Partnerships in place-keepingIs partnership working the solution for open space management?

Mel Burton University of SheffieldGreen Growth: New Shoots International Conference 2012

Today’s presentation

1.Defining place-keeping

2. Partnership in place-keeping

3.Partnership Capacity

4.Issues and benefits

5.Recommendations

Mel Burton University of SheffieldGreen Growth: New Shoots International Conference 2012

Across Europe, there is too much emphasis on the ‘place-making’ and not ‘place-keeping’ (or long-term management) of open space.

Place-making

• The creation of high-quality places that people want to visit, experience and enjoy

• Implies a people-centred approach– health and wellbeing– sense of belonging and attachment– welcoming and inclusive places

HafenCity, Hamburg; River Don, Sheffield; Hailes Quarry Park, Edinburgh.

Place-keeping

• What happens ‘after’ high quality places have been created– maintaining and enhancing the qualities

and benefits through LTM

• Long-term management of places – to ensure that the social, environmental

and economic quality and benefits can be enjoyed by future generations

- landscapes develop and change over time.

Woesten, West Flanders; Leuven, Flemish Brabant; Manor & Castle, Sheffield.

Why is place-keeping important?

• Inappropriate design can lead to more maintenance in the long run

• Poorly designed and managed spaces can make users feel unsafe– less used, less valued– leading to neglect, misuse: an ‘uncared-for’ space– may require costly changes in the future

Complex;

Place

Process

Product

Place-keeping themes

Partnerships

Governance / engagement

Maintenance

Funding / finance

Evaluation

Policy

Partnerships

• Agreed shared responsibility for place-keeping.

• May be:

- informal - mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities

- formal, based on written agreement.

• Roles and responsibilities delegated horizontally rather than traditional ‘top-down’ governance.

Emmen, the Netherlands; Steilshoop, Hamburg; Woesten, Belgium.

Partnerships

Public sector-led Public sector only Public sector with contracted-out services

Private sector-led Business Improvement District/ Town Centre Management Public-private partnership with PK by public sector Public-private partnership with PK by both sectors

Third sector-led Public-private-third sector partnership with PK by public sector Third sector-public partnership with PK by third sector (social enterprise with commercial arm) Third sector-public partnership with PK by third sector (social enterprise) Public-private-third sector partnership with PK devolved from state to community group (or equivalent) Independent charitable organisation

Consensus in policy + theory that they effectively achieve place-keeping, especially:

- A combination of public-private-third sector- Involvement + engagement of local community

In relation to place-keeping we define partnership capacity as:

Partnership Capacity Firth Park

Sheaf Valley Park

Porter Valley

Millhouses Park

Clissold Park

Clapton Square

Robin Hood Community

garden

the degree to which public-community partnerships are able to withstand and

respond to changes in support, and remain actively involved and effective in developing

and sustaining green space quality.

Partnership CapacityCapacity theme Theme description

1 Capital The financial contribution made by the partner to the development and management of the site.

2 Commitment The type of commitment (voluntary, paid etc.) made by the partner, including amount of time spent and number of people involved, to contribute to the development and management of the site.

3 Skill base The skill base of the partner in terms of relevant training, professional background, familiarity with the site that contributes to the development and management of the site.

4 Motivation The motivational drive of the partner’s involvement in the site in terms of social, environmental or political interest.

5 Communication The communication capability of the partner (both internally and externally) in facilitating the development and management of the site.

6 Political influence The degree and level of influence each partner has in facilitating the development and management of the site.

Involvement models

The importance of networks

• Internal and external networks are essential in communicative capacity.• Groups with large networks have a greater resourcing capacity.

Partnership Capacity

Partnership Issues

• Resource intensive – lack of resources

• Unrepresentative – personal agendas

• Continuity - what happens when people move on?

• Motivation - ‘That’s the local authorities job.’

• Funding challenges – multiple partners, funding cycles, changing polices

• Concerns over responsibilities - liability, quality

Partnership benefits

• Solve complex problems

• Improve relationships - resolve conflicts.

• Access additional resources

• Partner benefits – PR, professional / social contacts

• Social interactions and sense of community

• Environmental awareness, ownership – reduce site problems

• Environmental improvements

Is partnership working the solution for open space management?

It’s complex – may not be the easiest option

Requires long-term commitment – time, resources Develop a shared vision, aims and goals.

• involve stakeholders early • treat as equals, • delegate responsibilities • build sense of ownership and consensus.

Trusted mediator as link between government and stakeholders. Agree clear roles and responsibilities – written, formal agreements

 

Flexibility and continuity important - role for local government Partners (ship) lack capacity - need on-going support to build networks

Transfer of responsibilities - concerns over liabilities and quality

Space should match partnership capacity Good communication, internal and external, is essential

Is partnership working the solution for open space management?

The future of your local park?