More than just green biocultural diversity of urban parks in four European capitals

Transcription

1 More than just green biocultural diversity of urban parks in four European capitals Kati Vierikko, University of Helsinki, Paula Goncalves, University of Lisbon and Dagmar Haase, Humboldt University of Berlin

2 The GREEN SURGE Collaborative project between 24 partners in 11 countries, funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and coordinated by Copenhagen University ( ). Follows transdisciplinary approach characterized with Learning Alliance (LA) approach to participate key stakeholder in five Urban Learning Lab cities (Edinburgh, Bari, Berlin, Ljubljana, Malmö). Final Conference Connecting People and Nature for Sustainable Cities 20-21st September 2017 in Malmö, Sweden Urban Green Infrastructure and future land-use challenges

3 Green Surge project Page 3

4 Publications Deliverable presenting BCD approach in urban context: 2.1. Biocultural Diversity: Concept and Assessment - project report on BCD concept and explorative survey of BCD in 20 European cities Urban Green Infrastructure and future land-use challenges

5 Content Content of my talk Urban green infrastructure and biocultural diversity Presenting case cities: Helsinki, Bucharest, Berlin and Lisbon Comparison of user and use diversity and their perceptions on cultural diversity of urban parks Perceived and observed biological and cultural diversity Main findings with some considerations

6 Public parks Urban public parks as a part of UGI should Deliver multiple benefits and ecosystem services Support sustainability and resilience of cities Be inclusive and provide equal opportunities for residents Do public parks satisfy these multiple needs or are we promising too much and overselling nature-based solutions?

7 Stewardship BCD: engagement with nature, place-making and -shaping Lived BCD: experiences, emotions and relations Materialised BCD: biological and cultural features manifested in UGI Conceptual framework of BCD to analyse three dimensions of biological and cultural diversity (Vierikko et al. 2017, unpublished)

8 Biocultural diversity (BCD) of urban parks: living with diversity Kati Vierikko, Paula Gonçalves, Filipa Grilo, Joana Vieira, Cristina Branquinho, Otília Correia, Margarida Santos-Reis, Dagmar Haase, Liisi Matilainen, Hanne Rapeli, Miia Puttonen, Mari Pieniniemi and Jasmina Lindgren BCD studies in four capitals: Helsinki, Lisbon, Berlin and Bucharest during Public parks attached to three different urban matrix types: gray, green/blue-gray and green embedded and In different neighborhoods from low to high socioeconomic status

9 Nordic Planning family: Helsinki (214 km2), inhabitants Central planning family (regional economic planning): Berlin (892 km2), 3,5 million inhabitants New member states (post-socialism): Bucharest (228 km2) 1,7 million inhabitants Mediterranean planning family (urbanism): Lisbon (84 km2), inhabitants

10 Park Area Location Attached to Neighborhood Gleisdreieck 26 ha Centrum Gray Medium to Rich Treptower Park 88 ha Semi-centrum Blue-gray Medium to Rich 1531 Volkspark Friedrichshain 52 ha Centrum Gray Rich Population density (km2)

11 Park Area Location Attached to Neighborhood Gradina Icoanei 2.4 ha Centrum Gray Rich Motodrom 3.8 ha Peripheral Gray Poor 9313 Brancusi 1 ha Peipheral Gray-abandoned land Homogeneous 8930 Cismigiu 14.6 ha Centrum Blue-gray Rich Herastrau 187 ha Semi-centrum* Blue-green-grey Rich Plumbuita 80 ha Semi-centrum* Blue-grey Homogeneous and poor Population density (km2)

12

13

14 Methods used Methodological approach Multi-taxa assessment of biological diversity in Helsinki and Lisbon: Epiphytic lichens, vascular plants, wooded species and birds Ethnographic approach for cultural diversity: On site face-to-face interviews of park users: motivations, enjoyment, disturbance, perception and valuation of biodiversity and cultural diversity, perceived health and wellbeing Observations of park users and use in Helsinki and Lisbon (10h)

15 Face-to-face interviews of visitors in public parks Sample size Berlin; 145 Bucharest; 120 Number of studied parks Berlin: 3 Bucharest: 6 Helsinki: 12 Lisbon: 12 Lisbon; 600 Helsinki; Average age of respondents Berlin (n=145) Bucharest (n=120) Helsinki (n=598) Lisbon (n=600)

16 Socio-demographic characteristics Berlin (n=145) Bucharest (n=120) Helsinki (n=598) Lisbon (n=600) Female (%) Univ. degree (%) Respondents in Bucharest and Lisbon were less academic educated Proportion of men was highest in Lisbon Proportion of foreign respondents was highest in Helsinki and Lisbon following the general proportion of foreign people in both cities Born in other country (%) Berlin (n=145) Bucharest (n=120) Helsinki (n=598) Lisbon (n=600)

17 Motivations to arrive Why people come to visit in parks in summer time? Do they use parks around the year?

18 Use of parks Lisbon (n=600) Helsinki (n=598) Motivations for visit 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Winter time use Bucharest Berlin Lisbon Helsinki Bucharest (n=120) Berlin (n=145) Mobility based or passing by Relaxing and stationary Social relations Proportion of visitors staying alone (%) Berlin (n=145) Bucharest (n=120) Helsinki (n=598) Lisbon (n=600)

19 Main findings There are differences in uses of parks Social and stationary based (relaxing) motivations to arrive indicates that park is a meaningful place to spend time (Gehlin 2011). In Lisbon people came to spend time alone and walking around just hanging around In Bucharest reason to arrive was mostly mobility based e.g. sport, walking a dog or with family/friends In Berlin parks are social meeting places. In Helsinki, good weather was one of most common mentioned reason to arrive, and parks are hardly used in winter time.

