Urban green spaces for all people: Supplying green spaces in Stockholm municipality from a social sustainability perspective

(1)

IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY DEGREE PROJECT

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020,

Urban green spaces for all people

Supplying green spaces in Stockholm municipality from a social sustainability perspective

HANNA ERIKSSON

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

(2)

i Urban green spaces for all people – Supplying green spaces in Stockholm municipality from a social sustainability perspective

Urbana grönområden för alla – Tillgodose grönområden i Stockholm kommun från ett socialt hållbarhetsperspektiv

Keywords: Urban green space, Social sustainability, Access, Stockholm Municipality, Stockholm City

Degree Project Course: Environmental Engineering and Sustainable Infrastructure, Second Cycle, AL230X, 30 credits

Author: Hanna Eriksson Supervisor: Sara Borgström Examiner: Ulla Mörtberg

Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering School of Architecture and the Built Environment

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

(3)

ii TRITA ABE-MBT-20685

(4)

iii

Abstract

As many cities face the challenges of urbanisation, effective provision of urban green spaces (UGS) is needed. There is an identified need to explore the potential to supply green spaces for municipalities and the challenges they face. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to look closer at the potential and challenges of supplying UGS from a social sustainability perspective in Stockholm municipality. The focus is to examine how the municipality can achieve their goal of supplying good access to UGS, that meets the diverse needs of people. To do so, the implication of good access for all people was first explored on a theoretical level with a literature review. Secondly, to establish a link from the theory and policy to the practical work, the experiences and knowledge of practitioners and consultants in the Stockholm context was explored with an interview study. Specifically, how planning tools and way of working can support, which was the main focus of the study. The results from the literature review indicates that different social factors may influence the perceived access and usage of UGS. Safety issues was the most noted factor that could have a negative effect for the perceived access to UGS. The interview study indicates that planning tools that are used within Stockholm municipality can enable to achieve the goal of good access for all people by a more intentional planning. However, the way of working in the planning process is critical. It requires a holistic mindset and the social perspectives needs to be integrated throughout the whole planning process. Social factors, such as safety concerns, are considerable for UGS planning, but also challenging to capture and incorporate into the planning process. To be able to reduce the gap between theory and practice, more unified research has to be done, to know more about what factors that influence perception of access, and the diverse preferences and needs that exists for UGS. This is needed to enable for practitioners to have a more solid knowledge ground for their work in providing UGS that can contribute to social sustainability in cities.

(5)

iv

Sammanfattning

När många städer står inför utmaningarna med urbanisering, krävs det effektiv tillhandahållande av grönområden i urbana områden. Det finns ett identifierat behov av att utforska möjligheten för kommuner att tillhandahålla grönytor och de utmaningar de står inför. Därför är syftet med denna avhandling att titta närmare på möjligheterna och utmaningarna med att tillhandahålla urbana grönområden från ett socialt hållbarhetsperspektiv i Stockholm kommun. Fokus är att undersöka hur kommunen kan uppnå sitt mål om god tillgång till urbana grönområden, som möter människors olika behov. För att göra det undersöktes först implikationen av god tillgång för alla människor med en litteraturstudie. Därefter, för att förankra teorin och policyn till det praktiska arbetet, utforskades planerares erfarenheter och kunskaper i Stockholms med hjälp av en intervjustudie. Specifikt, hur olika planeringsverktyg och arbetssätt kan stödja att uppnå målet, vilket var studiens huvudfokus. Resultaten från litteraturstudien indikerar att olika sociala faktorer kan påverka den upplevda tillgången och användningen av urbana grönområden. Säkerhetsfrågor var den mest noterade faktorn som kan ha en negativ effekt på den upplevda tillgången. Intervjustudien indikerar att planeringsverktyg som används inom Stockholm kommun kan göra det möjligt att uppnå målet om god tillgång för alla genom en mer avsiktlig planering. Men sättet att arbeta i planeringsprocessen är avgörande. Det kräver en helhetssyn och de sociala perspektiven måste integreras i hela planeringsprocessen. Sociala faktorer, som säkerhetsproblem, är betydande för grönplanering, men också utmanande att fånga och integrera i planeringsprocessen. För att kunna minska klyftan mellan teori och praktik måste mer enhetlig forskning göras, för att veta mer om vilka faktorer som påverkar uppfattningen av tillgång och de olika preferenser och behov som finns av urbana grönområden. Detta behövs för att planerare ska kunna ha en mer solid kunskapsgrund för sitt arbete med att tillhandahålla urbana grönområden som kan bidra till socialt hållbara städer.

(6)

v

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Sara Borgström for her support and valuable inputs throughout the process of this thesis. Second of all, I want to thank all of the respondents that participated, without you this thesis would not be possible. Lastly, I thank Daniel and all my friends and family for the support and encouragement I gotten.

(7)

vi

1 Introduction

The provision of urban green space (UGS) and its benefits are important for urban sustainable development (Baycan-Levent et al., 2009). These spaces can provide environmental benefits such as water, temperature and pollution regulation services, biodiversity support and carbon storage (WHO, 2017). UGS are also important elements in the urban context for their social and health benefits (Jennings et al., 2019). They can support health and well-being for urban residents in form of enabling physical activity, reducing stress level and work as spaces for social interaction (WHO, 2017). A prerequisite for many of the benefits provided by UGS, such as mental health benefits (Barton &

Rogerson, 2017), is exposure to these spaces. To enable for urban residents to be exposed to UGS in their everyday life they need to be accessible for all people. By improving access to UGS where it is needed, it can support healthy behaviour for urban residents (PHE, 2020).

Traditionally, provision of UGS are based on physical measures. For instance, estimating the physical distance for access, or estimate the quantity of UGS needed with space standards (Huang et al., 2017).

Although, by only using physical measures some aspects can be overlooked and the benefits that can be provided, not utilised in the same extent (Moseley et al., 2013). Using physical measures for UGS provision is useful, but deficient. To enable more UGS usage, the variation of perceived access and preferences among people needs to be incorporated (Wang et al., 2015b). One of the challenges urban planners are confronted with today is trying to capture the social and recreational values of UGS (Lindholst et al., 2015).

In light of the rapid urbanisation in many cities around the globe, the importance of providing UGS becomes even more crucial than before, and challenging at the same time (Hunter et al., 2019). When cities grow, either by expanding or become denser, it composes a threat to UGS provision (Haaland &

Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015). With urbanisations comes an increased demand for housings which competes of the limited available land with preservation and creation of new UGS. Higher number of urban residents on these spaces also entails more pressure. To combat these challenges and fulfil the present and future demand for UGS, effective provision of these spaces is needed. However, today there is no universal approach for fulfilling a sufficient supply of UGS and the question of how much UGS is needed is difficult to answer (Boulton et al., 2018).

