Striving for Inclusion—A Systematic Review of Long-Term Participation in Strategic Management of Urban Green Spaces

Abstract

This systematic review contributes to the research field of user participation by suggesting a new holistic approach comprising a cyclic process model for long-term participation in the strategic management of urban green spaces, including analysis, design, and implementation phases, each followed by an evaluation. User participation in urban green spaces is encouraged in international conventions. Such initiatives aim to involve citizens more closely in decisions regarding local spaces, based on the premise that this will create better, more inclusive, and sustainable local environments. However, a social inclusion perspective is largely absent in the growing body of European scientific literature on urban green spaces. Further, user participation processes are often carried out within projects, with uncertainties about which strategic management phase (planning, design, construction, and/or maintenance) to emphasize and about the long-term sustainability of project-based participation. Therefore, the literature was examined for tools for participation with the focus on participation of local users in the strategic management of urban green spaces, and in particular, marginalized groups. A systematic review based on peer-reviewed scientific papers revealed the necessity for adapting participation processes to the known needs of different participant groups, including those of marginalized groups often excluded in the past. Local authorities have several pathways to socially inclusive and long-term participation. These include choosing and employing a suitable participation approach, anchoring repeated project-based participation in existing municipal long-term strategies, continuously supporting participating users and evaluating ongoing participation processes, and employing a mix of participation types and approaches. The “cyclic process model for long-term participation in strategic management of UGS” presented in this paper could guide such efforts.

Principles for urban nature-based solutions

“…Due to the potential trade-offs, it should not be taken granted that all citizens welcome NBS in their direct surroundings and that they might have individual interests in conflict with providing space for NBS. Balancing these effects means an inclusive NBS governance in which a diverse set of development options are discussed openly and transparently with a range of stakeholders (see Seddon et al 2020 for inflexible forms of governance acting as barriers to uptake NBS and Fors et al 2021 on participation during management of green space). Potential risks need to be communicated transparently throughout NBS design and implementation processes in order to find strategies to prevent or potentially overcome them.…”

A transformative mission for prioritising nature in Australian cities

“…Inclusive governance approaches need to also consider and designed to empower communities, particularly civil actors, to be decision makers and carers for nature (Ison and Straw 2020 ), including private citizens fostering nature on their property to complement government activities (Mumaw and Mata in press). Planning and governing in an equitable, open and therefore inclusive way ensures that all interests, perceptions, expectations and needs are heard and considered (Cohen-Strachan et al 2019 ; Fors et al 2021 ). At the same time, inclusive governance need to consider ways to be inclusive to ‘more-than-humans’ and give voice and agency to nature (Apfelbeck et al 2020 ; Maller 2021 ; Pineda Pinto et al 2021 ).…”

“…A social, ecological and economic case can be made for prioritising nature-based solutions in Australian cities (Lin et al 2021 ). Examples of nature-based solutions include water sensitive and biodiversity sensitive urban design (Garrrand et al 2018 ; Kirk et al 2021 ) rather than traditional built infrastructure and engineering solutions (Allan et al 2020 ; Coutts et al 2013 ; Kabisch et al 2017 ; Ignatieva et al 2018 , 2020 ; Frantzeskaki et al 2019 ; Keeler et al 2019 ).…”

A synthesis on active citizenship in European nature conservation: social and environmental impacts, democratic tensions, and governance implications

“…In many European countries, biodiversity governance is increasingly decentralized and co-creative (Elmqvist et al 2013). Participation in green space governance is promoted by various regulations across Europe (Fors et al 2021), and there are also many bottom-up initiatives driven by citizens across the continent ( Van der Jagt et al 2016). Following the scope of what drives citizens in their engagement with nature, this article's focus on nature conservation is not limited to protected reserves and rare species.…”