES
Research papers
1. Davies, C., et al., Green infrastructure planning and implementation 2015, GREEN SURGE project report.
Andersson, E., Kronenberg, J., Cvejić, R. and Adams, C.: Integrating green infrastructure ecosystem services
into real economies (GREEN SURGE Deliverable 4.1, October 2015).
Available at: http://greensurge.eu/working-packages/wp4/D4.1_Final.pdf
Cook, I.R., 2009. Private sector involvement in urban governance: The case of Business Improvement
Districts and Town Centre Management partnerships in England. Geoforum, 40(5), pp.930–940.
Available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718509000967
Claudio De Magalhães: Business Improvement Districts in England and the (private?) governance of urban
spaces Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), pp.916–933.
Available at: http://epc.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1068/c12263b
Guides and tools
www.naturalinfrastructureforbusiness.org
www.hamburg.de/bid-projekte

CHAPTER 5:
SOCIAL INCLUSION IN
THE GOVERNANCE
OF UGI

5.1. INTRODUCTION
HIGHLIGHTS
The terms “social inclusion” and
“social exclusion” can be • Social inclusion has become an important consideration in UGI
considered as two sides of the governance, as municipalities and organisations find ways of
same coin. Talking about inclusion ensuring that a range of people have the opportunity and
is generally regarded as more capacity to take part in the decision making and management of
positive, and focuses attention on UGI
overcoming the barriers related to
social exclusion. Social inclusion in • Social inclusion in governance processes is a desired outcome for
terms of governance means many organisations as social inclusion is expected to lead to
facilitating actions and processes social cohesion
to include individuals and
communities who may otherwise • One way of approaching social inclusion is to examine the
experience barriers to barriers to participation experienced by different people and
participation in decision making look for methods to overcome those barriers
and active management of urban
green infrastructure (UGI). The • Those organisations and agencies responsible for building social
individuals and communities that inclusion in UGI governance should take a strategic approach to
might be vulnerable to exclusion is deciding the objective of social inclusion, their role in this
very context specific. In some process, who should be involved and how best to facilitate their
European countries (for example involvement
the UK) they may actually be
defined in law and there may be
national standards for ensuring
their participation (for example in governance is a stated aim of communities and members of the
Scotland). They might also be many local governments and civil lowest socio-economic groups
mentioned as key targets in local society organisations. Despite were less likely to visit urban green
development plans, policies and variations across European spaces than others. Some studies
strategies relating to UGI. For regions, common characteristics have analysed the social,
example, the Vienna City that municipalities, public psychological and physical
Administration has an Urban agencies and civil society determinants of urban green space
Mobility Plan which includes a recognise as important factors access and use, and demonstrate
Fairness Check Method to explore influencing social inclusion are: how these barriers to engagement
the situation of discriminated educational status; income level; might be overcome1-7. Landscape
groups and people whose mobility age; health status; disability; designers and organisations
is restricted for a variety of ethnicity; religion and belief; developing inclusive design have
reasons; the city of Berlin has a gender and sexuality. taken this one step further and
Handbook which covers provided guidance about the
Participation and areas such as There is a large body of research design principles for urban green
Gender Mainstreaming as strategic evidence which suggests that many space that encourage social
guides for city development social groups do not engage with inclusion8-10. Other researchers
planning (see the guides and tools urban green space. For example, in have developed tools for urban
listed below). So from this point of Britain large scale longitudinal planners and others to look at the
view their inclusion becomes an surveys such as England’s Monitor potential social impacts of locating
important consideration for of Engagement with the Natural UGI in particular areas (see for
municipalities and public agencies, Environment (MENE) demonstrate example the UGI Equity Index
and social inclusion in green space that people from ethnic minority developed in Philadelphia11).

So in general terms, there is a 5.2. TECHNICAL effect of encouraging active
growing recognition of the KNOW-HOW citizenship and the involvement of
importance of social inclusion in civil society in the governance,
European cities. This has led to Defining the key concepts management and maintenance of a
environmental justice aspects site.
being considered more frequently Even though there is research
by some municipal authorities and looking at the use of urban green However, including people in
departments using the kind of spaces by different types of people, decision making and active
insights and tools mentioned the research and the management is a specific area of
above. For example, in municipal documentation of practice concern and action in UGI
green space planning there is a exploring and evidencing social governance. This is not only true
strong movement to include inclusion in UGI governance in terms of government-led
indicators for assessing green processes (i.e. including individuals initiatives, but also in co-
space availability, access, use, and and groups in the decision making governance and non-government
benefit distribution. However, and management processes led approaches. The involvement
citizens that want to shape and associated with UGI) and whether of active citizens and civil society
manage urban green space are and how social cohesion is actually groups does not necessarily and
often not included in decision- achieved between and amongst automatically lead to social
making, even more so when it different societal groups through inclusion. Some active citizen
comes to vulnerable groups. this is rather poor12. “Use” and groups and organisations can be
“governance” of UGI are somewhat socially exclusive. This is the case
In many European cities, there is related. Unless people have access for example, if grassroots action
also the growing feeling that UGI to and knowledge of UGI they are for UGI by neighbours in one
can be used as a vehicle for social unlikely to become involved in the street fails to consider the
inclusion that builds social governance of those spaces and opinions and desires of
cohesion, i.e. greater social places. In other words when green individuals and groups in the
connectivity, social acceptance and space is accessible and facilitates surrounding areas who might
understanding, and greater public use, this in turn can have the have different social
integration and interaction
between different kinds of people
within a community. Social
cohesion is becoming more and
more of a policy aim as urban
communities become more
diverse in their cultural and social
characteristics.
Community involvement in
the governance of UGI can
provide an important local
resource for ensuring that
everybody has the chance to
experience nature, improve
their wellbeing and enjoy the
company of other people. Image: Forestry Commission 2011438

characteristics but an equal agencies are often those in the access UGI governance
interest in the green space. Local best position to understand the processes and institutions/
variation in who is involved or bigger picture and put in place organisation. They may not
invited to a process may support policy mechanisms and other know about who and where the
social inclusion at a larger scale. A measures to ensure a balance organisations and groups
totally open process will, for a amongst the kinds of UGI involved in governance are.
number of reasons, exclude or initiatives, projects and processes
under-represent some groups. and the social groups that are • Political/Civic – these are factors
included as active citizens or related to accessing democratic
It is also important to distinguish beneficiaries. processes and community-based
between “social exclusion” and decision-making processes.
“under-representation”. Exclusion Understanding the barriers to Depending on who is being
signifies an inability to participate, social inclusion in governance considered they may not have
a lack of choice brought about by access to these, they may not
particular barriers. Equality To promote broad participation in know about how they work or
signifies the equal treatment and governance processes certain how to engage with them, or
opportunity to participate. Under- distinct aspects need to be they may not have the
representation may be a matter of recognised. There are different, confidence to do so.
choice. For example, a particular often inter-related, reasons why
individual may simply have no people do not take part in decision • Cultural – this includes all the
interest in urban green space and making processes connected with cultural conventions around the
therefore simply decide not to get UGI. Figure 8 indicates barriers use and management of green
involved. In this sense under- associated with four particular space as well as the cultural
representation may not be a areas of interaction: expectations connected with
symptom of exclusion or unequal taking part in governance
treatment. However, the challenge • Social – these are factors related processes, so this will include
to those practitioners involved in to the social awareness and factors such as the confidence to
UGI governance is to understand connections with the speak up in public forums, the
which social groups are not well organisation of governance. For knowledge individuals have
represented in particular example, depending on which about the use and management
initiatives, to discover why this social grouping individuals come of green spaces and how they
might be so, and to clarify whether from, they may not have can engage in different
this is an issue of specific concern connections with the social processes.
and therefore how to address it. networks and relationships that
Municipal authorities and public provide the opportunity to • Economic – depending on who is
being considered they may not
have access to resources (i.e. the
time, money, or skills) required
to engage in UGI governance. In
some cities it may also be the
case that urban regeneration,
economic development and
neighbourhood improvements
using UGI can begin with social
inclusion in mind, but can lead
to gentrification and the social
exclusion of particular groups in
governance processes as the
majority social characteristics of
Image: Shutterstock an area change8, 9, 13, 14.

FIGURE 8: BARRIERS TO SOCIAL INCLUSION IN UGI GOVERNANCE
Economic Social
Lack of resources required for engagement Poor networks
Gentrification marginalises some individuals Lack of confidence
Lack of knowledge
Social inclusion
in decision making
and management
processes and
Cultural organisation Political / Civic
Perception of difference Community pressures
Fearful of public gatherings and processes Lack of connection to democratic institutions
Unaware of social conventions Voices not always heard or

heeded by those in power
For example, young people may decisions, and the capacity to rather than taking a strategic view
experience particular economic then act upon them, e.g. having and beginning by identifying who
and political barriers because they the time and other resources to they want to involve and why they
may have low levels of income or contribute to governance want to involve them.
may be less confident engaging in processes. If there are no policy
committees of voting processes. mechanisms or other procedures Putting together a social inclusion
People from ethnic minorities may in place for municipalities to strategy would start with
experience greater cultural and ensure that the views of people understanding the socio-economic
social barriers, for example, it from a range of social and demographic characteristics
might not be the social norm for backgrounds are included in of an area, and using secondary
women to take part in public governance, then the barriers to data sources to establish who
meetings, or there may be participation may persist. might be present in the locality of
perceptions that governance of the UGI under consideration. This
UGI is an issue that has little to do Build a social inclusion strategy leads into identifying who is
with them and their communities. present and then making
An effective approach is for public decisions about who might be
Overcoming the barriers to agencies to develop and agree a included, and what can be done to
social inclusion in UGI clear and comprehensive social build their participation in the
governance inclusion strategy. Any governance process.
engagement with the community
These different kinds of barriers needs to be carefully planned, and Key actions associated with
to inclusion in governance affect this is particularly true when developing a social inclusion
an individual or a group’s planning for social inclusion. A strategy, and the questions that
knowledge and competency to temptation for many managers is public agencies will need to
understand and make effective to focus on activities and events answer are as follows:

i. Set the objectives of iv. Anticipate difficulties and • Skilled facilitators and managers?
the process manage expectations
• Information and communication
Why is the municipality/ Work through the factors that technologies?
organisation engaging the may create barriers to inclusion.
community? What governance Has the organisation considered • Engagement structures such as
model and active citizenship the cultural and social barriers to Advisory Committees?
arrangements is the municipality/ participation? For example, have
organisation hoping to facilitate? they considered whether all • Budget allocation?
Are the appropriate organisations stakeholders can mix at the same
taking the lead? What is the role of meetings (e.g. men and women), • Staff time?
the municipality? is the venue, the food and the
timing acceptable? What about One final technical issue is the
ii. Understand the context economic barriers? Has the assumption that community-led or
organisation asked stakeholders citizen-led initiatives are necessarily
Understand the site demography. about any limitations to their socially inclusive. A specific cultural
Use census and similar information participation (e.g. costs of travel). group, age group or interest group
to build a clear picture of the As part of this step it will also be may not facilitate access to UGI
population, users and potential important to understand the governance processes to the widest
users of the UGI and those with an resources that are available to range of people. It will be part of the
interest. Who are you targeting to support the engagement and how role of public agencies and
ensure social inclusion: this impacts the scope and design organisations to consider how they
of the social inclusion strategy, might balance this as part of their
• A geographic community for example: legal or civic duties.
spatially defined?
• An ethnic or faith community?
• A group of people defined by age?
• A community of interest?
• Some combination of the above?
iii. Identify social groups that

might face barriers to
inclusion in governance
This may include young people,

people from ethnic minority
backgrounds, older people or
disabled people. Are other
agencies also engaging this
community? Is collaboration with
and between these organisations
possible?

