How Do We Experience Parks? Social Benefits of Ecosystem Services with an Increased Connectivity of Sub-Urban Parks

How do we experience parks? Social benefits of ecosystem services with an increased connectivity of sub-urban parks.

Master Thesis for Sustainable Urban Management (SASUM) BY602E Spring semester 2015

Authors: Hildur Hreinsdóttir Lea Meyer zu Bentrup

Tutor: Ebba Lisberg Jensen

Abstract: Our motivation for this research is the interest we have for positive influences of green areas on people's well-being and social improvement. We see nature, the ecosystems and its services, integrated with humans as a whole, making our lives physically and mentally more sustainable. Therefore the purpose of this study is to investigate the social benefits of selected ecosystem services in sub-urban parks in Malmö City, and to explore how the respected services can be enhanced with a greater connectivity of the parks. A survey and interviews were used to collect information about people's preferences and values about nature parks and their opinion on possible connectivity of three sub-urban parks in Malmö, Sweden. The results show that people are overall positive with the recreational and aesthetic values of parks but show less appreciation for the parks as pure nature represents. Connectivity is not clearly understood by the participants but seems to be positively accepted. To give an idea on how Malmö could improve urban biodiversity and facilitate enjoyable nature experiences we give some practical suggestions for a green corridor.

Acknowledgements First of all we would like give special thanks to Annika Kruuse, at Miljöförvaltningen (Malmö stad), for providing us with additional information; to Arne Mattsson, at Gatukontoret (Street- and Park Division), for sharing his time with us to make the interview. We also would like to thank our friends and acquaintances who shared and commented on our survey. Finally, we would like to thank our family for being with us, their patience and encouragement along the journey of this thesis.

Keywords: Parks, Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, Connectivity, Green Corridors, Sustainability.

Table of Contents 1 - Introduction ...... 4 1.1. Malmö as the city of parks ...... 4 1.2. Ecosystem services and challenges with urban expansion ...... 4 1.3. The importance of urban green areas ...... 5 1.4. Aim and research questions ...... 7 1.5. Structure ...... 7 2 –The Role of Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Connectivity...... 8 2.1. Ecosystem services...... 8 2.1.1. Ecological side of ecosystem services ...... 10 2.1.2. Social side of ecosystem services ...... 10 2.2. Green areas and connectivity ...... 12 2.2.1. The social benefits of connecting green areas ...... 13 3 - The Cases ...... 14 3.1. Bulltofta park ...... 15 3.2. Husie Mosse ...... 16 3.3. Remonthagen/ Jägersro ...... 17 3.4. Ecosystem services in the parks...... 18 4 - Epistemological Considerations and Methods ...... 20 4.1. Park as process ...... 20 4.2. Methods ...... 20 4.2.1 Documents ...... 21 4.2.2 Field observations ...... 22 4.2.3 The survey ...... 23 4.2.4 Interviews ...... 24 4.2.5 Analysis methods ...... 24 4.2.6 Validity and reliability ...... 25 5 – Analysis ...... 26 5.1. Social benefits of the cultural/ recreational ecosystem Services ...... 26 5.2. SWOT analysis of each park ...... 30 Bulltofta park: ...... 30 Husie Mosse: ...... 31 Remonthagen: ...... 33 5.3. SWOT Analyze of the connectivity between the parks: ...... 35 6 – Concluding Discussion ...... 39 6.1. Practical suggestions ...... 40 6.2. Further research ...... 41 References: ...... 42 Appendix 1 ...... 45 Appendix 2 ...... 49

Table of Figures Figure 1: Model of Ecosystem services (text from Ernstons 2013; Icons from C/O City 2014)...... 9 Figure 2: Map of the study area ...... 14 Figure 3: Map of Bulltofta park...... 15 Figure 4: Maintained path and a view to the forest in Bulltofta park...... 15 Figure 5: Sand slopes and pine trees...... 16 Figure 6: Sign with information on the lizards in Husie Mosse ...... 16 Figure 7: Map of b) Husie Mosse and c)Remonthagen/ Jägersro ...... 17 Figure 8: Riseberga stream in Remonthagen/ Jägersro ...... 17 Figure 9: Playground in Remonthagen/ Jägersro ...... 17 Figure 10: Riseberga stream in Bulltofta park...... 18 Figure 11: The interactive maps on www.malmo.se show various aspects like bicycle paths, nature reservoirs and Husie Mosse and Bulltofta as good spaces to watch birds (Red spots)...... 22 Figure 12: Observation schedule...... 21 Figure 13: The graph shows the portion of people having one to three children under 12 living in their household...... 26 Figure 14: The graph shows the portion of people valuing dense spaces from 1 to 5...... 27 Figure 15: The graph shows the level of appreciation of the park as a historical place...... 27 Figure 16: The graph shows the level of appreciation of bicycling...... 28 Figure 17: The graph shows the importance of the variety of species for the participants... 29 Figure 18: Picture showing the mole mounds at Bulltofta park...... 29 Figure 19: Running path with softer soil in Bulltofta park ...... 29 Figure 20: SWOT of Bulltofta park...... 31 Figure 21: Attractive nature of Husie Mosse ...... 30 Figure 22: Wild growth and unclear paths in Husie Mosse...... 31 Figure 23: Diverse landscape in Husie Mosse - lake, forest, sand dunes ...... 31 Figure 24: Husie Mosse – a view from the south to the unmaintained northern part ...... 31 Figure 25: Sign near the shooting practice area of the military in Husie Mosse ...... 32 Figure 26: SWOT Husie Mosse...... 33 Figure 27: The graph shows the percentage of people, who know Remonthagen park...... 34 Figure 28: SWOT of Remonthagen/Jägersro...... 35 Figure 29: Difficult crossing over Amiralsgatan road between Husie Mosse and Remonthagen park...... 34 Figure 30: The graph shows the percentage of people who think a connection between the parks would matter to them...... 37 Figure 31: Last statement of the question about connectivity compared with place of residence...... 37 Figure 32: SWOT of the connectivity of Bulltofta park, Husie Mosse and Remonthagen park ...... 38 Figure 33: Green features...... 39 Figure 34: Green signs...... 39 Figure 35: Informative sign...... 39 Figure 36: Informative sign...... 39 Figure 37: Using QR codes...... 39

1 - Introduction

To ensure good living conditions for ourselves and our future generations we need green areas around us and we need the ecosystems that develop in these green areas. People living in urban areas feel a special need to escape the city and its stress and enter into a more silent and lush surrounding. Some will use the green areas for physical activities and enjoyment while others just want to enjoy the peace and relaxing environment. The ecosystems in the green areas provide different services to us humans but, which services are more important than others? In order for urban planning to be effective and make sense there needs to be an assessment of how the green areas are working for people and if there are areas which are functioning better than others in terms of the ecosystem services.

1.1. Malmö as the city of parks Malmö, a city of just over 300.000 people, is called ‘The city of parks’ – “Parkernas stad” in Swedish because of numerous beautiful parks of all sizes. This third largest city in Sweden has been praised for its concentration on sustainable urban development, renewable energy solutions and abundance of green space. From old parks with the oldest trees in town to the most modern parks with themed playgrounds, Malmö has many parks with different characters. Some are action filled, some are family oriented, some are concentrated on biodiversity and others are seen as enjoyable oasis, where one would go to find serenity and escape from the hectic city life. Already in the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century spacious and beautiful parks were created and since the 1970´s Malmö has been transforming steadily from an industrial center point to the “future’s ecological city” (Broström et al. 2008, p. 120). Before the 19th century, public parks were unknown in Swedish towns (Pehrsson 1986) except outside the town borders and in Malmö only lined trees around the central square were to be found. Moreover, Malmö has always lacked the bordering nature as Scanian landscape is in principle an agricultural landscape and with the growth of the city the natural landscape was drained in increasing production and industrialism. Finally, in the beginning of 1980 the dream of a forest and nature park was fulfilled with the creation of Bulltofta park in the eastern part of Malmö. Shortly after the Husie Mosse park, nearby, was also created and in the 90’s the Remonthagen park. All located in East Malmö, these three parks are now the focus point of this study.

1.2. Ecosystem services and challenges with urban expansion Challenges in our urban environment are many and diverse and reaching for sustainable urban development is a process where these challenges are met and change is made. Among the biggest environmental challenges urban society faces is traffic congestion, noise, air pollution and loss of biodiversity. Many people and politicians put their absolute faith in the future technology to solve all of earth´s problems, but there are some things that technology cannot replace. The natural ecosystems in our environment provide valuable services, called ecosystem services (ES), which are being consumed and taken advantage of by cities and their dwellers. But what exactly are these ecosystem services and how are they being exploited and consumed? The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – MEA (2005) defines the ES as “benefits that people receive from the ecosystems they are surrounded by” (p.1). It has been recognized by many (e.g. Haines-Young and Potschin 2010; Newman and Jennings 2008 and Gómez-Baggethun and

Barton 2013) that in order for the city to fully function, the ES are necessary and the degradation of ES, caused by growing cities, increased population and urban sprawl, decreases the outcome of the ES as well as the biodiversity and the reproduction of species. Excessive consumption of resources has led to societies experiencing most degradation of the regulating and supporting services, which is a phenomenon called ‘The Tragedy of Ecosystem Services’ (MEA, 2005). Even some parts of the cultural and provisioning services are suffering too. The ecosystem services are direct as well as indirect services correlated with the natural capital, meaning that the ecosystem services and their benefits are provided by the natural capital. Sub-urban areas are providing more natural capital due to the fact that this is more available in sub-urban areas, as e.g. within country sides or forests. Therefore it is important to differentiate the ecosystems and ecosystem services provided in low-density sub-urban areas and the ones in high-density urban areas. Ecosystems within the city center or high-density urban areas have pressure on them as the city occupies these places. This pressure is extending with growing cities more and more towards the low-density sub-urban areas. According to Newman and Jennings (2008) cities can help to release the pressure of ecosystems in low-density sub-urban areas by creating new ecosystems within the city. As we mentioned earlier some parts of the cultural ecosystem services are suffering as well as the ecological ones. Malmö is lacking nature areas and it is among the most impervious cities in Sweden with only 33 m2 per inhabitant of green space while Sweden´s other large cities have an average of 100 m2 (Malmö stad 2003). This means that the city has fallen behind other major Swedish cities in terms of green space within the city but the ‘Green plan’ (Grönplan) of Malmö (2003) did present these concerns and suggested that green areas should be given greater prominence in the future. They also contemplated on whether the parks as they are today really fulfill the needs of the residents. Sustainability is based on the three pillars of economic, social and environmental sustainability. Social sustainability focuses on equitable, diverse, connected and democratic quality of life (McKenzie, 2004). In order to reach sustainability keeping the balance between at least two of these pillars is essential and regarding the parks, a balance between social and environmental sustainability is desired. Furthermore we have to become the custodians of nature to contribute to the wider circle of life (Newman & Jennings 2008) and “instead of using nature as a mere tool for human purposes we can strive to become tools of nature who serve its agenda too” (Newman & Jennings 2008, p. 122, citing McDonough and Braungart 2002). According to Rudd et al. (2002) the fragments of ecosystems remaining in cities are more important than their limited size due to reduction of green space in urban areas. Therefore reconnecting the city residents with land and one another is a part of our sustainable urban lifestyle where cities should be “recognized again as place-bound embedded in ecosystems and bioregions” (Newman & Jennings 2008, p. 150).

