It's real, not fake like a park: Informal greenspace as anti-gentrification strategy?

Abstract

There has been a burgeoning awareness within the geography and environmental justice literatures that urban greening strategies can gentrify nearby neighbourhoods (Curran and Hamilton 2012; Wolch et al., 2014). A growing number of international case studies have shown how the 'clean-up' of polluted environments often brings inflated property values, when investors, businesses and wealthier residents capitalise on the locational advantages of inner-city sites. In Australia, more than two-decades of inner city 'urban renewal' have seen the displacement of marginalised and vulnerable residents to the urban fringe, where they are locked into mortgage stress and long commutes, among other problems (Byrne and Houston, 2005; Dodson and Sipe, 2008). In this paper we show that alternatives to this model exist. Drawing upon recent cross-cultural research from Brisbane Australia and Sapporo, Japan, we show how liminal greenspaces - which Rupprecht (2014) calls 'informal urban greenspaces', have the potential to counter green gentrification. Land such as power transmission corridors, vacant lots, abandoned land and canal sides can provide residents with places where they can access nature and enjoy a diverse range of recreational pursuits, without triggering gentrification. Drawing on examples, we discuss the characteristics of such land, quantify the proportion of the built environment it comprises, and report on citizens' attitudes towards these spaces. We offer some theoretical insights into the drivers of eco-gentrification and into the factors predicting 'just green enough' outcomes.

Full text

It's real, not fake like a park:
Informal greenspace as
anti-gentrification strategy?
Christoph Rupprecht
Jason Byrne
Environmental Futures Research Institute
AAG Annual Meeting 2015

Rail-side gardens – Sapporo, Japan
“Near railway lines, people often grow vegetables and flowers…You can see it a lot when riding
the train. I think they grow it there because they have no other space.” Yumiko, female, aged 60,
Sapporo - Japan

Overview
! Research problem
! Theoretical framing
! Literature summary
! Research questions
! Study sites
! Methods
! Results
! Discussion
! Conclusions
Canal-side IGS, Sapporo, Japan (Rupprecht)

Research problem – ‘dirty’ natures
! Global environmental changes (e.g. climate change)
are driving urban greening initiatives
! Parks and other greenspaces increase land values
! Environmental remediation can produce environmental
injustices through displacement
! Lack of greenspace can be an injustice (Wolch et al., 2015)
! How to provide greenspace and/or green infrastructure
that ‘complicates and contests gentrification and
neoliberalisation’ (Curran & Hamilton, 2012 p. 1030)
! Can we have a ‘more democratic, diverse and just
view of what green looks like’? (Curran & Hamilton, 2012 p. 1039)
! How to avoid the pitfalls of ‘low maintenance’ (e.g.
safety, crime etc.) (Brownlow, 2006)

Theoretical framing
! Environmental justice historically framed around
disproportionate exposure to harm (e.g. Bullard; Pulido; Cutter; Pastor)
! More recent focus on access to environmental benefits such as
parks, fresh food etc. (e.g. Boone et al.,; Wolch et al.)
! Political ecology: political, economic & socio-demographic
vulnerability and marginality reproduce differential access to
nature (e.g. Peet and Watts; Blaikie and Brookfield; Pezzoli)
! How particular ideas about nature are mobilized for specific
political and social ends (e.g. Escobar; McCarthy; Keil)
! Parks as socially produced nature – spaces of control &
technologies of ‘improvement’ (e.g. Cranz; Byrne and Wolch)

Causes of Environmental Injustice
! Intentional targeting
! Negligence
! Property markets
! Law & policy enforcement
! Invisible problems
! Lack of information
! Social exclusion
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Benefits of green spaces
! Environmental benefits
» regulate ambient temperatures, filter air, reduce noise,
lower wind speeds, sequester carbon, attenuate storm-
water, protect habitats and preserve biodiversity
! Social benefits
» relieve stress, hasten disease recovery, foster active
living, encourage social interaction, moderate incivility
and cultivate child development
! Economic benefits
» promote tourism, reduce pollution, decrease health-care
expenses, and increase property values
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Disservices of green spaces
! Environmental
» promote human-wildlife conflict, introduce weeds and/or
pest species, lower groundwater, release VOCs
! Social
» displace populations, health impacts (e.g. asthma,
allergies), change character of an area, fear of crime,
animal attacks, promote gentrification
! Economic
» increase property values, increase heating expenses,
damage infrastructure, maintenance costs, increased
morbidity and mortality, insurance costs, windthrow
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions
Roy, S., et al., (2012), ‘A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and
assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones’, Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 11(4), 351-363.