There has been a lot of research about UGS in the last two decades. Although, research concentrated on the potential to supply green spaces for municipalities and the challenges they face are fewer (Boulton et al., 2018). Thus, “future research should engage directly with greenspace managers responsible for urban greenspace delivery, especially in rapidly expanding cities, to illuminate points of convergence and divergence between theory and practice” (ibid., p. 1.) This is needed to be able to set effective policies that meet resident’s needs. In addition, despite the growing interest of UGS and their social benefits the subject of social sustainability is often emphasized on the macro-level of cities and there are few publications focusing on the micro-level of public spaces, such as UGS (Mehan & Soflaei, 2017).

(9)

2 Therefore, this study aims to look closer at the aspect of providing UGS from a social sustainability perspective.

One municipality that is undergoing rapid urbanisation is Stockholm, which is the case study for the thesis. The number of people living in Stockholm municipality is expected to increase to 1.3 million in 2040 and 140 000 housings are going to be built until the year 2030. With the population growth there are some expected challenges. Stockholm is built on isles with closeness to water and UGS, which is a challenge in terms of urban planning. Another challenge is to reduce the disparity in living condition in Stockholm. Today there are clear social and economic differences between city parts and groups of people (Stockholms stad, 2015a). In general, there is also unequal access to parks and other public spaces in Stockholm, where areas with lower socioeconomic status have less access (Dahlin, 2016). To meet the needs of land for UGS, while at the same time provide housings and infrastructure, Stockholm municipality has a vision of a denser and greener city (Stockholms stad, 2017, p. 13). For UGS specifically, one overarching goal in policies is to provide good access for all people. One of these goals is that “Stockholmers shall have good access to parks and nature with high recreational and natural values” (Stockholms stad, 2017, p. 16). More in depth, the goal is described as:

The overall aim of the vision, comprehensive plan and environmental program is that all Stockholmers shall have access to parks and nature of high recreational and ecological values. Parks and nature shall be a part of the city's public spaces that connect the city and that contribute to a vibrant and safe city for all. The public spaces shall be of high quality and respond to different types of needs. Citizens shall be able to participate in the development of their green environments (Stockholms stad, 2017, p. 16).¹

Proceeding from this goal the outline of this study is set, by focusing on provision of UGS with the determents of “good access”, “high quality” and to capture and meet different kind of needs, and how this is applied in practice.

1.1 Aim and research questions

The aim of the study is to contribute to the empirical research about the practical work of supplying UGS, specifically in densifying cities and from a social sustainability perspective. With more empirical studies, the gap between theory and practice can be reduced, and with this enable supply of more social

1 Author's translation from Swedish: ”3.1 Stockholmarna ska ha god tillgång till parker och natur med höga rekreations- och naturvärden. Den övergripande målbilden i vision, översiktsplan och

miljöprogram är att alla stockholmare ska ha tillgång till parker och natur av höga rekreativa och ekologiska värden. Parker och natur ska vara en del av stadens offentliga rum som kopplar ihop staden och som bidrar till en levande och trygg stad för alla. De offentliga rummen ska vara av hög kvalitet och svara mot olika typer av behov. Medborgarna ska kunna vara delaktiga kring utvecklingen av sina gröna miljöer” (Stockholms stad, 2017, p. 16).

(10)

3 sustainable UGS for urban residents in the coming future. More specifically this study will address the following research questions:

➢ Which social factors influence the access and usage of UGS and for whom?

➢ How can planning tools enable (or hinder) supplying high quality UGS for all people in Stockholm municipality?

➢ What needs and challenges are there for tools, methods and way of working in planning processes to be able to supply high quality UGS for all people in Stockholm municipality?

Firstly, the implication of good access for all people to UGS with high recreational and natural values is explored on a theoretical level. Secondly, to establish a link from the theory and policy to the practical work, the experiences and knowledge of practitioners in the Stockholm context is explored. This is the main part of the study. The focus is how different tools, methods and way of working can support in achieving the goal of good access to high quality UGS for all people.

1.2 Definition of key terms

1.2.1 Access and accessibility

The definition of “accessibility” in this study follows the definition used in Gregory (1986, cited in Nicholls, 2001) – accessibility as the ease of which to reach or obtain a service or a site. Subsequently, the objective distance is a prerequisite but not always the only factor that determine the accessibility, due to other influential factors related to people's ability and motivation. Barriers to access a service or a site may affect the overall accessibility. The barriers can be in different forms and differ between individuals. They can be physical, for example physical restriction due to disability or linear infrastructure, such as busy roads. The barriers can also be social and cultural such as concerns about personal safety or social exclusion. To distinguish the different interpretation of access and accessibility some researches have divided the terms into objective or geographical and perceived accessibility (e.g.

Lotfi & Koohsari, 2009; Wang et al., 2015b; Van der Vlugt et al., 2019). This division has also been used for proximity (e.g. Lackey & Kaczynski, 2009; Schipperijn et al., 2017). In this study the terms

“perceived” and “objective” was used.

1.2.2 Green spaces

A clarification of the interpretation of the term “green spaces” is also needed since it is a term with several definitions (Mensah et al., 2016; Taylor & Hochuli, 2017). Some researchers use the term “green space” while others use “greenspace”. According to Taylor & Hochuli (2017) the term “greenspace” is easier to distinguish from noun phrases since it is a one-word compound. However, the amount of publications using the term “green space” is considerably more between the years 2000-2014 (Taylor &

Hochuli, 2017) and therefore this term was used for this study. In addition, it is needed to clarify the kind of spaces that will be included. Taylor & Hochuli (2017) distinguished two kind of interpretation

(11)

4 of the term “greenspace” in publications. The first interpretation perceives “greenspace” as all kind of natural spaces while the latter includes different kind of urban vegetation. The definition of this study was based on the second interpretation, although with a focus on open spaces. This excludes for example singular trees that is not a part of an open space. Moreover, since the focus of this study was green spaces related to human use a delimitation was to focus on spaces that are modified for this purpose.

1.2.3 Planning tools

The interpretation of planning tools was left rather open in this study to not delimit useful instruments used for UGS planning in Stockholm municipality. However, the author of this thesis would define planning tools as instruments that help guide the planning process to obtain a certain objective. This includes both instruments that requires more active actions, such as green area factor, and also material that works more as a source of specific information, such as the Sociotope map.

