IN
DEGREE PROJECT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020,
People for
green infrastructure
Exploring participatory initiatives in Paris ALBERICA DOMITILLA BOZZI
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
People for green infrastructure
Exploring participatory initiatives in Paris
Degree project course: Strategies for sustainable development, Second Cycle AL250X, 30 credits
Author: Alberica Domitilla Bozzi
Supervisor: Ulrika Gunnarsson Östling
Co-supervisor: Concetta Sangrigoli
Examiner: Sara Borgström
Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering School of Architecture and the Built Environment
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
October 2020
Table of contents
Abstract V Résumé VI Sammanfattning VII
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Overview 4
1.2 Greening the city 5
1.3 Research questions 6
2. Theoretical framework and concepts 8
2.1 Participatory planning 8
2.2 Green infrastructure 10
2.2.1 Not only green 10
2.2.2 France in theory and practice 14
2.3 Case study 17
3. Methodology 21
3.1 Mixed methods research 21
3.2 Data collection
213.2.1 Content analysis 22
3.2.2 Questionnaire 22
3.2.3 Interviews 28
4. Results 30
4.1 What is the green infrastructure of Paris? 30
4.1.1 Definition 30
4.1.2 Maps 31
4.1.3 Meanings 37
4.2 What are the strategies to implement it? 38
4.2.1 Identify 38
4.2.2 Protect 39
4.2.3 Reinforce 41
4.2.4 Raise awareness and participate 44
4.3 How do Parisians participate? 48
4.3.1 Green infrastructure for people 48
4.3.2 Socio-ecological spaces 50
4.4 How can participatory initiatives be nourished? 56
4.4.1 According to citizens 56
4.4.2 According to local authorities 64
4.4.3 From an outsider expert 68
4.5 Summary of main findings 70
5. Discussion and conclusion 73
5.1 Reflections 73
5.2 Actions 75
5.3 Limits and future research 76
References 79
Annex 1 - Questionnaire 83
Annex 2 - Interviews 85
Annex 3 - Biodiversity plan 86
List of figures
Figure 1.1 A blooming tree base managed by a group of citizens. 2 Figure 2.1 Arnstein’s ladder of participation (from Arnstein, 1969). 9 Figure 2.2 Park system in Boston (from National Park Service Olmsted Archives). 10 Figure 2.3 UGI typologies (from Hansen et al., 2017, p. 6). 12 Figure 2.4 GI elements: reserves, that could be primary or secondary; and
corridors, that can be continuous and stepping stone. The matrix is the overall
physical environment (from Linglart et al., 2016, p .2). 16 Figure 2.5 Paris (12.8 million; 2015 data), London (12.1 million) and Madrid (6.6 million) are the most populated cities in EU (from Eurostat, 2017). 19
Figure 2.6 Nature in Paris (from APUR, 2018). 19
Figure 2.7 A shared garden along the Petite Ceinture, in the 18th arrondissement. 20 Figure 3.1 The programme “Végétalisons Paris” concerns a large variety of
places in the public and private domains (from Végétalisons Paris, 2020). 24 Figure 3.2 Map of selected participatory projects along the GI of Paris. 26 Figure 4.1 Map of objectives for the area of Paris (from SRCE, 2013). 33 Figure 4.2 Diagnostic scheme of the Parisian GI (from Mairie de Paris, 2020). 35 Figure 4.3 GI map of the 14th arrondissement (from Mairie de Paris, 2018). 36 Figure 4.4 In the development of three-dimensional GI, green walls, courtyards of residences and streets can allow plant and animal species to circulate more easily. The number and diversity of such vegetated spaces allow for closer
exchanges between similar spaces (from Clergeau, 2018). 36 Figure 4.5 Map of ecological coherence (from Mairie de Paris, 2016). 40 Figure 4.6 Map of planted roads to be reinforced (from APUR, 2020, p. 82) 43 Figure 4.7 Map of roads to be vegetalised (from APUR, 2020, p. 82). 43 Figure 4.8 Map of roads in proximity of parks, gardens and schools to be
vegetalised (from APUR, 2020, p. 83) 43
Figure 4.9 The regulation of the shared garden “passagers” prohibits visitors from stepping on plants, playing music and disturbing insects but it invites them
to water the plants, observe insects, walk and dream. 45 Figure 4.10 Citizens have realised greening permit projects at tree bases, in pots
or even in open ground. 47
Figure 4.11 Knowledge of the GI concept in the various programmes. 48 Figure 4.13 Damaged structure delimiting the tree base of Virginie. 51
Figure 4.12 What drives people to action. 52
Figure 4.15 Impacts of the participatory initiatives according to respondents. 54
Figure 4.14 Animals found in the project sites. 55
Figure 4.16 The vegetalised floating piers are one of the most voted PB projects. 57
Figure 4.17 What keeps people in action. 58
Figure 4.18 Main difficulties in the four programmes. 60
Figure 4.19 What could be improved. 62
Figure 4.20 How a greening permit project has changed, and might change in
the future, the urban, social and ecological landscape of a street. 65 Figure 4.21 Map of five sociotopes (from Linglart et al., 2016). 69 Figure 4.22 Some benefits of a greening permit project. 71
List of tables
Table 2.1 Planning principles for green infrastructure (from Pauleit et al., 2017). 13 Table 3.1 Overview of the documents used for content analysis. 23 Table 3.2 Process to select the initiatives within “Végétalisons Paris”. 25 Table 3.3 Projects, respondents and responses of the questionnaire. 28
Table 3.4 Interviews list. 29
List of abbreviations
AEU, Agence de l’Écologie Urbaine, Agency of Urban Ecology APUR, Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme, Parisian Planning Studio EU, European Union
GI, Green Infrastructure
OAP, Orientations d’Aménagement et de Programmation, Guidelines of Planning and Programming
PADD, Projet d’Aménagement et de Développement Durable, Project of Sustainable Management and Development
PB, Participatory Budget
PLU, Plan Local d’Urbanisme, Local Urban Plan
SRCE, Schéma Régional de Cohérence Écologique, Regional Scheme of Ecological Coherence TVB, Trame Verte et Bleue, Green Infrastructure
UGI, Urban Green Infrastructure
Acronyms of terms in French are followed by an English translation.
I preferred to refer to “trame verte et bleue” with the term “green infrastructure”
rather than its literal translation (“green and blue network”).
Abstract
Since the early 2000s, the city of Paris has launched several greening initiatives with the scope of, among many, strengthening its green infrastructure (henceforth, GI).