v. Design an effective The governance structures that Employ methods suited to
communication strategy work well at these levels will be objectives and overcoming
different. Strategies for inclusion barriers to inclusion
Build people’s involvement in a may need to be hierarchical and
governance process by using a addresses multiple scales. A multi- Certain methods will be more or
variety of different forms of scale approach may be the only less suited to different situations
communication media and route to negotiating governance and to producing different
platforms to engage with them. that aligns with municipalities outputs. For example, tools that
Consider the way in which strategic aims. originated from conflict resolution
information is presented for
people who do not speak the
local language well, or come
from another culture; this
includes immigrants, but also
others, for example deaf people
who have their own languages,
young people who use
contemporary language and
phrasing.
Make sure that the governance

approach suits the scale
There are other important

considerations, that must be taken
into account. It is vitally important
to recognise the different
challenges associated with
working at different scale levels.
Public agencies will need to be
clear at what level they will be
working and how well their social
inclusion strategy meets scale-
level demands. Will the the social
inclusion actions be directed:
• Across a city-wide network?
• At neighbourhood level?
• At local site level?
Using, enjoying and valuing

UGI is often the first step
towards becoming an active
citizen and taking part in the
governance of those spaces Image: Forestry Commission 1044878.012

processes (such as Stakeholder For example: many young people stigmas and barriers associated
Dialogue) are good at building are likely to be included in with particular places. For
relationships and finding common processes only after school, example, in Britain there is
ground, while those from university or college hours; evidence that young adults are
marketing, such as Focus Groups, practicing Muslim’s may not be often nervous about using urban
are good at identifying existing available on Fridays; whereas woodlands because they fear
wants and needs. This is why it is older retired people are more other people might think they are
so important to clarify the likely to be available during engaging in anti-social behaviour
objectives and reasons for working hours. Different and stigmatise them; in contrast
working to build social inclusion communities may also celebrate larger parks and open spaces are
with particular groups. At times different holidays to the majority often important to Asian members
the decision may be that it is culture. of the community, using them as
necessary to tailor engagement locations for cultural events such
processes and activities to enable Consider the type of UGI and as Mela’s which encourages their
some communities or individuals associated barriers to inclusion participation in governance5.
to fully participate. There are a Therefore, it can be helpful to be
range of tools which are more Different kinds of green space may aware of these social and cultural
suitable for some citizens than attract varying degrees of interest considerations when developing
others. For example, immigrants in governance processes due to an appropriate social inclusion
or children with limited language differences in use and to perceived strategy.
proficiency may find it easier to
react to pictorial and active
methods of engagement rather
than written exercises. Various
toolboxes have been produced by
national and international
organisations which suggest the
kinds of tools that can be used in
different circumstances and with
different kinds of people (see the
guides mentioned below). It will
also be worth considering digital
engagement. Evidence from
different parts of the world
suggests that digital engagement
where managed well can actually
increase the inclusion of certain
groups, e.g. disabled people,
people from ethnic minorities,
young people, because digital
engagement can overcome some
of the social, cultural and civic
barriers to inclusion in
governance processes.
Consider Time: Social inclusion

may be mediated by the time of day
or the day of the week, affecting
patterns of UGI use as well as
access to governance processes. Image: Shutterstock

The following examples in practice illustrate the role of the municipality in three different
UGI examples. Each example involves a different scale levels, and a different governance
model that has involved different approaches to social inclusion for particular groups.
CITY-WIDE NETWORKS PROMOTING INCLUSION IN GOVERNANCE THROUGH THE

MOBILISATION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL BY THE MUNICIPALITY
UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS, NEIGHBOURHOOD GREEN PLANNING
Established in 2010, Neighbourhood
Green Planning (NGP) is a municipal
level policy programme facilitating
citizen involvement in the
development of green infrastructure
projects across the city of Utrecht.
The explicit aims of the approach
included encouraging a more
‘bottom-up’ way of working with
active citizens so that they had a
stronger influence in the decision
making process about what green
Image: Pixabay
infrastructure was developed
where. In addition the municipality
expected this approach to mobilise expansion to the city over greenfield The one consistent thread is that in
active citizenship in the continued areas, whereas the NGP Binnenstad each neighbourhood, citizens were
care and maintenance of the covers the historic high density encouraged to share their ideas
projects and green spaces in their housing and canaled central area of about projects that could improve
locality (i.e. promoting co- the city. Different kinds of people both the quantity and quality of
governance and grassroots live in these different green spaces in their locality. These
arrangements). The initiative neighbourhoods. In recognition of ideas were then screened for
included 10 neighbourhoods the social diversity and the different feasibility by the municipality before
covering the whole municipality of environmental characteristics of the selection and implementation
Utrecht, with an allocated budget of neighbourhoods, there was not one through the Neighbourhood Green
€500.000 each. prescriptive process for NGP. The Plan (NGP). Depending on the ideas
city-wide initiative relied on the brought forward by citizens, any one
Each neighbourhood involved in development of NGPs in each NGP might implement a number of
NGP has a different social and locality that suited the different project ideas, and to date,
environmental character. This circumstances of those locations, so about 140 projects have been
affected the opportunities for social they were developed separately and approved and/or delivered.
inclusion as well as the potential there have been differences in the
range of UGI ideas and outcomes. procedures, funding, content and The municipal officials led and
For example, the NGP Leidsche Rijn the individuals and organisations shaped the Neighbourhood Green
covers a newly planned and built involved in each of the 10 NGPs. Planning process in each locality.
... →

Being such a large scale city-wide improvement of others. Connecting creation of neighbourhood playing
programme, the municipality with active citizens in each facilities and safe play grounds for
almost always worked in neighbourhood in this way meant children.
association with neighbourhood that a whole range of different
councils, which functioned as a people were included who brought In parts of the city where the
consulting body for the forward a wide diversity of population was more diverse, the
municipality in each specific proposals. Project proposals municipality designed strategies to
neighbourhood. Working with the included ideas to add ‘green’ overcome barriers to the
neighbourhood councils was one features such as pocket parks to involvement of people from
method of ensuring that barriers to their neighbourhoods; ideas for different backgrounds, e.g. engaging
social inclusion were avoided and projects that would promote people with Moroccan ethnicity.
that a mix of individual active biodiversity and particular species However, engaging a diversity of
citizens as well as a mix of that were culturally and people from poorer
grassroots and civil society ecologically important; creating neighbourhoods (often those with
organisation were always involved pleasant meeting and sitting less green) presented particular
in the process discussing and places; using green infrastructure challenges as they generally seemed
developing ideas for the creation of to promote street and to be less interested in submitting
new green spaces or the neighbourhood safety; and the ideas for the NGP’s.
Image: Pixabay

LOCAL SITE LEVEL INCLUSION THROUGH SOCIAL
MOBILISATION AND CO-GOVERNANCE
GLASGOW, SCOTLAND, UK, BARRHEAD WATER WORKS
COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE AND GARDEN
Water Works is a co-governance
initiative that has worked to
regenerate a neighbourhood by
transforming a derelict sewage
works covering 2 hectares of land
into wild flower meadows and
community gardening spaces on the
edge of Barrhead near Glasgow,
Scotland. Barrhead is a
neighbourhood with significant
levels of social deprivation and
health inequalities along with a
disproportionately high area of
vacant and derelict post-industrial
brown field land. The initiative was
initially supported and led by East
Renfrewshire Council. The Water
Works project was underpinned by
land planning policy and was
included as an integral part of the
Council’s Local Development Plan.
Image: East Renfrewshire Council

The project was innovative in the
way it sought to build a close Community gardening initiated by the local authority at
partnership for co-governance Water Works, Barrhead in Glasgow links the next
through meaningful community generation to the benefits of urban green space.
engagement and the
encouragement of active citizenship approach led to many discussions times of the week, through different
and direct community action. The about, and then actions to promote, forms of engagement including
Council took their standard social inclusion, local social social media as well as face to face
approach of consultation and cohesion, health and well-being, contact. This provided the broadest
engagement in masterplan and environmental sustainability. possible scope for inclusion of many
processes one step further than The process relied on the different individuals and groups in
they normally would, and enthusiasm and commitment of the the governance of the initiative.
encouraged the community to lead East Renfrewshire Council project Barrhead High School, the Coach
the way with hands-on manager, and his ability to make House Trust and The Richmond
transformation of the site. Getting connections with local groups and Barrhead High School; the Coach
the local community involved in the organisations. Barriers to social House Trust and The Richmond
physical work and contributing their inclusion in the initiative were Fellowship representing young
own resources, skills and knowledge overcome by providing a range of people with disabilities and learning
to the design and implementation opportunities for involvement, at support needs or excluded from
of the initiative put the community different stages in the development mainstream society; Men’s Sheds
at the centre of the project. This of the initiative, and at different promoting social networking ... →

between men to overcome social supporting the view that the
isolation; Renfrewshire Association initiative had succeeded in aims to
for Mental Health; Dunterlie Youth be socially inclusive in governance,
Group and Young Enterprise use and the distribution of benefits.
Scotland, were all included in the In the words of community
planning, renovation and onward participants themselves:
maintenance of the site as a public
green space. The outcome is a “I’ve just been really impressed of
project that has not only reclaimed the number of community groups
the site but it has involved: that have come together, and it
really is a community project. No
• Over 1,000 local people in the one single organisation is
transformation of the site responsible for creating the garden
• 180 pupils at Barrhead High it’s everyone working together, so
School being awarded the John that’s fabulous.”
Muir Award;
• An intergenerational project “The best part of the project for me
between Men’s Shed and was … when the flowers were
Dunterlie Youth Group that has starting to bloom and it was actually
increased social connection beginning to look like a garden. I had
between members of the local a great sense of accomplishment. I
community that don’t normally thought to myself, ‘I helped make this
interact with each other happen, I was a part of this change
• 2 spin off projects inspired: and I can make a difference … It was
community beekeeping and a a great feeling.” Image: East Renfrewshire Council
community orchard; Active citizenship mobilised
• £90,000 levered for additional “It’s fantastic that they’ve got an by the local authority at
community green space projects; area they can come and do practical Water Works, Barrhead in
Glasgow has improved the
• 6 modern apprentices trained in hands on work and have a hands on quality of green space and
plant care and maintenance. experience. I see them down here built a sense of community.
with the wheelchairs with the raised
The governance of the initiative has beds and that’s great that they’re
developed and the site is now getting something to contribute
managed through a new social here as well as having an area for
enterprise, with a newly established enjoyment.”
“Friends of” group in support. The
opportunities to take part in Information taken from Scottish
governance and management of the Local Government Innovation
site continue. Exchange:
www.innovationex+change.scot/
A team of evaluators investigating erc-barrhead-water-works.html
the impacts of the initiative on and Barrhead Water Works website:
participants, collected evidence http://barrheadwaterworks.co.uk

