1. 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

2. Today’s presentation 1.Defining place-keeping 2.Partnership in place- keeping 3.Partnership Capacity 4.Issues and benefits 5.Recommendations Mel Burton University of Sheffield Green Growth: New Shoots International Conference 2012

3. Across Europe, there is too much emphasis on the ‘place-making’ and not ‘place-keeping’ (or long-term management) of open space.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. Complex; Place Process Product

8. Place- keeping themes Partnerships Governance / engagement Maintenance Funding / finance Evaluation Policy

9. Partnerships Agreed shared responsibility for place- keeping. May be: - informal - mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities - formal, based on written agreement. Roles and responsibilities delegated horizontally rather than traditional ‘top- down’ governance. Emmen, the Netherlands; Steilshoop, Hamburg; Woesten, Belgium.

10. Partnerships Consensus in policy + theory that they effectively achieve place-keeping, especially: - A combination of public-private-third sector - Involvement + engagement of local community

11. In relation to place-keeping we define partnership capacity as: Partnership Capacity Firth Park Sheaf Valley Park Porter Valley Millhouses Park Clissold Park Clapton Square Robin Hood Community garden 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.

12. Partnership Capacity Capacity themeTheme description 1Capital The financial contribution made by the partner to the development and management of the site. 2Commitment 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. 3Skill base 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. 4Motivation The motivational drive of the partner’s involvement in the site in terms of social, environmental or political interest. 5Communication The communication capability of the partner (both internally and externally) in facilitating the development and management of the site. 6Political influence The degree and level of influence each partner has in facilitating the development and management of the site.

13. Involvement models

14. The importance of networks Internal and external networks are essential in communicative capacity. Groups with large networks have a greater resourcing capacity. Partnership Capacity

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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 Is partnership working the solution for open space management?

19. The future of your local park?