With the support of the municipality, citizens actively participate in this transformation, for instance by reactivating and managing former wasteland sites, making the streets blossom, covering walls and roofs with plants and creating new micro-ecosystems.
But what is their impact? Citizens engaged in selected participatory initiatives along the local GI have been questioned and interviewed to find out more about their projects.
Citizens - either alone, in small groups, organised in local associations, start-ups or companies - act for different reasons and do not always know the concept of GI. Questionnaire respondents value their project first of all because it improves their living environment, but also because it facilitates reconnecting with nature and promotes biodiversity. However, their actions are not coordinated as to effectively reinforce GI. In other words, people’s projects spread everywhere and not particularly where they are most needed.
Through the revision of local planning and policy documents, as well as interviews with key actors, this work also highlights contradictions between definition, strategies, maps and meanings of the GI in Paris. Some recommendations are provided to
expand the ecological and public GI of today into a veritable multifunctional GI through multidisciplinary and participatory approaches.
Keywords: green infrastructure; nature; citizens; Paris; participatory processes.
Résumé
Depuis le début des années 2000, la ville de Paris a lancé plusieurs initiatives de végétalisation pour réintroduire la nature dans la ville et renforcer ses trames vertes et bleues (TVB). Avec le soutien de la municipalité, les citoyens participent activement à cette transformation, par exemple en réactivant et en gérant d’anciennes friches, en faisant fleurir les rues, en recouvrant les murs et les toits de végétaux et en créant de nouveaux microécosystèmes. Mais quel est leur impact ? Les citoyens engagés dans des initiatives participatives sélectionnées le long de la TVB locale ont été interrogés et interviewés pour en savoir plus sur leurs projets.
Les citoyens - seuls, en petits groupes, organisés en associations locales, start-up ou entreprises - agissent pour des raisons différentes et ne connaissent pas toujours le concept de TVB. Les répondants au questionnaire valorisent d’abord leur projet parce qu’il améliore leur cadre de vie, mais aussi parce qu’il facilite la reconnexion avec la nature et favorise la biodiversité. Cependant, leurs actions ne sont pas coordonnées pour renforcer efficacement les TVB. En d’autres termes, les projets de végétalisation des citoyens se répandent partout et pas particulièrement là où ils sont les plus nécessaires.
À travers l’analyse des documents de planification locaux, ainsi que des entretiens avec des acteurs clés, ce travail met également en évidence les contradictions entre la définition, les stratégies, les cartes et les significations des TVB. Quelques recommandations sont formulées pour faire de la TVB écologique et publique d’aujourd’hui une véritable TVB multifonctionnelle à travers des approches multidisciplinaires et participatives.
Mots clés: trame verte et bleue; nature; citoyens; Paris; processus participatifs.
Sammanfattning
Sedan början av 2000-talet har staden Paris startat flera grönskande initiativ med syfte attbland annat återinföra naturen i staden och stärka dess gröna infrastruktur (GI). Med kommunens stöd deltar medborgarna aktivt i denna omvandling, till
exempel genom att återaktivera och gemensamt sköta tidigare ödemarker, få gatorna att blomma, täcka väggar och tak med växter och skapa nya mikroekosystem. Men vad är deras inverkan? Medborgare som deltar i utvalda deltagande initiativ längs den lokala GI har utfrågats och intervjuats för att ta reda på mer om sina projekt.
Medborgare - antingen ensamma, i små grupper, organiserade i lokala föreningar, nystartade företag eller företag - agerar av olika skäl och känner inte alltid till begreppet grön infrastruktur. De som svarar på frågeformuläret värderar först sitt projekt eftersom det förbättrar deras livsmiljö, men också för att det underlättar återanslutning med naturen och främjar biologisk mångfald. Men deras handlingar samordnas inte för att effektivt stärka GI, eller delar av det. Med andra ord, människor som grönar projekt sprids överallt och inte särskilt där de behövs mest.
Genom översynen av lokala planerings- och policydokument, samt intervjuer med nyckelaktörer, belyser detta arbete också motsägelser mellan GI-definition, strategier, kartor och betydelser. Vissa rekommendationer tillhandahålls för att utöka dagens ekologiska och offentliga GI till en verifierbar multifunktionell GI genom multidisciplinära och deltagande strategier.
Nyckelord: grön infrastruktur; natur; medborgare; Paris; deltagande processer.
To Parisians that shared with me anecdotes about their projects; to all people that enhance in different ways places they live; to my mentors, Ulrika Gunnarsson Östling and Concetta Sangrigoli, for having supported and inspired this work, thank you.
Figure 1.1 A blooming tree base managed by a group of citizens.
1. Introduction
Walking in the streets of Paris, you might see marvelous monuments, bustling crowds, shops, and many cars. You might smell freshly baked croissants and hear speaking in all languages. Nature might not be the first thing that you notice. Despite luxurious parks, forests, cemeteries, canals and river, nature is extremely compact, fragmented and often enclosed in the hyper-dense urban fabric of Paris. However, if you enter in the park Buttes-Chaumont or in the cemetery Père-Lachaise, you might be surprised to discover protected species of frogs and newts along the ponds and hedgehogs in the dense shrubs. Walking along the street that connects the park and the cemetery, you might not perceive that you are in one of the ecological corridors identified by the municipality. What and where is the green infrastructure of Paris?
If you turn right in rue des Envierges, you will soon find that planters have replaced some parking spots and you might chat with one of the citizens managing this green. Just before the park of Belleville, you can spot a shared garden on the left, recognisable from the insect hotel and the terraced vegetable garden. Going down the hill, you will cross a floating vegetated platform in the canal Saint-Martin, where a swan has recently built its nest. Further down, if you head towards the Seine, you might see spontaneous herbs and flowers at the base of some trees (figure 1.1). How do citizens contribute to the green infrastructure of Paris?
1.1 Overview
The green infrastructure (GI) of Paris mainly aims to halt local biodiversity loss (Mairie de Paris, 2018). Biodiversity loss is threatening not only Parisians but all humans across the globe (IPBES, 2019a). In the 21st century, mankind is facing unprecedented challenges of different nature and often interlinked: irreversible destruction of plant and animal species, as well as their habitats, urban heat island, increasingly destructive and frequent flooding and drought events, climate refugees, malnutrition, unemployment, and wildfires. Social and planetary boundaries are interdependent and need to be tackled together in order to move into an environmentally safe and socially just space where humans can thrive (Raworth, 2012).
Governments and businesses are not doing enough, dooming the world to miss most of the United Nations sustainable development goals.