Liminal greenspace
! Neither fully natural, nor fully human
! Feral qualities – once domesticated
but now uncontrolled
! Always in the middle, between
things: provisional, transitional & fluid
! Associated with neglect,
abandonment & decay
! Occupying the interstices -
wastelands
! Qualities we term ‘informal’
! Can marginal spaces help
marginalised people?
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions
Formal
Informal

! Previously disturbed and/or
developed
! Spontaneous vegetation
(not “remnant”)
! Not formally recognised,
categorised or managed as:
» recreational space
» agricultural space
» conservation space
Definition of informal greenspace (IGS)
Rupprecht, C., Byrne, J. (2014), Informal urban greenspace: a typology and trilingual systematic review of its
role for urban residents and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4), 597–611.

IGS Typology
Basic types:
1. Verges
2. Lot
3. Brownfield
4. Powerline
5. Railway
6. Waterside
7. Structural
8. Microsite

Research questions
1. Does the amount and accessibility of IGS in a city
improve overall greenspace accessibility?
2. Is the availability of IGS a function of socio-spatial
patterns of (dis)advantage?
3. Do income and education configure patterns of use
and appreciation?
4. Does IGS present an opportunity for ‘just green
enough’ interventions
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions
Rupprecht, C., Byrne, J., Ueda, H., Lo, A. (forthcoming), ‘It’s real, not fake like a park’: Residents’
perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan.
Landscape and Urban Planning (accepted pending revision).

Research design
Two city case comparison
Similar:
! age, morphology, geography
Different:
! density, greenspace, culture,
institutions, urban structure
Quantify IGS location & type
Mail-back survey
1,910 Brisbane; 1,980 Sapporo
400m radius of 121 sampled sites
3 part instrument; 33 questions
123 responses Brisbane (6.4%)
163 responses Sapporo (8.2%)
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Research design
IGS
1km
10km
sampling site
50m
10m
= bird point count
within 50m2
100500
10x10km grid with 121 sampling sites
City centre
% IGS cover
Rupprecht, C., Byrne, J. (2014), Informal Urban Green-Space: Comparison of Quantity and
Characteristics in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. PLoS ONE 9(6): e99784.

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Spatial IGS distribution
in Sapporo (top) and
Brisbane (bottom)
survey areas
Sampling sites*
Percent IGS land use
0%
"
>0% - 5%
"
>5% - 10%
"
>10% - 20%
"
>20% - 30%
"
>30% - 40%
"
>40% - 50%
"
>50% - 60%
Infrastructure
Railway
River
Highway
Primary road
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
0241
Kilometers
Ü
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Results – Greenspace access
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions
Sapporo Brisbane
Proportion of study area
% of area % of area
Informal greenspace
4.8 6.3
Formal greenspace "
(e.g. parks, conservation)
15.4 11.6
Private greenspace"
(e.g. gardens, community land)
14.6 27.4
Total greenspace
35.2 45.3
• IGS represents ~14% of total city greenspace in both cities
• IGS to >85% accessible or partly accessible in both cities

How representative was our sample?

Results – IGS, income, education
! Income and education had no significant influence on
self-reported IGS use and frequency of use
! Many respondents reported high affinity with IGS
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions
“I think that there is a clear link between growing up in an area where
children can "interact" with their environment, and environmental
awareness/compassion, as an adult….I have seen areas where children
grow up in high rise apartments, with only infrequent access to a sterile
park, and these have been the areas of the most unnecessary (and
widespread) environmental damage.” (Thomas, 41, male, Brisbane)
“Today, there’s no place for young teenagers to go other than hanging
out in front of convenience stores. Even in Doraemon (a very famous
Japanese cartoon, Author’s note) the children play in vacant lots every
day. And parks are so overmaintained there’s nothing except a few
ants.” (Akiko, 42, female, Sapporo)

Were there differences in attitudes towards nature?