1.3. The importance of urban green areas Research has shown the importance of urban green areas for the quality of urban life (Breuste et al. 2013; Burgess et al. 1988 & Chiesura 2004) and to sustain long-term conditions for health, social relations and other aspects of human well-being (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton 2013). Ecosystem services have an influence on the human well-being (Summers et al. 2012; Kronenberg 2012; Tzoulas et al. 2007) and the benefits provided by ecosystem services can be of material or nonmaterial matter, improving physical and mental well-being. However, there are different ideas about the composition of the human well-being (e.g. Kronenberg 2012; Summers

5 et al. 2012, & Tzoulas et al. 2007) and what kind of needs can be accomplished with the help of the ES. We, as humans, are integrated with the ecosystem, which sustains our lives physically and psychologically. But humans have also the ability to change the habitat of other species in a drastic way, damaging the ecosystems (Newman & Jennings, 2008). This is especially evident in cities where the urban sprawl and continuous development of the city decreases the natural surroundings of the city and the green areas that citizens have access to. Furthermore, all of the city’s operations place heavy burdens on the environment and the ecosystems that they occupy, and the degradation of ecosystems can cause significant harm to human well-being (Newman & Jennings 2008). With the increasing urban concentration people might lose appreciation to nature as well as awareness of the benefits of nature. This is evident even in urban societies with a substantive biodiversity present (Turner, Nakamura & Dinetti 2004). We are clearly not well aware of the important role the biodiversity plays in our lives and how it forms the basis of our existence. Many ecosystem services are highly undervalued because of lack of knowledge on how to put economic value on them and that means that often these services are excluded during policy making and decision making. Therefore it is always harder and harder to argue for the protection of these ecosystem services or why they need to be protected from further exploitation if no valuation work has been done (Malmö stad 2014a). Newman and Jennings claim that people will not understand the value of nature unless they have a direct experience with nature. The direct experience will also help people “gain a better appreciation of the importance of healthy habitats and ecosystems” (p. 64). Newman and Jennings (2008) explain that the city can contribute to biodiversity by providing places for it to flourish and evolve, building connections between “city dwellers and the living world” and “creating the opportunity for daily interaction with the living world through e.g. parks” (p. 69). In our opinion it is not just about creating and maintaining parks as such, it is even more important to have parks that resemble the untouched nature as much as possible. A better and broader connection between natural green areas, the so-called green corridors are also vital. As cities continue to grow and growing population places more demand for land it becomes harder to preserve large green spaces, but city authorities must not forget that the larger the green area, the higher biodiversity it keeps which “provides important breeding and seeding habitats for interior species as well as edge species and transients” (Rudd et al. 2002, p. 373). A connection between these large green areas is important because with the size and closeness of each other the interaction between them grows and the species they foster multiply (Rudd et al. 2002). Such green corridors with increased biodiversity will improve the quality of life for city residents according to Rudd et al. (2012, citing Adams & Dove 1989), for example with “opportunities for wildlife viewing, human relaxation and education, and [by] controlling pollution, temperature and climate, erosion and noise” (Rudd et al. 2012, p. 373, citing Adams & Dove 1989). These are all part of the Ecosystem services important for human well-being. However, while it can contribute to the protection of wildlife, one should be careful not to interpret the importance of green corridors as the overall solution to wildlife conservation problems (Linehan et al. 1995). Keeping and managing a healthy habitat for urban wildlife while at the same time providing recreational, aesthetic and other human ecosystem benefits is a big challenge and there is lack of understanding how social and ecological systems interrelate. There can be different interests and also possible conflicts between urban planning and urban dwelling in regards to which Ecosystem services are perceived most important and vital (Hansen & Pauleit 2014; Voigt

6 et al. 2014). The possibilities of viewing wildlife is an important part of outdoor recreation but keeping the balance between parks that include more nature and wildlife and managing them with recreational facilities is a difficult task. Therefore we need a better understanding of the conflicts and compatibilities between these two so that they may coexist without problems (Linehan et al. 1995, citing Strutin 1991).

1.4. Aim and research questions The aim of this research is to study the social benefits of selected ecosystem services in sub- urban parks in Malmö City, and to explore how the respected services can be enhanced with a greater connectivity of the parks.

To facilitate the achievement of the purpose we have formulated the following research questions: a. In what ways could the parks benefit individually from increased connection? b. What kind of social benefits would an enhanced connection of all three parks bring for current and future users? c. How do the residents of Malmö view the possible connectivity of the parks in question?

1.5. Structure This paper is organized into six main chapters with subchapters. The first chapter provides detailed background information about the physical context of our study and about the ecosystem services. In the second chapter we present a framework for the principal concepts we are working with. Chapter three explains in more detail the settings for this study, the parks and their qualities. In a subsequent chapter our epistemological views are briefly reflected together with methods, which are arranged according to their weight and the reasons why those methods are chosen. In the fifth chapter data presentation is summarized and findings from the research and their analysis are presented. Lastly, conclusion of the study will be confined and discussed under chapter six, and there recommendations for further research will be given as well as practical suggestions.

2 – The Role of Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Connectivity.

The purpose of this chapter is to clarify some of the green area related concepts that we use in this paper and furthermore in our analysis, but in order to do so we must first make clear what we mean by a green area. A green area is defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “[a] land that is partly or completely covered with grass, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation. Green space includes parks, community gardens, and cemeteries” (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2014). The city of Malmö (‘Malmö stad’ from here on) has its own definition of green areas, which we will use primarily, since the purpose of this paper is to study the green areas in Malmö. Green areas defined by Malmo stad are “Everything green within urban limits, such as public parks and open lawns and other trees or grassy surfaces in the building leftover green areas (wasteland), villa gardens, green spaces between apartment buildings or industrial buildings and also green areas between roads is defined by Statistics Sweden as green space”1 (Malmö Stad, Grönyta, Online).

2.1. Ecosystem services Ecosystem services are defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) as “benefits that people receive from the ecosystems they are surrounded by” (p.1). The ecosystem services are correlated with the natural capital, meaning that the ecosystem services and their benefits are provided by the natural capital. Sub-urban areas are providing more natural capital due to the fact that this is more available in sub-urban areas, as e.g. within country sides or forests. Therefore it is important to differentiate the ecosystems and ecosystem services provided in low-density sub- urban areas and the ones in high-density urban areas. Ecosystems within the city center or high-density urban areas have pressure on them as the city occupies these places. This pressure is extending with growing cities more and more towards the low-density sub-urban areas. According to Newman and Jennings (2008) cities can help to release the pressure on the ecosystems in low density sub-urban areas by creating more ecosystems within the city, and they suggest that the cities refer to themselves as “networked eco-villages embedded in their bioregions” (p. 68), which should develop strategies and a call for action to build and protect ecosystems and biodiversity in the city. In order for cities to fully function, the ecosystem services are necessary (Haines-Young & Potschin 2010; Newman and Jennings 2008; Gómez-Baggethun & Barton 2013). Furthermore, the contribution of the biodiversity and the ecosystem services on social life has been recognized by e.g. Haines-Young & Potschin (2010). The degradation of ecosystems, because of growing cities, has negative influence on the ecosystem service outcome, e.g. the reproduction of species and biodiversity increase. Biodiversity is a very important factor for the ecosystems and the derived services or benefits for the humans (Haines-Young & Potschin 2010). In line with research, natural ecosystem services have functions, which are important to our society and these are equally determined by social values and perceptions as by ecological criteria. “Natural systems are thus a crucial source of non-material well-being and indispensable for a sustainable society” (deGroot et al. 2002, p. 11, citing Norton 1987).

1 Original text: “Allt grönt inom tätortsgränsen, såsom allmänna parker och öppna gräsytor samt andra träd- eller gräsbevuxna ytor, vid byggnation överblivna gröna ytor (impediment), villaträdgårdar, gröna ytor mellan flerbostadshus eller industribyggnader och även gröna stråk mellan vägar definieras av SCB som grönyta.” (Malmö stad, Grönyta, Online) 8

The most well established classification of ES has four different categories; those are: supporting ES, provisioning ES, regulating ES and cultural ES (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) (see figure 1). There is a slight difference whether the described ecosystem services are global and have influence on the human race globally, or we are just talking about ecosystem services found in urban landscape. The urban ecosystem services are providing fewer resources and there is more focus on the social benefits as mentioned here by Breuste and Qurashi. The concept of ecosystem services predominantly focuses on the resource provision and functional aspect of ecosystems. The concept of urban ecosystem services (UES) deals with the benefits that urban society and each single resident of a city gains from natural processes and ecological functions provided by urban ecosystems (Breuste & Qurashi, 2011, p. 315).

Category Description Provisioning services Products obtained from ecosystems like food, fiber and energy.

Regulating services Benefits from regulation of ecosystem processes like pollination, seed-dispersal, pest regulation, air- and water filtration.

Cultural services Nonmaterial benefits from ecosystems, like spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, recreation, and aesthetic experiences.

Supporting services Ecological functions such as nutrient cycling and soil formation seen as necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services.

Figure 1: Model of Ecosystem services (text from Ernstons 2013; icons from C/O City 2014)

The main focus in our study is on the cultural/recreational ecosystem services as those can be measured without biological/bio-scientific knowledge and therefore we are more eligible to conduct such a research than if we would concentrate on the supporting, provisioning or regulating ecosystem services. As can be seen in figure 1, cultural ecosystem services are nonmaterial benefits, such as recreational facilities, health benefits, sensual experience, social interactions, nature education and symbolism and spirituality.

2.1.1. ECOLOGICAL SIDE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES The subcategories of provisioning, supporting and regulating ecosystem services are many and would cover most of this paper’s space if we would count them all. And since the cultural services are of our main interest, we consider to only briefly explain what these three categories include. Regulating services relate to how natural and semi-natural ecosystems regulate essential ecological processes and life support systems and thereby maintain the health of the biosphere. This process brings such benefits to humans as clean air, water and soil. The supporting services include a refuge and reproduction habitat to wild plants and animals, which are necessary for the conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes. Provisioning services exist when e.g. carbohydrate structures, co2, water and nutrients, provide goods for human consumption. These goods can be in form of raw materials and energy resources to consumable food (adapted from deGroot et al. 2002).

2.1.2. SOCIAL SIDE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES The ecosystems are serving us humans best when the influence is direct and the benefits they provide is strong. Not only do we receive direct benefits from materials that the ecosystems provide but also from non-material services and “natural ecosystems provide almost unlimited opportunities for spiritual enrichment, mental development and leisure” (deGroot et al. 2002, p. 401). Green areas and the ecosystems found there affect our health and mind in a positive way through the opportunities they provide for physical exercise or movement, through the clean air and reduced noise, through the smell of leaves and flowers and the sounds of birds or running water. These elements have been proven to have benefits to our physical and mental health (Stigsdotter et al. 2010; Kronenberg 2012). Other cultural ecosystem services include the possibilities of social interaction, which can also influence our health positively; spiritual enrichment, using nature for religious or historical purposes; and for nature education to “enrich objective knowledge of natural and social sciences, e.g. botany, biology, history and archaeology” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, p. 5). To connect the cultural ecosystems with our focus on sub-urban parks we introduce two listings of people’s experiences and preferences. The first one a) provides information of the cultural functions and services attributed to natural ecosystems, and the second one b) is the result of a study in Sweden showing what characteristics of a park people value the most. These two listings inspired us while creating the questions in our survey, and the names of features and services presented here are the ones we will be referring to in our analysis.