The good news is that there are many viable options to limit global
temperature rise and address the conservation of biodiversity. GI is largely recognised as a solution for global sustainability (e.g. IPBES, 2019a;
Pauleit et al., 2017). Notably, it can contribute to regulate temperature, reduce air pollution, provide clean water supplies, manage rainwater and control flooding events. Moreover it can restore or create habitats, support local food production, promote well-being and health of its inhabitants (IPBES, 2019b) and offer new opportunities for people to become stewards of ecosystem services (Andersson et al., 2014).
Despite the potential benefits, there are still significant barriers to mainstream GI policy and planning projects in Europe (Pauleit, et al., 2019). International agencies and the European Union have recently called for a wider uptake of GI at all levels of governance (IPBES, 2019a;
EU, 2019a). Among several studies on this topic, the influential study by Zuniga-Terana and colleagues (2020) identifies two underlying aspects to ensure a successful GI application on the long-term: political will and community participation. The active involvement of different actors requires setting up of participatory processes, such as collaborative planning, co-construction workshops and participatory budget schemes.
Thus, participatory processes are fundamental for the long term success of any GI project. Starting from here, this work aims to reflect on people and the participatory processes that allow them to develop GI in the case study of Paris.
LOCAL SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL CHALLENGES
VIABLE SOLUTION TO MANY CHALLENGES
CHALLENGES IN MAINSTREAMING GI
1.2 Greening the city
In France, the concept of GI is defined by a national law as a tool to halt biodiversity loss and promote ecological continuity. Starting from early 2010s, most Regions have identified GI and it is now the turn of municipalities to integrate them in their plans and “bring them to life”.
However, local plans often do not include GI and, when they do, they are criticised from many angles (Cormier et al., 2013). Notably, there is no shared vision of the GI goals between regional and local levels: while regions see GI as a tool to promote biodiversity, local authorities make use of GI mainly to improve the living environment of residents (Canard et al, 2016; Petit & Vandenbroucke, 2017; Debray, 2016). Moreover, most citizens ignore the concept of GI (Cormier et al., 2013; Canard et al., 2016). This represents a challenge because public participation is key for successful GI initiatives on the long run.
The city of Paris represents a valuable case to explore local GI and participatory processes for several reasons. Notably, the municipality has launched several programmes to involve Parisians in making the city more livable and resilient. In particular, the programme called
“Végétalisons la ville” (which can be translated as “greening the city” or
“let’s revegetate the city”) aims to bring nature back to the city through several participatory initiatives, such as the reactivation of abandoned fields and planting along streets. Moreover, many citizens actively changed urban environments through the participatory budget scheme.
Both programmes are interesting because they arguably present two fundamental elements for successful GI implementations: political will and community participation. Despite the promising start, these initiatives raised contrasting opinions. On the one hand, the high level of public engagement is seen as an indicator of success and an incentive to further boost these initiatives (Golla, 2017). On the other hand, experts from different fields criticise the ecological and sometimes social value of these interventions, as well as the lack of political coordination (Marurel, 2017;
Garnier-Amouroux, 2017; Demailly, 2017).
Previous works analyse different aspects relevant for this thesis: the concept of GI in dense cities (Cormier et al., 2013), the contribution of local actors in implementing GI in different contexts (Canard et al, 2016; Petit & Vandenbroucke, 2017), shared gardens as part of urban GI (Demailly, 2017), citizens’ perceptions of Parisian GI (Grésillon et al., 2012), some insights from the local participatory budget (Moreau & Arhip- Paterson, 2018; Cabannes, 2017) and the effects of the greening permit
FRENCH GI
GI IN PARIS
RESEARCH GAP
(Marurel, 2017). However, the role of Parisians in developing GI has been so far scarcely addressed.
1.3 Research questions
This thesis is developed as part of a collaboration between a master student at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) and Atelier NOUS, an urban planning and landscape studio based in Paris. In particular, urban planners and architects at Atelier NOUS have experience in co-design and co-construction with citizens, and they act as mediators between citizens and municipalities. As such, Atelier NOUS provided an inside perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of greening participatory practices in the French capital.
This work was guided by a strong curiosity towards participatory greening strategies and towards Paris, city that welcomed me during the last year of my master studies in sustainable urban planning and design. Even if developed during the challenging Covid-19 pandemic, this thesis allowed me to learn a lot about various initiatives of citizen participation.
We, students, are encouraged to embrace public participation in our professional practice, to humbly listen, support and give a voice to the inhabitants. While this work might not fully integrate the voice of Parisians for a limited time and resources, it represents an important milestone for my professional and personal life.
This thesis aims to investigate the relationship between GI and citizens involved in its development and management; and to suggest new ways to support GI and its inhabitants. This research tries to understand participatory greening strategies and more specifically the role of urban dwellers in the development of GI. The city of Paris is selected as a case study due to the strong adhesion of Parisians to the greening programme named “Végétalisons la ville” and to the participatory budget scheme. My objectives are to: identify the green infrastructure of Paris; present the strategies adopted by the municipality of Paris to develop it; investigate the contribution of citizens in developing GI; and propose various ways to nourish citizens’ actions for GI.
Thus, the main questions of this work are:
1. What is the green infrastructure of Paris?
2. What are the strategies to implement it?
3. How do citizens participate in its development?
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION
AIM AND OBJECTIVES
4. How can participatory initiatives for green infrastructure be further supported?
Finally, this work proposes to the municipality of Paris practical recommendations to improve citizens actions for green infrastructure.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
2. Theoretical framework and concepts
2.1 Participatory planning
Within this work, urban green policies are analysed and understood through the lens of participation. I choose this perspective because
participation is crucial for the long-term sustainability of GI projects. While participatory planning is not strictly speaking a theoretical framework, it actually provides the basis to:
• understand this work, because participatory processes connected with the Parisian GI are presented and analysed in the following chapters;
• and develop this work, because indigenous knowledge, meaning the practical knowledge of the local inhabitants and users, is taken into consideration and integrated to the academic works.
Participation is a very broad concept that means different things to different people (Kelly, 2001). Many are the views on how it should be defined, who should be involved and when, what the desired outcomes are and how it should be developed. As for clarity, I have adopted the political approach proposed by Carpentier that defines participation as “the equalisation of power relations between privileged and non- privileged actors in formal or informal decision-making processes”
(Carpentier, 2016, p. 72).