NEIGHBOURHOOD LEVEL INCLUSION THROUGH THE MOBILISATION OF
SOCIAL CAPITAL LED BY A GRASSROOTS ORGANISATION
BRISTOL, ENGLAND, UK, NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING OLD MARKET QUARTER
Neighbourhood planning was
introduced in England as part of the
Localism Act 2011. A
neighbourhood development plan
establishes general planning policies
for the development and use of
land in a neighbourhood, for
example where green spaces should
be, and what quality or function
they should serve. The intent of the Image: Bianca Ambrose-Oji
NP process is to produce strategic Active citizens who took part in the Neighbourhood Planning
guidance, and is not concerned with Process in Old Market, Bristol were very concerned to keep
the direct delivery of projects. This and maintain green spaces like this one and integrate them
planning process at neighbourhood into local development planning.
level should allow local people to
participate in strategic decision with a wide range of other local were included and communicated
making that gets the right type of individuals, community groups, and through OMCA and the
development and green space other local stakeholders. Extra Neighbourhood Planning Forum.
allocation for their community. The measures were taken to overcome
structuring parameters of the the barriers to participation and Social inclusion in decision making
Neighbourhood Planning process make sure that a range of voices was achieved through formally
are clearly defined and must be were heard. Contact was made with organised events to collect views
compliant with the Local Planning community associations who had and opinions to develop the
Authority’s Local Development Plan. the best chance of reaching out to Neighbourhood Plan, with the
Bristol is one of the few English more vulnerable groups e.g. Somali activities of OMCA and the
cities developing urban women, LGBGT groups, elderly Neighbourhood Planning Forum
Neighbourhood Plans. Old Market people in social care settings, who working through a more sustained
Quarter Neighbourhood Planning were all included in the formulation involvement through partnership
Area is located in the centre of of plans. Another way of ensuring working. So there was: sustained
Bristol and is an historic area, with broad participation was to vary the involvement towards partnership
mixed residential and economic engagement and evidence working between the city officials,
functions. collection methods so different planners, OMCA and the
kinds of people would be likely to Neighbourhood Planning Forum,
Local residents and businesses came find one method or another to but formally organised event driven
together to form the Old Market participate. Methods included inclusion of the views, preferences
Community Association (OMCA) street stalls, a “wishing cart” that and needs of the wider community.
specifically to facilitate resident’s was pushed around the street to
involvement with governance collect ideas and opinions, as well as A member of the City Council
processes. OMCA applied for surveys, focus groups and planning team said from their point
funding which it used to conduct an community panels conducted in the of view, “The inclusion of so many
extended consultation process with evenings and at weekends. Social “ordinary” voices means perhaps
the local community, opening up a inclusion in governance was that the green space element of the
very transparent consultation achieved through capture of the plan was emphasised more than it
process that encouraged dialogue views of the local population, which might have done otherwise”.

5.4. KEY MESSAGES FOR DECISION government-led approaches, so it will be important
MAKERS for municipalities and partner organisations to work
through the options available to create processes
Different approaches for developing socially that focus on specific groups in society and work to
inclusive governance of UGI will need to be overcome the barriers that might otherwise exclude
developed at different scale levels. This is their perspectives and voices. Some individuals,
particularly true when considering processes which active citizens or grassroots organisations may need
are suited to larger scale city-wide or ‘safe spaces’ based on socially exclusive events
neighbourhood-wide initiatives. Governance at this where they can act without being exposed to any
scale normally involves co-governance or and all other interests.
5.5. RESOURCES
Guides and tools

Nordic Forest Research (SNS) Citizen Participation for Better Urban Green Spaces: Policy Brief
www.nordicforestresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Citizen-participation-PB-final.pdf
Forest Research, UK, A toolbox for public engagement in forest and woodland planning,
www.forestry.gov.uk/toolbox
Open Space World: A portal for the Open Space engagement framework. It includes information, case studies,
guidance, tools and methods. http://openspaceworld.org/wp2
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin (Senate Administration for Urban Development and
Environment Berlin) Handbuch zur Partizipation (Handbook for Participation)
www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/soziale_stadt/partizipation/download/Handbuch_Partizipation.pdf
Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Development, Berlin City Handbook,
www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/soziale_stadt/gender_mainstreaming/download/gender_englisch.pdf
Community Planning. A site with a large database of methods and techniques
www.communityplanning.net/methods/methods.php
Scotland’s Standards on Community Engagement and social inclusion
www.gov.scot/Topics/People/engage/NationalStandards/NationalStandards2016

Research papers
1. CABE Space, Community Green - Using local spaces to tackle inequality and improve health. 2011, CABE
Space: London.
2. Gidlow, C.J. and N.J. Ellis, Neighbourhood green space in deprived urban communities: issues and barriers to
use. Local Environment, 2011. 16(10).
3. Jay, M., et al., Towards access for all? Policy and research on access of ethnic minority groups to natural areas
in four European countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 2012. 19: p. 4-11.
4. Kloek, M.E., et al., ‘Nature lovers’, ‘Social animals’, ‘Quiet seekers’ and ‘Activity lovers’: Participation of young
adult immigrants and non-immigrants in outdoor recreation in the Netherlands. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 2015. 12: p. 47-58.
5. Morris, J., et al., Access for all? Barriers to accessing woodlands and forests in Britain. Local Environment,
2011. 16(4): p. 375-396.
6. Özgüner, H., Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces. Landscpae Research,
2011. 36(5): p. 599-620
7. Seeland, K., S. Dübendorfer, and R. Hansmann, Making friends in Zurich’s urban forests and parks: The role of
public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy and Economics, 2009.
11(1): p. 10-17.
8. Haase, D., et al., Greening cities – To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in
cities. Habitat International, 2017. 64: p. 41-48.
9. Wolch, J.R., J. Byrne, and J.P. Newell, Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The
challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014. 125: p. 234-244.
10. Curran, W. and T. Hamilton, Just green enough: contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint,
Brooklyn. Local Environment, 2012. 17(9): p. 1027-1042.
11. Heckert, M. and C.D. Rosan, Developing a green infrastructure equity index to promote equity planning. Urban
Forestry and Urban Greening, 2016. 19: p. 263-270.
12. Lawrence, A., et al., Urban forest governance: Towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening, 2013. 12(4): p. 464-473.
13. Miller, J.T., Is urban greening for everyone? Social inclusion and exclusion along the Gowanus Canal. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening, 2016. 19: p. 285-294.
14. Rutt, R.L. and N.M. Gulsrud, Green justice in the city: A new agenda for urban green space research in Europe.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2016. 19: p. 123-127.

CHAPTER 6:
GOVERNANCE FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
AND CONTINUITY:
PLACE-KEEPING

6.1. WHAT IS PLACE-
KEEPING AND HOW HIGHLIGHTS
DOES IT LINK TO
GOVERNANCE AND • Place-keeping refers to the long term management of places.
ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP? Much attention is focused on the creation of urban green
infrastructure (UGI), but thinking through and building support
Designing and planning urban for ongoing management is equally important if those places are
landscapes tends to focus on to maintain their value to urban populations.
creating high-quality public
spaces. The sustainable long-term • Involving individuals, community groups and voluntary
management of such spaces, in organisations in place keeping is possible where these players
other words place-keeping is often have the resources, capacity and capability to support municipal
overlooked2. The concept of place- authorities, but for this to happen place-keeping planning and
keeping was introduced to action must be built into projects and strategies from the early
emphasise and explore the stages.
processes of conserving and
maintaining the qualities of green • All active citizenship arrangements should consider place
spaces, whether newly created or keeping as part of the work they do, but this may be very
pre-existing. Without place- pertinent for municipalities if they own the land and have
keeping, spaces can fall into a continuing legal obligations.
‘downward spiral of disrepair’ in
which there is an increasingly • Involving citizens and citizen groups can lead to innovative and
inadequate maintenance, leading alternative forms of resource capture and income generation for
to a loss in spatial quality and the place-keeping actions. There are many examples from around
services and values these spaces Europe which demonstrate the ways in which municipal
provide in terms of cultural authorities and public agencies can benefit from the fund raising
attachment and enhanced living capacity of citizens if they facilitate and support a sense of
environments for citizens1, 3, 4. partnership, collaboration, responsibility and ownership.
Place-keeping is not only about

the physical space. Policy and
decision making processes can
play an important role facilitating
long-term planning and protection A FORMAL DEFINITION OF PLACE-KEEPING
designations that can help to IS CREATING
legitimise place-keeping activities. ’responsive long-term management which ensures that the social,
Place-keeping also requires long- environmental and economic quality and benefits a place brings
term commitment and allocation can be enjoyed by present and future generations’.1
of time and other resources from
involved individuals, organisations
and communities1, 2, 5. In recent
years this has presented a major
challenge to local authorities.
Across many European countries
municipal budgets have been put
under pressure so that the
rhetoric of place-keeping is not
necessarily translated into
action6-9.