10 a) Cultural functions and services of natural ecosystems (adapted from deGroot et al. 2002):

Aesthetic information - According to deGroot, Wilson and Boumans many people prefer to live in aesthetically pleasing environments and that reflects their preferences of natural areas as well. Real estates near scenic parks or views are usually more expensive than similar types of houses in less favored areas (deGroot et al. 2002, citing Constanza et al. 1997). Recreation and tourism - People appreciate places to rest and refreshment and places for recreation such as walking, hiking, camping, fishing and swimming. Tourism (especially eco- tourism) also falls under this category. Cultural and artistic inspiration - “human culture is embedded within natural systems” as nature is used as a source of inspiration for books, magazines, film, photography, paintings, sculptures, folklore, music and dance and other things. Interesting point from deGroot, Wilson and Boumans is that this is a function we are not very conscious about although we constantly use nature for these purposes. Spiritual and historic information - these are natural elements related to heritage values but it also means that religious values are placed on nature (e.g. worshiping trees or animals). Scientific and educational information - Ecosystems provide opportunities for environmental education (e.g. preschool field trips and collection of nature productions, school excursions, ‘field laboratories’ for scientific research etc.) b) As characteristics of a park can influence the number of visitors and their activities in the park we present here the 8 visual, emotional and social characteristics that people appreciate in urban parks (adapted from Stolz et al. 2012):

Serene - a place of peace, silence and care with sounds of wind, water, birds and insects dominates over the sound of other people. In this kind of environment people don’t want to be disturbed by the sight of rubbish or weed. Wild - a place of fascination with wild nature and the plants seem self-grown as well as lichen and moss-grown rocks. Paths seem like they have been there from ancient times and are not maintained. Lush - a place rich in species. A room offering a variety of wild species of animals and plants. Spacious - a place for thoughts and refreshments. A breathing-room offering the get-away feeling, a feeling of “entering another world”. Here you don´t see the limits of the park, it should be like a Scanian beech forest or a middle-Swedish conifer forest. The common - a green open place or meadow, allowing vistas and stays. A place for the circus to put its tent, a flea market or a place for recreational activities. The pleasure garden - a place of imagination. An enclosed, safe and secluded place where you can relax and let your children play freely. This is where you will find playgrounds. Festive center - A meeting place for festivity and pleasure. Culture - the essence of human culture, monuments, old trees and buildings. A historical place offering fascination with the course of time.

All of those characteristics embellish a green area for the visitors. Rich biodiversity and diversity in visual infrastructure (e.g. hills, meadows, forest, lake or pond, creek, bushes, flower beds… etc.) are appreciated by visitors attractive and therefore among the components that make a park more valuable. The fact that some of the characteristics overlap with some of the cultural

11 ecosystems provided indicates that people’s preferences coincide with the services that are offered. Maybe these services can even be strengthened by a form of a partnership of parks or a full, direct connection between them and this will be looked at in the next section.

2.2. Green areas and connectivity There are multiple ways to connect parks with each other through green corridors, green wedges or green belts. Green belts are a very popular method from the early 19th century to prevent urban sprawl or further expansion of cities. Corridors are defined as:

Any space, usually linear in shape that improves the ability of organisms to move among patches of their habitat. It is therefore important to recognize that what serves as a corridor for one species may not be a corridor or may even be a barrier to another. Corridors can be natural features of a landscape or can be created by humans. (Hilty et al. 2006, p. 50).

The ability of the species to move among the patches of their habitat is measured and classified under ‘Connectivity’ (Hilty et al. 2006, p. 50). The main goals for creating green corridors, and thereby perhaps connecting parks, are e.g. improvements of the biodiversity, thus improving the connectivity and the well-being of the inhabitants (humans and non-humans) in and by the green belt area. A green belt is generally known as a wider, open urban green area, which is connected with a dense, urban built development as a bigger town or a city. Due to the lack of open green space urban planners try to create nature conservation centers, which are able to balance the nonexistence of green spaces within the denser parts of the city. Reasons for building green belts are, among others, landscape protection, landscape restoration, nature conservation and to keep the rural character (Gather & Unterwerner 1992; Hilty et al. 2006). It is important to sustain biodiversity of plants and animals by keeping the rural and natural character so the animals are able to behave like they would do in their ‘real’ natural surroundings. Some green belts have been built to prevent cities from growing into joint cities, while others “assist in the safeguarding the countryside from encroachment [...and] urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land” (Amati & Yokohari 2006, p. 127). Hilty et al. (2006) coincide with that by further clarifying that green belts could be developed because of suspected floods in the area, topography or further reasons. There are different shapes of green belts, they do not all look like a ‘belt’, which is wrapped around the city. The green belt around the city of Berlin, developed through connecting several parks and forests with each other, is known as ‘the star model’ because of its star-like shape. The city of Copenhagen also has a green belt, which is in the shape of ‘fingers’. The Green Belt in Frankfurt (Appendix 2) was built to prevent urban sprawl and to prevent the city from further growth. Gather and Unterwerner (1992) criticize this explanation and claim that the green belt was built in this location since this area would not have been valuable as a housing or industry area due to the air corridor and noise pollution. As mentioned before, one of the main goals of creating a green corridor is to maintain or increase the richness of species. The species have a higher chance of reproduction as sources of food, materials, breeding places and energy resources are provided in higher quantity than a regular city park. In general, the availability of other species in big green areas is higher because those areas are more attractive for the named reasons. When reproduction is in this way easier, it can help to increase the richness of species (Hilty et al. 2006). Another reason to promote green corridors is that it could possibly aid with allowing free movement of animals within the area.

Many animals die in high numbers when they have to cross streets to go from one green area to another but with green corridors the animals are able to travel further to look for resources, yet still protected by the green area. Not only do the green corridors provide more space to move, they can also lead the movement of the animals and “increase over-all species’ persistence compared to equivalent patches of habitat that lack connectivity” (Hilty et al. 2006, p. 108). With better connectivity there is less risk of inbreeding. An increased genetic variability between populations in the animal and plant kingdom is important according to Hilty et al. (2006, citing Beier & Loe 1992 and A. F. Bennett 1999). Some disadvantages of the green belt, regarding topics as economic growth, city growth, urban sprawl, and other economic related topics, have been discussed in other research but those topics will not be discussed further in this paper.

2.2.1. THE SOCIAL BENEFITS OF CONNECTING GREEN AREAS Connecting parks, forest or any other urban green area with green corridors gives not only the animals, but also the humans a possibility to move greater distances within the green area. This might be specifically important when performing activities such as hiking, biking, horseback- riding and running. The paths for cycling, hiking or walking improve a sustainable mobility, which provides a healthier and cleaner environment and improves the health of the individual (Banister, 2008). Even if greenways are supposed to be compatible for both animals and humans, it has to be considered that some species of the wildlife, which usually steer clear of human contact, may not settle in areas where a lot of humans are active. Therefore to keep the biodiversity from being harmed by human activities it is important to keep some places for humans but others only for the wildlife as foreign plants and weeds “brought in by human activities can out-compete native plants, including food sources for wildlife” (Hilty et al. 2006, p. 113). Greenways within or around the built environment provide free ecosystems to the humans, like clean air, materials, a place to socialize and educate, just to name a few of the ecosystem services but they can also benefit humans by ensuring aesthetic surroundings (Amati and Yokohari 2006). In this summary of Hilty and his colleagues it is worth noting that green corridors can be in forms that we would normally not consider as ‘green’ (e.g. road-crossing structures) but can increase the sustainability of the areas:

In summary, corridors can take many forms and can be beneficial for natural and human systems on a variety of different scales. From road-crossing structures to watershed corridors to continent-wide connections, they can facilitate dispersal and migration and increase the overall quantity of habitat available, helping individuals move and populations retain connectedness (Hilty et al. 2006, p. 115).

The benefits of a creating greenway and increasing connectivity are various and can be of much use for the visitors of the parks. In the following chapter we present our cases, the parks we have studied for a possible creation of a greenway.

3 - The Cases

We have selected three parks as our cases for this research. Bulltofta park, Husie Mosse and Remonthagen park. The present common nominator of these parks is that they are all placed in the suburban area Malmö Öster, East Malmö (see figure 2), and the Risebergabäcken stream runs through all three parks. All of them, although man-made, have some more untouched nature aspect and a forest resemblance than the usual Malmö park, which is why we chose them since our main focus is to explore if people do appreciate that kind of natural landscape within the urban area. We present the parks below in the order that one usually reads a map, i.e. from north to south.

Figure 2: Map of the study area

Malmö has had a long tradition of connecting parks and other green areas with each other or with the surrounding environment. Since 1920 Malmö urban planners have formed ideas and inspirations from German and American urban planning about linkages of parks and the surroundings. Even as early as 1879, a Malmö merchant suggested to the municipality that workers in the city did not need the grassy plains in Kungsparken (the King’s park) for their well-being, much rather were they in need of a more forest-like park (Pehrsson 1986). However, it was not until a 100 years later that this vision became a reality with the planning of Bulltofta park. All of the green areas within the city borders of Malmö are man-made, created and planned, mostly former industrial sites and brownfields (Broström et al. 2008; Mattsson, 2015; Pehrsson 1986) and different types of parks have been developed. The latest trend is the ‘landscape’ park, where the potentials of the original landscape are used and the landscape is the model of the park, but it also means that there is a large transformation of the environment (Pehrsson 1986).

Historical predecessors of the landscape parks are ‘English manor parks’ (Pehrsson 1986) but of course every phase in history puts its mark on how parks are developed and what is mostly valued in the design. In modern history of Malmö landscape parks with an intermediate position between the natural park and the city park has resulted in parks that have a realistic resemblance to original nature and forests. Such parks are Bulltofta park, Husie Mosse and Remonthagen/Jägersro, our three cases, which we have to admit believed at first to be real nature and not man-made. In the 20th century Malmö has changed from being a “grey industrial city” to the “future’s ecological city” (Broström et al. 2008, p. 120) but it is still an ongoing process which has its faults. The E6/E20 motorway surrounds Malmö and outside of these city borders there are only farming acres, therefore any kind of link or access to unspoiled nature outside the city border is not to be found (Broström et al. 2008). The description and information about the parks, provided in the following subchapters, originates from various official documents from Malmö stad, their website, as well as the interview with Arne Mattsson. In 2014 the city’s Environmental Department (Miljöförvaltningen) mapped and valued the ES provided by the Riseberga stream specifically (Malmö Stad 2014b). We used this report as a source because the stream plays a significant role in the structure of the parks and for the ecosystem services.

3.1. Bulltofta park As Skåne region is very flat and has few forests, hills or mountains, two landscape architect students detected the need for more natural landscape within the urban area around the 1980s (Malmö Stad, Bulltoftaparken, Online). Before the park was created there was an airport in this area and some farmland. The land used for the park consisted out of old gardens and private land, which had no Figure 3: Map of Bulltofta park trees and so the first thing was to draw up a plan for how to shelter the park from the wind. The basic plan was to create a park with strong nature impressions as well as having as little maintenance cost as possible. The goal was that the park would in 20 years look more like a forest. Work went on from 1983 to 1992, and the park was divided into three zones. The nature zone is the biggest part of the park with many different tree arts (birch, oak, elm, ash tree), dry- and wetlands and ponds. The park zone has more traditional park like features, arboretum and cultivation allotments. The third zone is the recreation- and sport zone, with an indoor and outdoor gym, mini-golf, football, tennis and basketball fields. The third zone was created on the plains of the former airport (Malmö Stad, Bulltoftaparken, Online). Today Bulltofta park is 87 ha and it is considered one of the main recreational parks in Malmö. The park is well used by joggers, runners and walkers, there are frisbee-golf tracks, orientation runs are organized, and in winter the hills are much used by kids and others for sledge and ski riding.

Figure 4: Maintained paths and a view to the forest in Bulltofta park

3.2. Husie Mosse Husie Mosse is approximately 2,7km southeast of Bulltofta park, which takes 9 minutes to bicycle or 30 minutes to walk 2 . It is divided in two parts, the northern part has a strong impression of nature, with a group of tall pine trees among sand slopes which are an important habitat for the threatening population of sand lizard. The southern part has a big lake and broad paths around the lake. There are picnic tables and Figure 5: Sand dunes and pine trees in Husie Mosse benches by the path around the lake so one can enjoy some bird watching or just the beautiful scenery. The northern part is owned by the Swedish military and there is a shooting area at the park’s edges. This could explain the structural differences to the southern part, which is owned by Malmö City. But is worth mentioning that the military does not use this area to any extent anymore and Malmö City has been trying to buy that land to complete the ownership of the park.