1.3 Delimitations

A delimitation of the study was focusing on supplying UGS nearby residents’ housings – UGS that you in a reasonable time can walk to from home. This delimitation leads to an exclusion of some parameters that has been indicated to be important for accessibility in UGS further away from people’s homes. For instance, Wang (2015a) brings up travel cost and car ownership as important variables for park accessibility on a wider scale. Another delimitation was focus on social variables related to UGS. The environmental aspects and benefits of UGS are important but are not accounted for in the study.

Furthermore, variables for UGS access that are merely physical was not included, for example physical distance or proximity.

(12)

5

2 Social sustainability

The focal point of analyses of the study is social sustainability, which is presented with a literature overview in the following section. Firstly, a short description of the concept of social sustainability is introduced with its different approaches and conflicts that can arise between them. Thereafter, social sustainability is presented more in relation to the topic of this study – UGS and urban planning.

2.1 Concept of social sustainability

There is no universal consensus on how to define the concept sustainable development, which has led to flexibility of interpretation and use of the concept. A common model of sustainability consists of the three dimensions of environmental, social and economic sustainability. Although, this model, as well as the concept in itself, is rather vague and also makes way for different interpretations. Likewise, there are many conceptions and interpretations of the dimension of social sustainability. The vagueness of the concept social sustainability has led to several efforts trying to apply typologies and frameworks of it (Boström, 2012).

Vallance et al. (2011) have outlined three conceptions of social sustainability, which are named development, maintenance and bridge sustainability. The development sustainability draws upon the believed needs of people while maintenance sustainability focus on what people want. Vallance et al.

(2011) describes it as “the traditions, practices, preferences and places people would like to see maintained (sustained) or improved” (ibid., p. 344). The last conception, bridge sustainability, proceeds from people's actions and the objective of improving the “connection” or “bridge” between humans and the biophysical environment. The focus is not on people per se, but how people’s actions can achieve an ecological sustainable society. The three approaches align in some respects and can be in conflicts in others. Vallance et al. (2011, p.344) summarize the three main conflicts that can arise between the different conceptions:

- “What people ‘need’ (development) versus what is good for the bio-physical environment (bridge)”

- “What people ‘need’ (development) versus what people want (maintenance)”

- “What is good for the bio-physical environment (bridge) versus what people want (maintenance)”

2.2 Social sustainably and urban planning

Planning practices can support social sustainability, both by preserving values and developing values we want more of. The aspect of time and place is relevant in these cases in the sense of how long the preserving of a value is planned for and when developing values will take place. The spatial factor is also important to see how a planning practice affect other areas (Ström et al., 2017). Dempsey et al. (2009) states that although a wide perspective of social sustainability is important, the local perspective is

(13)

6 significant in terms of people's everyday life, which is related to the surrounding built environment and the geographical context. Moreover, that social sustainability should be seen as dynamic and the needed actions for this quest will change over time and place.

The changing context and focus can be a limitation of the use of social sustainability approaches. Besides the aspects of changing factors and focus as limitations, there are also other challenges with using social sustainability approaches. One challenge is how to clarify the concept and how to measure the outcomes. The outcomes of a plan or programme are not always clear and visible, which makes it difficult to measure. Furthermore, the social system is complex and there is no consensus if social outcomes should even be measured (Erdiaw-Kwasie & Basson, 2017).

In the Swedish context, Ström et al. (2017) outline four strategies or approaches where spatial planning² can have an impact for social sustainability. The four themes are the following: holistic view, access and accessibility, mixture and variation, and collaboration and participation³. The approach of a holistic view is central in spatial planning for social sustainability. It is needed to understand the outcomes of spatial planning actions on different geographical scales. Ström et al. (2017) brings up a report by the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning in Sweden concerning urban planning for social sustainability, Boverket (2010), that addresses the need for place-based efforts combined with a city- wide perspective. For instance, Boverket (2010) mentions that planning of refurbishment of a neighbourhood, a place-based effort, needs to be combined with planning efforts to contribute to a cohesive city with a city-wide perspective. The holistic viewpoint is also applicable on the spatial distribution of planning actions taking place. For example, if a project impacts the possibility of conducting projects in other settings due to a restrained budget for example (ibid.).

Concerning the theme of access and accessibility, social and spatial inclusion is relevant aspects for planning. Also, equal access to the city and public resources. The municipalities in Sweden are important actors for this objective to set strategies for distribution of resources, since they steer the planning of land uses in Sweden (Ström et al., 2017). The topic of segregation should also go beyond housing and include the public spaces and meeting places (Legeby et al., 2015). Collaboration strategies between different actors in planning processes and dialogues with the public are also measures that are beneficial according to Ström et al. (2017). Here, civil dialogues and inclusion of the public in planning processes are important. In addition, mixture and variation of functions is mentioned in the literature as important to enable safe environment and lively communities (ibid.).

To better grasp the dimension of urban social sustainability, attempts have been made to summarize the variety of definitions and factors associated with the concept. For instance, Dempsey et al. (2011) have summarized factors that were identified as contributory for urban social sustainability in reviewed

2 Author's translation from Swedish: samhällsplanering

3 Author's translation from Swedish: helhetssyn, tillgång och tillgänglighet, blandning och variation, samverkan och delaktighet.

(14)

7 literature (see table 1). They divided the factors into non-physical and predominantly physical factors (ibid.).

Table 1. Factors associated with urban social sustainability (modified from Dempsey et al. (2011))

Non-physical factors Predominantly physical factors

• Education and training

• Social justice: inter- and intra- generational

• Participation and local democracy

• Health, quality of life and well- being

• Social inclusion (and

eradication of social exclusion)

• Social capital

• Community

• Safety

• Mixed tenure

• Fair distribution of income

• Social order

• Social cohesion

• Community cohesion (i.e.

cohesion between and among different groups)

• Social networks

• Social interaction

• Sense of community and belonging

• Employment

• Residential stability (vs turnover)

• Active community organizations

• Cultural traditions

• Urbanity

• Attractive public realm

• Decent housing

• Local environmental quality and amenity

• Accessibility (e.g. to local services and facilities/employment/green space)

• Sustainable urban design

• Neighbourhood

• Walkable neighbourhood: pedestrian friendly

2.3 Social sustainably and UGS

In the following section factors of urban social sustainability (see table 1) that seemed related to UGS by the author are presented.