Active citizenship for governance However, care must be taken to take on place-keeping
has been seen as a way to meet assess whether and how citizens responsibilities: this often implies
some of these challenges. The and citizen groups can undertake residents and citizens groups in
benefits of collaborative working place-keeping activities. Citizens less disadvantaged wealthier
to place-keeping are well- may well experience some of the areas of the city1. The shift in
demonstrated: Sharing same resource pressures as management responsibilities from
responsibilities lessen the public authorities. In addition, public authorities towards more
resource burden on any one because citizens often act as participatory forms of governance
partner and different actors have volunteers, their involvement also requires mediation and
access to different resources and cannot be taken for granted. negotiation to ensure roles,
networks which can be shared to Much of the research into place- responsibilities and resources are
greater effect 1, 10. Complimentary keeping suggests that efforts may properly distributed and the
skills and capabilities can be put be more successful in areas different individuals, groups and
into practice strategically to cover where the citizens involved have organisations can work together
different aspects and scale levels the skills, capacity and funds to effectively1.
of place-keeping activity, for
example a community group may
cooperate with a municipality on
managing a small local site, while
an NGO may do so in the
management of a large park.
Partnership working has a
possibility to improve the
legitimacy of the place-keeping
activities by increasing
inclusiveness, transparency and
the influence of non-state actors.
Monitoring is an important aspect

of place keeping that provides
opportunities for active citizens to
oversee UGI environmental quality
and ecological benefits in the Image: Forestry Commission 1060210
longer term.

6.2. TECHNICAL KNOW- that their resources and policies can support place-keeping, but
HOW: FEATURES OF can significantly contribute to, may also have a constraining
SUCCESSFUL PLACE- or disrupt, place-keeping plans effect. These potential influences
KEEPING and activities10. and impacts need to be taken
into account in the design and
There are many important aspects • Competing interests for urban formulation of place-keeping
to successful place-keeping that land often means that significant approaches.
are part of a continuous and numbers of citizens and
dynamic process, and closely stakeholders get involved in the • Place-keeping can be disrupted
linked with participatory politics surrounding particular by abrupt policy shifts and
governance. The most important sites. More enduring place- changing political priorities and
factors to consider include: policy keeping outcomes are likely to this may have a
and politics surrounding the be built when citizens and disproportionate impact in less
place-keeping context; design and voluntary groups are involved in wealthy urban areas1. For
management of the place and negotiations and decision example, the support provided
place-keeping activities; funding making about the creation and for communities in more
and resources; and evaluation. design of new green spaces and deprived areas to take part in
finding ways to ensure their urban regeneration
Policy and politics long-term viability1. programmes may be withdrawn
as budgets come under
• The success of place-keeping • Place-keeping is also influenced pressure. These may be the
depends very much on local by policies and political very same areas with little or
authorities and politicians or decisions that consider the poor quality greenspace most
elected members10. Because wider context in which a single in need of improved place-
European municipal authorities site is located. This includes keeping efforts11. Statutory
are often the owners of much subsidy, regulations, policies on embedding of place-keeping in
urban land and greenspace, they green space protection, order to protect spaces and
are involved in a wide range of mechanisms for community ensure equity of access to
place-keeping arrangements so engagement, etc. These policies greenspaces is important.

Design and management justified and provided for capital 6.3. EXAMPLES IN
spending, but the allocation of PRACTICE
• Place-keeping literature resources available to conserve
emphasizes the importance of and maintain the values of many The following examples illustrate
considering long-term green spaces is often under key features of participatory
management and maintenance significant pressure. governance that have contributed
issues early on in the design- to the long term sustainability of
phase, clearly linking place- • Private sector funding and in- different kinds of urban
making and place-keeping. If kind cost reductions through greenspaces across a number of
places are not maintained, the volunteer labour, innovative different European cities.
qualities that are attributed to income generation schemes, and
them will generally decline2. charging greenspace user fees We look at examples of place-
may all be viable options that keeping in:
• This long term perspective local authorities and citizen
means thinking early on about groups could consider when • Boscoincittà, Milan, Italy where
issues such as ongoing planning the future maintenance place keeping is achieved
maintenance budgets, the long- of an urban greenspace1, 12. through Co-governance
term wishes of different users, arrangements
and the continuing role of Evaluation
individuals, groups and • De Ruige Hof, near Amsterdam,
organisations. • The idea of place-keeping Netherlands, where place-
emphasizes the need to keeping is achieved through a
• Adaptability and change are part maintain the qualities of specific Grassroots Initiative
of place-keeping: the use and places, so it is important to be
value of green places will keep aware of the qualities that • Duddingston Field Group,
changing over time, and so too people enjoy at a certain site, or Edinburgh, UK, where place-
will the context in which those that stakeholders desire from keeping is achieved through a
places are situated. Place- that place. Grassroots Initiative
keeping does not mean that
there is no room for the ongoing • Cost-effective methods can be
development of a green space. employed by local authorities or
Instead it means being aware of by citizens themselves to
and integrating factors, such as investigate the environmental,
changing user preferences or economic and social values of a
chances in policy in the ongoing place that are maintained at a
management of a place. site through time. The
information and evidence
Funding and resources collected can be used to ensure
that management is meeting
• There is often insufficient people’s needs and expectations,
consideration of the resources the effectiveness of future
required for successful place- management and to influence
keeping. Many grant schemes policy and practices related to
and budget allocations can be urban green spaces1.
Image: Bianca Ambrose-Oji

BOSCOINCITTÀ,
MILAN, ITALY
Boscoincittà (Forest in the City) is a
public park in the urban peripheral
area of Milan established in 1974 on
35 ha of abandoned farmland. This
area of private land was taken into
public ownership and totally
transformed into a forest and
parkland through a multi-actor,
bottom-up process involving
citizens, schools, NGOs and public
bodies. Boscoincittà was designed
to promote individual and
community wellbeing, social Image: Pixabay
cohesion and to improve natural
connectivity between the city and
peri-urban areas. Over time, the parks in Milan’s Green Belt (e.g. processes overseen by Italia Nostra
park has grown to 120 ha, and now Giretta park). are fundamental to achieving
includes woodlands, meadows, physical site objectives and
streams, wetlands and allotment Policy and politics coordinating the place-keeping
gardens. Boscoincittà is managed by activities of volunteers and citizen
the NGO ‘Italia Nostra’, which has a Boscoincittà is part of the Green groups. The role of the municipality
management agreement for the site Belt and is formally recognized in in supporting these processes and
with the municipality of Milan who the Master Plan for the approving the site design through
own the land. Italia Nostra’s metropolitan area of Milan, as well the management agreement has
operational body ‘Centro as other regional plans, such as the been important to facilitating place-
Forestazione Urbana’ develops and Provincial Ecological Network keeping. However, there are
coordinates all works in the park, strategy. As such, the park’s challenges. Staff turnover,
provides the park services, creation, expansion and integration with bureaucratic
promotes citizen participation and maintenance are key to the region’s systems, and finding a way to
engages in fundraising. Citizens green infrastructure. Central to the manage the conflicting priorities of
contribute to park services and long-term success of Boscoincittà the municipality are all issues that
undertake activities such as has been the ability of its park require sustained effort by Italia
communal allotment gardening or authority to expand and develop Nostra. In terms of evaluation Italia
environmental education for the park while also increasing visitor Nostra engages in monitoring of
children. Over time, Italia Nostra facilities. The growing numbers of wildlife, botanical and soil surveys
has acquired greater independence visitors have raised the profile of the to demonstrate the benefits of their
from the municipality in decision- park and emphasised its importance work. This information can help
making. Currently, the municipality as a resource for the city. support the policy and political
prepares and renews the dimensions of park governance.
management agreement, and Design and management /
ensures management is in line with Evaluation Funding and other resources
its policies. Given its success in
community engagement, the The professional expertise in External financial contributions
project has been used as a model landscape design and the played an important part in the
for the generation of other new institutionalised management early establishment of the park, but
... →

nowadays the municipality provides organisations have been works in the park, the ‘Leisure
85% of the place-keeping budget. particularly important, for Forests’ volunteer group which
Italia Nostra and volunteers provide example the ‘Friends of the Forest organizes educational activities for
additional income contributing to Committee’ that contributed children, while ‘Orti Violé’
place-making through donations private funds in the first few years manages the allotment gardens
and fund raising activities. The after opening. Fundamental to the and also contributes to other park
success of Boscoincittà engaging in success of place-keeping and the services. Active engagement of
long-term management has been park’s viability is the active citizens is maintained through a
reliant on building partnerships engagement of the volunteer participatory approach, including
between Italia Nostra, the ‘workforce’ which runs to several volunteers suggesting ideas and
municipality and other stakeholders. hundred people. Operation Canal implementing them with
Citizen groups and volunteer which engages in maintenance professional guidance.
Image: Pixabay

DE RUIGE HOF,
AMSTERDAM,
THE NETHERLANDS
For the past 30 years the nature
association ‘De Ruige Hof’ (DRH;
The Wild Court) has managed 13 ha
of peri-urban greenspace in the
southeast of Amsterdam with the
aim of “bringing nature closer to
citizens and citizens closer to
nature”. The local community
formed the association in 1986 to
protect a greenspace that had
begun to spontaneously “create Image: Martijn De Jonge
itself” on abandoned construction
sites. The land is owned by the De Ruige Hof grassroots initiative Amsterdam, Netherlands
municipality of Amsterdam. The keeps up an income stream for place keeping by renting
out their accommodation as an event space.
municipality granted DRH the right
to manage the site ‘De Riethoek’,
and that of a second area called volunteers. As well as the important in securing the site. Even
‘Klarenbeek’ with a symbolic €1 partnership between DRH and the though DRH have successfully
lease agreement. The place making municipality of Amsterdam, De leased the land for a period of
and subsequent place-keeping Ruige Hof’s sites sit within the nearly 30 years, the status of the
activities of DRH have involved boundary of the regional sites is not secure as it does not
conservation management on partnership ‘Groengebied have a formal conservation status.
meadows, woodland and wetland. Amstelland’. This partnership As a certain point, the municipality
This has enhanced the quality of involves four municipalities and the of Amsterdam considered
this unplanned greenspace in terms regional authority. De Ruige Hof Klarenbeek as a site for residential
of wildlife, biodiversity and the rents a building and some of its development, which led to protests
connection of local people to the land from them, but in addition the from volunteers. This wider
site. DRH also maintains partnership provides publicity and planning and economic
recreational facilities such as paths legitimacy to the project as part of development policy presents a
and benches, has built a nature its offer of greenspace for tourism constraint on place-keeping. Citizen
centre and other wooden buildings, and recreation. There have also support for the area is important:
organizes excursions, publishes a been partnerships with businesses Previous plans to construct a road
magazine and runs a Kids Club to and other voluntary organisations through Klarenbeek were
encourage new and sustained which have provided place-keeping abandoned after local protests
citizen engagement with the space. equipment, materials and advice demonstrated the political costs of
The association is run by a ‘daily free of charge, or have provided not supporting place-keeping.
board’ and employs a part-time volunteers to take part in place-
coordinator to supervise activities. keeping activities. Funding and resources
A management committee is
responsible for preparing a Policy and politics DRH raises an annual income of
management plan and a policy around €20,000. Most of this
strategy outlining goals and Initial flexibility by the municipality comes from membership
objectives. They have around 450 to find a mechanism for allowing contributions and donations, but
members and over 50 active DRH to lease the land was obviously some additional income comes
... →

from selling produce and renting as a result of government budget can get involved with. An
out their accommodation as an cuts and fewer sponsorships and additional benefit of the
event space. DRH reserves the donations, so a major focus of the volunteering activity is that many
majority of its fixed management management committee is fund volunteers, about half of whom
budget for the ongoing raising. One of the keys to the have been diagnosed with a
maintenance of green areas, while long-term viability of DRH has mental health issue in the past,
‘new’ elements (i.e. place-making been its ability to mobilize report improved skills and
activities) are generally grant- volunteers. One way they have environmental awareness, and
funded. Recently, the group’s achieved this is by offering a wide positive impacts on their health
income has been under pressure variety of activities that people and wellbeing.
Image: Martijn De Jonge