Sherry Arnstein is one of the first one to discuss participation at the end of the 1960s and her article “A ladder of citizen participation” had a
lasting impact in many areas of research (Arnstein, 1969). According to her, citizen participation is citizens power because it involves a redistribution of powers that enables citizens to be included in shaping their future.
The 8-steps ladder (figure 2.1) illustrates the different types of citizen participation, ranging from the “manipulation” up to “citizens control”. As the same Arnstein largely recognised (Arnstein, 1969), the ladder model is insufficient to analyse participatory processes for several reasons. Notably, because it suggests the existence of easy cut-off points. Moreover, the ladder is not able to capture the changing intensities of participation over
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITION
TYPOLOGIES
time, and the potential conflicts among actors. As such, the ladder-based model does not reflect the real-life complexity of participatory processes (Carpentier, 2016).
Participatory planning has emerged in response to the desire of people affected by a plan to take part in its formulation. Since the 1970s, concerns about ‘giving a voice to the voiceless’ brought to early
experimentations of participatory approaches, which reached enormous success towards the end of the 21st century (Kelly, 2001). The popularity of participatory processes can be attributed to several factors, such as:
top-down programmes often fail to meet the needs of local communities;
communities are generally more likely to maintain the project when they participate to its conception and construction; and involved communities tend to better manage their own resources (Chambers, 1995; Buchy et al., 2000). Moreover, participation is presented as a way to legitimize planning decisions, to promote behavioural change (Kelly, 2001) and to prompt local ownership of a project, which in turn is key to generate ecological activities (Prince and Mylius, 1991).
The success of participatory processes has increased together with their misuse. According to Chambers (1995), there are three main ways in which participation materializes: as a cosmetic label, to make a project appear good or when participation is required; as a convenient practice to mobilize local labor and reduce costs; or as an empowering process. The first group, participation as a label, seems to prevail. In this
EVOLUTION AND SUCCESS Figure 2.1 Arnstein’s ladder of participation (from Arnstein, 1969).
APPLICATION
PARTICIPATION FOR GI
ORIGINS
case, the concept of “participation” becomes instrumental rather than transformative. Kelly (2001) partly attributes the failure of participatory projects to the widespread romanticized vision of participation as the cure for all diseases.
Public participation contributes to the developement of GI in several ways. Notably, it may boost environmental resilience through creation, restoration, enhancement and maintenance of green spaces (Buijs et al., 2016). However, commitments and capacities of people, insecure funding, fragmentation of management and potential tensions among stakeholders might represent potential problems to be acknowledged and tackled in participatory processes for GI (Buijs et al., 2016).,
2.2 Green infrastructure
2.2.1 Not only green
The concept of GI has been circulating for several decades in different fields, such as planning, landscape, geography and more recently sociology. Over time, it assumed several definitions, evolving with the changing ideologies and the transformations in economy, society and urban structures (Toublanc & Bonin 2012). Its origins are often traced back to the 19th century, with the work of landscape architects such as Frederick Law Olmsted and Nicolas Forestier (Cormier et al., 2010). Author of the connected parks and parkways in Boston, Olmsted advocated free access to nature through a “green” continuity (figure 2.2). The park systems that he designed are wide promenades for city dwellers but also
“the lungs of the city” and an element of the organization of the city.
During the inter-war period, the idea of a green continuity changed purpose: from green promenade with social, hygienist and aesthetic
Figure 2.2 Park system in Boston (from National Park Service Olmsted Archives).
functions, to a green belt that aims to limit urban sprawl. More recently, the concept of GI has reflected one or more environmental concerns. For instance, GI gained attention as a way to ensure sustainable storm water management in the US and to protect biodiversity in Europe. Currently, GI is conveyed as a broader concept that contributes to “various policy aims, including improving human health and well-being, achieving a more sustainable use of natural capital, and supporting the development of a green economy” (Pauleit et al., 2017, pp. 34-35).
No international consensus has been reached on what exactly is and constitutes a green infrastructure. Today, the term is used as a label to describe a great variety of interventions across scales (from global level to parcel level), contexts (mainly urban, peri-urban and rural) and objectives (such as recreation, nature conservation, human well-being and climate change mitigation). Thus, it involves different spaces, spanning from
“national ecological networks, wetland restorations, stormwater projects, public green space, allotments, green corridors, street trees, green roofs and walls, permeable pavements and private gardens” (IPBES, 2019b, pp.
109-111). As illustrated by the Cormier and Kenderesy (2010, p. 1) “there are not one but several types of greenways”.
In order to facilitate the reader and myself, a working definition of urban green infrastructure (UGI) is proposed here. The choice to focus on the urban context is functional to analyse the case study of Paris in the following chapters. UGI is considered as “interconnected networks of all kinds of green spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health and quality of life” (Pauleit et al., 2017, p. 34).
The GI concept is well established in urban planning practices as for its spatial dimension, notably environmental features and spatial planning principles (Pauleit et al., 2017). GI is usually described as a broad range of environmental features that exist at different scales. However, simply belonging to an environmental feature is not enough to qualify as part of a green infrastructure as each component needs to be of high quality and interconnected to a broader network. For instance, an individual tree can be considered as an element of GI when it forms part of a larger habitat or ecosystem with a wider function. Similarly, an urban park might be an integral part of a GI if it acts as a cool air corridor, absorbs excess rainwater and offers an attractive area for recreational activities and wildlife. On the other hand, a uniform grass that contains no other environmental features is unlikely to qualify as a UGI element (EC, 2013).
A recent study highlighted the great variety of urban green spaces in European cities and clustered them in 44 UGI types, including “balcony
SEVERAL TYPES
WORKING DEFINITION
COMPONENTS
the same time, critical to reach.
The multi-functionality is a major asset of GI and provides benefits of different nature. From an ecological point of view, UGI may purify air and water from polluting substances, reduce heat island effect and energy demands, and stock large quantities of CO2. In addition, they may contribute to preventing natural risks like floods and soil sealing, reduce noise pollution and protect against soil erosion. GI can also be natural heritage sites, such is the case of natural reserves (IAU, 2011, pp. 91-104).
At the same time, UGI conducts important social functions, notably by improving the living environment and health of citizens. Certain UGI elements can also constitute spaces for relaxing and outdoor leisure activities, such as walking, fishing and having a picnic. Through educational trails, urban farms and others, UGI can serve to educate children and adults about biodiversity of animal and vegetal species, habitats... Especially in cities, spaces like parks, forests and river banks offer inhabitants easy access to nature while providing an area of expression and freedom. Natural spaces can also support and promote eco-friendly lifestyles of citizens (IAU, 2011, pp. 91-104).
