Urban open space management in the Nordic countries. Identification of current challenges based on managers' perceptions

T.B Randrup,J Svännel,A Sunding,M Jansson,Å.O Sang

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103225

T.B Randrup, J Svännel + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103225

Copy DOI

Journal: Cities	Publication Date: May 26, 2021
Citations: 16	License type: cc-by

Affiliation: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Abstract

This paper reports on how Nordic practise relates to, and perceives contemporary challenges to urban open space management. The study used a case study approach, via interviews. The studied Nordic cities experience the effects of densification in inner city areas. This is often resulting in higher pressure on existing urban open spaces, but also generating new spaces which tend to be small and fragmented, not meeting the many wishes and demands asked for by the diverse user groups. While budgets are sufficiently allocated in new development projects, it is a challenge to withstand the maintenance budgets, forcing managers to prioritise. Due to primary political interest in inner city areas, there is a risk of managers not prioritising the more peripheral areas, from where resources are often transferred to the newly developed areas. This creates a new type of urban nature, primarily in the urban peripheral areas, with increased amounts of biodiversity and higher amounts of multi-functionality, compared to the smaller and more intensively programmed inner-city areas. Urban open space managers are relying on the existing municipal planning tools, and to varying degrees act strategically in terms of developing own sector oriented plans and strategies.

Highlights

As a global trend, migration from rural to urban areas is intensifying (UN, 2014)
In contrast to an earlier Nordic study (Randrup & Persson, 2009), the results indicated a potential shift within urban open spaces’ (UOS) management, with the managers’ positions being pushed down a level
The title was viewed by some managers as an important way to gain influence, both internally with politicians and externally, by creating a clear picture of who is responsible for UOS, with loss of the title resulting in reduced influence among managers

Summary

Introduction

Migration from rural to urban areas is intensifying (UN, 2014). This imposes pressure on existing urban agglomerations, including both inner city areas and urban fringes where new de velopments tend to sprawl (e.g. Brody, 2013). Other central elements of the urban matrix are grey spaces (e.g. squares, roads and pedestrian streets), brown spaces (e.g. abandoned land areas such as industrial sites, previous transport infrastructure or housing) and blue spaces (e.g. lakes, canals and waterfronts) (Haase et al, 2020). This conglomeration of green, grey, brown and blue spaces has been denoted ‘urban open spaces’ (UOS) (Jansson & Randrup, 2020), and includes the different types of urban spaces managed by ‘green space management’ We apply the UOS definition, based on the complexity of spaces it includes, and refer to those managing such spaces as UOS managers

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion