GREEN SPACE

courtesy : Green space

The Role of Urban Green Space in Promoting Inclusion: Experiences From the Netherlands

Urban Green Space (UGS) is considered to be beneficial for health and wellbeing of urban residents. But there is growing evidence that benefits are not equally distributed. In this article we aim to understand the role that UGS plays in the process of social exclusion and the role urban greening strategies can play in enhancing social equity for specific groups that are excluded: elderly people with dementia, people with mental issues and people from an underprivileged neighborhood. The concepts of inclusion and exclusion and their relation to UGS are discussed. Four exclusion mechanisms are distinguished based on the role of the physical and societal environment and on the role of actors involved (public or private). Further, we identify four discourses behind possible strategies and measures to promote inclusion. These mechanisms and discourses are confronted with an analysis of three cases promoting inclusion of elderly with dementia, people with mental health issues and people from an underprivileged neighborhood. Succesful inclusion strategies in these cases are based on alignment between private actors initiatives and public actions. The cases indicate that public and private actors need to cooperate better in order to make UGS part of inclusion strategies.

Introduction

The need for more Urban Green Space is worldwide high on the policy agenda of cities. Urban Green Space (UGS) is defined as urban land, partly or completely covered with grass, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation. Urban Green Space includes parks, community gardens and cemeteries, but also rooftop gardens and vertical gardens, meadows and woods. UGS is also referred to as blue-green zone, because urban water such as ditches, canals, inland waterways and rivers and riverbanks, is considered as UGS. UGS reduces the risks of flooding in cities, cools the city in the summer and provides biodiversity (Haase et al., 2014). UGS contributes to the well-being of cities and its residents, to better health, and social cohesion (Hartig et al., 2014; Hunter et al., 2019).

However, not all residents benefit equally from UGS. Several studies have shown that the number and quality of green areas is lower in neighborhoods with a low socioeconomic status or a high percentage of immigrants than in other neighborhoods (Wen et al., 2013; Kabisch and Haase, 2014; Jennings et al., 2016; De Vries et al., 2020). The low availability and quality of UGS also contributes to poorer health in these neighborhoods (Maas et al., 2006).

In addition, environmental risks are not equally distributed amongst poorer and richer neighborhoods. Many underprivileged neighborhoods have more contamination, lower air quality, and greater risks of hazards (Kruize, 2007; Maantay and Maroko, 2009). Finally, the positive impacts of UGS on health, local economy and wellbeing, are often reflected in higher land and housing prices, which can contribute to a gentrification process and exclusion of less-favoured citizens. The amount of literature about this role of the green urban space in exclusion processes is rising (Anguelovski, 2013; Kabisch and Haase, 2014; Haase et al., 2017).

Kabisch et al. (2015) performed an extensive review of international studies on the importance of human-environment interactions in UGS. Their review showed a lack of studies focusing on the human-environment interactions in relation to specific population groups. They mentioned especially the demand and use of UGS by the elderly. Others propose the development of greening strategies to promote equity, health and wellbeing as future research topic. (Rutt and Gulsrud, 2016; Frumkin et al., 2017). Kruize et al. (2019) recommend a specific focus on the opportunities for citizens with low social economic status to use green space.

#Experiences From the Netherlands

#Urban Green Space (UGS)

#isbc

#Green space