There are several ways in which UGI can contribute to the economy, also
PRINCIPLES
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS
Table 2.1 Planning principles for green infrastructure (from Pauleit et al., 2017).
Integration
Green infrastructure planning considers urban green as a kind of infrastructure and seeks the integration and coordination of urban green with other urban infrastructures in terms of physical and functional relations (e.g. built-up structure, transport infrastructure, water management system).
Multi-functionality Green infrastructure planning considers and seeks to combine ecological, social and economic/abiotic, biotic and cultural functions of green spaces.
Connectivity Green infrastructure planning includes physical and functional
connections between green spaces at different scales and from different perspectives.
Multi-scale approach
Green infrastructure planning includes all kinds of (urban) green and blue space; e.g., natural and semi-natural areas, water bodies, public and private green space like parks and gardens.
Multi-object
approach Hydraulic engineer, private consultant.
Strategic approach Green infrastructure planning aims for long-term benefits but remains flexible for changes over time.
Social inclusion Green infrastructure planning stands for communicative and socially- inclusive planning and management.
Transdisciplinarity
Green infrastructure planning is based on knowledge from different disciplines such as landscape ecology, urban and regional planning, and landscape architecture and developed in partnership with different local authorities and stakeholders.
SOCIAL BENEFITS
green”, “pocket park”, “street green” and “biofuel production” (figure 2.3, Pauleit et al., 2019). The identification of clear UGI types is key to understand functional linkages among urban nature, ecosystem services, land use datasets and the way they are planned, designed and managed (Pauleit et al, 2019). This also facilitates the comparison of similar natural areas in different cities.
In addition to multi-functionality and connectivity, other planning
principles have been proposed to define if an environmental feature is a functional UGI element (see table 2.1, Pauleit et al., 2017). The principle of social inclusion is particularly interesting for this research. The UGI development should be based on participatory planning processes that include a broad variety of community groups, such as citizens,
associations, private businesses, planning authorities, conservationists and policymakers. Public participation in UGI initiatives is fundamental and, at
Figure 2.3 UGI typologies (from Hansen et al., 2017, p. 6).
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
in connection with the above benefits. For instance, when protecting pollinating insects, UGI projects can promote food production. But they can also produce timber or encourage beekeeping. Moreover, UGI might create new jobs, for instance linked to its integration into urban planning documents, its implementation through contractual commitments and the evolution of management techniques (IAU, 2011, pp. 91-104).
The ecological, social and economic benefits presented above are extremely connected and the notion of ecosystem services might help to show it. UGI generates a diversity of ecosystem services. Cultural services, e.g. recreation and health, and provisioning services, like food production and biodiversity conservation, are often at the centre of urban planning works. However, also regulating services, such as seed dispersal and pollination, are promoted by human-nature interactions in urban contexts. Two concepts are important to remember: ecosystem services are generated by complex interactions between human activities and ecosystems, and not by ecosystems alone; and human activities may both promote ecosystem services and make them available to others (Andersson et al., 2014). Community gardens that enable recreational activities, promote pollination and provide a habitat to wild animals, are defined as complex socio-ecological systems.
To date, implementations of GI policy and planning projects are few and international agencies, as well as the European Union, have recently called for the need to mainstream GI at all levels of governance (IPBES, 2019a;
EU, 2019a). Among the several publications on the topic, the influential study by Zuniga-Terana and colleagues (2020) identifies two underlying aspects to ensure successful GI applications on the long-term: political will and civic engagement. Here again, participation is a prerequisite for developing GI projects.
2.2.2 France in theory and practice
In 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity introduced the concept of “ecological network” in Europe. The European Union (EU) elaborated a pan-european ecological network essentially through the institution of the protected sites “Natura 2000”. This project created islands of “outstanding biodiversity”, without connecting them. As to realise a veritable ecological network, a new strategy was proposed: green infrastructure. GI should include the reserves of high biodiversity and connect them through corridors of ordinary biodiversity. Both outstanding and ordinary biodiversity must be protected and promoted through GI. The EU identified the development of GI as a key target of the 2010
SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
CHALLENGES IN MAINSTREAMING GI
EUROPEAN CONTEXT
biodiversity strategy and adopted a dedicated strategy in 2013.
The EU has funded numerous researches in order to promoting the uptake of the green infrastructure concept. In particular, the GREEN SURGE project aimed to advance the development of UGI in European cities by strengthening this concept, by developing methods and tools for assessment of its state, benefits and governance and by applying these in some case studies (Pauleit et al., 2019). For instance, the report highlighted not only the impact of the human factors in determining urban biodiversity but the limited knowledge around understanding
“how culturally diverse people in urban societies perceive, value and use biodiversity” (Pauleit et al., 2019, p. 10).
According to a recent EU report (2019a), several Member States have established national ecological networks or equivalent instruments. In many states, objectives related to GI (or other terms reflecting this concept) are included in broader biodiversity and nature conservation policies. For instance, in Sweden, the national strategy for biodiversity and ecosystem services of 2013 is highly relevant for GI and it introduced the need for action plans at the couty level. However, with the only exception of Germany, Member States have not yet adopted national strategies specifically dedicated to GI.
In France, GI goes under the name of “trame verte et bleue”. This concept was introduced and became an official planning tool in 2010 with the Grenelle II law. Through this tool, the French government aimed to reconstitute a coherent ecological network at the national scale by 2012. Beside protected sites, it also concerns the areas of “ordinary biodiversity” and it is thus in line with European directives. However, France institutionalized the concept of ecological network 18 years after its emergence at European level (IAU, 2011).
The French GI is a planning tool “to halt biodiversity loss by participating in the preservation, management and restoration of indispensable
environments for ecological continuity, while taking into account human activities, especially agricultural, in rural areas” (article L371-1, Grenelle II law of 2010). Its main components are: areas of ecological interest; and areas of ecological continuity, that ensure the connection among the reserves and represent the real novelty introduced by the Grenelle law (figure 2.4). Ecological continuity is a priority that should be reached by defining, preserving and restoring fragmented habitats.
