Partnerships in place-keeping
Is partnership working the solution for open space
management?
Mel Burton University of Sheffield
Green Growth: New Shoots International Conference 2012
Today’s presentation
1. Defining place-keeping
2. Partnership in placekeeping
3. Partnership Capacity
4. Issues and benefits
5. Recommendations
Mel Burton University of Sheffield
Green 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
Placekeeping
themes
Partnerships
Governance /
engagement
Maintenance
Funding /
finance
Evaluation
Policy
Partnerships
• Agreed shared responsibility for placekeeping.
• May be:
- informal - mutual understanding of roles and
responsibilities
- formal, based on written agreement.
• Roles and responsibilities delegated
horizontally rather than traditional ‘topdown’ governance.
Emmen, the Netherlands; Steilshoop, Hamburg; Woesten, Belgium.
Partnerships
Consensus in policy + theory that they effectively achieve
place-keeping, especially:
- A combination of public-private-third sector
- Involvement + engagement of local community
Public sector-led
Private sector-led
Third sector-led
Public sector only
Public sector with contracted-out services
Business Improvement District/ Town Centre Management
Public-private partnership with PK by public sector
Public-private partnership with PK by both sectors
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
Partnership Capacity
In relation to place-keeping we define
partnership capacity as:
Firth Park
Sheaf Valley
Park
Porter Valley
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.
Millhouses Park
Clissold Park
Clapton Square
Robin Hood
Community
garden
Partnership Capacity
Capacity theme
Theme description
1
Capital
The financial contribution made by the partner to the development and
management of the site.
2
Commitment
3
Skill base
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
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.
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.
development and management of the site.
Involvement models
Partnership Capacity
The importance of networks
• Internal and external networks are essential in communicative capacity.
• Groups with large networks have a greater resourcing 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
Is partnership working the solution for
open space management?
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
The future of your local park?