Figure 6: Sign with information on the lizards in Husie Mosse

2 According to measurements for walking and for bicycling on Google Maps

Husie Mosse is in total 32 ha (northern and southern part) and it was built as a nature and recreation site (Malmö Stad 2003). It was created as a park at the same time as Bulltofta park, in the beginning of the 80´s. Originally, the land was a swamp or even totally covered by water (hence the “Mosse” name in Swedish which means swamp), but it was dammed up creating the present half a kilometer long lake.

3.3. Remonthagen/ Jägersro Remonthagen park, owned by Malmö stad, is only a small part of the Jägersro green area which is private owned. However, we chose to take the whole 66ha area into consideration since there are some recreational facilities outside the Remonthagen park borders. Moreover, the whole area, including Remonthagen park, is outlined 66ha and called Jägersro in the ‘Environmental Protection Plan’ (Naturvårdsplan) of Malmö Stad (2012). The Riseberga stream forms a kind of a border between Remonthagen park and the rest of the area but wider green area is accessible by crossing the stream at two places. Nevertheless, people might hesitate to access the rest of the green area from Remonthagen park because it is mostly structured as a riding exercise area and as Figure 7: Map of a) Husie Mosse and b) Remonthagen/ Jägersro two football fields owned by the neighboring sport club Husie IF. Furthermore there is a big part of the Jägersro Galopp tracks in this area and some horse pastures. Remonthagen/Jägersro almost borders with the southern end of Husie Mosse (see figure 7) with Amiralsgatan street in between. Remonthagen park was redesigned from an older green area, also in the 80’s like the other two parks, and also according to the latest trends in landscape parks. In Remonthagen park there is a very nice playground, the only one of the three parks, surrounded by a circle of tall trees, which gives it good shelter from wind. Surrounding the playground there are some meadows and trees. Near the stream there is one bench; other sitting possibilities are at the playground. According to the ‘Environmental Protection Plan’ of Malmö Stad (2012) the size of the area makes it more valuable and they suggest that the area could be used more as a recreational area than it is at present. Figure 8: Riseberga stream in Remonthagen/ Jägersro

Figure 9: Playground at Remonthagen/ Jägersro

3.4. Ecosystem services in the parks Here we mostly discuss the regulating and the supporting ecosystem services. We chose to discard the provisioning services since the parks are man-made, mostly for recreational purposes or to enjoy the natural environment, and there are no major provisioning services. Maybe there are some smaller ones, such as berries, mushrooms or edible plants to be collected but that is at such a minor scale we prefer to focus on the three remaining ES. The Riseberga stream, which runs through all three parks, is a very important element for Malmö city because any form of running water is scarce around the city. It is also extremely important as a draining system and functions as the main rainfall attenuation. According to Miljöförvaltningen´s report (Malmö Stad 2014b) the ecosystem services that the stream provides are the regulating, supporting and cultural one. Not so much provisioning service although some herbs and edible plants grow along the stream. This stream is also important as it is a habitat for many different organisms at young stage. It provides the perfect environment for reproduction of species as well as providing a protective environment for the youngs. Furthermore it serves as a food source, not only for animals there is a possibility to do some fishing in the stream. One problem has been detected (Malmö Stad 2014b) and that is the invisibility of the ecosystem services that the stream provides, which are then taken for granted or highly under evaluated. Exploitation of land around the stream has created more impermeable surfaces which again increases the stream to overflow at heavy rainfall and high sea level. Around 250.000 trees have been planted in Bulltofta park of which deciduous trees are dominating. In Bulltofta park there is a forest-like area, water elements in the form of five ponds (small and big ones) and a stream, there are meadows and a hilly landscape. Figure 10: Riseberga stream in Bulltofta park.

Some of the ponds have a natural origin, but others are man-made. As reported on Malmö stad’s website (Malmö Stad, Bulltofta, Online) 35 bird types nest in the park, compared to 7-8 types in the traditional Malmö park. Husie Mosse has a relatively larger lake than are to be found in Bulltofta park, and because of that this park is considered to be a ‘Biological Hot-spot’ (Malmö Stad, Biologiska hotspots, Online) where many birds nest, both common types and rare. The vegetation is also rare in some spots, with a few types of orchids where for some, such as the ‘Majnyckel’ Husie Mosse is the only growing spot in Malmö (Malmö Stad, Husie Mosse, Online). In Remonthagen park some amendments have been made to the Riseberga stream as prevention to natural catastrophes, like floods. This could have positive effects on other ecosystem services and on activities performed in the surroundings, such as the horse riders who enjoy riding along the stream and bird watchers who have a hut nearby Husie Mosse lake.

4 - Epistemological Considerations and Methods

We considered the subject matter of this research better suited to be studied in a qualitative rather than quantitative research, because the qualitative research helps best to explore “subjective” understandings (Flick, 2009). Furthermore, we believe that the qualitative research enabled us for an in-depth understanding and interpretation of the content of the phenomena under study. Therefore the inference in this research is interpretative because the researchers want to understand people’s subjective experiences of the parks and interpret some sense in the patterns observed (6 & Bellamy 2012). In this paper we have taken an inductive approach on social benefits of ecosystem services in sub-urban area of Malmö and we have structured the paper with a longitudinal research design, which is explained by Bryman (2012) as an “extension of survey research based on a self-completion questionnaire [and] or structured interview research within a cross-sectional design” (p. 63).

4.1. Park as process Our ontological and epistemological considerations for this research are based on our deep interest in the way green areas function for people as well as for the biodiversity. We consider it to be very worth knowing, how the ecological elements of the parks adjust to the social functionalities and vice versa. To us nature has great value and we have a responsibility to preserve it as much as we possibly can. From that standpoint we did this research, to find out what values other people have of nature, and especially these parks that resemble a more natural look than many other parks in Malmö. It is interesting to explore the process of how the users construct the parks because we know that the natural aspect of parks, the animal life and plants, are constantly changing and will not be the same today as it was maybe 10 years ago. People‘s habits and values also influence this semi-chaotic development of a park. However, we cannot talk about social constructionism since the process is the interaction between nature and humans and not entirely on a verbal intellectual level of only humans. We have ecosystems, but then these ecosystems also give service to humans and that can be a parameter of how we experience parks. People experience parks differently and their views and experiences are implicitly formed by the ecosystem services, although people do not make a direct link between these factors when enjoying the park or nature. In a positivist perspective the park and its features could be described, but that is not exactly what we are doing. We are more describing moments in the process of the parks and how the parks can be of benefit for us humans in harmony with nature.

4.2. Methods This chapter describes in more detail the research methods we have used for this paper. We furthermore clarify why the intended methods were chosen for this specific research. For this research we have conducted an empirical research and therefore dealt mostly with primary data. Primary data are generated by the researcher, who formulates the research design and are thus collected and analyzed by him/herself (Blaikie 2003). On the other hand secondary data are raw data, which are created by someone else either for general information purpose, such as statistical data, or for specific office purpose (Blaikie 2003). The documents are understood as secondary data while field observations and interviews are considered to be primary data. The following subchapters explain each data creation and collection of data separately.

The methods in this research paper consist of ethnography and participant observation. Ethnographic research means that the researcher himself or herself observes and does interviews within a group or a community or any other kind of ethnographic group. For our explorations of the ecosystems and their social benefits we did a survey, which formed the base of our analysis and we observed the parks and the people visiting them and then we conducted some informal, non-structured, interviews with some of these people. Furthermore, we conducted one semi- structured interview. This is in many ways reflecting Bryman’s (2012) listing of what the ethnographic does: “immerses him- or herself in the group for an extended period of time, observing behavior listening to what is said income versus a sense both between others and with the field worker and asking questions” (p. 432). There are multiple differences in ethnographic research regarding the setting, style and methods used in the research. Not only are the settings of the site important, but the position and role of the observer is important as well. The first difference is the overt versus covert ethnography. The overt ethnography is used when researchers are transparent and open in their observation field. During this research we were not discreet about our work nor did we do any observations from a distance. We rather blended in the settings with people. However, it could maybe be called a more covert style because when entering a setting we didn´t explicitly start explaining to everyone what we were doing. Another, more covert, style we used was that in some occasions we felt that approaching people pretending that we were unfamiliar to the settings (e.g. did not know about the park’s facilities or paths) was an easier way to start a conversation and get relevant information than to start the conversation saying that we were doing a research. The second difference is whether it is an open or a closed setting. This determines that an open setting is a space with public access, not segregated, gated or in any other way inaccessible. The parks, which form the setting of our study, are all public spaces generally available for everybody.

4.2.1 DOCUMENTS The documents we have collected and analysed during this research consist of material found on Malmö stad´s official website, www.malmo.se, an official document/report about the ecosystem services around the Riseberga stream from the Environmental Department of Malmö stad, and a few other official documents and reports about the parks. We plunged into the documents to orientate ourselves and we looked at how the parks are presented to the public. The report from the Environmental Department presented the work the officials at this department had done mapping the Ecosystem Services in and around the Riseberga Stream, as well as the potential economic benefits of the ES. On the website of Malmö stad we looked at all information we could find about the parks, and that also included online interactive maps. In this process we discovered that Husie Mosse and Remonthagen are not listed under Nature- and recreational areas (Natur- och rekreationsområden) but Bulltofta park is. However, Husie Mosse is under this category listed as a “biological hot-spot”. The interactive maps (figure 11) showed us e.g. bicycle paths, other nature areas in Malmö, places where it is allowed to barbeque in parks, culturally interesting sites and accessibility to the parks in our research, for example wheelchair access. According to these interactive maps both Husie Mosse and Bulltofta park are marked as good bird-inspecting sites.

Figure 11: The interactive maps on www.malmo.se show various aspects like bicycle paths, nature reservoirs and Husie Mosse and Bulltofta as good spaces to watch birds (Red spots)

4.2.2 FIELD OBSERVATIONS On several occasions we visited the parks in this research. During our visits we took pictures in the area, observed how many people were in the parks and what they were doing. We also took note of the structure of the park, as we perceived it, and we randomly and informally talked to people we met. For the purpose of validity we visited each park at least 4 times and we tried to select different days to visit the parks, to observe presence of people on weekdays as well as weekends. Observation time also depended on the weather conditions and our limited writing time for this thesis. Bulltofta park lies on a daily cycling route of one of the researchers and therefore during frequent bicycle rides through the park it has been observed more often than the other parks, although it was not noted as planned observation days. To ensure validity and reliability we created an observation schedule (see figure 12)

Figure 12: Observation schedule 22

4.2.3 THE SURVEY We created the survey questions in English first and then translated them to Swedish (appendix 1). Since this survey was intended for Malmö citizens we chose to do it entirely in Swedish, although Malmö citizens are surely from many nationalities. We wanted to have the survey all in Swedish to avoid any misunderstanding or dismissals due to lack of language skills. Several pretests of the survey were conducted. First the online version in English was sent to 5 English- speaking students to test if multiple-choice answers worked, if the questions were understandable and if the overall purpose of the questionnaire was understood. Then we asked a Swedish native Master student to read over the Swedish version. When both versions had been revised and changed according to the comments, we did a test run on the Swedish survey with a printed version. During the ‘Valborg’ festival in Husie Mosse, which took place in the evening of the 30th of April, we handed out the survey to people in the park and asked them to fill it out for us. Thereby we also explained who we were and what our purpose was. With this mode we got some comments and questions from the people about statements in the survey that they did not understand. This helped us formulate the questions and statements even better before we launched the online survey. The online survey was anonymous and people were given the freedom to skip any answer should they choose not to answer. They were given the option to complain or comment on the survey by sending an E-mail to us and a thank you note was attached at the end of the survey, as well. At first, E-mails were sent with a text in English, asking people for their participation, but follow-up Emails were written in Swedish and sent out 5 days later. We decided that the population for our survey should be all Malmö residents so in order to get a good sample we followed these three criteria for accessing people:

- To get the views and opinions of as many residents as possible, living in as many different districts of Malmö as possible, we asked people we knew if we could send the survey to them and ask them to spread it further. We got positive reaction about our request from everyone so we sent a link to the online questionnaire in an E-mail and personal Facebook messages to all the Swedes we knew in the city. They were asked politely to re-post and share the link to all their friends and colleagues. - We also wanted to get more views and opinions of the residents in the areas, neighborhoods, near the three parks in question to compare to the responses we would get from people living in other areas. So we searched for sport clubs, churches, schools and other institutes or clubs in these neighborhoods and sent them an E-mail with our request to answer the questionnaire and resend it to other members of their club/services. The E- mail addresses were gathered through research on Google, by mapping the areas and finding institutions, which have access to a lot of people. - We looked for Facebook groups, which we could connect to and spread the link to the survey there. We had access to 3 big groups: ‘Jägersro Gallopp’, ‘Riseberga Anslagstavla’ and ‘Husie föräldrarförening’.

