CHAPTER 5: INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES OF GREEN SPACE PLANNING AND APPROACHES
5.3 International green space planning: Case study analysis
5.3.1. Point of departure: planning of green spaces
As was done in section 5.2 on international lively place planning, this subsection will also firstly aim to conclusively discuss the separate underlying concepts associated with and relevant to ‗green space planning‘ (green, space, and private and public green space) – all concepts discussed in detail in preceding theoretical chapters, with specific reference to Chapter 4 on green space planning. The summary and collaboration of these different concepts or aspects regarding green space planning will serve as a basis or foundation against which current green space planning case studies will be measured to determine their success in practice. The following serves as a succinct description of the creation of green spaces, after which the key theoretical concepts with their corresponding aspects are to be implemented as measurements in order to determine the success of the pilot studies in terms of the theory regarding the planning of green spaces. The same methodology steps identified in subsection 5.2.1 will be used but with respect to green space planning case studies (introduced and discussed theoretically in Chapter 4 subsection 4.4.2) and therefore the evaluations are also done based on the detailed study of these case studies in order to determine and identify their trends.
i. Measurement 1: ‗Green‘
A parcel of land classified as a natural surface (Barbosa et al., 2007:188) with significant amounts of vegetation (Shackleton & Blair, 2013:104). Thus a space will be evaluated and regarded as successful if and when the space proves to include the presence and/or variety of vegetation as well as the maintaining and/or conservation of present natural (and indigenous) surfaces.
ii. Measurement 2: ‗Public‘ and private green spaces
Refer to ‗space‘ as the structural, geometrical qualities of a physical environment (Harrison &
Dourish, 1996:67), physical facilities and functions – not yet a place as no lived experience is yet included (refer to Chapter 3, section 3.2.1 on the difference between ‗space‘ and ‗place‘ and the creation of a public place (also the summary to be found in this chapter, section 5.2.1.1).
Private: includes mostly gardens for the sole enjoyment of the owner and private social networking (Barbosa et al., 2007:193) – i.e. personal domestic garden (Swanwick et al., 2003:97).
Public: Promotes integration in a way private gardens cannot; includes parks, forests, golf courses, sports fields and other open nature areas (McConnachie & Shackleton, 2009:244) accessible to the public.
Chapter 5: International case studies of green space planning and approaches to lively place planning Page 155
For the purpose of this section and therefore the following discussions and chapters of this research, ‗public green spaces‘ will only include public spaces (as identified above and in Chapter 4, section 4.2) with the exclusion of private gardens, as the purpose and aim of this research (refer to Chapter 1, section 1.4) focuses on addressing social issues of rural communities by planning for lively places and green PUBLIC spaces.
As presented in the previously determined lively place planning measurements, the successful presence of ‗public‘ within green space planning is measured in terms of whether this place is accessible for any user and if it integrates the public in a variety of functions and possibilities in order to create a human presence and lived experience. Another important aspect is also whether or not the public is included by means of participating in the provision, creation and/or maintenance of these spaces.
iii. Measurement 3: ‗Quality‘ green space
A parcel of land classified as a natural surface (Barbosa et al., 2007:188) with a sense of quality and the presence of several maintained facilities (Shackleton & Blair, 2013:107) and variety of functions (health, amenity, social, environmental - Lange et al., 2007:245) – the ‗glue‘ between buildings (Wilson & Hughes, 2011:121).
The evaluation will therefore be based on the physical appearance of these spaces – is it merely an open strip of land or grass; or are the facilities (buildings, restrooms, benches, vegetation, grass, etc.) managed and maintained, creating a sense of better safety as well?
Therefore, green space planning refers to the planning and/ or development of a specific parcel of accessible green (vegetated and natural surface) land presenting several quality functions and maintained facilities producing a sense of public inclusion, participation and lived experience; including well managed (Young, 2010:313), maintained (Young: 2010:317) and safe (Barbosa et al., 2007:194) municipal parks, public gardens, cemeteries, churchyards, gardens associated with public buildings, and all school playing fields (also refer to Table 17 for different and various types of spaces included as
‗green spaces‘ with the exclusion of private green space – domestic gardens).
The following table classifies and groups these key concepts and their corresponding aspects together to provide the basic measurement-tool to which the success of approaches will be measured accordingly.
Chapter 5: International case studies of green space planning and approaches to lively place planning Page 156
Table 25: Evaluation tool for green space planning
THEORETICAL CONCEPT ASPECTS AS MEASUREMENTS GREEN
1. Vegetation 2. Natural surface
3. Various types in terms of diversity
- Municipal parks - Public gardens - Cemeteries - Churchyards
- Public building gardens - School playing fields PUBLIC
4. Accessible 5. Integrative
6. Public inclusion and participation
7. Lived experience in terms of attracting regular human presence and activity QUALITY
8. Managed and maintained facilities
9. Functions 10. Safety Source: Own creation (2013)
Chapter 5: International case studies of green space planning and approaches to lively place planning Page 157