TPSI is investigating how various park governance and community engagement models are utilized both locally and internationally.
Parks, People, and Participation_Models of Park Governance and Community Engagement (May 2012) is our preliminary report into park governance models and community engagement. The report briefly examines the value of municipal parks and community engagement, analyzes the major models of park governance used internationally that may affect community engagement, and sets out a framework for further research.
Significant preliminary findings suggest that:
• Parks play an important aesthetic, ecological, social, and economic function in a municipality
• Community engagement in parks may enhance, and add to, the social and economic value of parks with enhanced health outcomes, decreased crime, improved civic engagement, community bonding and bridging, as well as economic benefits, particularly
through the generation of social capital
• Certain alternative governance models for parks appear to offer potential financial efficacy and community engagement benefits
• The Public, Non-Profit model appears to be an optimal model from a financial efficacy,community engagement, and general good governance perspective, utilizing government ownership of park land with some degree of non-profit and volunteer
stewardship and management
Download the report here: Parks, People, and Participation_Models of Park Governance and Community Engagement
———————————————————————————————————-
Parks, People, and Participation_The Toronto Experience (May 2014) is our most recent report on the topic. This report examines existing Toronto parks groups’ governance models, identifies emerging trends and challenges to the everyday operations and community engagement capacities of these groups, and offers best practices recommendations for making these groups as democratic and accessible to all community members as possible. The report builds upon and adds an important local perspective to our preliminary report on parks governance and community engagement models published in May 2012 and available for download above.
Parks, People, and Participation: The Toronto Experience begins with a short review of the recent socio-economic and health literature examining the value of urban parks. It then moves on to examine how Torontonians mobilize around their local parks and parks groups to champion their cause(s). Whatever their motivation, parks groups operate independently and tend to be governed by volunteer leaders willing to put the requisite time and effort into their initiatives. As such, governance processes ensuring community engagement, access, and democratic participation not only within parks groups but within parks themselves are often overlooked. As a generality, this is not the result of conscious ideologies from those in “power” but simply an effect of how volunteer groups come together. Group are not regulated by an outside authority—nor de we suggest they should be—and there are few available guidelines or practical ‘how to’ manuals for community groups to follow. Given this, even groups categorized as similar entities (i.e. Friends of the Park groups) have diverse missions, visions, and values and operate under distinctive governance structures.
The report identifies several encouraging and discouraging trends, including the following:
• Toronto parks are vibrant public spaces that contribute to healthy communities, municipal pride, and city building
• Parks with organized community and/or advocacy groups tend to get results
• Gentrification of neighborhoods affects parks: new parks groups and beautification projects increase use by new populations (mainly families) while traditional users are pushed further into the margins (i.e. homeless)
• Antagonistic ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ relationships exist among different groups of parks users (i.e. yoga and tai chi practitioners vs. children vs. dog walkers)
• Upwardly mobile English-speaking (upper) middle class residents with specific agendas are highly represented as parks groups decision makers
Based on these and other trends explored and identified in the report, we put forth the following series of best practice recommendations for parks groups:
• Ensure parks groups are represented by diverse multiple stakeholders with potentially opposing views, skills, experiences, and expectations
• Whenever possible, impose mandatory term limits on group volunteer leadership positions in an effort to foster new ideas and allow for involvement of new residents and new generations
• For the City, provide a long-term planning vision for City parks as well as support staff so groups understand what priority areas and parameters they are working within
Download the report here: Parks, People, and Participation_The Toronto Experience