20 Satisfaction and disturbance What people enjoy during their visit? What is disturbing?

21 What people enjoy during their park visit? 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Immaterial elements Nature Berlin Social relations Services and facilities Location 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Immaterial things Nature Bucharest Facilities and services Social relations Location 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nature Immaterial elements Lisbon Facilities and services Wellbeing 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nature Immaterial elements Helsinki Weather Social relations Services and facilities

22 What disturbed people during their visit? Berlin Bucharest 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% Immaterial things People Facilities (lack) Park maintenance Nothing 0% Feral dogs Facilities People Park maintenance Nothing 60% Lisbon 50% Helsinki 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 30% 20% 10% 0% Immaterial things Facilities Park maintenance People Nothing 0% Facilities Nature Immaterial characteristics People Nothing

23 Helsinki case Location of parks matters in positive experiences Nature Immaterial elements Social relations 17% Visitors in centrum parks enjoy especially social related things 27% 65% 48% 67% 69% 16% 61% 57% In semi-urban parks visitors enjoy nature and immaterial things of park Visitors in suburbs enjoyment of immaterial elements was most important, but social or nature enjoyment much weaker than in centrum Centrum Semi-centrum Suburb

24 Observed species (SR) Nature experience In most parks majority enjoyed about nature Number of visitors enjoying nature (max. 50)

25 Helsinki case Location of parks matters in negative experiences 60 Disturbed by people and nature Visitors in centrum parks are more disturbed with nature (mainly birds) Nature (%) People (%) In semi-urban parks visitors are free from disturbing things In suburbs parks misbehaviour of others or other groups were considered most disturbing 0 Centrum Semi-centrum Suburb

26 Helsinki case Average number of enjoyed and disturbed things peple mentioned in different city districts (ratio lowest in suburb and highest is semi-urban parks) Enjoyed Disturbed Centrum Semi-centrum Suburb

27 Main findings Park as a social meeting place to experience nature In all cities nature and immaterial elements (silence, view) of parks were strongly enjoyed in parks In Helsinki and Lisbon visitors are more disturbed by others than in Bucharest or Berlin Location and neighborhood matter and in some parks ratio of enjoyed and disturbed things can be very low do parks support well-being? In addition, parks can be too small for nature experience BUT important social meeting places

28 Cultural diversity Do you think this park is biologically and culturally diverse? Why?

29 Perceptions Perceived biological and cultural diversity Biologically diverse park? Culturally diverse park? Different people/ groups (%) Cultural events and activities (%) Berlin (n=145) Bucharest (n=120) Helsinki (n=598) Majority felt that parks are biologically diverse In Helsinki, great proportion considered urban parks are culturally diverse In Berlin and Helsinki, people referred to heterogeneity of park users (in terms of ethnicity, age, socio-demographic factors) In Bucharest social events made the place culturally diverse

30 Helsinki case Observed and perceived cultural diversity in Helsinki Does actual group diversity support social cohesion (meeting, tolerance and understanding)? OR is more related to perceptions of people about cultural diversity?

31 Cultural diversity in Helsinki parks Perceived and actual cultural diversity of parks Observation of visitors and grouping them: children, young, adults (female, male), seniors (F/M), elder (F/M), foreign (male/female/children), disabled = 12 identified groups Open question about cultural diversity of parks (YES, different kinds of people/ groups) Rating of social cohesion. Does the park contributes to Meeting other people: 1 (none) (very much) Tolerance towards others: 1 (none) (very much) Understanding of others: 1 (none) (very much)

32 Scored CD: tolerance Helsinki case Diversity of visitors do not support social cohesion (tolerance towards others) 4,50 4,00 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0, Observed visitor groups (max. 11) Kendall s correlation: no significant correlation found

33 Scored CD: toelrance Helsinki case Perceived CD (diversity of people) seems to support social cohesion (tolerance towards others) of the park 4,50 4,00 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0, Perceived CD: different user groups Kendall s correlation:0,042* Negative correlation between tolerance and amount of foreign people

34 Conclusions Social cohesion of parks User diversity of parks do not necessarily support social cohesion AND neighborhood i.e. socio-demographic context of park matters Open-minded neighborhood (and people) creates inclusive public park BUT could it be other way around how design inclusive parks? Social events, making place together can increase (perceived) cultural diversity and support social cohesion, BUT only if they are inclusive for different groups to join

35 Kiitos - Thank you! Pokemon hunter vs tree lovers diversity of experiences ALTER-Net in conference parks - Nature and Society: synergies, conflicts, trade-offs

36 Kiitos - Thank you - Grazie! kati.vierikko@helsinki.fi ALTER-Net conference - Nature and Society: synergies, conflicts, trade-offs