One of the main benefits of UGS is that they can provide several social benefits, both direct and indirect, connected to public health (Maas et al., 2006; Wolch et al., 2014) and well-being (Krekel et al., 2016).

For instance, contact with green spaces can promote physical activity (Kaczynski & Henderson, 2007) and the presence of walkable or visual access to natural environment in urban settings can have a restorative effect and counteract negative affect on health (Hartig et al., 2003). Besides the many health benefits provided by UGS there are a few health issues. One issue is pollens negative effect on human health (Jennings et al., 2019). In urban areas the effect of pollen can be worse due to the air pollutants that cause a more serious reaction (D’Amato, 2000). Furthermore, the risk of accidents on playgrounds is also a health issue (Jennings et al., 2019).

With the knowledge of the many social benefits provided by UGS the discussion about the distribution of and access to these spaces and their environmental goods has been highlighted as important from a justice perspective. It can especially be seen as important when evidence suggests that exposure to natural environments can help with reducing health inequalities (Mitchell & Popham, 2008). Many researches have looked at the spatial distribution of UGS from a justice perspective, both the objective access and the availability, where numerous cases show an unequal distribution (Rigolon, 2016). Since social justice is one factor of urban social sustainability that has been highlighted (Dempsey et al., 2009) this perspective is relevant for the wider city planning for UGS.

(15)

8 In urban areas, spaces that are accessible for the public is where people can meet and interact with each other. These spaces are known as “third places”, which are spaces that enable social interaction between people beyond the workplace and home, there among green spaces. In addition to green spaces it also includes spaces like grocery stores, coffeeshops, bars and places of worship. Third places are important for social cohesion and social capital (Mowen & Rung, 2016), which are two factors that are outlined for urban social sustainability by Dempsey et al. (2009). Social capital is often seen as a subdomain of social cohesion and implies for example the social network, social participation and trust between individual or a community (Jennings & Bamkole, 2019). A conceptual framework by Jennings & Bamkole (2019) outlines the possible links between UGS, social cohesion and the health benefits UGS can provide. The presence and/or access to UGS can support social cohesion and social capital, which in turn may support place attachment, social support, belonging and empowerment. These are factors that can promote resident’s health, both physical and psychological.

According to Peters et al. (2010) awareness of the design and function of urban parks and how they are perceived is significant for their potential of working as sites for social cohesion. A mix of different activities in the same place should be offered so that social groups with different preferences may interact in the same sites. Urban parks that are able to meet the different cultural needs of social groups and gives opportunities for interactions can support social cohesion (ibid.). Contrary to the positive effect for social cohesion, Hipp et al. (2014) suggest that parks can have a negative effect on social cohesion and instead works as “social holes” causing social barriers between residents and neighbourhoods. In this sense, it is important to design and maintain green spaces in a way that enable social interaction and accessibility between neighbourhoods.

A concern raised regarding UGS and social sustainability is that these spaces can inhibit social inclusion due to the socio-spatial segregation that UGS can cause. Development of urban parks and other “greens”

may in fact work against social cohesion and cause social exclusion in some cases (Haase et al., 2017).

One example that is brought up by Haase et al. (2017) is upgrading of urban areas with “greening”, which may cause higher market prices of housings and can in turn risk social exclusion of people. This phenomenon is known as green gentrification and is highlighted by Wolch et al. (2014), who calls it the

“paradoxical effects” of greening in cities. In this sense, it is important to look at the social impact of greening strategies to counteract these issues (Haase et al., 2017). In addition to this, Wolch et al. (2014) mention dialogues with the local residents as a way to emphasize on the local needs when going through with a greening project.

Another questionable subject concerning UGS and urban social sustainability is if UGS are creating or inhibiting safe environments. UGS may evoke fear of crime (Maruthaveeran & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2014) and can be perceived as unsafe in the urban landscape (Ceccato & Hansson, 2013).

According to Maruthaveeran & Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2014), the reason for fear of crime is complex and depend on the specific environment together with social and individual factors. In addition, parks can also induce crimes (Groff & McCord, 2012). As opposed to parks inducing crimes, Bogar &

(16)

9 Beyer (2015) found that in most publications the authors reviewed in their study concerning UGS in the US, a positive relation in terms of reduced crimes and violence was found. Although, Bogar & Beyer (2015) conclude that the studies are too few have too many different methods and outcomes to draw a generalized conclusion. The heterogeneous forms of parks make it difficult to draw a general conclusion and the nature of crimes and also the timing varies depending on the specific setting (Kimpton et al., 2017).

(17)

10

3 Methodology

The study was conducted with a qualitative approach and primary follows an inductive reasoning. A qualitative approach was the most suitable for the study to be able to contextualise the complex system of supplying UGS and to capture the perspectives of actors involved in the planning process. This requires a focus on the small-scale reality of planning and to bring forward the perspectives of the participants in the study, which is common in qualitative research (Bryman, 2012, p. 408). To be able to answer the research questions a multi-method approach was applied. The analysis of the study was made from an urban social sustainability perspective based on literature on social sustainability. More specifically practices within UGS planning to enable social sustainability in the urban setting, which includes, but is not limited to UGS. The focus was set on practices to achieve Stockholm municipality’s goal that says that “Stockholmers shall have good access to parks and nature with high recreational and natural values” (Stockholms stad, 2017, p. 13).

In the following sections, the procedures and methods used for each part of the study is presented. An overview of the different parts of the thesis can be seen in figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Model showing the main parts of the thesis and how they are interrelated.

3.1 Literature review

To identify social factors that are significant for access and usage of UGS, a literature review of peer- reviewed publications was conducted. The focus and outline of the literature review was two-fold.

Firstly, to explore the relationship between measuring objective and perceived accessibility and the outcomes of using these measures. Secondly, to explore social factors related to UGS that influence the access and usage. The databases KTH Primo and Google Scholar were used to search for and collect publications for the review.

Stockholmers shall have good access to parks and nature with high recreational

and natural values

Literature review What does the research

say?

Interview study How can it be achieved in practice

in Stockholm?

Analysis Objectives of

study are answered

Background Social sustainability in urban planning & UGS RESEARCH

PRACTICE POLICY

Discussion Implications

& limitations

(18)

11 The following search words were used for the collection of publications:

- Accessibility AND green spaces - Access AND green spaces - Perceived accessibility

- Attractiveness AND green spaces

Only publications written in English were selected for the literature review, which excluded publications in other languages. Besides this, three criteria for the selection was made. The selected publications had to (1) include some type of UGS according to the definition used in the study (2) include social factors and (3) not be older than 20 years. The chosen search words, databases and criteria for the selection together creates a delimitation of the articles that was included in the literature review.