According to the law, GI has to be implemented throughout the national territory, at all territorial levels, and following a “top-down” approach
FRENCH CONTEXT
DEFINITION AND COMPONENTS
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
(Blanc et al., 2012). Three are the levels of intervention:
• at the national scale, the State elaborates a framework document, called “Orientations nationales pour la préservation et la remise en bon état des continuités écologiques” [National guidelines for the preservation and restoration of ecological continuity]. This document provides a methodological guide and defines national challenges;
• at the regional level, State and Region work together to identify and map ecological continuities and main challenges in the framework document called “Schéma régional de cohérence écologique”
(henceforth, SRCE) [regional scheme of ecological coherence]. This document does not have a binding value as to promote the local appropriation of the GI policy (principle of subsidiarity);
• at the local scale, local authorities should take into account the regional indications and specify measures to develop ecological continuity in their planning documents. Among those documents, the “Plan Local d’Urbanisme” (henceforth, PLU) [local urban plan] is the most relevant for this thesis.
As seen above, the national law strongly focuses on the ecological function of the green infrastructure. Similarly, regions have adopted the ecological perspective promoted by the State. However, at the metropolitan and local scales, the importance is given to visual landscape
Primary reserve
Primary reserve Secondary
reserve
Isoleted secondary reserve
Continuous corridor
Stepping stone
corridor Matrix
Figure 2.4 GI elements:
reserves, that could be primary or secondary;
and corridors, that can be continuous and stepping stone. The matrix is the overall physical environment (from Linglart et al., 2016, p. 2).
NO SHARED VISION
components of the GI. In other words, parks and other natural or semi- natural spaces are valued, first of all, for their recreational and social functions. Ecological concerns often do not find place or are secondary in local implementations of GI. In brief, the process of changing scale, from national to local, reveals a tension between the ecological perspective of GI adopted by national and regional scales, and the local implementations, that are instead focused on the social benefits that GI can provide to its citizens (Cormier et al., 2010).
Some practical examples of GI implementations might help to better understand this key barrier to effective GI implementation. The article by Canard and colleagues (2016) focuses on the implementation of GI in rural areas and at sub-regional levels. The basic argumentation is:
many actors, ranging from territorial structures and local authorities to farmers, associations and residents, are involved in implementing the GI policy; different actors often have different visions of what and how to implement GI: some may favor the preservation of biodiversity, others the enhancement of landscapes, the maintenance of agricultural land or the improvement of the living environment; depending on their specific vision, actors undertake different actions, sometimes conflicting, to implement GI. The article concludes by noting that, while actions are often not coordinated, they often act on the same elements. It follows that the use of different levers might be crucial to mobilize local stakeholders and influence their practices. For instance, it appears that the term “landscape”
helps to act locally, both in public and private areas.
The reviewed literature often highlights that the concept of GI is not well known and often misunderstood by local stakeholders (Cormier et al., 2013, p. 22; Glatron et al., 2012; Canard et al., 2016). For instance, Glatron and colleagues (2012) studies how urban dwellers in Marseille, Paris and Strasbourg understand the concept of green infrastructure. The results suggest that the use of emotional-provoking terms linked to the esthetic of nature might help to communicate the concept of GI and thus encourage citizens to participate in the appropriation, co-construction and or co-management of their living environment. According to Petit and colleagues (2017, pp. 11-12), “the hybridization contained in the term ‘natural resources’ disappears in that of ‘ecological continuity’ which separates man from nature”.
2.3 Case study
Paris, capital of France, is the most populated city of the EU. In 2015, together with its commuting zone, it reached 12.8 million inhabitants
EXAMPLE
CITIZENS AND GI
COMPACT CITY
(figure 2.5, Eurostat, 2017). On this very artificial surface, its built-up area occupies 41% of the surface and the concrete additional 30% (Grésillon et al., 2012). The city center is very small and characterized by a very high human and urban density: with its about 2.2 million inhabitants, the density is 208 inhabitants per hectare (APUR, 2019).
Nature covers 27% of its territory or almost three thousand hectares. Half of it is composed of parks and gardens and 40% of the two forests (figure 2.6, APUR 2018). Nature in Paris performs social and cultural roles while representing important reservoirs of biodiversity. Moreover, it has always had an essential role in public health, notably with the system of forests, parks, planted avenues and square gardens created by Hausmann and Alphand in the 19th century. In a nutshell, nature is limited and extremely fragmented in the French capital. For instance, the two Parisian forests, bois de Boulogne and bois de Vincennes, are small when compared to other forests in the region and the 650 Parisian parks and gardens altogether hardly exceed 580 ha. Private green spaces are also extremely fragmented but, all together, they make more than 600 ha and represent the historic heritage of large institutions, garden cities and religious complexes (APUR, 2011).
The Seine, river that cuts the city into two parts, is one of the few natural elements of continuity but, except for few parks like park Citroen, it is enclosed in an extremely artificial environment (APUR, 2011).
Unexpectedly, it is along the transport infrastructure built between the 19th and 20th centuries - notably canals, roads and the abandoned railway
line called “Petite Ceinture”, that spontaneous nature has developed (APUR, 2011).
According to APUR (2018), two facts should be underlined about the recent evolution of nature in Paris: the reappearance of a wild nature; and the growing number of inhabitant-gardeners. For instance, since 2015, the greening permit gives the possibility to all citizens to seed the base of trees. At the same time, there has been a renewed interest in allotment gardens since the 1980s and more intensively since 2011. Today citizens maintain more than 130 shared gardens (figure 2.7, Mairie de Paris, 2020).
Paris is composed of 20 arrondissements [districts], that describe a clockwise spiral outward from the 1st arrondissement at its core. Each arrondissement has its own town hall and a directly elected council [conseil d’arrondissement], which in turn elects an arrondissement mayor.
Selected members from each arrondissement council form the Council of Paris [conseil de Paris] nominate the mayor of Paris. Since her election in 2014, the socialist mayor, Anne Hidalgo, has promoted different means
Figure 2.5 Paris (12.8 million; 2015 data), London (12.1 million) and Madrid (6.6 million) are the most populated cities in EU (from Eurostat, 2017).
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NATURE
RIVER AND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Figure 2.6 Nature in Paris (from APUR, 2018).
INHABITANT- GARDENERS
ADMINISTRATION
forests
Other natural areas grassy areas, embankments, wastelands, flood zones Leisure areas
parks, gardens, cemetries
Cultivated areas Structuring network rail network motorway network planted streets playgrounds and sports
grounds
large cultivations market gardening and shared gardens arboriculture NATURAL AREAS,
2 888 HA MUNICIPAL LIMITS,
10 537,3 HA
city commuting zone
to increase public participation in Paris. Citizens have many opportunities to get involved, for instance by joining the Citizen City Council or other paritipatory greening initiatives. In particular, its participatory budget is a largely successful example that gained momentum in other French cities (Mairie de Paris, 2019b).
