Why are residents using informal urban greenspace, such as vacant lots, street verges and brownfields? Following up on my presentation last year, I compare informal greenspace to public parks and present the results of a land use survey in Brisbane (Australia) and Sapporo (Japan). This presentation was given at the Japanese GeoScience Union Meeting 2014 in Yokohama, in the session "International comparison of landscape appreciation"

1. Exploring reasons for residents’ use and
appreciation of informal urban greenspace
in Brisbane and Sapporo
Christoph Rupprecht
PhD Candidate
Environmental Futures Research Institute
Griffith School of Environment
Japanese Geoscience Union 2014

2. Typology of informal urban greenspace
Street verge Gap
Railway Brownfield Waterside
Lots
Structural Microsite Powerline

3. Study & location: Brisbane/Sapporo
121 sites per city on 10x10km grid
Resident IGS questionnaire
• IGS knowledge, use (as child
or adult), appreciation
• Nature attitude, demograph.
• N=121/163 (Bris./Sap.)
IGS land use survey
• 50x50m per site
• IGS, IGS type, other LU %
• Combination of ground
survey & aerial photography
• Accessibility
• Vegetation structure

4. Residents use and appreciate IGS
Better Both Worse Neutral
Sapporo
Brisbane
Does IGS make daily life
better or worse? (appreciation)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
%ofrespondents
Recreational IGS use
Now, as adults In my childhood

5. Reasons behind use and appreciation?
1) What is the role of IGS for residents in
comparison to formal greenspace (e.g.
parks)?
2) What are potential factors behind the
difference in IGS appreciation and
use?

6. IGS role compared to formal greenspace
Correlation IGS use - formal greenspace area?
Possible results:
GIS buffer analysis:
formal GS within 500m radius of survey sites
Negative correlation
Low formal greenspace,
high IGS use
 Residents use IGS as
substitute for missing
green space
No correlation
IGS use independent
of formal GS area
 IGS used in
addition/instead of
available park
space
Positive correlation
High formal greenspace,
high IGS use
 Potential bias
towards frequent GS-
users?
500m radius
(walking distance)
survey
site
parks

7. IGS is not used as substitute for parks
No correlation between IGS use and
formal GS area <500m in either city
 IGS likely used in addition to, or instead of
parks
 IGS playing a different role for residents’
recreation than parks?
 Liminal, “loose”, ambiguous character of
IGS may offer possibilities parks cannot
 Implications for planning, management,
policy

8. Conceptual model: greenspace use
Socio-ecological context
of greenspace
Potential
users
Greenspace
characteristics
influences
Perceptions of
greenspace
affect
shape
Greenspace use
choices
Use Non-Use
feeds
back into
influences
Based on: Byrne & Wolch 2009, doi:10.1177/0309132509103156

9. Different respondents – or different IGS?
Respondents seem similar:
• Appreciation of urban nature (but > in Brisbane)
• Evaluation of IGS benefits/problems
• Emotional/spiritual affinity to IGS in comments
• Concerns about IGS (qual. data)
Examination of IGS characteristics

10. Informal greenspace in study area
Sapporo Brisbane
Proportion of study area % of area % of area
Informal greenspace 4.8 6.3
Formal greenspace
(e.g. parks, conservation) 15.4 11.6
Private greenspace
(e.g. gardens, community land) 14.6 27.4
Total greenspace 35.2 45.3
• IGS in Sapporo & Brisbane survey area is not sign. different (p=.49)
• IGS represents ~14% of total city greenspace in both cities

11. Proportion of IGS types compared
Lot
42%
Gap
19%
Street
verge
16%
Brownfield
10%
Waterside
10%
Other
3% Lot
8%
Street
verge
80%
Brownfield
5%
Railway
5%
Other
2%
Sapporo Brisbane

12. Vegetation structure: survey method
Area covered by
vegetation layer types
(herb includes ground)
100%
ground
layer
cover
25% bush
cover
Top-down view:
40% tree cover

13. Vegetation structure of IGS
Sapporo Brisbane
7% 8%
43%
46%
Tree Bush Herb Ground
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
%ofIGScoveredbyvegetationlayer
28%
8%
21%
73%
Tree Bush Herb Ground

14. Accessibility of IGS: survey method
Two types of barriers
• Physical barriers
• Symbolic barriers
Three levels of accessibility
1) Accessible
2) Partially accessible
3) Not accessible

15. Accessibility of IGS: results
Sapporo Brisbane
Yes
68%
Partiall
y
22%
No
10%
Yes
78%
Partially
7%
No
15%

16. IGS characteristics: implications
Similarities in Sapporo & Brisbane IGS
• Amount/proportion of IGS area
• Accessibility
High potential for variety of uses!
Differences in Sapporo & Brisbane IGS
• Composition of IGS types
• Vegetation structure (ground/tree vs.
ground/herb)
Influence on appreciation?
Implications for IGS management
Appreciation, use & conservation?

17. Summary: factors behind IGS use
IGS in Sapporo and Brisbane
1. is not used as a substitute for parks
2. is similar in land use percentage & accessibility
3. differs in IGS types & vegetation structure

18. Thank you for listening!
Questions?
Many thanks to:
Yumi Nakagawa, Jason Byrne, Hirofumi Ueda,
Jennifer Garden, Jean-Marc Hero, Alex Lo,
Merrill Bowers, Mariola Rafanowicz, Brisbane
Council, Sapporo City, all survey respondents
Blog: www.treepolis.org
Twitter: @focx
Google+: Christoph Rupprecht
This presentation is available @ Slideshare!