4.2.4 INTERVIEWS As a complement part of this research to other information we had gathered, we used an individual interview as one of the primary data creation method. Then we used the transcribed interview for the collection of relevant information to answer our research questions. Furthermore, we conducted several informal interviews in Swedish and English with random people we saw in the parks. The procedures during the interview are presented briefly in the following chapters.

4.2.4.1. Semi-structured interview with Arne Mattsson at Malmö City On the 29th of April we met Arne Mattsson who is a landscape engineer at the Street- and Park department of Malmö City. The purpose of this interview was to get more detailed information about the history and development of the parks in our research. We had prepared some questions before the interview but when Arne had answered the first questions, we realized that some of the questions were not applicable anymore so they were not used. Actually the interview developed more into a spontaneous discussion than a real interview.

4.2.4.2 Approaching people in the parks We approached people on several different occasions and tried to talk to as many as possible to get a better idea of what the visitors are thinking. While we were talking to visitors we tried to get some insight into how they perceived the parks. We revealed our identities and purpose to the people we asked to participate in the survey and after they had filled out the survey we asked them additional questions, very informally. We showed cultural interest in the park and events, which led the discussions from there. On other occasions we mostly approached people by pretending we did not know the park so well and that we were looking for ways to go around with our bicycle. These were all spontaneous and unprepared approaches, which ended in questions to people about their experiences with the park. An example of the questions we asked during our visit: “Is there anything you would like to see improved in this park or its surroundings?”, “Do you come here regularly?” “Do you live within the area (Malmö Öster)?” People were always given the freedom to answer this voluntarily. It was noted down if they had children with them or not for the purpose of comparing the answers with the survey. As we noticed quickly in the beginning that people were more reserved and often rejected to speak in English, all further interviews were held in Swedish to avoid misunderstandings or barriers because of language differences.

4.2.5 ANALYSIS METHODS For the analysis of the survey and the results of our interviews and observations we used the ethnographic content analysis method (Bryman 2012). The advantages of a content analysis in general are that it is a “very transparent research method, therefore very good for follow-up studies and transparency often causes content analyses to be referred to as an objective method of analysis” (Bryman 2012, p. 304). According to Bryman this type of method also gives access to information about social groups, which is difficult to gain access to. In the case of this research the possible users of the parks are non-identified groups and therefore not easy to get access to them. They could be people living in the neighborhood or someone, who live at the other end of town. And as two of the parks showed much less presence of people it was even more difficult to gain access to a possible user group. Due to a back and forth movement between the different steps of the analysis this analysis becomes very specific in procedure

24 detail. The ethnographic content analysis contains procedures or steps, which are typical within qualitative content analysis (Bryman 2012). We chose to do a SWOT-Analysis to evaluate the ecosystem services of each park and the connectivity of the parks. As we have different primary and secondary data, the SWOT- table can be illustrative for summing up the entire material. For the analysis we will use the SWOT- Analysis both in textual form and as a table.

4.2.6 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY In line with Bryman’s (2012) validity categorization we will view how validity is indicated in our research. As our research touches upon ecological issues in connection to people’s everyday life, we need to examine ecological relevance in this paper. Ecological relevance, also called ecological validity, explains the social scientific findings, which are applicable to people’s everyday life and natural social settings. Findings will be ecologically valid if the social sciences intervenes in a natural setting and as our research takes place in parks we conclude that as a natural setting and therefore ecologically relevant. However, we think it is questionable to use the term ‘validity’ and prefer to use ‘relevance’ which is more applicable in this context. To ensure external validity we have specified and structured the concepts we use for clarification and then deduced our research questions and aim from these concepts. This is especially important in interpretative studies to be able to “develop appropriate research instruments and apply them accurately and consistently” (6 & Bellamy 2012, p. 132).

5 – Analysis

In this chapter we present our findings from the survey, the observations and the semi-structured interview together with the informal interviews. The order we explain and analyse our findings is this: first we analyse the social benefits of ecosystem services in all the parks in general. After that we will analyse each park using a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats). In the survey we asked about children in the household. The existence of children in the household is of interest to us because of the possibilities of using nature and the parks as a playground, and to educate children about natural science. The answers show that nearly half of the respondents (22 of 45) have children under 12 years old in the household (see figure 13). We also asked specifically about the place of residence because we wanted to know if there was any difference between people who live closer to the park, i.e. in the Eastern Malmö (Öster) area and people from other Malmö districts or outside of Malmö. The total respondents’ rate in the survey was 45 people. Of the 45 who answered, 8 are from outside of Malmö, 25 live in Öster and 12 live in other districts in Malmö.

7% The participants have no children under 12 living in their household The participant has one child under 33% 12 living in their household 51% The participant has two children under 12 living in their household 9% The participant has three children under 12 living in their household

Figure 13: The graph shows the portion of people having one to three children under 12 living in their household.

5.1. Social benefits of the cultural/ recreational ecosystem services We asked about people’s appreciation and values of many different features and elements of a park. Considering the natural elements we were not surprised to see that the water elements (running water and pond) ranked highest in values. The respondents were asked to mark the value from 1-5, 1 being ‘I don´t value at all’ and 5 being ‘I value the most’. 36 people marked 4-5 in value for running water, 35 chose pond and high trees and grass are also highly valued with 36 people choosing those elements. In fact high trees got the highest number of respondents who marked 5 in value. Flowerbeds are ranked poorly where 6 people marked 1-2 in value, whereas none marked 1-2 for the water and trees. Stones and cliffs are also low in value, with 6 people choosing 1-2 in value and only 20 people chose 4-5 in value. What is most interesting from the results of this question is that small animals and dense space got the highest number of people who mark 1-2 in value, 10 people for small animals and 11 for dense spaces. It is interesting to compare this to open spaces which only 2 people marked 2 in value (none marked 1). Open spaces got 35 responses for values 4-5 but dense spaces got 19 respondents marking these high values (see figure 14).

There is no difference between people with children and without, about marking dense spaces low in value but people with children value open spaces more than people without children. The park features we asked about are all appreciated but attractive landscape and enjoying nature receive most appreciation (44 people answer ‘somewhat’ or ‘totally’). The feeling of forest also ranks high (43 people answer ‘somewhat’ or ‘totally’). The park as a communal place is very well appreciated as none of the respondents chose the option ‘not at all’ or ‘I don’t know’, and 44 people chose ‘somewhat’ and ‘totally’ (one answer was blank). We conclude that people want the park to be a communal place, a place to gather with family and friends, maybe for special events or just for weekends. On the other hand, historical places, bicycling and sport activities receive least appreciation. As seen below in figure 15, 20 people answered ‘somewhat’ and only 7 people marked ‘totally’ to the historical place and 12 people marked ‘not at all’ to that feature. Additionally 6 people chose ‘I don’t know’.

7% 15%

1 18% 2 3 27% 4

5 33%

Figure 14: The graph shows the portion of people valuing dense spaces from 1 to 5.

Figure 15: The graph shows the level of appreciation of the park as a historical place. Maybe people are not thinking about parks as historical places if they imagine ‘historical’ as something from the Middle Ages, but the history of the parks and the area as it was before (the airfield at Bulltofta and the wetlands at Husie Mosse) could be of interest to someone if it was displayed.

Only 34 people rank bicycling as ‘somewhat’ (24) or ‘totally’ (10) appreciated. 9 people marked not at all (see figure 16). Bicycling in the parks themselves is not appreciated as it can be disturbing and also there are no special bicycling paths, except that in Bulltofta park there are wider paths suitable for bicycling as well as walking. Mutual respect has to be practiced there.

Figure 16: The graph shows the level of appreciation of bicycling.

If we compare leisure activities with sport activities we see that people are less interested in sportive activities than leisure activities. 40 people marked leisure activities as ‘somewhat’ or ‘totally’ appreciated (almost 50/50 divided to those two answers) and only 2 people marked ‘not at all’. 2 people were undecided. On the other hand, for sport activities 7 people chose ‘not at all’ and 24 people marked ‘somewhat’, only 14 marked ‘totally’ appreciated. This is interesting concerning how many people use Bulltofta park to do some kind of sport activities. However, the other parks are not designed for sport activities and people go there to look for serenity and peace and quiet. If we take the top three answers for liking the park (‘I visit it often’, ‘regularly’ and ‘it´s my favorite park’) 33 people like Bulltofta. Out of those 33, 29 answer ‘somewhat’ or ‘totally’ appreciate sport activities the rest does not know the other parks or have heard of the parks but don´t know them (including Bulltofta). The survey also included a few statements about what would be important to include in a park and the results show that 12 people disagree with the importance of having outdoor sport facilities in a park. That is in coherence with the numbers of non-appreciation of sport activities. However, it is interesting that when only 14 people mark the sport activities ‘totally’ appreciated, 20 people mark ‘I strongly agree’ to the importance of having outdoor sport facilities. Such a high number was unexpected since the sport activities did not rank so high in appreciation. Maybe people are concerned with others and want others, who do appreciate sports more, to have their opportunities of practicing it. Mostly all people agree that it is important to have different kind of paths in the park (33 marked ‘I strongly agree’) and Aesthetics are also important for people with 29 choosing ‘I strongly agree’ and 11 choosing ‘I agree’. Only 3 people marked ‘I disagree’ for this statement. There is also a very strong agreement on the statement that a park is great for educating children about natural sciences. In fact it got the highest number of ‘I agree’ (15) and ‘I strongly agree’ (27) answers combined. If we look at this in comparison with which park people with children visit, then 18 of the 22 people with children marked that they visit Bulltofta park either often, regularly or it is their favorite park. They are not very familiar with the other parks where only 4 people marked these three options for Husie Mosse and only one chose these options for Remonthagen park.

What we read out of these results are that people with kids generally visit Bulltofta park and like the park as an educational possibility but they don’t appreciate dense spaces, bird diversity or small animals so much. We interpret this as the nature education is mostly about the trees and vegetation or parents do not exercise so much nature education but yet think that the parks are well designed for that as school activity. It is interesting to see that different species of animals is what people think is least important, where 9 people marked ‘I disagree’ or ‘I strongly disagree’ and 5 people are undecided (see figure 17). Only 13 people marked ‘I strongly agree’.

Figure 17: The graph shows the importance of the variety of species for the participants

We think that this is related to the appreciation of small animals, which 10 of the respondents ranked 1-2 in value (the lowest of values). Maybe in this sense people are thinking about insects as small animals. Mice and moles could also be the animals that people don’t appreciate so much in parks. That is understandable as the moles make a lot of little mounds of dirt on the grass surface which people want to use for picnicking and sunbathing. Our observations revealed that the ‘greens’ on the frisbee golf field in Bulltofta had hundreds of these little mounds (see figure 18). It is understandable that this can be annoying.

Figure 18: Picture showing the mole mounds at Bulltofta park.