Paris has adopted its current PLU in 2006. Introduced in 2000 by a
national law, the PLU is the main planning document at the local level. The PLU has three main components: the presentation report, which sets out the diagnosis; the “Projet d’Aménagement et de Développement Durable”
(PADD) [Project of Sustainable Management and Development], which defines the long-term planning guidelines selected by the municipality;
and the regulations with its graphic documents, which concretely apply the project guidelines through general rules implemented locally. In 2010, the Grenelle II law modified several parts of it and notably it required taking into account GI.
Figure 2.7 A shared garden along the Petite Ceinture, in the 18th arrondissement.
3. Methodology
3.1 Mixed methods research
Case study is a research strategy that allows to address the purpose of this work, i.e. understand complex relationships between factors as they operate within a particular social setting (Denscombre, 2003). The city of Paris was selected for three main reasons: it presents a broad participatory programme linked to UGI development; it represents a model for other dense cities in France and Europe; and it allows me to take advantage of the connections and practical knowledge of Atelier NOUS, a Parisian planning and landscape studio that invited me to work on GI. Some might criticise the decision to restrict the study to a single case, because of the difficulty to generalize the findings. However, Bryman (2012) noted that case studies are useful for providing insight knowledge about a particular case, as well as for outlining a basic knowledge that can help to understand other cases. As such, the findings of this work may be extended to other dense cities in France or Europe, willing to adopt or to improve their green infrastructure through participation.
In order to analyze participatory greening strategies in the case study of Paris, I applied both quantitative and qualitative methods. Content analysis (qualitative method) allowed me to illustrate how the Municipality plans Parisian GI, the questionnaire (quantitative method) provided me with an overview on why and how participants got involved in greening strategies. Lastly, semi-structured interviews (qualitative method) were conducted in order to fill the gaps of the other methods and thus provided a deeper knowledge of participatory greening strategies (Bryman, 2012).
3.2 Data collection
The case study approach allows the use of a variety of research methods to collect data. More than that, the use of multiple and mixed methods is encouraged for this research approach in order to capture the complex reality under scrutiny (Denscombre, 2003). Three different methods were performed to collect data: content analysis of planning documents and relevant literature; an online questionnaire directed to participants of
CASE STUDY
MIXED METHODS RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION PLANNING
FRAMEWORK
various participatory greening strategies; and semi-structured interviews with different actors involved in the development of Parisian green infrastructure.
3.2.1 Content analysis
Content analysis is a systematic reading of a document to understand what it is saying (Denscombre, 2003). The process of extracting data from existing documents can be quantitative, qualitative or a combination of the two. While the first focuses on manifest meanings (essentially by counting keywords), qualitative analysis deals with the latent or hidden meaning in a text (Bryman, 2012).
This work aims to unveil latent meanings behind the definition and implementation of the Parisian green infrastructure. As discussed in the previous chapter, the definition of what constitutes (or not) a green infrastructure is strictly linked to people’s values and different values lead to potentially as many actions. Thus, I applied a qualitative content analysis to provide an overview of what constitutes the Parisian green infrastructure according to different actors; and to illustrate the greening strategies promoted by the Municipality, with a particular focus on participatory strategies.
Documents of both primary and secondary sources have been analysed.
In particular, primary sources consist of planning and policy documents produced mainly by the Municipality of Paris and related to participatory greening strategies. The regional GI plan elaborated by Ile-de-France was included as it influenced the municipal strategy. Among the various plans and strategies of the Municipality, only the two biodiversity plans expansively elaborate the UGI concept and were thus selected for the analysis. The PLU of Paris has also been taken into account. In addition, previous studies conducted by researchers on the Parisian UGI have been included and form the secondary sources. An overview of the main sources used for content analysis is presented in table 3.1.
3.2.2 Questionnaire
Questionnaires are well-consolidated methods in social science to gather information straight from the people’s mouth (Denscombre, 2003). In particular, with a self-completion questionnaire, respondents answer questions alone, i.e. without a face-to-face interaction with the researcher (Bryman, 2012).
The use of an online questionnaire is particularly appropriate for this thesis because it allowed me to contact large numbers of respondents
WHAT IT IS
WHY IN THIS CONTEXT
WHICH DOCUMENTS
in many locations (Denscombre, 2003). And most importantly, not only a large number but also key players of participatory greening strategies:
citizens that conceived, built and or manage different kinds of green spaces within the UGI of Paris. The questionnaire aimed to understand if respondents knew the concept of green infrastructure; to define if they think to manage their green space ecologically; and lastly to have a direct feedback on the main difficulties and possible interventions to improve their action. Moreover, it provided an overview of why and how Parisians joined different greening strategies. As a whole, the results from the questionnaire helped to formulate more precise questions for the semi- structured interviews.
Respondents were selected through the online platforms “Végétalisons Paris” and “Budget participatif” that refer to the programmes of the same name (briefly presented in the introduction and more extensively the next chapter). The two platforms collect more than 3500 projects all across Paris, locate them in a map and provide contact details for each project.
While it would have been interesting to inquire about all projects, limited time and resources have required the definition of a smaller sample. The
WHAT IT IS
WHY IN THIS CONTEXT
Table 3.1 Overview of the documents used for content analysis.
Title
[original] Title
[in English] Author Type of
source Type of document Date of publication Plan biodiversité Biodiversity plan Municipality
of Paris Primary Thematic strategy
programme 2011
Schéma Régional de Cohérence Écologique
Regional scheme for an ecological coherence
Region of Île-de- France
Primary Framework document for ecological continuity
2013
Règlement Regulations Municipality
of Paris Primary Binding rules of the
PLU 2016
Orientations d’aménagement et de
programmation
Guidelines of planning and programming
Municipality
of Paris Primary Non-binding thematic guidelines for long-term sustainability of the PLU
2016
Plan biodiversité Biodiversity plan Municipality
of Paris Primary Thematic strategy
programme 2018
La biodiversité en ville dense:
nouveaux regards, nouveaux dispositifs
Biodiversity in dense cities: new perspectives, new devices
Clergeau
Philippe Secondary Exploratory study 2018
Espaces public à
végétaliser à Paris Public spaces to
vegetalise in Paris APUR Secondary Exploratory study 2020
SELECTION PROCESS
following criteria have been used to select the projects:
• relevance: is it the result of a participatory process? can it contribute to the UGI of Paris?;
• feasibility: is it possible to contact the project creator?;
• and location: is it located along the local UGI?
