Local parks and community cohesion in Greater Manchester, UK Dr Aleksandra Kazmierczak University of Manchester Environment and social relations Williamson, 2003 WHO, 1998 Ecosystem services and social relations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 Green spaces and community cohesion • Cohesive communities: – High levels of social control and order – Tolerance for difference – Trust and willingness to help others – Strong attachment to place – Social interactions • Role of green spaces – Free and accessible amenities – Mental restoration – Volunteering: building social capital – Space for human contact Can local parks facilitate social interactions? • England: 2.6 billion visits to parks/year (Swanwick et al., 2003) • The most visited public service (CABE,2010) • Space for various activities – Necessary – Optional – Social (Gehl, 1987) • Opportunity for social contact at different levels • Building recognition among neighbours Method: social survey • Three inner-city neighbourhoods in Greater Manchester • Mail-administered questionnaires (N=239) • Focus groups Ordsall • Traditional, white British working class area – High levels of material deprivation – Aggressive regeneration via property market – Small, bland park with few facilities Google Earth Old Trafford • Settled multiethnic community – History of immigration associated with industrial past – Varied incomes – Two well-maintained parks with a variety of settings Google Earth Moss Side • Stigmatised as the “black ghetto” – Culturally diverse communities due to long history of immigration – Poverty and history of crime – Large park with a variety of settings and facilities Google Earth Results: social networks • Median of acquaintances: 11-15 • Median of good friends: 3-4 • Correlations with age and length of residence • Differences between areas – Old Trafford: more friends – Moss Side: fewer friends – Ordsall: polarised community Qualities of parks and pattern of visits Facilities State of repair Variety of settings Size Moss Side Old Trafford Ordsall High proportion of rare or short visits, compared with previous studies Old Trafford: The most frequent use Moss Side: The longest visits Ordsall: Shortest and least frequent visits Qualities of parks and activities Facilities State of repair Variety of settings Size Moss Side Old Trafford Ordsall Old Trafford: The highest number of activities; predominantly optional activities, followed by social and necessary Moss Side: Predominantly optional activities, followed by social and necessary Ordsall: Predominantly necessary activities, followed by optional and social Visits to parks and social networks • The longer the visits, the higher the number of friends and acquaintances • Social activities are associated with longer visits • Respondents engaging in social activities had more friends and acquaintances • Short visits and necessary activities do not support social interactions Role of parks in facilitating social networks in different neighbourhoods • Old Trafford: multicultural but cohesive – Well-maintained parks are the sociable hubs for the residents • Ordsall: polarised community – Poor-quality park is used by the settled community; other residents do not visit the park • Moss Side: too deprived/stigmatised for a park to make a difference? – Use of the park is enhanced by its qualities but constrained by the fear of crime Conclusions • Parks do have the potential to facilitate social contacts • This potential is a function of: – Their state of repair, qualities and size – Characteristics of visitors – Characteristics of neighbourhoods: “Park is a creature of its surroundings” (Jacobs, 1961) • More research needed into causality between the use of parks and the extent of social networks Acknowledgments • The study was carried out at • Research funding: • Conference funding: .