DUDDINGSTON FIELD GROUP, EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND, UK
Duddingston Field Group (DFG) is an
urban community woodland group
based in Edinburgh, Scotland. Since
2011 DFG has managed a 2.5 ha
existing green space, a meadow on
the slopes of Arthur’s Seat, which
they lease from the City of
Edinburgh Council (CEC) for a
symbolic sum of £100 per year. DFG
has been involved in place-keeping
activities that are evolving from the
maintenance of the meadow to the
creation of a native broadleaf forest
and a community orchard planted Image: Pixabay
with Scottish varieties of apples and
plums. Access to the field site has
been improved with the creation of interested in greenspace governance processes in line with
several new paths and visitor management. These factors were this policy dictate because people
infrastructure such as benches and key to facilitating participatory currently uninvolved may prefer
signs. The day-to-day management governance of the Duddingston field activities that would interfere with
is done by a committee with local site. the current tranquil character of the
people, who meet regularly. The place.
general aim of DFG is to create a However, challenges to place-
natural asset that the community keeping remain. In order to Lastly it is important to recognise
can enjoy over the long term. formalize the intention to develop that while Duddingston Field is
Duddingston Field as a community recognised as part of the Green Belt
Policy and politics resource now and into the future, in the city’s Local Development
DFG is interested in purchasing the Plan, it is difficult to access by
The national and local policy land. Although fundraising for this is motorized transport. It sits on a
contexts are very supportive of relatively easy and the municipality natural heritage feature important
community green space is open to the idea, DFG is faced to the landscape of the city, and as
management. Nationally, the with the challenge of having to such is unlikely to come under
Community Empowerment formalize the community according pressure from housing
(Scotland) Act 2015 enables to legal process outlined in development.
communities to take on community empowerment
management of abandoned or legislation. This is complicated Design and management /
neglected public assets via because the community of interest Evaluation
purchase, lease or other agreement, engaged with DFG, is different from
provided they are confident, the geographical community based The group has access to a broad set
capable and competent to do that. on postcode level, encompassing a of skills and relevant knowledge
At the city level, the decentralisation larger area. Legislation looks for which were key to developing the
of some services, including parks engagement and consultation with place-making and place-keeping
and greenspaces management to the resident community, based on approach. One of the strengths of
neighbourhood offices has led to postcode, as part of the process DFG has been the early
improved contacts with, and better purchasing land from public bodies. consideration of place-keeping
support of, local communities DFG is nervous of widening within the design of the project.
... →

Two public meetings were organized communication with the been generated through
ahead of signing the lease to municipality including annual fundraising activities linked to the
address concerns by, and win the reporting. The high level of place-making work, such as an
support of, local people. Only the competency of DFG means that apple tree sponsorship scheme,
rough parameters of what the group support from CEC is minimal, as one and donations in return for planting
wanted to achieve were set early CEC staff member noted: “[DFG is] a memorial trees. Volunteers and
on, and exact decisions about what very good example of just letting citizen organisations have also
would happen were made as time the community get on with what provided professional knowledge
progressed, so in effect the they’re doing and just keeping a and services that facilitate place-
greenspace has been allowed to very distant watching eye on it”. The keeping work e.g. how to manage
develop organically. At the same main source of funding for DFG is veteran trees for biodiversity,
time, a five-year work plan serves to grant aid and gifts in kind. The group maintaining site drainage. The
ensure that essential maintenance has been careful in which grants volunteer workforce is key to
activities such as meadow mowing they have applied for, avoiding any success. Duddingston is an affluent
and raking, path maintenance and that are very prescriptive in how area with a relatively high number
weeding around the young trees, funds are used. They sought funding of retired people with time on their
are carried out in time. As a result, from a very broad range of larger hands, which provides a good
the site delivers on the green space and smaller scale providers. Some volunteer base. However, the
needs and desires of local people. of the income has been used for group has also been successful in
creating access features and capital attracting volunteers from further
Funding and other resources purchases: For example, a local afield through their website, social
environmental NGO has funded the media and events such as Open
The partnership between DFG and purchase of equipment, the Lottery Doors Day and an annual Apple
CEC is excellent and maintained funded materials and tools used for Day. They also get regular support
through the development of a creating and maintaining the access from students involved in an
business plan, delivery of targets gate and paths. Additional income environmental volunteering
and outputs in the plan, and used for place-keeping activity has society.
Image: Pixabay

6.4. KEY MESSAGES FOR For example, the role of Boscoincittà active citizens develop their
DECISION MAKERS as a core element of the Green Belt knowledge and capacity to respond
is recognized in a Master Plan for to the grounds maintenance tasks,
The examples of active citizenship the metropolitan area as well as organisational management and
in the three case studies other regional plans. In addition, communications is helpful, even
demonstrate the potential of these our cases demonstrate that policies where volunteers may have with a
practices to place-keeping, more and legislation promoting bottom- degree of expert knowledge. This is
than the provision of a site to non- up governance are relevant to place- particularly true during the start-
governmental actors. In keeping as well. In all cases, up phase of an initiative or when
Boscoincittà, partnership working municipalities had agreed for third there is turnover of key (paid or
with citizen groups and volunteer parties to take on green space unpaid) staff. Bureaucracy and
organisations was key to decision making relatively overly prescriptive management
attracting volunteers for a variety independently. The case of requirements, as in the case of
of activities ranging from outdoor Duddingston Field Group (DFG) Boscoincittà, need to be avoided to
education to allotment gardening. demonstrates that national ensure that groups maintain their
At DRH, our findings showed that legislation can play an important ability to creatively respond to site
authorities can also provide role in empowering non- conditions and new bottom-up
support by offering leases for governmental actors to take on ideas.
accommodation, and providing a management of public green spaces
sense of legitimacy. Partnership when the municipality is not able to Involving citizens and citizen groups
working also ensures better adequately maintain a place. can lead to innovative and
access to relevant advice, alternative forms of resource
equipment and materials. Sufficient thought must be given to capture and income generation that
how a place will be maintained can be used for place-keeping.
However, elected members, as well once it has been created1; so Citizen groups managing green
as other decision makers within integration between place-making spaces can access alternative funds
local authorities, play a fundamental and place-keeping planning along (e.g. Lottery funds or small local
role in place-keeping through the with adaptive management funds offered by NGOs) and can
development of stable policies and practices that meet changing raise considerable sums of income
urban development plans that demands of sites are key to the through donations and membership
protect urban greenspaces and sustainability of any green fees. Local authorities must
allocate resources to place-keeping. spaces1,10. Finding ways to support recognise the legitimacy of income
generation for place-keeping and
ensure that systems and processes
facilitate citizen efforts rather than
create barriers to innovation.
Citizens and citizen groups are

capable of providing evaluation
evidence that can demonstrate the
physical site-based, as well as
social, benefits which their place-
keeping efforts produce and
sustain. To illustrate, all three
cases actively engaged in site
monitoring (e.g., visitors, flora &
fauna) in order to improve their
own decision making and to
leverage support and resources
Image: Stephan Köhler
for ongoing place-keeping.

6.5. RESOURCES
Guides and tools

Dempsey, N. 2015, Partnerships Handbook: A guide to good place-keeping
Available from: https://place-keeping.squarespace.com/s/Partnerships_handbook.pdf
Heriott Watt University. 2012, Place-keeping in Master Planning.
Available from: http://archive.northsearegion.eu/files/repository/20121218180653_Place-Keeping-in-
Masterplanning-Report[1].pdf
Research papers
1. Dempsey, N., H. Smith, and M. Burton, eds. Place-keeping: Open space management in practice. 2014,
Routledge: Abingdon, UK.
2. Dempsey, N. and M. Burton, Defining place-keeping: The long-term management of public spaces. Urban
Forestry and Urban Greening, 2012. 11(1): p. 11-20.
3. Lovell, S.T. and J.R. Taylor, Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green
infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 2013. 28(8): p. 1447-1463.
4. McDonald, R.I., Conservation for cities: How to plan & build natural infrastructure. 2015, Washington D.C.
5. Sanesi, G., et al., Assessing the current status of urban forest resources in the context of Parco Nord, Milan,
Italy. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 2007. 3: p. 187-198.
6. Kabisch, N., Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning
- The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy, 2015. 42: p. 557-567.
7. Perkins, H.A., Green spaces of self-interest within shared urban governance. Geography Compass, 2010.
4(3): p. 255-268.
8. McCarthy, J. and S. Prudham, Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 2004. 35(3):
p. 275-283.
9. Van der Jagt, A.P.N., et al., Participatory governance of urban green space: trends and practices in the EU.
Nordic Journal of Architectural research, 2017.
10. Mattijssen, T.J.M., et al., FThe long-term prospects of citizens managing urban green space: from place
making to place keeping? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2017, August 78-84.
11. Mathers, A., N. Dempsey, and J. Frøik Molin, Place-keeping in action: Evaluating the capacity of green
space partnerships in England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2015. 139: p. 126-136.
12. Rosol, M., Public Participation in post-fordist urban green space governance: The case of community
gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2010. 34(3): p. 548-563.