As for the participatory budget (PB), the selection by relevance was quite straightforward: all projects are the result of a participatory process but only the projects in the category “environment” were considered for this study as potentially contributing to the development of local UGI. Among the 12 categories of the programme, also “living environment” could have been included in this research as it often creates or enhances green spaces, such as green promenades or new gardens. However, because of its complexity and blurred limits, this category has been excluded from this study. Moreover, some projects have been excluded because of the impossibility to contact the person that proposed the project.
In the case of “Végétalisons Paris”, all projects are potentially relevant for the local UGI but not necessarily the result of participatory processes (figure 3.1). Projects realised by the municipality of Paris have not
been considered because they are not relevant for the scope of the questionnaire (gather information straight from the people’s mouth).
Table 3.2 illustrates the selection process for the thirteen initiatives of the programme “Végétalisons Paris”. In brief, three initiatives were identified as both relevant and feasible for this research, namely greening permit, shared gardens and 100 hectares.
Having selected the PB category of “environment” and the three
initiatives of “Végétalisons Paris”, I applied a further selection by location:
only projects within a 100 m buffer from the local UGI, as identified by the map “chemins de la nature”, passed the final screening. In total, 155 projects were identified as shown in figure 3.2.
DESIGNING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Table 3.2 Process to select the initiatives within “Végétalisons Paris”.
Initiative
[original name] Initiative
[in English] Is it
participatory? Is it possible to contact the stakeholder?
30 hectares d’espaces verts
ouverts au public 30 hectares of public green
space No (not applicable)
Rénovation des parcs Renovation of parks No (not applicable)
Rues végétales Green streets Yes No
Du vert près de chez moi Green near my home Yes No
Permis de végétaliser Greening permit Yes Yes
100 hectares 100 hectares Yes Yes
Parisculteurs Parisculteurs Yes No
Jardins partagés Shared gardens Yes Yes
20 000 nouveaux arbres 20 000 trees No (not applicable)
Un arbre dans mon jardin A tree in my garden Yes No
Vergers et de potagers
dans les écoles Orchards and vegetable
gardens in schools Yes No, because of difficulty to contact schools
Fermes pédagogiques Educational farms No, as developed
by municipality (not applicable)
Ruchers Apiary Yes No
The questionnaire included different kinds of questions, such as yes/no answer, choose from a list of options, rate items and write a statement, and it collected both facts and opinions. In the type “choose from a list of options”, the suggested options are the result of the literature review and respondents were given the possibility to add other options.
Particular attention was given to the language and the design of the questionnaire as to avoid ambiguities and facilitate the respondents.
For instance, the use of technical words was limited, instructions were included where needed and an attractive layout was designed thanks to the website “typeform”, specialised in online questionnaires and surveys.
The questionnaire is reported in the Annex 1.
As citizens who realised more than one project were asked to fill in only one questionnaire, the total number of questionnaires that was sent out is 132. This figure was used to calculate the response rate of the questionnaire. In total, 52 people filled in the questionnaire, which makes about 40% of the respondents (table 3.3). Despite the targeted response rate of 50% (or more) was not reached, the results of the questionnaire are an important part of this thesis. Notably, the results of open questions provide views of engaged citizens. This is in line with the overall purpose of this work: offer a qualitative analysis on participatory processes
RESPONSE RATE Figure 3.1 The programme “Végétalisons Paris” concerns a large variety of places in the public and private domains (from
Végétalisons Paris, 2020).
Figure 3.2 Map of selected participatory projects along the GI of Paris.
0 1 km
WHAT IT IS AND WHY HERE
WHO
AN OUTSIDER EXPERT
contributing to the development of the Parisian green infrastructure.
Moreover, the thesis allowed me to put into practice a new method, learn about its weaknesses and strengths, and, in this sense, it was a great learning experience. Finally, the results of the questionnaire helped to formulate the questions for the interviews and the outcomes from the interviews helped to recalibrate the findings of the questionnaire.
3.2.3 Interviews
Qualitative interviews are a widely used method to investigate experiences and perspectives of the interviewees. I applied semi- structured interviews because they allow the interviewee to freely
develop ideas on the issues raised by the researcher (Denscombre, 2003).
Interviews aim to complement data collected through content analysis and the questionnaire. In particular, I used interviews to shed light on the difficulties of and possible improvements on current participatory practices in greening strategies.
The interviewees were selected for their position or unique insights to participatory greening strategies in Paris. Four groups of stakeholders were identified and interviewed: local authorities, planning professionals and experts, local associations and citizens. As shown in table 3.4, at least one contact for each “type” of actor was interviewed. All interviews were conducted individually, mainly over the phone and they were guided by a list of questions slightly adapted for each interviewee (see appendix 2).
Interviewees have voluntarily agreed to participate in this research and, in order to protect their privacy, I have refrained from using their real names.
Despite the researcher Magali Paris has not worked on the Parisian UGI, her knowledge was considered particularly interesting for this thesis because she collaborated to the elaboration of several GI plans in municipalities neighbouring Paris and, most importantly, because her team integrated citizens’ usages and visions of nature in those plans. For
Table 3.3 Projects, respondents and responses of the questionnaire.
Initiative
[in English] Project
[unit] Respondent
[unit] Response
[unit] Response [%]
Shared gardens 52 50 15 29%
100 hectares 20 17 6 12%
Greening permit 60 57 26 50%
Participatory budget 23 8 5 10%
Total 155 132 52 39%
these reasons, her experiences and views were collected during an expert interview and are fully integrated in this research.
The interviews were conducted between May and June 2020. During the conversations, I took notes that I have later integrated with excerpts from the interviews recordings and finally translated into English. I applied a qualitative analysis to draw connections and highlight divergences among the testimonies of the interviewees and the data collected from the other two methods. The focus was on understanding the meanings of public participation, UGI and their linkages according to each stakeholder.
Table 3.4 Interviews list.
Type of actor Interviewee Role
Local authority
Sabrina Representative of the 10th Arrondissement of Paris
Dominique Civic servant working at the technical service of the Municipality of Paris
Albert Civic servant working on the integration of the GI into the PLU at the Municipality of Paris
Emma Civic servant supporting citizens to realise their green projects
Planning professionals
and experts Magali Paris Planner, landscape architect and researcher that worked on the elaboration of multiple GI plans
Associations Tony Representative of a local association managing a shared garden
Citizens
Paul Professional planner and citizen managing two tree bases and member of an association
Virginie Artist managing twenty tree bases together with neighbors
Chloé Retired florist managing two tree bases Stephan Student managing a shared garden
ANALYSIS