Under the same question there was a statement that urban green areas should be maintained and another statement about the importance of having some ‘wild’ nature in the city. It is interesting to compare the results to these statements with each other as well as with the last question where we asked about each park specifically. Out of the 45 respondents 43 answered

29 that they either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ to the maintenance of a park but on the other hand 38 people agree that some ‘wild nature’ in within the city is important. Furthermore, 29 people agree that the parks have a special wilderness effect which should be kept untouched. This is contradicting with the number of people who want parks to be maintained. This difference can to some extent be explained with people’s confusion about what we mean by ‘wild nature’ and ‘wilderness effect’, as this is also perceived differently among people. The respondents who know Husie Mosse and Remonthagen park well or have been there a few times, are more likely to answer that they agree to keeping the wilderness untouched than people who know Bulltofta well and do not know the other parks. It is also interesting to connect the strong agreement to the maintenance of the parks with the statement that the city should provide easier access to each park to make them more valuable to people. 34 out of 45 want easier access to the park which we interpret that even if people are saying that it is important to have ‘wild nature’ the demand for a maintained green area is higher. We conclude that people may appreciate the ‘wild’ appearance of the park landscape (wild growth ranked high among the valued elements) but they still want it to be maintained and have easy access to it. It should just look wild and not be wild, at least not ‘wild’ as is described as one of the 8 characteristics previously in this paper.

5.2. SWOT analysis of each park With this SWOT analysis we wanted to review, which park attracts what kind of people and if the cultural ecosystem services are suited to attend their needs. We are analyzing each park per se in the same order as they are described in chapter 3.

BULLTOFTA PARK: Bulltofta park is the biggest park of all the three. Our observations in Bulltofta park discloses that even though only a part of it is designated to recreational or sport activities like soccer, mini-golf, outdoor gym, Frisbee golf, running tracks, this sportive atmosphere seems to be dominating in the whole park. Sportive activities are promoted with free accessible facilities like soccer goals, soccer fields, free Frisbee golf ‘greens’ etc. Natural features seem to be more of a “side product” at least that is what we interpret from the survey results and our interviews with people. The recreational area is the park strength as the survey results show that 29 of the 38 who write that they appreciate sport activities also choose Bulltofta park as their favorite or at least visit it often. Another strength for Bulltofta park is a parking lot close to the recreational area which is widely used by the people who visit the motion center as well as people with children and strollers. Other features of Bulltofta park Figure 19: Running path with softer soil at include 3 lakes, an arboretum, running water, high trees, Bulltofta park hills, communal areas and two types of paths, a wide solid one for bicycling, wheelchairs and walking with prams (paved in some areas) and a narrower one to the side. As the narrow running tracks in Bulltofta park have a softer soil (see figure 19),

30 joggers enjoy them a lot. Quite a few people mentioned that the park is very well maintained and seems a lot cleaner than it was 10 years ago and that was the reason they were coming there more often now than they have before. The weaknesses of Bulltofta park are that it is lacking a playground, or even a nature playground (tree stumps, wooden rails, stones etc.) as many people mentioned when asked what they thought could be improved. Some people would want this playground to be secluded so that their kids could run free. Proper lighting was of concern for many people, as this park has high trees and density in many parts where people are walking or jogging. They do not feel safe to do that in the evenings, or dark afternoons in the winter. Signs were also badly missing. People did not know about the arboretum and some even mentioned that they were not aware of all the possibilities that the park has to offer. The opportunities for Bulltofta park is to emphasize more the feeling of forest effects and the stream as its main features. There are groups of people who could benefit more from cultural ecosystem services like spiritual and historic information and to use the nature as cultural and artistic inspiration. It could also serve nature lovers and people with kids more than it does now. One person mentioned that Bulltofta should put more emphasis on the ecological maintenance and make Bulltofta a role model for other parks, even worldwide. The biggest threat to Bulltofta park is that it is already very popular and with increased human traffic it could lose all the feeling of serenity as place of peace, silence and care with sounds of wind, water, birds and insects dominates over the sound of other people (see chapter 2, the 8 characteristics). Motorized traffic on the highways around the park also disturbs people who mentioned that as something the city should improve so that they could enjoy the silence in the park.

Strengths: Weaknesses:  Recreational possibilities  Safety issues  Well maintained  Lack of information on site

Opportunities: Threats:  Highlight ecological effects  Increased traffic  Cultural benefits for other groups  Noise Figure 20: SWOT of Bulltofta park.

HUSIE MOSSE: As already explained the northern part of the park is different in structure from the southern part, but both parts offer a lot of opportunities to enjoy nature, although differently. We observed that in Husie Mosse people are mostly using the park to promenade around the lake, walk the dog, a few were jogging, barbecuing, or were going to fishing in the lake or the stream (we saw a group of people with fishing rods). We conclude, from our observations, that people go to Husie Mosse to enjoy nature and peace, more than to do sport activities, as this park is not designed as a recreational park. Then the strengths of this park are the lake, the biodiversity and the rich birdlife around the lake. The aesthetic features add to the parks strengths (see figure 21). All

31 Figure 21: Attractive nature of Husie Mosse participants, who said that Husie Mosse is one of their favourite parks or they would visit it regularly, appreciate highly the features attractive landscape, peace and quiet and enjoying nature in a park. One strength in the infrastructure of the park is actually the unmaintained northern part, yet it can also be a weakness (see figure 22). We met people there who liked this part for the group of pine trees and that they offer many possibilities to play hide and seek with children. The pine trees also provide good material for decorations and crafts with kids. All around the pine trees there is high uncut grass and wild growth. In between the vegetation there are very narrow paths, which look like they have Figure 22: Wild growth and unclear paths in Husie been formed only by people tramping on the Mosse. ground. But that is also how some people want it to be. One father told us that children use these paths to do adventurous cycling and there was no reason to change this setting as there are not so many people using this part of the park. As we mentioned, this wild growth could also be a weakness as it is hindering people to walk around in the northern side, and it also makes people think that there is nothing worth visiting on this side. Another weakness is access into the park from the street. There we mean that only on the southernmost end there is Figure 23: Diverse landscape in Husie Mosse: lake, forest a parking lot and the area is more open where and sand dunes. you can actually see where to go to the lake, but further north there is no indication of accessible paths or what awaits you if you decide to go into the park. Some people also mentioned that the paths, even the well maintained ones, are not as solid as in Bulltofta park and they get muddy in wet weather. Muddy paths hinder not only people in wheelchairs or elderly people; they also hinder people with prams or strollers. One woman (elderly) mentioned that she missed sitting banks in the lake area. Our observations prove that there is no shortage of sitting banks or picnic tables in this area but the sitting banks are lacking a back support and maybe that is what the woman meant. The opportunities of Husie Mosse include the diverse landscape and infrastructure (see figure 23 and 24), which provides enrichment of cultural ecosystem services and gives the visitor the ability to enjoy valuable natural elements Figure 24: Husie Mosse – a view from the south to the unmaintained northern part

and experience some adventures during the visit. The park is highlighted by Malmö stad on their website as a biological hotspot and a good visiting target for preschools and schools. It would be a good opportunity for the park to promote it more among adults since there are not so many who are familiar with this park or what it has to offer. Some of the threats to Husie Mosse relate to the fact that it is divided in ownership. We know that Malmö stad is trying to buy the land (Mattsson 2015) but as we heard from some people that they like the area as it is, and most people in the survey were positive about keeping the wilderness effect untouched, we wonder what it will do to the whole infrastructure when Malmö stad will become the property owner. On the other hand, keeping it as it is now is also a threat since this area is owned by the military and Figure 25: Sign near the shooting practice area of the military in Husie Mosse there is still a shooting practice area on the outskirts of the northern side (see figure 25), which definitely keeps people away from enjoying the benefits of this part of the park. One woman told us that it was not so problematic because if they were shooting there they would put up a red flag to warn visitors and you would hear it if they are shooting. However, Arne Mattsson (2015) told us that they’ve stopped using the shooting area: “I don´t think they use the shooting area. I don´t think that, no”. The obscurity about this makes it a problem for the visitors of the park and with this negative effect it is a threat.

Strengths: Weaknesses:  Natural preserve  Safety issues (shooting area, not well maintained paths)  Partly maintained, partly kept wild  Lack of information on site

Opportunties: Threats:  Educational benefits  Wildlife harassment by people, harm for biodiversity  Increase biodiversity and wildlife  Overpopulation

Figure 26: SWOT Husie Mosse

REMONTHAGEN: Remonthagen park is the last park in our row and the southernmost park of the three. It is also the least known of all our survey respondents. During all observations we could also confirm that there is not much presence of people there, Whatever the reason for that is we cannot tell, but when we were there we got the feeling that it is more of a ‘neighborhood park’, a park that would only be visited and known to the people who live close by. Nevertheless, we chose this park for our study because of the closeness to Husie Mosse and the possibilities of connection with that park through the Riseberga stream and then we discovered that this park is designed with similar natural landscape look as the other two. From all observations, interviews and the survey, we think that there is a great confusion with the name of the park. Either people know it as Jägersro only and they have not heard the name Remonthagen or they know Remonthagen but do not recognize it as Jägersro. Some people only associate Jägersro with the near-by horse racing

33 arena. Furthermore we noticed, when comparing where people live vs. which parks they know, that people who live in Öster (Malmö East) and even in neighborhoods close to this park, are not more likely to answer that they have visited the park or heard of it (see figure 27).

0% 0% Have never heard of the the 4% park Have heard of it but never been 16% there have been there a few times 8% Know it well and visit it often

72% visit the park regularly

One of the favourite parks

Figure 27: The graph shows the percentage of people who know Remonthagen park

The strength of this park is the playground in the middle. It is a very nice playground with a picnic table and an additional bench for the adults. It is circled by tall trees providing shelter and noise reduction but it is maybe a weakness that the entrance to the playground opens up to the street. However, that is also a strength as children in this neighborhood have not far to go and it is a slow street. Another strength is that there is a bench situated right next to the stream, creating a place for thoughts and feelings where people can enjoy looking at the running water and have some ‘get-away-feeling’ (see chapter 2, the 8 characteristics). On the other hand, it is a weakness that there is no path leading to this bench. On one of our visits to the park we met an elderly couple with a wheelchair who sat on this bench. They said they had to walk through wheel tracks (from a heavy vehicle) to get there and they condemned the poor walking conditions. The woman mentioned that it would be nice to be able to walk along the stream. There is a path alongside the stream and it is quite nice to walk there but it is narrow and wild-grown and not suitable for wheelchairs or elderly people. This woman complained that the park is not maintained to be accessible for elderly yet there are many elderly people living in this neighborhood. However, as a strength there is a good access to the stream from this path. In this area the banks by the stream are low and children can easily get their feet wet (as a part of playing). The stream is rather shallow so we do not consider it a threat. Remonthagen park´s opportunities lie in the park being the optimal place to enjoy the beautiful stream. One person pointed out that it would be great to get some picnic tables and more benches in the same area as the other bench next to the stream. There is a small pool in the stream, which serves as a water conduit for storm water. People were, however, not very keen on sitting there by this pool as it contains a lot of algae so it seems very dirty and one woman said that she wished Malmö stad would take better care of it (clean it) so that she might enjoy looking at the stream.

As Remonthagen/Jägersro (and Husie Mosse northern side as well) do not have the same good infrastructure as Bulltofta park there is a threat to sensitive vegetation as well as problems with litter if more people would discover the benefits of this park and the infrastructure would stay the same, maybe to keep the ‘wilderness effect’.