CHAPTER 7:
THE STRATEGIC
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE
CITIZENSHIP IN UGI
GOVERNANCE

7.1. INTRODUCTION TO
THE TOPIC HIGHLIGHTS
Different kinds of urban green • Different kinds of green spaces have different qualities and
infrastructure (UGI) have different features as well as providing different opportunities for public
features and characteristics which involvement and participation
offer different opportunities and
constraints for municipalities, • Different governance arrangements can realise different
active citizens, organisations, and functions and benefits from those UGI qualities
businesses. The benefits that come
from different kinds of UGI will • What benefits are achieved depends on the objectives and
depend on the governance model resources municipalities, active citizens, civil society groups and
applied and how the different businesses mobilise to manage those spaces
objectives and resources of the
different individuals and • There are very few types of UGI that cannot be managed through
organisations are negotiated and innovative governance arrangements, active citizens manage
used. Crucial to this will be places as diverse as cemeteries, urban rivers, school grounds and
whether time, money and perhaps urban wetlands producing a range of ecological and social
most importantly the skills and benefits
knowledge available to imagine
what the features of UGI could • Strategic assessment of the value of the benefits coming through
support and then skills and different governance models can help to justify the costs of
knowledge to put that into support by municipalities who may realise far more in terms of
development plans. Depending on the value of benefits, particularly in terms of health and social
the mix of objectives and resources benefits, than they contribute in capital spending
available, this will lead to different
degrees of multifunctionality which
in turn provide different outcomes,
providing different streams of
benefits.
FIGURE 9: THE BENEFITS FROM URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

ARE AFFECTED BY GOVERNANCE AND ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP
UGI Features Governance Multifunctionality Benefits

Species Government led Meeting and Ecological
assemblages socialising
Co-management Physical and mental
Accessibility: Exercise and health
Co-governance
landform, habitat, recreation
Social and
infrastructure Non-government led
Resting and relaxing institutional
Distance
Enjoying nature Economic
Innovation
Attractiveness and
Learning and
perceived safety Uses and functions
cultural exchange
Facilities Organisation
Employment and
Resources skills development
Problem solving Ecosystem services

In the past, much research focused or maintained by different building connections between
on defining and documenting the governance models. For individuals and groups, and
characteristics of the urban green example, in the Netherlands, a between them and the wider
space that are likely to influence its study of 345,143 General community as a fundamental
use, such as its accessibility, quality, Practitioner doctor records part of their UGI initiatives.
facilities, attractiveness, and indicated that the more green
security1. There is some research space within 1km of an area, the 4. Economic benefits. Some of the
that has measured and lower the annual prevalence economic benefits from UGI may
documented the benefits that come rates for 15 of 24 chosen disease be direct and others indirect.
from different kinds of green space. clusters3. There is a very large The evidence suggests that these
However, there is less research that evidence base documenting the benefits are often general
links those benefits directly to many physical and mental health societal level impacts that arrive
different kinds of governance and benefits of UGI4-6. In many of the regardless of the governance
active citizen arrangements. None examples of grassroots and co- model or active citizenship
the less there is a general governance initiatives the arrangement being considered.
perception, or expectation, that individuals and organisations There are documented cases of
opening up the governance of UGI involved mention how physical improved values to land and
to active citizens, civil society and mental health benefits are houses (in the UK this may be
groups and businesses increases an explicit objective of their 8% for houses close to parks3),
the multifunctionality of green efforts. as well as the offset costs of
spaces. The end result of that is health interventions and
that more benefits, and a wider 3. Social and institutional improved mental health brought
range of benefits are realised in benefits. The majority of the about by increased exercise and
four main areas. examples of grassroots, non- relaxation in UGI. Evidence also
government led and co- suggests increased numbers of
1. Ecological benefits. This could governance UGI projects and visitors to some urban green
be through the creation of new initiatives see the process of space locations have positive
green spaces or improvements bringing people together, impacts on the local economy7.
to existing spaces. Many
examples of grassroots
initiatives and co-governance of
green spaces in European cities
are because active citizens were
motivated to protect and
improve biodiversity in their
locality2. The focus on
biodiversity has helped to
maintain or increase species
assemblages, but also
contributes to other ecological
functions of green space.
2. Physical and mental health

benefits. This could be through
the process of taking part in
active citizenship projects e.g.
volunteering on active physical
tasks in the green space. But it
may also be through the use and
enjoyment of the spaces created Image: Stephan Köhler

7.2. TECHNICAL undertook a scientific review of water and soil function
KNOW-HOW 163 journal articles that had regulation; biodiversity and
been published between 2000- habitat quality. The social benefits
Urban green spaces are very 2015 to see what evidence there identified in the research included
diverse in ecology, size, was about the ecological, social, physical and mental health, social
functionality, ownership, tenure and economic benefits associated cohesion and other attributes
and social interest. They range with different kinds of green with social importance such as
from city parks to green walls space. These articles did indeed sense of space and freedom that
and rooftop gardens, from urban identify multiple benefits from urban residents particularly value.
forests to allotment gardens. the full range of UGI including Figure 10 illustrates the number
Some government agencies and urban parks, urban wetlands, and of research papers documenting
organisations will also include even green walls and roofs. There different kinds of benefits
blue spaces such as lakes or was some detailed research associated with different kinds of
rivers and their adjacent green about the ecological benefits, UGI. The simple message is that
corridors in their definitions of including: climate change benefits can be found across all
UGI. The GREEN SURGE project regulation and air filtration; types of green spaces.
FIGURE 10: SOCIAL AND WELLBEING BENEFITS DERIVED

FROM DIFFERENT KINDS OF UGI (N=158)8

Researchers associated with the below, provide a very clear view sites less than one hectare, to active
GREEN SURGE project undertook that active citizenship can citizens working in co-production
several inventories looking for contribute to the development and with municipalities developing and
examples of different kinds of maintenance of urban green spaces managing sites of 120 hectares or
governance and active citizenship of different types, in areas of quite more. The multiple functions and
arrangements associated with different character and qualities, benefits these examples provide
different kinds of green space2. It is and of very different sizes and are not always formally measured,
possible to find examples of levels of ecological and social but Table 2 indicates the most
different governance arrangements complexity. The examples prevalent forms of governance and
involving active citizens in each of uncovered through the GREEN the most commonly mentioned
these different UGI contexts. The SURGE project vary between benefits associated with the
examples mapped out in Table 2 grassroots initiatives working on examples.
TABLE 2: AN INVENTORY OF DIFFERENT UGI TYPES,

ASSOCIATED GOVERNANCE AND BENEFITS
TYPE OF PREDOMINANT KEY BENEFITS EXAMPLES
UGI GOVERNANCE MODELS DOCUMENTED
DOCUMENTED
Green walls A few examples of co- • Extends available urban • Berlin, Germany, community
and Green governance and a few non- green space: mainly managed buildings with
roofs governmental led initiatives ecological benefits green roofs
• Some public health • London, England, UK Urban
benefits Wild Project green roofs in
• Some social benefits Herne Hill
Street and Some co-management and co- • Economic in terms of • Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Urban
road verges governance projects cost savings to Pollinator Project
trees and municipalities and • Oredea, Romania, examples of
hedges public agencies Green Barters on street sides
• Ecological through and roundabouts
biodiversity • Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
improvements Granton Community Gardeners
Domestic Some examples of NGO initiated • Ecological through • Lodz, Poland, Lisciasta Park
gardens initiatives involving households biodiversity Residence
and social housing providers in improvements • Sheffield, England, UK, Grey
particular initiatives and • Social benefits where to Green on Manor and
projects gardens are part of Castle Green estate
public housing and • Over the UK, RHS “Greening
provide improved spaces Grey Britain” campaign
for social interaction
Community Many examples of co- • Social benefits through • Budapest, Hungary
gardens governance/co-production and social contact and community gardens
many grass roots active building social • Szeged, Hungary, The
citizenship projects cohesion Stopping Place
• Physical and mental • Glasgow, Scotland, UK, Urban
health through Roots community gardens
exercise, healthy • See many examples through the
eating and social Federation of City Farms and
contact Community Gardens in the UK
• Rotterdam, Netherlands,
Wollefoppengroen
... →

DOCUMENTED
Play A few examples with • Physical health benefits • England, Friends of Chudleigh
grounds Government led social through use of Knighton Playpark
mobilisation, co-governance and playground • Leiderdorp, Netherlands,
grassroots initiatives rare • Social benefits through Stichting Natuurspeeltuin
social contact and Leiderdorp
building social cohesion
Pocket Many examples of co- • Ecological through bio- • Bristol, England, UK Ebenezer
parks governance and community led diversity improvements Gate Pocket Park
governance • Social benefits where • Hartwell, England, UK
parks improve spaces Ashwood Acre Pocket Park
for social interaction • Amersfoort, Netherlands,
• Mental health benefits Postzegelpark Leusderweg
through use of pocket
park
Public parks Many examples of co- • Ecological through bio- • Berlin, Germany, Volkspark
including management or collaborative- diversity improvements Lichtenrade
country governance/co-production a few • Social benefits where • Sheffield, England, UK,
parks community led governance gardens are part of Heeley People’s Park
public housing and
provide improved spaces
for social interaction
Neighbour- Many examples of strategic • Social benefits where • Netherlands, Utrecht,
hood green government-led processes, social interaction is Neighbourhood Green space
space some co-governance and facilitated and builds Planning
community led governance social cohesion • Amersfoort, Netherlands,
• Economic likely to Elisabeth Groen
have positive impact
on value of area
Cemeteries A few examples of co- • Ecological where bio- • London, England, UK, The
and management diversity improvements Friends of Tower Hamlet
churchyards are an objective Cemetery Park
• Social benefits where • Bristol, England, UK, Arnos
cemeteries and Vale Cemetery
churchyards are given
new purpose as
educational or
recreational spaces
Allotments Many examples including full • Social benefits where • Lisbon, Portugal, municipal
range of governance models social interaction is allotment gardens
from non-government led facilitated and builds • Stockholm, Sweden,
grassroots through to co- social cohesion Igelbäcken Allotment
management and government • Physical and mental Gardens
led health benefits
through time spent in
open spaces, exercise
though gardening and
healthy eating
... →

