Governance & management:What can and should the role of

government, business and communities be in the place-keeping

of open space? Lessons from MP4

Green Growth: New Shoots10th May 2012

Harry SmithHeriot-Watt University

Place-keeping:

Place

Process

Product

Governance – What is it?

• Governance of open space is key to its quality and its contribution to society, but what is it? – the sphere of relations between government and other

actors in civil society or non-governmental sectors – including the private sector & community;

– the processes of interaction between these in defining their roles and relationships.

• Government does not work in isolation but through these types of relations.

• In MP4, focus on the local community.

What affects governance?

• Outcome of any open space place-making project and/or place-keeping activity is the result of the combination: – purpose of the project or activity; – setting (large park, small square, etc.); – people involved; – process to involve these.

• People and process are what governance is about.

Benefits of inclusive governance

• Traditionally a technocratic approach in PK, but benefits of community involvement include:– Local knowledge – Community understanding– Legitimacy and ‘buy-in’ – Improved relationship between policymakers and the

community– Community empowerment & social cohesion– Active citizenship &social justice– More appropriate services

Issues in inclusive governance

• But wider engagement also raises issues:

– Range of community members involved– Timescales & nature of public sector processes– Nature of PK of open space– Issues of power (in both inclusive and technocratic

approaches)

Several approaches in governance: MP4 pilots & model agreements

Pilot/model agreement

Sector/actor Government Business Community Intermediary

Sheffield Sheaf Valley, UK

Professional steering group

Urban Splash Friends of Park

Gothenburg, SE Coordinated administrative levels

Flemish Land Agency (VLM), BE

Regional agency Farmers / landowners

Farmers / landowners

Steilshoop NID, Hamburg, DE

Property owners Property owners

BIDs, Hamburg, DE Public authority approval

Property owners

Firth Park, Sheffield, UK

Local authority Friends of Park

Emmen Revisited, NL Municipality & other govt. bodies

Local businesses Local community representative bodies

Municipal facilitator organisation

GetMove, Hamburg, DE

Youth Association

Supporting NGO (Lawaetz Foundation)

Key findings from MP4 (1)

• Respect and dialogue local ownership & responsibility

• Public participation possibilities & limitations need to be clear from the start

• Engagement in projects depends on prospect of mutual benefits & trust in the lead organisation.

• Who may be engaged, how they may benefit and what they may contribute need to be considered.

• Scale & nature of the open space will affect the scope for community involvement in PK.

Key findings from MP4 (2)

• Tendency to think that PK is the responsibility of the public sector.

• Wider engagement in PK through formal or informal agreements.

• Community engagement in PM processes can help establish trust & working practices for continuing involvement in PK.

• Uncertainty within the public sector can be barrier to wider engagement in PK or can increase the length of the process.

Back to the question

• So, what can and should the role of government, business and communities be in the place-keeping of open space?– There are many possibilities, and opportunities should be created to

explore these and give them a chance to develop.– But there are also limitations, and expectations from the various

stakeholders should be realistic.– Depends on the context. Context is not everything, but it is a lot!

• An example: Barger-Compascuum and Emmen Revisited, The Netherlands.