Strengths: Weaknesses:  Access to the stream  Poor accessibility around the park  Playground  Few places to rest

Opportunities: Threats:  Picnic area next to the stream  Sensitive vegetation  Enjoy the aesthetic view  Noise and litter

Figure 28: SWOT of Remonthagen/Jägersro

5.3. SWOT Analysis of the connectivity between the parks: Would it be improving for the parks if we could connect all three of them to make a green corridor and would it be beneficial for the visitors and the residents of the city? As the Riseberga stream already forms a greenway through the parks (Malmö, Grönplan, 2003b) the most convenient way to connect them is through this feature. We want to focus entirely on environmentally friendly transportation systems as walking and cycling, and here we analyse the possibilities and benefits of making this connection. As people can see on the map (see figure 2, p. 14 in this paper) this green corridor is certainly not green all the way, but if you bicycle this way you realize that it is actually a very pleasing, calming and greener-than-you-think kind of a way. If we start in Bulltofta park we follow the stream to a smaller adjacent park called ‘Riseberga parken’ and through that green area we can almost bicycle along the stream through the whole Riseberga park, but not quite. At the end we have to turn off the track and go to the street where we also have to know which way to go to find the path again. We find it and follow a grass field until we see the stream again, then we head under the busy Sallerupsvägen road through an underpass. From there we ride through an idyllic green bicycle path alongside the stream, Figure 29: Difficult crossing over Amiralsgatan road between Husie Mosse with another nature park to our left, and Remonthagen park Gyllins Trädgård. But where Gyllins Trädgård ends so end our possibilities to follow the stream on bicycle or by foot. There is a road and houses lined up next to the stream so there is no space for a path. We sway away from

35 the stream but we soon arrive at Husie Mosse so it is not so bad, only one street to follow. From Husie Mosse there are two ways to connect it with Remonthagen park. At the southernmost end of the lake we come to a busy road (Amiralsgatan), which we have to cross and it is quite dangerous as there is no special crossing for walkers nor an underpass (see figure 29). On the other side we find a path, which leads us to Remonthagen park. The other way is to go from Husie Mosse into the neighborhood to the right and find a small park there, where the stream runs through, and follow the stream all the way to Remonthagen park. The strengths can only be assessed from the options that are already in place. It is a strength for the connectivity that there are other green areas apart from the parks, which line the way between them. There is already a cycle/walking path following the stream most of the way but it is a weakness that it is interrupted in several places by motorized traffic. Continuing with the weaknesses safety of travelling park visitors is an issue, especially if you intend to go this way with children. On a few occasions you have to either cross or follow a road and there are no indications for where you should go. No indications for the safest route, the easiest route or how to enjoy this way to the fullest. Other weakness for the connectivity is that in some places it is impossible to continue the already existing path in green areas or alongside the stream, and if we think about connecting Husie Mosse with Remonthagen park at the south end of Husie Mosse lake there is a big road to cross to reach the path on the other side. Without an underpass or pedestrian/cycling crossing it is almost a dead end. As we already said, strengths can just be counted if there is a path already existing and since there is not a convenient connection we are only able to continue with opportunities for this kind of connectivity. The opportunities for connecting the parks more completely are to provide people with the options of moving, either on a bike or walking, within a much larger nature area than is possible now. Secondly, the connectivity, to give people a better and easier access to these parks and the opportunity to reach each park easily without relying on car or bus traffic. Finally, it is visually pleasing, it increases health benefits for the sake of the exercise and it gives people variety in their experiences with the parks. There could also be experiences along the route, for example with provisioning ecosystem services, fruit trees that one could pick freely, different flowers to view and there could be historical sights on the way. The threats for connecting the parks could include that the parks become more popular and features like ‘peace and quiet’ or even the sensitive biodiversity of a park could be harmed. It is always a challenge to preserve the nature and keep it as ‘untouched’ as possible while at the same time offering this nature on display to all city residents. So what do people think about the possibilities of the connectivity? Maybe people did not have the same clear image of the green corridor as we did or they are simply indifferent about this possibility (until they can visualize it more clearly) but it was almost divided 50/50 if people agreed or not to this statement: Whether the parks are connected or not makes no difference for me (see figure 30).

Figure 30: The graph shows the percentage of people who think a connection between Bulltofta, Husie Mosse and Remonthagen park would matter to them.

Then we compared the answers with the place of residence because we thought there might be difference in answers according to where people live. The result shows that 13 out of 25 who live in the area, Malmö Öster, agreed with the statement, and therefore think that this connectivity makes no difference to them (see figure 31). 5 of the 8 living outside of Malmö did not agree and therefore claim that it would make a difference to them, which is surprising. 6 out of the 12 living in other parts of Malmö think that it would make a difference for them if the parks are connected (5 think it would not make a difference and one left it blank).

I do not agree and 48% living in Oster 52% I do agree and living in Oster

Figure 31: Last statement of the question about the connectivity compared with place of residence

We asked people about their knowledge of each parks specifically. In total 33 of the 45 respondents know Bulltofta park well, meaning that they either visit it often, regularly or it´s their favorite park, 12 know Husie Mosse and only 5 out of 45 know Remonthagen park well. This is important to know to compare with how people answered regarding the questions about connectivity. If people only know one of the parks then they are probably not well aware of the connectivity possibilities. The last survey question focused on the connectivity and the respondents had to mark if they agreed or disagreed with some statements. The first statement: Connecting the parks with a complete cycle/walking path would increase my enjoyment of each park, was agreed to by 27 of the 33 who know Bulltofta park well, 11 of the 22 who know Husie Mosse well agreed and so did all 5 who know Remonthagen well. The second statement: The city should promote a connection of the parks with signs or marked ways, was agreed to by 19 of the 33 who know Bulltofta park well, which means that 14 37

of them don´t agree. Of the 12 who know Husie Mosse well 7 agree to the statement and 4 of 5 who know Remonthagen well. Comparing this result to the statement if a connection would make difference to the respondents or not, is quite interesting. If we take the total number of respondents (45) then 28 were in favor of the city promoting a connection between the parks, where 21 answered that having a connection between the parks made no difference to them at all. The third statement: The city should provide people with opportunities to enjoy the benefits of all three parks by connecting them, was agreed to by 25 of the 33 who know Bulltofta park well, 9 of the 12 who know Husie Mosse well and all of the 5 who know Remonthagen well.

Strengths: Weaknesses:  existing paths  Safety issues  existing green areas for connection  Lack of signs

Opportunities: Threats:  Enlarge the area of enjoyment  loss of serenity, quiet  variety of experiences  changes in natural environment

Figure 32: SWOT of the connectivity of the parks

6 – Concluding Discussion

With this research we wanted to explore how the cultural ecosystem services could be more useful and bring greater benefits to park visitors should the three parks in our study be connected with a holistic green corridor accessible to everyone using sustainable forms of travel (cycling or walking/running). The SWOT analyses of the parks and the connectivity possibilities demonstrate that a complete connection of the parks with paths and information would bring more social benefits to the visitors and increase their positive experiences with the parks. Each park has distinctive features that should be highlighted and made more accessible to the park users. With reference to the list of cultural ecosystem services (see chapter 2), there are some features that these parks, as special nature parks, have to offer that people do not put much attention to. Some features are e.g. environmental education to children, discovering historical or cultural features of the parks and seeing the diverse animal life as a part of recreational experiences. Mostly, our respondents and interviewees cared about enjoying nature but more from afar. It was not as popular as we expected to experience the wilderness effects first hand, although this aspect was appreciated as a part of the park. By answering our first research question, in what ways each park can benefit from the increased connection, we conclude that some ecological ecosystem services could improve if the connectivity of the parks would lead to more maintenance. Increased attention from visitors to each park could mean that it would be better taken care of and therefore enrich the biodiversity of animals and plants. To give an example, we imagine that more trees would be planted to give shelter from noise or fruit trees could be planted which would provide visitors with more provisioning services and enjoyment for visitors. Enlargement of green areas helps to fight degradation of ecosystems and ecosystem services. On the other hand, the green corridor could increase the pressure on the sensitive ecosystem, which is in place, and harm the nature. There is the risk of depletion of the threatened sand lizard in Husie Mosse, breeding birds could be disturbed and the aesthetic features are also at risk with increased traffic. If more light posts, picnic tables and benches are put up it influences our perceptions of the parks as ‘natural’. The same can be said about signs. This is all in all a complicated dilemma. In our opinion people would benefit from better access and more information about the parks, and our respondents also expressed those wishes, but at the same time we want to experience the parks as a get-away-place where we are at peace from all disturbance. It was demonstrated in our survey that many people look for the park characteristic where you can be alone with nature. It is just experienced differently and people don’t all share the same interests. Some of the results were not so much out of tune from what we thought would have been but we also expected more critical opinions of people, which we did not get. For example, most of the respondents (31 of 45) chose to leave the open question, regarding further suggestions, unanswered. We can only interpret that the users of each park are expecting what they get or getting what they expect, so they may be totally satisfied and see no reason to suggest any improvements. Our second research question about the social benefits the connection would bring, we can answer that this kind of a green corridor could increase awareness of the parks as nature exhibit windows; examples of the wildlife and vegetation you could possibly find elsewhere in Skåne region. Connectivity helps rebuilding and strengthening the ecosystem services including the cultural ones. The connection would bring the park users an opportunity to enjoy the stream, allow their children to play in it and to be educate about nature, and furthermore to visit three

39 different parks with different wildlife in one passage. Such a connection could even lead to a further enlargement of the connecting green areas or the parks themselves, making the overall green area bigger to move around in. Malmö’s ’Green plan’ (2003) suggests bringing more attention to green areas in the future. We understand it as increasing green areas and not just maintaining the already existing ones. The feeling of serenity increases with increased size of the park (Stolz et al. 2012). Currently the biggest use of the parks is through recreation and ‘enjoying nature’ but the parks have much more to offer, as each one is unique on its own. Therefore they could complement each other if connected. With our third research question we asked how the residents of Malmö view the possible connectivity of the parks in question. We interpret the results of our analysis that there could be some kind of indifference about the three parks and any possible connectivity between them. Analysis shows us that there is some confusion in the answers about the connectivity; people are in favour of it but also say that it makes no difference to them. There is possible unawareness or non-interest in the benefits, the necessities and the improvements that these nature connections can bring to them. Another reason for these results could be that people do not see how the parks could be connected or they don’t think that any connection is needed. Perhaps each park is serving the needs of people on its own and people do not realize that there is anything missing. The exception of this are people who have tried to follow the creek on bicycle or people from other areas with experiences of bicycle paths in woodlands, alongside rivers or lakes.

6.1. Practical suggestions We suggest that the city of Malmö uses the existing paths, plus other measures, to lead the park visitors through a greener, more ecological passage between Bulltofta park, Husie Mosse and Remonthagen park. It is important to make this greenway as safe as possible for pedestrians and cyclists and excluded from traffic as much as possible, even adding more green elements for the fulfillment of these requirements (see figure 33). To decrease stress level and increase physical and mental health benefits, is to follow the stream wherever possible, on a green path without all disturbance or interruption from motorized traffic. To provide a more enjoyable and adventurous experience of travelling within the green corridor a practical suggestion is to put informative signs along the way. Blue direction signs are already in place (although scarce), directing people to various city districts, but adding green signs to indicate the green passage is one way to avoid confusion (see figure 34). Colored lines on the pavement are another form of directing people the right way through the greenway. It would also be good to set up map-like signs in each park to demonstrate the ways to go, with additional information about what to see and experience on the way and in each park. These signs could also show the diversity in wildlife and plants that one could expect to see in the parks or on the way (see figures 35 and 36). This helps with the educational possibilities. Another option is to use QR codes or apps. QR codes can be positioned on various spots along the way where people can collect information with their smart-phones (see figure 37). Greenway apps are already available, but Malmö stad could consider the possibilities of implementing them in connection with this green passage. Results from our survey show that people want the city to promote such possibilities.