DOCUMENTED
Arable land • Many examples which include • Ecological where • Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
and co-management and biodiversity Duddingston Field Group
horticulture community-led governance improvements are an • Malmö, Sweden, Hyllie
or market • Many community supported objective residential development area
gardening agriculture and food growing • Social benefits where and urban agriculture
schemes social interaction is • Bristol, England, UK, Feed
facilitated and builds Bristol
social cohesion
• Economic likely to
on value of area
Orchards Most examples are • Ecological where • Bristol, England, UK, Horfield
collaborative-governance/co- biodiversity Community Orchard
production and community led improvements are an • Gateshead, England, UK,
governance objective Clara Vale Orchard
• Social benefits where
social interaction is
facilitated and builds
social cohesion
Woodlands, Most examples are • Ecological where • Milan, Italy, Boscoincittà
forests and collaborative-governance/co- biodiversity • Many examples of
wooded production and community led improvements are an community managed urban
park land governance objective woodlands in Scotland, UK
• Social benefits where Community Woodlands
social interaction is Association and Wales, UK
facilitated and builds Llais Y Goedwig
social cohesion
• Physical and mental
health benefits
through time spent in
open spaces, and
exercise taking part in
site tasks
• Economic small scale
business activity and
visitors to the sites
on local economy
Brownfield Some examples, often • Ecological where • Ljubljana, Slovenia, Beyond
sites grassroots initiatives biodiversity the construction site
(derelict/ improvements are an • Leamington Spa, England,
abandoned objective UK, ARC and Foundry Wood
land and • Social benefits where
scrubland) social interaction is
social cohesion
... →

DOCUMENTED
Wetland Examples include co-governance • Ecological where • Amsterdam, Netherlands,
Ponds/lakes and non-government led biodiversity De Ruige Hof
approaches improvements are an
objective
• Social benefits where
social interaction is
social cohesion
River banks, Few examples, most co- • Ecological where • Sheffield, England, UK, River
streams, governance biodiversity Stewardship Company
canals improvements are an • England, UK, Canal and River
objective Trust
• Social benefits where • Leiden, Netherlands,
social interaction is Singelpark Leiden
social cohesion
• Economic through
reduced costs to
municipalities
Image: Stephan Köhler

The key learning points that came and the legal obligations use, the removal of litter and
through from these inventories surrounding their waste, the removal of invasive
and from the in-depth case maintenance and operation. plant species, and
studies that the GREEN SURGE management in favour of
researchers undertook were that: • Improvements to ecological biodiversity. Many examples
connectivity across urban showed that knowledge and
• The “Rules of the game” are areas came through the understanding of
fundamentally important in cumulative impacts of small as conservation management
influencing multifunctionality well as larger projects. was an essential resource in
and the range of benefits to realising these benefits.
come from green space Active citizenship initiatives
manages sites that are • Wellbeing benefits were most
Ownership and tenure are connected with and part of a common across the variety of
fundamentally important wider physical network of UGI governance initiatives
aspects of UGI governance green spaces. As such, they
that affect how far active link up with other urban All examples of UGI
citizens, civil society green infrastructure (UGI), governance involving active
organisations and businesses and con-tribute to citizens provided evidence of
might be involved. When land connectivity as part of a increased wellbeing. In the
is in public ownership larger green network. The case of Granton Community
municipalities and public Klarenbeek area managed by Gardeners in Edinburgh (see
agencies are more likely to De Ruige Hof (see Chapter 6) Chapter 3) for example,
insist on initiatives that for example, forms an individuals coming to work
produce public benefits. This important part of an together towards a common
is likely to favour initiatives in ecological corridor, and goal, created a shared value
co-governance arrangements, connects green spaces in and system that improved the
or may mean non- outside the city of Amsterdam look and feel of the area, but
government lead initiatives with the National Ecological also created a sense of
on public land might be Network of the Netherlands. community pride, and
subject to specific Similarly allotments and food improved the physical and
arrangements that ensure growing spaces in Lisbon, mental wellbeing of those
public benefits. The more Portugal form part of a city- who took part.
complex the public functions wide strategy fundamental to
of UGI and the the legal issues maintaining the city network
surrounding them, the less of green spaces.
likely these will be involved
with grassroots governance • Biodiversity improvements are
and co-governance often a key focus of active
arrangements. For example citizenship
there are few if any examples
in Europe of urban bioswales Many of the examples
(i.e. landscape features documented improvements
replacing gutters, which are to specific species and to the
designed to capture pollution overall quality of UGI habitats
and sediments in surface through active management
water runoff) being managed by grassroots, civil society
through co-governance partly and business initiatives. This
because of the important was often linked with
public function they perform diversification of green space

BENEFITS FROM INNOVATIVE CO-GOVERNANCE
RIVER STEWARDSHIP COMPANY, SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND, UK
The River Stewardship Company

(RSC) is a social enterprise which
works to improve the waterways for
people and for wildlife in the city of
Sheffield, England. A social
enterprise is a company (i.e. a legal
form of business) that uses
commercial strategies to achieve
social and environmental aims, and
which reinvests profits back into
achieving the social and
environmental aims. The formation
of this social enterprise was an
innovation that grew out of a wide
partnership of stakeholder
organisations, called the Sheffield
Waterways Strategy Group, who
Image: Pixabay
were trying to find a way of
implementing sustainable river and
riverside vegetation management in land and buildings alongside urban the rivers, cleaning and managing
the city. There were two key rivers are very often poorly the riverside vegetation on their
problems they were looking to equipped to manage river-side land, land, this also includes work for the
solve. The first was the impact that and in many cases are not even City Council where land is in their
reductions to public funding and the aware of their legal responsibilities ownership. Because the RSC has
increasing pressures on the City to look after the river channel and environmental and social aims, it
Council and other public agencies, banks. also raises some funding through
were having on the capacity of grants and projects sponsored by
public agencies to manage this kind The RSC provides a service to land other charitable bodies.
of UGI. The second problem was the owners and to the municipal
large gap in responsibility which authority and government agencies, The RSC has a small number of
exists on most urban rivers in which fills this gap in governance permanent staff, but the work it
England. The ownership of riverside and actively manages the urban does is achieved through the
land, and the responsibility for river and riverside vegetation. The involvement of local volunteers.
different functions around that land RSC has members of the original There are a small number of
and the river involve multiple partnership on the governing Board, permanent volunteers who acts as
owners and tenants, and multiple so the perspectives of the municipal Voluntary River Stewards, but a very
agencies. There is much confusion and public agencies, as well as other large number of general volunteers
about who should be doing what. civil society organisations are undertaking specific tasks for land
This results in river-side spaces represented. The RSC generates owners and managed by the RSC
being neglected or very poorly income through commercial Community Team Manager. A wide
managed. The private owners of contracts for land owners alongside range of different people are
... →

involved as volunteers, old and The benefits that come through from businesses. The RSC recognises
young, employed and the RSC’s riverside UGI management benefits to wildlife and biodiversity,
unemployed, those with and in this example include economic through the clearance of non-native
without health issues. Volunteers and organisational benefits to invasive species such as Japanese
have included people referred Sheffield City Council, as they have knotweed and Giant Hogweed, or
through health services, for been able to meet obligations to encouraging native species such as
example through the brain injury increase flood protection activity, sand martins through habitat
clinic or through green exercise improve the quality of riverine restoration, but also benefits to the
prescriptions; there has been habitats, and improve access to UGI. rivers ecological functions, and
engagement with groups wanting The Environment Agency who are benefits to people through their
to find ways of integrating their the government body with overall community engagement. Volunteers
members with the local national responsibility for flood recognise benefits to their physical
community, e.g. a Burmese management recognise the benefits and mental health, as well as to
refugee group; and there has been of community and volunteer making links with other people in
significant engagement with involvement with RSC as building their community, building a sense of
organisations working with young community resilience to flooding, as social cohesion. Some volunteers
people not in education, training well as building a sense of ownership benefit from training and the
or employment as well as the and responsibility to the river achievement of formal
youth justice programme. amongst local people and qualifications.
Image: Pixabay

BENEFITS FROM INNOVATIVE NON-GOVERNMENT LED GRASSROOTS PROJECTS
ARNOS VALE CEMETERY,

BRISTOL, ENGLAND, UK
Arnos Vale Cemetery is an
historically important cemetery that
was established in Bristol in 1837.
The cemetery has conservation
status and is recognised as Grade II
on the Register of Historic Parks and
Gardens of Special Interest. The
cemetery covers 18 hectares of
land, much of which was landscaped
and designed to reflect a perfect
Arcadia, a necropolis, which became
so popular that the cemetery was
for a while the most fashionable Image: Bianca Ambrose-Oji
place to be buried in Bristol. Active citizenship through grassroots organisation
However, over the years the saved Arnos Vale Cemetery from development,
cemetery fell into disuse and and this important urban green space is now
disrepair. Because the cemetery had maintained and managed by the community.
been established as a private
business the land was still in private Having organised themselves as a consolidated its governance, in
ownership. The land owner had Trust, it meant that the local 2013 Bristol City Council agreed a
plans to demolish the cemetery, campaigners were then able to 125 year lease with the Trust.
exhume the bodies, and develop the apply for funding to realise their
land for housing. Local communities aims. In 2006 they received a grant Today, the combined efforts of the
established a campaign to save the of £4.8 million from the Heritage Trust and the Friends group ensures
cemetery because of the historic Lottery Fund (HLF) to begin that income comes from using the
value of the site as well as the green restoration of some of the historic restored buildings and grounds to
space it provided for recreation and buildings on the site. In 2010 the host events and occasions including
education. In 2003 Bristol City Trust relaunched the site to the weddings. The cemetery also
Council responded to the public. The Trust applied continues to be used for its original
community concern and the public successfully for a Santander Social purpose and the Trust has just started
campaign to save the cemetery by Enterprise Development Award of woodland burials. There is also a very
issuing a compulsory purchase £50,000 in 2012, which funded the busy café on the site. The income
order, which meant the site was construction of a timber frame raised by the Trust is complimented
placed into the ownership of the building in the forest built largely by by donations from the public. There is
City Council. The community, who volunteers. The contribution from no funding from the City Council. The
had organised themselves as the active citizens throughout the Trust had support from the HLF’s
Arnos Vale Cemetery Trust, were restoration period has been valued Catalyst endowment fund and had a
given a license to take on the at approximately £250,000-worth of target to raise £500,000 between
management of the site. The Trust is equivalent volunteer time. In 2013 and June 2016. This was
registered as both a business and a January 2013 a dedicated Friends’ matched pound for pound by HLF.
charity. The objective of the Trust is group was set up and continues to The annual return from this fund will
to fund and coordinate the long support the Trust. Having completed cover basic maintenance and running
term management of the cemetery. much of the restoration and costs of the cemetery.
... →