3.2 Case study

Case studies are suitable for collection of in-depth knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2006), which was the main motivation of conducting a case study as a part of the thesis. The selection of the case was done according to the sampling approach of “typical case sampling” (Bryman, 2012, p. 419), where the sampling is done on the basis that it “exemplifies a dimension of interest” (ibid.). The selected case, Stockholm municipality, has ambition of a denser and greener city. As part of the greener city the municipality has set strategies to improve access to high quality UGS for all people (Stockholms stad, 2017). This enables an empirical analysis of the experience and knowledge of practitioners working in the setting of densification. This topic is crucial for urban areas since densification can be a threat to UGS (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015).

3.2.1 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with planners and consults working with UGS in Stockholm. The objectives were to (1) gain knowledge of the practical experiences of the planning processes of UGS and the applications of different tools, methods and way of working and (2) the potentials of tools, methods and way of working and (3) challenges of supplying UGS. Semi-structured interviews were chosen since this form of interviews are useful when covering a specific topic while still offering some flexibility for the interviewer to give follow-up questions and flexibility for the informant in their answers (Bryman, 2012, p. 471). An interview guide was used to cover the specific topics of the interviews (see Appendix A).

The sampling and selection of the individuals for the interviews was made following the approach of maximum variation sampling. Bryman (2012, p. 419) describes this approach as sampling to attain the highest variation as possible following the dimension of interest. The purpose with the sampling was therefore getting a wide range of professionals’ knowledge. The approach seemed most suitable since the aim was to understand the perspective of practitioners working with UGS planning, which in practice includes several different levels and departments. Eight interviews were conducted in total (see

(19)

12 Appendix B for information about the informants). Seven out of the eight informants were selected on the basis of their experience of working with planning related to UGS in Stockholm municipality. The last informant has experience of research concerning planning tools for social sustainability in Sweden and was chosen to gain knowledge of using tools for social sustainability in relation to UGS.

The interviews were held in Swedish and recorded. Thereafter, the recordings were transcribed word by word in Swedish. They took place during April of 2020 via either Skype, Zoom or telephone, depending on the access to these platforms and technical issues that arose. The author would preferably have conducted the interviews in person, although this was not an option during spring of 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This is important to note since there are certain issues with telephone interviews in qualitative research (Bryman, 2012, p. 214). Relevant for this study is first of all, that it is not possible to read body language, which help to interpreting for example confusion or discomfort and second, that technical issues occurred during several interviews in different extent.

Sorting of the data was made following the framework approach and analysis of the data was done with a thematic analysis. The framework approach is useful to systematically sorting data with help of a matrix method (Bryman, 2012, p. 579). For the framework, Excel was used as a matrix and colour schemes was made to sort potential themes and subthemes. For the thematic analysis of the data, the first stage of the process was an “initial coding” (Bryman, 2012, p. 569), which is very detailed, and many codes are subtracted without a specific focus. Thereafter, a “focused coding” (Bryman, 2012, p.

569) was made with extraction of the most common codes and the most revealing ones. Leaving out the other initial codes that did not fit into this description. The codes were then used to form subcategories and categories of themes and subthemes. The author made the selection of the themes and subthemes based on what seemed relevant to answer the research question. There is criticism of using coding as a method due to the risk of losing the context when extracting pieces of a text and fragmentations that takes out the narrative story of the informants (Bryman, 2012, p. 578). To try to minimize the risk of losing the context and the narrative stories some codes were a bit longer. Furthermore, brackets with significance information was used if it seemed relevant to the context of the data. As an example, brackets were used for a code that was about a specific project.

3.2.2 Planning tools

Four specific planning tools was analysed in the thesis as a part of the case study. All of the tools are used by Stockholm municipality and include the social dimension in planning, which was a requirement by the author. Although, the scope of the implementation and the extent of the usage of the tools in the planning process differ. The tools were selected after identified as themes from the interviews. Note that these tools were a part of the interview guide (see Appendix A) together with Child impact assessment and may have influenced the respondents focus on these tools. The limitation of this is brought up in Discussion. The tools were selected for the interview guide since Green area factor, Green space compensation, the Sociotope map and Child impact assessment is included in Greener Stockholm, which is a strategy document by Stockholm municipality used for developing its UGS. Social value

(20)

13 assessment was included since it is stated as important for social sustainability in public spaces, among these UGS.

3.3 Validity and generalisability

As discussed later in the thesis (see Discussion) it was difficult to draw any valid conclusions from the literature review and the casual relationship between variables from the empirical research should be handled cautiously. The methods used for the empirical material varies and the construct validity for some of these methods can be questioned. The geographical diversity of the empirical material is also low, which affect the generalisability negatively.

The generalisability of case studies is a commonly discussed topic, specifically how findings from a single case can be generalized (Bryman, 2012, p. 69). The generalisability of this study is rather low.

However, the main aim of the study was not to contribute with findings that can be generalized and applied to other cases, but to contribute to the case study research which enables more empirical work to be done on the subject. Concerning the validity of the findings from the case study, more interviews should preferably be held to make sure that the different perspectives of actors in the UGS planning in Stockholm is captured.

3.4 Ethical considerations

Ethical consideration was mainly applicable during the interview study. Informed consent forms where used since it is a useful way for the informants to be informed about the research and what the participation would imply (Bryman, 2012, p. 140). As stated by Bryman (2012, p. 140), one downside with informed consent forms for qualitative research is that it can be difficult to know the outcomes of the study, which in turn makes it unfeasible to provide this information to the informants. This issue was partly the case for this study since the outcomes of the study was primarily depending on the thematic analysis, which was steered by the answers from the interviews. To counteract the issue the informants had an option in the consent form to look through the result before giving full consent for publication.

(21)

14

4 Results and analysis

In this chapter the objectives of the thesis will be answered, which are the following:

➢ Which social factors influence the access and usage of UGS and for whom?

➢ How can planning tools enable (or hinder) supplying high quality UGS for all people in Stockholm municipality?

➢ What needs and challenges are there for tools, methods and way of working in planning processes to be able to supply high quality UGS for all people in Stockholm municipality?