6.2. Further research Many studies have already been done about people´s appreciation of parks but we don´t know about any other research where this kind of holistic connectivity of these three parks has been researched. Therefore we suggest that it is researched further with an even bigger survey on a larger scale about what people think about this connectivity, including better visualization of the connectivity possibilities so that people may realize what kind of connection is asked about. It would also be interesting to get more opinions from people who are current users, and then again ask them specifically about these ideas while showing them illustrations to understand the ideas better.

Figure 33: Green features Figure 34: Green signs

Figure 36: Informative sign

Figure 35: Informative sign

Figure 37: Using QR codes 41

References:

6, P. & Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of methodology: Research design in social science. SAGE.

Amati, M., & Yokohari, M. (2006). Temporal changes and local variations in the functions of London’s green belt. Landscape and Urban Planning , 125-142.

Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing quantitative data. SAGE Publications.

Breuste, J. & Qureshi, S. (2011). Urban sustainability, urban ecology and the Society for Urban Ecology. Urban Ecosyst, 14, 313–317. DOI 10.1007/s11252-011-0186-3.

Breuste, J., Haase, D. & Elmquist, T. (2013). Urban landscapes and ecosystem services. In Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban landscapes, ed. S. Wratten, A. Sandhu, R. Cullen, and R. Costanza. 83´104. London: Wiley.

Broström, A., Eliasson, P. & Hillbur, P. (2008). Mellan åkern och havet: Malmös rekreationsöar och postproduktiva frirum. In book: Inne och ute i Malmö. Studier av urbana förändringsprocesser, Publisher: MAPIUS no.2, Malmö University Publications in Urban Studies, Editors: Ebba Lisberg Jensen, Pernilla Ouis, pp.121-137.

Brown, R. (2006). Doing your dissertation in business and management. SAGE.

Burgess, J., C. Harrison, and M. Limb. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies 25: 455-473.

C/O City. (2014). Ekosystem tjänster i stadsplanering – en vägledning. Report. Uppsala: White arkitekter AB

Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129-138.

Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4 ed.). London: Sage Publication.

Gather, M., & Unterwerner, P. (1992). DIE GRÜNE WELTSTADT? „GRÜNE“ POLITIK IN FRANKFURT AM MAIN. Geographische Zeitschrift , 106-120.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235-245. deGroot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, (41) 393-408

Hansen, R. & Pauleit, S. 2014. From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services? A Conceptual Framework for Multifunctionality in Green Infrastructure Planning for Urban Areas. Ambio, 43(4), 516- 529.

Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In D. G. Raffaelli, & C. L. Frid, Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis (pp. 110-139). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hilty, J. A., Lidicker Jr., W. Z., & Merenlender, A. M. (2006). The Ecological Framework. In J. A. Hilty, W. Z. Lidicker Jr., & A. M. Merenlender, CORRIDOR ECOLOGY- The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation (pp. 49-85). Washington: Island Press.

Kronenberg, J. (2012). Urban ecosystem services. Sustainable Development Applications, 3, 13-30.

Linehan, J., Gross, M., & Finn, J. (1995). Greenway planning: developing a landscape ecological network approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 179-193.

Malmö stad. Biologiska hotspots. [Online]. Available from: http://malmo.se/Kultur--fritid/Idrott-- fritid/Natur--friluftsliv/Natur--och-rekreationsomraden/Biologiska-hotspots.html [Accessed 06.05.2015]

Malmö stad. Bulltoftaparken. [Online]. Available from: http://malmo.se/Kultur--fritid/Idrott-- fritid/Natur--friluftsliv/Parker/Parker-A-O/Bulltoftaparken.html [Accessed: 06.05.2015] Malmö stad, 2003. Grönplan för Malmö 2003, Annual report 2002- 2003. Malmö: Malmö stad.

Malmö stad. Grönyta. [Online]. Available from: http://miljobarometern.malmo.se/miljomal/framtidens-stadsmiljo-finns-i-malmo/de-grona-och-bla- kvaliteterna-ska-utvecklas/gronyta/ [Accessed 23.05.2015]

MALMÖ STAD. Husie Mosse. [Online]. Available from: http://malmo.se/Kultur--fritid/Idrott-- fritid/Natur--friluftsliv/Natur--och-rekreationsomraden/Biologiska-hotspots/Husie-mosse.html [Accessed 11.05.2015]

Malmö stad. (2014a). Metoder för att värdera ekosystemtjänster. Delrapport i projektet “Kartläggning av ekosystemtjänster”. Malmö: Malmö Stad (Bilaga 3)

Malmö stad. (2014b). Kartläggning och värdering av ekosystemtjänster - erfarenheter av att använda TEEB-metoden. Malmö: Malmö Stad

Malmö stad, 2012. Naturvårdsplan för Malmö stad. Omradesbeskrivningar. Annual report 2011-2012. Malmö: Malmö stadsbyggnadskontor 2012

Mattsson, A. (2015). Development of Malmö Parks. Interviewed by Hildur Hreinsdottir and Lea Meyer zu Bentrup. [Interview] Malmö stadshuset. 29th April 2015, 15:00.

McKenzie, S. (2004). SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: TOWARDS SOME DEFINITIONS. Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 27. South Australia: Hawke Research Institute.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington D.C. Island Press.

Newman, P. & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems. Principles and Practices. Washington. Island Press.

Pehrsson, Per-Jan. (1986). Malmö parkernas stad: En historik över den offentliga grönskans framväxt. Malmö: Malmö Kommun.

Rudd, H., Vala, J., & Schaefer, V. (2002). Importance of Backyard Habitat in a Comprehensive Biodiversity Conservation Strategy:A Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces. Restoration Ecology , 10 (2), 368-375.

Stigsdotter, U.K., Ekholm, O., Schipperijn, J., Toftager, M., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., Randrup, T.B., 2010. Health promoting outdoor environments - Associations between green space, and health, health related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 2010. 38(4): p. 411-417.

Stoltz, J., Grahn, P., Brundell-Freij, K., Björk, J., & Skärbäck, E. (2012). Malmöbors upplevelse av fem utemiljökaraktärer. Alnarp:Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. Rapport 2012:10.

Summers, J. K., Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., & Linthurst, R. A. (2012). A Review of the Elements of Human Well-Being with an Emphasis on the Contribution of Ecosystem Services. Ambio, 41(4), 327-340. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7.

Turner, W. R., Nakamura, T., & Dinetti, M. (2004). Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience, 54(6), 585-590.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and urban planning, 167-178.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, 06 05). What is Open Space/ Green Space? Urban Environmental Program in New England | US EPA. Retrieved 04 08, 2015, from EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/openspace.html.

Voigt, A., Kabisch, N., Wurster, D., Haase, D. and Breuste, J. (2014). Structural Diversity: A Multi- dimensional Approach to Assess Recreational Services in Urban Parks. Ambio, 43, 480-491. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0508-9.

Appendix 1

Parker och deras funktioner Den här enkäten är gjort för ett masters program som heter "Hållbar stadsutveckling" på Malmö Högskola. Syftet är att ta reda på vilka fördelar folk uppskattar och värdesätter mest i ett parkmiljö. De första frågorna är almänna demografiska frågor, följt av frågor om parkers funktion almännt. Dessutom har vi ett särskilt fokus på 3 parker i Malmö Oster. Vi vill få folks uppfattning om en eventuell anslutning mellan dessa tre parker (med t.ex. en cykel/gångväg, markerade med skyltar). Om du är intresserad av att veta mer, har kommentarer, eller vill ge oss ytterligare förslag in en informell intervju (gennom e-post eller telefon), skriv till [email protected] eller [email protected]

Vad är dit kön? Mann Kvinna

Hur gammal är du? 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Vad är din sysselsättning? Student Kontorsarbete Transportering Vårdtjänst Manuellt arbete Arbetslös Other_____

Var bor du? Vänligst skriv in ditt postnummer

Hur många bor i ditt hem (du inkluderad)?

Hur många barn under 12 bor i ditt hem?

Almenna frågor om parker och deras fördelar Observera att den första frågan handlar om graden av uppskattning, medan de andra handlar om att komma överens eller inte till flera påståenden och den tredje frågan handlar om att gradera värdet man kan ha för varje function. "Plats för gemenskap" är en plats att samlas med vänner och familj. "Fritidsaktiviteter" omfattar t.ex. att rasta hunden, promenera, sola, spela och leka. "Kommunala grönområder bör bibehållas", genom detta menar vi att man tar hand om parkerna och funktioner i parkerna är mestadels konstgjorda.

Hur mycket uppskattar du följande punkter i en park? "Plats för gemenskap" är en plats för lek, idrott och fika med familje och vänner. "Fritidsaktiviteter" inkluderar t.ex. att rasta hunden, promenera, spela mingolf eller något liknade.

Vet inte / Inte alls Något Fullständigt obestämt Attraktiv landskap

Skogkänsla

Lugn och ro

Vet inte / Inte alls Något Fullständigt obestämt Historisk plats

Plats för gemenskap Plats att vila

Njuta av naturen

Sportsaktiviteter

Fritidsaktiviteter

Cykling

Vad är din åsikt om den följande påståender?

Instämmer Instämmer Vet inte / Instämmer Instämmer inte alls inte obestämt något helt Estetisk utseende är viktigt för en park Det är viktigt att det finns olika djurarter

i en park En park är bra för att utbilda barn om

naturvetenskap Det är viktigt att ha utomhus idrottsanläggningar inom en park Det är viktigt att ha olika typer av stigar för löpning,

promenader och cycling Kommunala grönområder bör

bibehållas Det är viktigt att ha lite vild natur inom

staden Hur mycket värdesätter du följande naturliga funktioner? Vänligen kryssa i box 1-5 där 1 betyder "Jag värdesätter inte alls" och 5 betyder "Jag värdesätter mest"

1 2 3 4 5

Rinnande vatten

damm/sjö

Höga träd

Buskar

Rabatter

Vilda växter

1 2 3 4 5

Gräsmatta

Stenar och klippor

Mångsidigt fågelliv Små djurarter

Rymliga områder

Täta områder

Hur väl känner du parkerna presenterade nedan? * Denna fråga handlar om 3 specifika parker i Malmö Öster Jag Har hört känner Jag Har varit Det är en av Aldrig hört om den den väl besöker där ett par mina om den men aldrig och parken gånger favoritparker varit där besöker regelbundet den ofta Bulltofta parken Husie Mosse

Remonthagen

Är det något du skulle vilja se mer av i dessa bestämda parker? Här frågar vi om de tre parkerna i vår studie. Skriv namnet av parken (Bulltofta, Husie Mosse och Remonthagen) och sen dina förslag, t.ex. fler bänkar, lekplatser, stigar, fikaplatser, lyktstolpar osv.

Anslutningar mellan de tre parkerna Forskningar har visat att en grön "korridor" eller en god anslutning mellan parker och andra grönområde i staden ökar nytten av dessa områder för biologisk mångfald i varje område. Riseberga bäcken rinner genom alla tre parkerna och tillsammans med Gyllins Trädgård och några mindre grönområden längs bäcken skulle den kunna fungera som en anslutande corridor. Nu vill vi ha din åsikt om hur väl denna typ av anslutning mellan de tre bestämda parkerna skulle fungera för dina förmåner. Vad är din åsikt om de följande påståenden? Jag instämmer inte Jag instämmer

Att ansluta parkerna med en komplett cykel/gångväg skulle

öka nyttan av varje park Parkerna har en särskild vildmark effekt som bör hållas helt orörd Staden bör ge människor möjligheter att njuta av vad parkerna har att erbjuda genom att ansluta dem Staden bör införa en anslutning av parkerna med en markerad

stig eller med skyltar Staden bör utrusta parkerna var

Jag instämmer inte Jag instämmer

för sig med en behagligare/enklare tillgång för att göra dem mer värdefullt för människor Om alla parkerna är anslutna med en stig eller inte spelar ingen

roll för mig

Appendix 2

Green belt around Frankfurt, Germany.

Green belt around Copenhagen, Denmark.