The Trust now employs the development, at minimal cost to the structure and encourage
equivalent of nine full-time staff. Council. The benefits to people in biodiversity. The nationally scarce
The active citizens in the “Friends the city are the maintenance of a plant, ivy broomrape, is present
of” group provide labour and skills public green space that forms part along with many nationally rare
for much of day to day management of the city’s green network. In terms insects which are taken into account
of the site including maintenance of of the benefits to the ecology of the in the management plan. The social
the grounds and all types of site, the cemetery is also being benefits are particularly notable as
landscaping work, as well as acting managed as a Site of Nature the site provides a place for
as tour guides, helping to run the Conservation Interest (SNCI). The recreation and social interaction as
gift shop and reception, and landscape management plan well as being a site that build
carrying out various research and focuses on conserving the existing connection with the local
administrative roles. grassland and woodland habitats community and a sense of
and improving their quality to community cohesion. The
The benefits to Bristol City Council benefit wildlife. The woodland is significant cultural values associated
have been to save an important being managed through selective with the historic monuments and
public open space from thinning; to improve the canopy memorials are also a benefit.
7.4. KEY MESSAGES FOR businesses should be undertaken. groups, civil society organisations
DECISION MAKERS These assessments are likely to and businesses as well as local and
demonstrate that the costs national government. These
It is possible for municipal incurred by local authorities and assessments can often provide a
authorities to facilitate the municipalities raise a significantly compelling assessment of the
development of a range of higher ratio of ecological, social value of UGI important to policy
governance and active citizenship and economic benefits. This also makers and municipal authorities
arrangements that can create, implies that municipalities should developing strategic approaches
manage and maintain almost any seek ecological, social and to the wellbeing of populations in
type of UGI. The facilitation economic value from the their cities, and community level
actions may have as much to do communities, organisations and resilience to modern social
with strategic policy or legal businesses they entrust the pressures. The examples of green
processes, as with providing creation and management of UGI space creation and management
capital spending and resources. to, rather than simply opting for that involve greater degrees of
the lowest cost. active citizenship, civil society
If municipalities provide capital involvement and the involvement
and other resources for the Methods to measure and value the of business are often those with
governance of UGI, a strategic health and wellbeing impacts of the most often reported impacts
approach to assessing and valuing urban green spaces are now well on wellbeing. The integration of
the range of benefits provided by understood with global and co-governance and non-
governance models that include regionally accepted government led initiatives in all
active citizenship arrangements methodologies9. Techniques for kinds of UGI would appear to
and the efforts of other civil assessing these benefits have been present win-win cases for
society organisations and developed for use by community municipal authorities.

7.5. RESOURCES
Guides and tools

NESTA, Learning to rethink parks, a guide for park managers, local authorities, policy makers:
www.nesta.org.uk/publications/learning-rethink-parks
Respublica, A Community Right to Beauty: Giving communities the power to shape, enhance and create
beautiful places, developments and spaces.
www.respublica.org.uk/our-work/publications/a-community-right-to-beauty-giving-communities-
the-power-to-shape-enhance-and-create-beautiful-places-developments-and-spaces
Research papers
1. CABE, The value of public space: how high quality parks and public spaces create economic, social and
environmental value. 2004, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): London.
2. Mattijssen, T., et al., The ‘green’ and ‘self’ in green self-governance – a study of 264 green space
initiatives by citizens. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2017.
3. Groundwork, Grey Spaces Need Green Places. 2012, Federation of Groundwork Trusts: Birmingham.
4. England, P.H., Local action on health inequalities: Improving access to green spaces, Public Health
England, Editor. 2014: London.
5. Bell, S., et al., Green space, health and wellbeing: making space for individual agency. Health & Place,
2014. 30: p. 287‐292.
6. CABE, Community Green: Using Local Spaces to Tackle Inequality and Improve Health. 2010,
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): London.
7. Saraev, V., Economic benefits of green space. A critical assessment of evidence of net economic benefits.
2012, Forestry Commission: Edinburgh.
8. Haase, D., et al., Classification of UGI Based on Their Functionality, Services, Synergies, Trade-Offs and
Spatial Conflicts. GREEN SURGE project report. 2016, Copenhagen University: Copenhagen.
9. Organisation, W.H., Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence. 2016, WHO Regional Office
for Europe: Copenhagen.

LIST OF CONTRIBUT ORS
CONTRIBUTOR AFFILIATION CONTRIBUTIONS TO

Ambrose-Oji, Senior Social Scientist, Social and Coordination, contributor and editor of Guide
Bianca Economic Research Group, Centre for Chapter 1: Introduction
Ecosystems, Society and Biosecurity Chapter 2: Governance Typology
Forest Research (FCRA), UK Chapter 3: Active Citizenship and Non-
Government Organisations
Chapter 5: Social Inclusion
Chapter 6: Place Keeping
Chapter 7: Benefits of Governance
Examples in Practice:
Stepping Stones and Active Neighbourhoods,
Plymouth, UK; River Stewardship Company,
Sheffield, UK; Neighbourhood Planning,
Bristol, UK; Water Works, Barrhead, Glasgow,
UK; Arnos Vale Cemetery, Bristol, UK.
Andersson, Erik Associate Professor at Stockholm Chapter 4: Green Barter - Involving Business
Resilience Center (SRC) Stockholm Chapter 5: Social Inclusion
University, Sweden
Buijs, Senior Researcher, Forest and Nature Editorial Review
Arjen Conservation Policy Group, Chapter 2: Governance Typology
Wageningen University, The Chapter 3: Active Citizenship and Non-
Netherlands Government Organisations
DeBellis, Assistant at Dipartimento di Scienze Examples in Practice:
Yole Agro-Ambientali e Territoriali Boscoincittà, Milan, Italy
(Di.S.A.A.T.), Università degli Studi di
Bari ‘Aldo Moro’ (UNIBA), Italy
Gerőházi, Researcher at Metropolitan Research Editorial Review
Éva Institute (MRI), Hungary Chapter 4: Green Barter - Involving Business
Examples in Practice:
Green Barter, Oredea, Romania; BID,
Hamburg, Germany
Kronenberg, Associate Professor at Faculty of Chapter 4: Green Barter - Involving Business
Jakub Economics and Sociology, Uniwersytet Chapter 5: Social Inclusion
Lodzki (ULOD), Poland Examples in Practice:
Green Barter, Lodz
Hansen, Researcher at Chair for Strategic Editorial Review
Rieke Landscape Planning and Chapter 5: Social inclusion
Management, Technical University of
Munich (TUM), Germany
Haase, Dagmar Professor, Institute of Geopgraphy, Chapter 5: Social Inclusion
Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
Mattijssen, Researcher at Forest and Nature Chapter 6: Place Keeping
Thomas Conservation Policy Group, Chapter 7: Benefits of Governance
Wageningen University, The
Netherlands Examples in Practice:
Green space planning in Utrecht, Netherlands;
De Ruige Hof, Amsterdam, Netherlands

CONTRIBUTOR AFFILIATION CONTRIBUTIONS TO
Rall, Researcher at Chair for Strategic Chapter 5: Social Inclusion
Emily Landscape Planning and
Rolf, Researcher at Chair for Strategic Editorial Review
Werner Landscape Planning and
Santos, Researcher at Ce3C-Centre for Examples in Practice:
Artur Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Participatory Budgeting, Lisbon, Portugal
Changes, Faculdade de Ciências de
Lisboa (FFCUL), Portugal
Száraz, Researcher at Metropolitan Research Chapter 2: Governance Typology
Luca Institute (MRI), Hungary Chapter 3: Active Citizenship and Non-
Now: Project Coordinator, Government Organisations
Department of Landscape
Architecture, Planning and Examples in Practice:
Management; Swedish University of The Stopping-place, Szeged, Hungary; Urban
Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden farming, Hylle, Malmö, Sweden
Van der Jagt, Researcher at Land Use and Chapter 6: Place Keeping
Alexander Ecosystem Services Group Centre for
Ecosystems, Society and Biosecurity, Examples in Practice:
Forest Research (FCRA), UK Granton Community Gardeners, Edinburgh,
Now: Copernicus Institute of UK; Duddingstone Field Group, Edinburgh, UK
Sustainable Development, Utrecht
University, The Netherlands

WWW.GREENSURGE.EU

Innovative Governance For Urban Green Infrastructure - A Guide For Practitioners - 2017

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Innovative Governance For Urban Green Infrastructure - A Guide For Practitioners - 2017

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

July 2017

A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS

Image credits: Credits listed with associated images

II CHAPTER 2: A TYPOLOGY TO MAKE SENSE OF INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR UGI 12

II CHAPTER 3: ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AND NON-GOVERNMENT LED APPROACHES 24

II CHAPTER 4: GREEN BARTER AND PPP: INVOLVING BUSINESS IN UGI GOVERNANCE 36

II CHAPTER 5: SOCIAL INCLUSION IN THE GOVERNANCE OF UGI 46

II CHAPTER 6: GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND CONTINUITY: PLACE-KEEPING 62

II CHAPTER 7: THE STRATEGIC BENEFITS OF ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP IN UGI GOVERNANCE 76

4 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 5

More and more European

6 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 7

→ CHAPTER 7: BENEFITS OF GOVERNANCE

8 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

This guide is not produced as a step-by-step guide to building participatory • Headlines

INITIATIVE, CITY, TOPIC CHAPTER,

Oredea, Romania Green Barter, involving business in governance Chapter 4, Page 43

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 9

10 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

12 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 13

Different governance models

All of these issues suggest that

14 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

FIGURE 2: SPECTRUM OF GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENT

Form of Non- Information Consultation Involvement Partnership Empowerment

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 15

FIGURE 3: TYPOLOGY CHARACTERISING DIFFERENT KINDS OF

Organisation initiated NGOs or social enterprises mobilise active citizenship and

Co-governance Co-governance Partnerships between citizens or citizen organisations and

16 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

Problem solving, Resource

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 17

3. New methods may be used to

4. The initiatives involve

Image: Forestry Commission 2019193

18 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 19

STEPPING STONES AND ACTIVE NEIGHBOURHOODS, PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND, UK

20 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING, LISBON, PORTUGAL

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 21

A generic approach to including

22 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

Guides and tools

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 23

24 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 25

Reasons for municipality

For municipalities a common

26 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

Local people often spot

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 27

Active citizenship is expressed

28 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

The decision-making power

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 29

ORGANISATION INITIATED GRASSROOTS INITIATIVE:

30 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017

INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017 31

32 INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDE · July 2017