Firstly, the results from the literature review is presented to answer the first objective. Thereafter, the result from the interview study is presented to answer the second and third objective. Lastly, an analysis of the combined results, which is divided into three main parts; firstly, the result from the literature review and the social factors influence on access and usage of UGS is analysed, secondly, a discussion on planning tools role in supplying UGS with a focus on the chosen tools for the study, and lastly, challenges that were identified in the planning process for UGS.

4.1 Social factors influence on access and usage

4.1.1 Objective and perceived accessibility

The actual distance to parks may not coincide with the perception of the distance that people have (e.g.

Ball et al., 2008; Lackey & Kaczynski, 2009; Macintyre et al., 2008; McCormack et al., 2008;

Schipperijn et al., 2017)⁴. In this sense, it is valuable to understand which of these measures that has the most accurate prediction of UGS usage since many health benefits are gained from the usage of these spaces (Wolch et al., 2014). In an empirical study by Park (2016), all reviewed publications except one, found a significant relationship between perceived distance and usage of parks. Similar result was found in Hadavi et al. (2018), who studied the use pattern of nearby nature in Chicago. The authors found a significant relationship between perceived distance and the usage of UGS.

Only a few publications compared the objective and perceived proximity together with the use frequency and duration of stay in parks. One of those are Mowen et al. (2007), who found that perceived proximity had a significant positive relationship with park use frequency. There was no correlation found when measuring the objective proximity. Although, the objective proximity had a significant positive relationship with the duration of stay. On a similar note, Wang (2015b) also found that a measure of perceived accessibility was a better predictor of park usage than objective measure. Lackey & Kaczynski (2009) only looked at the usage of parks in form of physical activity and contrary to the above studies

4 Although, Schipperijn et al. (2017) address that the participants in that particular study may have another interpretation of the term “park” which may impact the result. This may also be the case for the other studies.

(22)

15 found no correlation to perceived proximity, nor to objective proximity. Although, engagement in physical activity was more likely when the objective and the perceived proximity matched.

The above studies, except Wang (2015b), focus on the proximity, often by asking the participants about the distance to certain places (e.g. Lackey & Kaczynski, 2009; Macintyre et al., 2008; Schipperijn et al., 2017). Some studies have tried to capture a more accurate representation of accessibility, if following the definition of “the ease to access”. For instance, Van der Vlugt et al. (2019) look at the accessibility to facilities of general interest, among these UGS, in two locations in the UK and Germany. The perceived accessibility was assessed by using a survey where participants were asked about accessibility and the ease of getting to certain facilities. The authors found that the perceived accessibility differed from the objective measure. The perceived accessibility had a strong positive relationship with a barrier-free environment and was also linked to the overall perception of the neighbourhood and safety after dark.

Lotfi & Koohsari (2009), who conducted a study in Tehran, had another interpretation on how to measure perceived accessibility. Instead of asking question about the ease of getting to places they asked people about their satisfaction with the accessibility (ibid.). The authors found that the area with better accessibility, according to an objective measure, did not coincide with the perceived measure where the other area had the highest accessibility. According to Lotfi & Koohsari (2009), this difference was due to safety concerns in the area where the objective accessibility was higher, which had a negative effect and resulted in a lower perceived accessibility. The same negative linkage between safety concerns and perceived accessibility was found by Jones et al. (2009), where data about the perception of access was collected in a survey asking about the ease to access UGS. Even though some deprived areas were closer to UGS they perceived the accessibility as worse and the usage was lower due to experience of poor safety. Ward Thompson & Aspinall (2011), another study done in the UK, found as Jones et al. (2009) a significant correlation between perceived safety concerns and usage of green space.

4.1.2 Barriers to access

To be able to achieve the goal of good access for all people, it is important to identify the barriers that may affect different social groups or individuals and the consequences it has for the distribution of benefits provided by UGS. In some publications the perceived access to green spaces varies depending on socio-demographic factors. Hillsdon et al. (2011) analysed self-reported visits to UGS together with a set of independent variables (socio-economic variables and perceived access and safety). The authors found that the likelihood to perceive the access to UGS as very easy was higher among young people and those with higher educational level, living in more affluent areas. In addition, frequency of green space visits had a positive relationship with perceived access, education level, health and perceived safety in neighbourhood and green spaces. The opposite was for deprivation and age where the reported visits decreased. Morris et al. (2011) studied barriers to access woodlands in the UK and found significant links between several socio-demographic factors and barriers to access green spaces. The social groups who experienced the highest number of barriers were people with a disability, black people, ethnic minority groups, women and people with low income. Although, the type of barriers they faced differed.

For people with a disability, the barriers were mostly physical. For women it was more concerns about

(23)

16 personal safety and a lack of facilities on-site. For ethnic minorities it was transportation, lack of information and several barriers related to attitudes and previous experiences.

On the topic of safety concern as barrier to access UGS, Maruthaveeran & Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2014) conducted a literature review to identify factors involved in provoking fear of crime in UGS. The result points to that fear of crime is evoked by the environment together with other factors such as social and personal. Furthermore, that some social groups such as women, elderly and ethnic minorities tend to feel more fear of crime in UGS (ibid). However, the research done on the topic is not geographical diverse and most of the empirical studies was found to be conducted in the US and UK. Therefore, they suggest more studies to be done in other cultural contexts (ibid.).

4.1.3 Quality and preferences

The presence of accessible green spaces does not always entail usage, well-being and good health for local residents, quality may also be an important factor (e.g. Park, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Feng &

Astell-Burt, 2018; Fongar et al., 2019). For instance, Mitchell & Popham (2007) found that in some suburban low-income areas in the UK a higher quantity of UGS was associated with worse health. On a similar note, Francis et al. (2012) indicates that quality of public open spaces⁵ appear to be more important to people's mental health than the quantity. In this particular study the quality was incorporated in a multivariate model where both objective measure and perceived measures through surveys were included (ibid.). The objective measure of quality had a better correlation with health then the perceived measure, though the objective and subjective included different parameters⁶. In Feng &

Astell-Burt (2018) perceived good quality of green spaces, and not the quantity, had a correlation with mental health among postpartum women, although there was no objective measure of quality included in this study.

Contrary to the positive relationship found between health and good quality of green spaces, Zhang et al. (2017) found no direct correlation between self-reported well-being and quality of green spaces. Even though no correlation to well-being was found the perceived quality of green spaces was associated with neighbourhood satisfaction, which may benefit the well-being indirect (ibid.). Moreover, they found that both objective measures in form of the availability of usable and accessible green spaces and perceived quality had a significant relationship with neighbourhood satisfaction.

