Exploring reasons for residents' use and appreciation of informal urban greenspace in brisbane...

Exploring reasons for residents’ use and

appreciation of informal urban greenspace

in Brisbane and Sapporo

Christoph RupprechtPhD Candidate

Environmental Futures Research Institute

Griffith School of Environment

Japanese Geoscience Union 2014

Typology of informal urban greenspace

Street verge Gap

Railway Brownfield Waterside

Lots

Structural Microsite Powerline

Study & location: Brisbane/Sapporo

121 sites per city on 10x10km grid

Resident IGS questionnaire

• IGS knowledge, use (as child

or adult), appreciation

• Nature attitude, demograph.

• N=121/163 (Bris./Sap.)

IGS land use survey

• 50x50m per site

• IGS, IGS type, other LU %

• Combination of ground

survey & aerial photography

• Accessibility

• Vegetation structure

Residents use and appreciate IGS

Better Both Worse Neutral

Sapporo

Brisbane

Does IGS make daily life

better or worse? (appreciation)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% o

f re

sp

on

den

ts

Recreational IGS use

Now, as adults In my childhood

Reasons behind use and appreciation?

1) What is the role of IGS for residents in

comparison to formal greenspace (e.g.

parks)?

2) What are potential factors behind the

difference in IGS appreciation and

use?

IGS role compared to formal greenspace

Correlation IGS use - formal greenspace area?

Possible results:

GIS buffer analysis:

formal GS within 500m radius of survey sites

Negative correlation

Low formal greenspace,

high IGS use

Residents use IGS as

substitute for missing

green space

No correlation

IGS use independent

of formal GS area

IGS used in

addition/instead of

available park

space

Positive correlation

High formal greenspace,

high IGS use

Potential bias

towards frequent GS-

users?

500m radius(walking distance)

survey

site

parks

IGS is not used as substitute for parks

No correlation between IGS use and

formal GS area <500m in either city

IGS likely used in addition to, or instead of

parks

IGS playing a different role for residents’

recreation than parks?

Liminal, “loose”, ambiguous character of

IGS may offer possibilities parks cannot

Implications for planning, management,

policy

Conceptual model: greenspace use

Socio-ecological context

of greenspace

Potential

usersGreenspace

characteristics

influences

Perceptions of

greenspace

affectshape

Greenspace use

choices

Use Non-Use

feeds

back into

influences

Based on: Byrne & Wolch 2009, doi:10.1177/0309132509103156

Different respondents – or different IGS?

Respondents seem similar:

• Appreciation of urban nature (but > in Brisbane)

• Evaluation of IGS benefits/problems

• Emotional/spiritual affinity to IGS in comments

• Concerns about IGS (qual. data)

Examination of IGS characteristics

Informal greenspace in study area

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 in Sapporo & Brisbane survey area is not sign. different (p=.49)

• IGS represents ~14% of total city greenspace in both cities

Proportion of IGS types compared

Lot42%

Gap19%

Street verge16%

Brownfield10%

Waterside10%

Other3% Lot

8%

Street verge80%

Brownfield5%

Railway5%

Other2%

Sapporo Brisbane

Vegetation structure: survey method

Area covered by

vegetation layer types

(herb includes ground)

100%

ground

layer

cover

25% bush

cover

Top-down view:

40% tree cover

Vegetation structure of IGS

Sapporo Brisbane

7% 8%

43%46%

Tree Bush Herb Ground

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

% o

f IG

S c

ove

red

by v

eg

eta

tio

n l

aye

r

28%

8%

21%

73%

Tree Bush Herb Ground

Accessibility of IGS: survey method

Two types of barriers

• Physical barriers

• Symbolic barriers

Three levels of accessibility

1) Accessible

2) Partially accessible

3) Not accessible

Accessibility of IGS: results

Sapporo Brisbane

Yes68%

Partially

22%

No10%

Yes78%

Partially7%

No15%

IGS characteristics: implications

Similarities in Sapporo & Brisbane IGS

• Amount/proportion of IGS area

• Accessibility

High potential for variety of uses!

Differences in Sapporo & Brisbane IGS

• Composition of IGS types

• Vegetation structure (ground/tree vs.

ground/herb)

Influence on appreciation?

Implications for IGS management

Appreciation, use & conservation?

Summary: factors behind IGS use

IGS in Sapporo and Brisbane

1. is not used as a substitute for parks

2. is similar in land use percentage & accessibility

3. differs in IGS types & vegetation structure

Thank you for listening!

Questions?

Many thanks to:Yumi Nakagawa, Jason Byrne, Hirofumi Ueda,

Jennifer Garden, Jean-Marc Hero, Alex Lo,

Merrill Bowers, Mariola Rafanowicz, Brisbane

Council, Sapporo City, all survey respondents

Blog: www.treepolis.org

Twitter: @focx

Google+: Christoph RupprechtThis presentation is available @ Slideshare!