Were there differences in IGS knowledge?

Figure 4.3 Respondents’ evaluation of IGS influence on daily life
Were there differences in IGS impacts?

Results – Disadvantage & IGS
! Data: Brisbane IRSAD
Index of Relative Socio-economic
Advantage and Disadvantage
! Calculated IGS site
weighted IRSAD percentile
! Correlation analysis
! Findings
No correlations between:
IGS area – IRSAD
IGS types – IRSAD 
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Results – IGS accessibility
Brisbane Sapporo
Accessible 78% 68%
Partially accessible 7% 12%
Not accessible 15% 10%
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions
“[IGS]'s informality allows more people to use the space in more and
different ways. It's informality echoes the informality of our society in our
youth and formative years.” (Giorgos, 60, male, Brisbane)
“A neutral zone that belongs to nobody is necessary: left-over room,
margins, interstices, space. A life like in the city, where human-made
objects are surrounded by nothing but artificial greenspace, is
suffocating.” (Satoshi, 45, male, Sapporo)

Discussion – IGS vs. gentrification
! Problems with converting IGS to parks: cost, use
restrictions, displacement, eco-gentrification, e.g., High
Line NY (Wolch et al.; Campo; Qviström; Bryson)
! Resident-led management approaches?
‘We should make them into ‘talking spaces’ people can
have fun looking after and using them together, even use
public funding for it!’ (Akira, 71, male, from Sapporo)
! Case comparison: IGS gardening
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Case 1 – IGS verge gardens
Nagoya
! Small-scale (1km x 1m)
! Informal use
! Moderate benefits
! No long-term stability
! Conflict (vegetable theft)
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Case 2 – IGS river bank gardens
Sapporo
! Medium scale (600m x 10m)
! Informal use
! High benefits
! No long-term stability
! Continuing conflict with city
government
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Case 3 – Powerline community garden
Nagoya
! Medium scale
! Formalized through
agreement with utility
! High benefits
! Long-term stability
! No cost, no conflict
! Low gentrification risk:
user-managed; catering
to residents’ needs, not
design aesthetics
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Conclusion(s)
! Need to rethink our understanding of greenspace
! Many spaces written off as ‘derelict’ may have value
! Spaces that are ‘just green enough’ are treasured
! Residents may value rambles and rambunctiousness
! Can we let nature ‘take its course’ in some spaces
! Could we use colonisation as a greening tool?
! Would natural experiments improve affinity?
! Can informal use create democratic spaces?
! Should planners ‘tread gently’?
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

Future research?
! Need to repeat this research in other cities
! Would help to talk to planners and policy makers
! Need to understand safety thresholds (e.g. Brownlow)
! Hedonic modelling needed to test values impact
! Is IGS a substitute or a complement?
! LTER and social research required at many sites
Review Typology Questions Methods Results Discussion Conclusions

References
Byrne, J. and Wolch, J., 2009, ‘Nature, race and parks: past research and future
directions for geographic research, Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), pp.
743-765.
Curran, W. and Hamilton, T., 2012, ‘Just green enough: contesting environmental
gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, Local Environment, 17(9), pp. 1027-1042.
Rupprecht, C.D.D. and Byrne, J., 2014, ‘Informal urban greenspace: comparison of
quantity and characteristics in Brisbane Australia and Sapporo, Japan’, PLOS One,
9(6), e99784.
Rupprecht, C.D.D. and Byrne, J.A., 2014, ‘Informal urban greenspace: A typology and
trilingual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature,
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(4), pp. 597-611.
Wolch, J., Byrne, J. and Newell, J., 2014, ‘urban green-space, public health and
environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’, Landscape
and Urban Planning, 125, pp. 234-244.

Interested and "
want to know more?
Blog: www.treepolis.org
Twitter: @focx
Google+: Christoph Rupprecht