The empirical review by Park (2016) points to that perceived quality in urban parks likely have a significant effect on the usage. Park (2016) analyses five categories that the author stated belonged to the perceived quality of parks. All of these five categories were found to have a significant or slightly

5 Including parks, recreational grounds, sports fields, commons, esplanades and bushland/wilderness Francis et al. (2012)

6 Objective quality in form of a weighted score of ten attributes (such as walking paths, places with shades, water features, birdlife, lighting, sporting facilities, playgrounds) and subjective measure including parameters such as perceived safety, maintenance, attractiveness, things to do with then was summed and divided into low and high quality (Francis et al., 2012).

(24)

17 significance to park usage; safety (14 out of 18 studies); maintenance (10/12); attractiveness (15/19);

facilities/activities (14/15) and social environment (16/18)⁷. The influence of perceived quality to the usage of green spaces has also been shown in other articles that looked at a broader concept of quality.

Fongar et al. (2019) conducted a national survey in Norway to see whether perceived quality affect the usage of green spaces. The result suggests that perceived quality has an influence on the user visits.

People who perceived green spaces as having average or low quality often had less visits to green spaces.

The relationship between perceived quality and use of green spaces was also found in Ward Thompson

& Aspinall (2011), where the quality measure was based on attractiveness and safety of green spaces. In Seaman et al. (2010) the availability of green spaces with perceived high quality was also shown to be one of the factors that influenced the usage of green spaces.

The preferences and usage of parks and other green spaces may vary between different social groups (e.g. Ho et al., 2005; Payne et al., 2002; Rishbeth, 2001; Tinsley et al., 2002; Ward Thompson &

Aspinall, 2011). For instance, Kabisch & Haase (2014) analysed the provision of UGS in Germany to see if the distribution and preferences of UGS differed depending on demographic variables and immigrant status. When looking at a specific UGS they found that the visitation was underrepresented by immigrants and older people even though the area had a large population of immigrants living there (ibid.). The UGS lacked the preferred needs of the immigrant population, who preferred places for socializing and relaxing in larger groups in semi-structured spaces. Similar result was found by Ho et al. (2005), where park preferences and usage had a significant relationship to ethnicity in two urban areas in the US. The gender aspect was also included in the study, but no significant link was found of park preferences among women and men. Another study done in the US, Payne et al. (2002), also found that ethnic background was the strongest influence of park preferences in terms of type of recreation activity, more influential than age or gender. Similar result was found in Tinsley et al. (2002), where the use of park facilities was also found to be significant to ethnic groups and not to age or gender.

4.2 Planning of UGS – from a practical perspective

4.2.1 Planning tools

According to H, there are plenty of perspectives lifted from different directions that needs to be incorporated in the planning of UGS. These questions can be integrated and involve different actors, ranging from constructors to schools. Integration of tools that highlight different issues/interests in the planning process has the potential to support an intentional planning. Sometimes the actors involved in the planning process can agree on the objective of a project but not on the measures to achieve the most suitable physical outcome. In those cases, tools can help. Formerly it was more up to the project leader to decide which issues are raised. Nowadays there are more opportunities to highlight different kind of issues, especially the social ones (H). In the following sections the specific planning tools that

7 Note that some of the articles not only include parks and some only look at the usage in form of physical activity.

(25)

18 was highlighted from the interview study will be presented together with the result of what was said from the interviews.

Sociotope map

A sociotope is what Stockholm municipality calls an accessible public space that contains social user and experience values. The municipality has used this concept to map all of its public green spaces together with these social values. The map is used as a planning document in the municipality and is a part of their park guidelines. The purpose of the Sociotope map is to capture the user values and preconditions of specific green spaces whilst getting an overview of the city district level. Examples of included user value-concepts are play, quiet, walking, picnic, crowds, swimming and wilderness (Stockholms stad, 2017). In addition to the Sociotope map, Stockholm municipality are currently working with separate mapping of the importance of parks as meeting places (B).

An advantage with the Sociotope map is that it is based on three different elements – public surveys, scientific research and expert evaluation (B). The map is also useful for consultants when working with planning projects concerning UGS (C; F). For instance, when doing social assessment such as Child impact assessments and Sustainability assessments (F). The material from the Sociotope map can also be useful as a ground of comparison when using other methods (C). The data needs to be updated since it is a lot of construction going on in Stockholm (D) and the needs of the people might have changed (B). Furthermore, one issue is that the surrounding municipalities don’t have a Sociotope map (B; C) and the UGS access then becomes misleading for the districts that border neighbouring municipalities, where the inhabitants have access to user values in the neighbouring municipality. In addition, the Sociotope map don't show where in a UGS a specific sociotope is located, which may cause problems in larger UGS (D). The categorisation of social values is another factor that may affect the representation of the reality (C).

Green area factor

Green area factor (GAF) for blocks⁸ is a planning tool for promoting urban ecosystem services in form of social values, biodiversity and climate adaption at a neighbourhood scale. GAF for blocks is used for new urban planning projects in Stockholm municipality. The tool was first implemented in Stockholm municipality with the development of the Royal Seaport and shall be carried out in the process of zoning plans and urban development projects. It is stated by Stockholm municipality that the tool should be seen as complementary to other requirements and work done in the planning process related to social values, spatial qualities and the connection of green spaces among other things.

GAF is measured with a ratio between the so called “eco efficient surface” and the total surface of the area. The adaption of the tool in Stockholm municipality includes green surfaces and some blue surface that fulfils specific requirements in “eco efficient surface”. If less than 50 % of the surface is built-up the

8 Author's translation from Swedish: Grönytefaktor (GYF) för kvartersmark

(26)

19 GAF value is 1,0. If 50–70 % of the surface is built-up the value is 0,6 and over 70 % built-up the value is 0,4. The type of value that want to be achieved depend on the local context, for example the type of built-up already existing in the area. To create a balance between the different kind of functions that wants to be attained (biodiversity, climate adaption, social values and sound quality) with help of the implementation of the greenery and water there are two additional factors. The aim is to achieve at least 60 % of the total possible values within each type of functions. The social values are stated to be important functions for blocks, both to enhance social values by usability of the spaces but also visibility.

For the social function there are 29 supporting factors that that have different weight, such as place for social activity (weight 1,2), gardening (weight 0,5) and common terrace (weight o,2) (Stockholms stad, 2015b).

