'PLACING VALUE' REFRAMING CONCEPTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PARK Alice Oldfield A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2014 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/6320 This item is protected by original copyright ‘Placing Value’ Reframing conceptions of the importance of the community park Alice Oldfield Submitted as an integral part of the PhD in Geography, University of St Andrews, October 2014 Declarations 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Alice Oldfield, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 66,700 words in length, has been written by me, and that it is the record of work carried out by me, or principally by myself in collaboration with others as acknowledged, and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September, 2010 and as a candidate for the degree of PhD in September, 2010; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2010 and 2014. Date: signature of candidate: 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of PhD in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date: signature of supervisor: i 3. Permission for publication: (to be signed by both candidate and supervisor) In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews I understand that I am giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. I also understand that the title and the abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or research use unless exempt by award of an embargo as requested below, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to the thesis. I have obtained any third-party copyright permissions that may be required in order to allow such access and migration, or have requested the appropriate embargo below. The following is an agreed request by candidate and supervisor regarding the publication of this thesis: PRINTED COPY a) No embargo on print copy ELECTRONIC COPY b) An embargo has been approved on all electronic copy for a period of 5 years on the following ground(s): Publication would preclude future publication Supporting statement for electronic embargo request: The publication of my thesis in electronic from at this stage would preclude the future publication of the material contained within it as many publisher policies do not permit material to have been made available electronically prior to publication. This is problematic, as I am already preparing papers based on chapters five and seven for submission to peer-reviewed journals. I also hope to rework some of literature review and methodology sections into further academic articles. In order for me to be able to follow through with this publication plan within the timescales involved in the review of academic articles, I require an embargo of five years to be placed upon the electronic copy of my thesis. Date: signature of candidate: signature of supervisor: ii Acknowledgments I’d say the acknowledgements of any thesis are the most personal aspect. I expect many people look forward to writing them, not least, because the fact that they entirely represent opinion and pleasantries should make it fairly easy to do so. However, now that I am faced with the task I find myself enormously daunted by it for a few reasons. Firstly, on a practical note, there is a real risk that I’ll forget someone which is something I absolutely do not want to do, but, stylistically, there is also a second concern that these paragraphs will turn into an interminable list of people, akin to a really poor awards speech, and thus become exceedingly boring to read. I’ll endeavour to keep these fairly brief to ensure that isn’t the case. First of all, it is necessary for me to thank my supervisors Duncan Maclennan and Donald Houston for all the help and support that they have given me during my doctoral work. Duncan, it is almost certain that without your encouragement I would never have believed myself capable of this level of study and, although something I have struggled with at times, the agency that you have allowed me in the design and focus of my research has enabled me to take full ownership of my work and for that I am grateful. Donald, the quest to ‘convince’ you has markedly improved my research and I am really thankful for the innumerable helpful suggestions you have made throughout my PhD to help me to dig myself out of any practical issues. I am indebted to the Centre for Housing Research for funding my study but I also cannot exaggerate the contribution that my CHR colleagues, past and present, have made to my PhD journey, even if just by sitting through my many park-related seminars and offering their feedback. David, Rory, Ciaran, Lorenzo, Tom and Keith you have all been really helpful sounding boards for nascent ideas over the years and, more importantly, have served as an unending source of fun and social exploit. Nathalie, Bex, Katia and Julie you ladies have demonstrated an overwhelming capacity for generosity and empathy over the years and I am truly thankful. During my studies, I have also benefitted from a raft of support from the wider geography school. Kim and Sharon I am particularly grateful to you for the many pep talks you have given and the insights into your PhD experiences you have shared with me. Thanks also to my Geography PhD comrades Becks and Hannah, for your solidarity and friendship. When it has felt like a battle, you have been there in the trenches with me. I cannot overstate the importance of my family and friends outside of ‘the Bubble’. These are the people who have grounded me over the past few years, emphasising the need to not get lost in my intellectual side and reminding me that ‘academic Martian’ is not suitable language for all occasions. Here, I particularly want to mention my mum, Jean, and my sister, Jess, who have provided overwhelming support in the midst of the almost inevitable writing up crises, but who have also told me to pull myself together when necessary, reminding me that, in the real world, a search for synonyms for the word ‘however’ is not a legitimate excuse for a meltdown. A special mention should also be made of my late friend Stari who was a real motivating force during lulls in productivity and is truly missed. iii Finally, I must thank those who provided my data as, without these amazing people, none of the work in this thesis would have been possible. I must acknowledge Leeds City Council Parks and Countryside Department for providing me with secondary data to help me select my case studies in the initial stages of my research, but, most importantly, I am overwhelmingly indebted to the residents of Pudsey and Crossgates for welcoming me into their homes, often with copious amounts of tea and biscuits, and for sharing their stories of what their local park really means to them. Thank you. iv Abstract In the UK, urban parks face a precarious future and, with projected cuts of over 65% to local authority discretionary funding (Local Government Association, 2012:2), it is ever more important to understand their value. This study interrogates the value of these resources from the perspective of the individual and, through a mixed method comparative case study of two community parks in Leeds, West Yorkshire, identifies four key challenges to existing framings of their significance. Drawing on primary observational, social survey and interview data, boundaries constructed between forms of value are, firstly, problematized with fluidity recognised between use and non-use aspects. Secondly, a range of previously-omitted past-related values are identified. Negative elements of significance are, then, thirdly, highlighted as heavily interwoven with positive accounts of importance and emphasised as key omissions in prior representations of value. Before, finally, value is stressed as spatially relative, with comparison with other leisure resources noted as an inherent facet of accounts. Taken together, these challenges demarcate an individual perspective of value as notably distinct from those levelled at other scales, such as the firm or community, as it emphasised that, from this perspective, the value of a resource must be rethought as a relational property created in the interaction between people and their environment, rather than an absolute property assigned to a space. Organisations, such as Nesta (Neal, 2013:21) have emphasised a need to ‘rethink’ the funding and management of urban parks, moving towards “mixed funding models”, incorporating some level of community voluntarism. This assumed involvement is, however, premised on community engagement which is far from certain. As such, there is a pressing need to understand the value attached to urban parks to understand the scope for expectations of voluntarism to be truly fulfilled.