According to A, GAF for public spaces has been tested in Stockholm municipality, although at this stage there is no plan to implement this tool further. However, the tool for blocks is already adopted and is at this stage evaluated. One advantage with using GAF for blocks is that it is easy to adopt in projects. The constructors have an easy understanding of the tool and it is also an easy way for the municipality to set criteria for the constructors to follow (A). In addition, it is a tool that is well known and has measures that are well defined, which is an advantage according to one consultant who has been working with it (F). A has been a part of the development of the tool when it was first used in the Royal Seaport in Stockholm and thinks it is a useful tool. Although one downside that A mentions with GAF for blocks is that it might have been more focus on the ecological functions, which may have resulted in negative consequences for the usage of the spaces.

Green space compensation

Green space compensation is a planning tool that builds on the idea to compensate for green spaces that are being lost due to urban development. The compensation is done by providing the lost green space values in another nearby location. The overall aim of this approach is to ensure that values of green spaces do not diminish as a result of urban development (Cilliers, 2012). Green space compensation is described by Stockholm municipality as a tool to improve social and ecological values in. It is stated in the document for Greener Stockholm that a relevant compensation should be considered when unexploited land is converted into built-up area, to be able to re-create or replace some social and recreational values (Stockholms stad, 2017). However, the guideline does not mention which specific values that should be compensated or the prioritization of different ecological and social values.

Green space compensation as a tool in planning projects is currently being evaluated in Stockholm municipality, partly due to uncertainties regarding within which distance the compensation should take place and how the budget for the compensations should be used (E). E has experience of working with projects where Green space compensations have been used and says it varies in the proportion of ecological and recreational functions that are compensated. In some cases, the budget from a project that are aimed for compensation is too small to be used (B; E) and it might be better to collect the budgets for several projects and take measures where it is needed (E). Furthermore, the compensations

(27)

20 might be done in areas that already have a lot of green (B). One consultant says that it is not always so clear for whom the compensation is made for, where it should take place and how to implement it (C).

An advantage with using Green space compensation is the impression that the constructors are generally positive to use it as it helps when communicating with local residents nearby (B).

Social value assessment

The planning tool Social value assessment (SVA)⁹ was beginning to be developed in 2017 in Stockholm municipality. The purpose of the development of this tool was to support social values in local planning (Eken et al., 2019). The Commission for a Social Sustainable Stockholm¹⁰ published several reports 2015-2017 related to social sustainability. Within the development area of housing and urban environment SVA is mentioned as one concrete measure to strengthen the structure of planning and promote social sustainable urban planning (Stockholms stad, 2019). In Dahlin (2016), the commission states the need for tools and analysis that can be used in planning processes to ensure that investments are directed to enable equal living conditions, a better balance of the city’s urban qualities¹¹, counteract spatial segregation and support social capital. For this, one of the suggested measures is to develop a proactive analytical model for social values, the SVA. SVA would be an integrated part of the whole planning process and not only as an impact assessment after a plan is set (ibid.).

Social impact assessments are in general tools with few frameworks (C; F), which can be both an opportunity and a challenge (F). In comparison to Environmental impact assessment they are rather freely as a tool and at the moment there are no legislations on how to conduct a Social impact assessment. The lack of framework can create opportunities for development and to do new things. It exists similar tools to the one Stockholm municipality has adopted and these tools can be used for both assessments and description of the social context. One consultant with experience of working with Social impact assessments says that these tools per se does not enable or hinder the consideration of UGS, the tool is very situational. It all depends on the aim of the project where the assessment is done and the client who order it if UGS are incorporated or not. If UGS are incorporated, it can be in form of its own category or a part of another category such as “everyday life” (C). One informant that works at one of the city districts of Stockholm municipality thinks that Social value assessment is good to use when constructing. It helps with understanding the bigger picture and conduct dialogues with the local residents to understand the existing situation and what is needed. It is also a comprehensive material to give to constructors (E).

Civil dialogue

Civil dialogues, together with qualitative methods, are the main tools used in Stockholm municipality to capture the UGS needs of the public. However, the needs of the people are not fixed and likely change over time (H). An overriding dialogue tool throughout the municipality to investigate the UGS needs of

9 Author's translation from Swedish: Socialt värdeskapande analys (SVA)

10 Author's translation from Swedish: Kommissionen för ett socialt hållbart Stockholm

11 Author's translation from Swedish: stadskvaliteter

(28)

21 the public is not developed. However, the Sociotope map is used as a material, which is based on surveys within the city districts. From the previous surveys that has been conducted there was no notable differences in valued qualities of parks. Civil dialogues in general are made more within the administration of the city districts, they know more how the local parks are used and are continually conducting dialogues with the residents. Materials gathered about people's needs in the city districts are the base in planning processes of UGS (B). An informant working in one of the city districts says that civil dialogues are used for capturing different needs of people. For instance, the city district conducts a civil survey every year, where the perceived access UGS is included among other things (E).

One advantage of using civil dialogue is that you get directly to the source and hopefully get in contact with the residents you are planning for, and/or the residents that are affected by a project (C). It helps with knowing what local residents wants and needs (E). Civil dialogue is also important when working with social sustainability in general. To gather information about many aspects and to get a representative dialogue with the diverse people who are using the area in question (F). Civil dialogues range from having a few advanced interviews to conducting a survey with many people. With the first approach you get in-depth knowledge about a few residents while with the latter you get basic knowledge about many residents. In this sense it is important not to draw too big conclusions from the material you gather (C). It is important to choose the most relevant method and to have a clear aim with the dialogue (F). The method in itself influence how the participants response, for example a certain group dynamic can appear if interviewing residents in a group, which in turn can affect the answers the informants give (C).

One concern that is raised with civil dialogue is that residents in districts where this method has been used a lot tired of such participative approaches, which makes it difficult to use these methods (C; F). It would be useful for consultants if previous civil dialogues that has been conducted are accessible and stored in a more systematic way (F). A way Stockholm municipality is testing right now, is to try and counteract the issue of finding residents that are willing to participate is to have a focus group in every area, that can participate in dialogues when it is needed (H). Another concern that was brought up is that it is important with the representation of the dialogue (C). This was mentioned as a challenge by one of the informants who has been conducting civil dialogues in one of the city districts. Often it is the same kind of people that participate and get their voice heard. The city district has tried to have focus group based on specific social groups, such as women with children, where they have offered taking care of the children during the participation, but it was not so effective, and the participation was still low.

Other social groups that is underrepresented due to the challenge of getting them involved is young people and residents that has recently moved to Sweden (E).

Urban green spaces for all people: Supplying green spaces in Stockholm municipality from a social sustainability perspective