The influence of green space policy on green space equity in Haarlem, the Netherlands

The influence of green space

policy on green space equity in

Haarlem, the Netherlands

Source: A. Tomboly at Westend61, https://www.westend61.de/en/imageView/TAMF01812/aerial-view-of-haarlem-cityscape

Hanne Brouwer (12379050) Date: 28-5-2021

Bachelor Project Future Planet Studies Amsterdam

Supervisors: J. Willems & R. van Schaick Word count: 8959

1

Abstract

Cities are increasingly implementing Urban Green Spaces (UGS) as climate adaptation measures. However, these UGS are often subject to inequitable distribution, resulting in socioeconomically vulnerable neighborhoods having less UGS availability compared to other neighborhoods. This research focuses on the Dutch city of Haarlem, which was ranked the least green out of the 30 largest Dutch cities in a 2003 study. In response, the municipality had developed a green structure plan, however, due to criticism on the plan’s content, it was never implemented. The aim of this research is to assess how the municipality’s green space policy has influenced green space equity across different districts in the city. This case study consists of two parts: a document analysis on several policy documents, to find what policies and strategies the municipality has installed and how these might influence green space equity, and a spatial analysis to research how actual UGS development and socioeconomic factors correlate with each other. The results indicate how a failed participatory process and a lack of concrete green space policy can negatively impact green space equity. Especially the central districts in Haarlem point to an inequitable distribution of green space related to socioeconomic vulnerability. Going forward, by implementing more concrete green space guidelines and measures and more actively involving local residents, the municipality can better address green space equity in different districts in the city.

2

Table of contents

2.1.1 Green space policy and planning ... 6

2.1.2 Green space Equity  ... 7

2.1.3 Acts of omission and acts of commission  ... 8

2.2 Conceptual Framework ... 8 3. Methodology... 10 3.1 Research design ... 10 3.2 Document Analysis ... 10 3.2.1 Operationalization ... 10 3.2.2 Data Collection ... 12 3.2.3 Data Analysis ... 12 3.3 Spatial Analysis ... 12 3.3.1 Operationalization ... 12 3.3.2 Data collection ... 14 3.3.3 Data Analysis ... 14 3.4 Ethical considerations ... 16

4. Haarlem’s green space policy ... 17

4.1 Green space policy context ... 17

4.2 Urban green space policy and planning ... 18

4.3 Green space equity ... 19

4.4 Conclusion ... 22

5. Green space equity in Haarlem ... 23

5.1 Green space equity ... 23

5.2 Acts of Omission ... 25 5.3 Acts of Commission ... 27 5.4 Conclusion ... 28 6. Discussion ... 29 7. Conclusion ... 30 References ... 31

Appendix I: List of analyzed documents ... 36

Appendix II: Codebook ... 37

3

List of figures

Figure 1: Conceptual framework ... 9

Figure 2: Flow chart of steps in spatial analysis ... 15

Figure 3: Green space equity maps ... 24

Figure 4: Acts of omission maps ... 26

Figure 5: Acts of commission maps ... 27

List of tables

Table 2: Operationalization table for spatial analysis ... 13

Table 3: List of documents used in document analysis ... 36

4

1. Introduction

Due to increased climate risks, such as a growing likelihood of heat waves, excessive rainfall and periods of drought (Albers et al., 2015), urban planners turn towards the adaptation measure of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) (Govindarajulu, 2014). Boulton et al. (2018) define UGS as: “Vegetated urban land that is public or semi-private such as parks, sports fields, cemeteries,

vegetated areas of street and road corridors, natural and built corridors adjacent to waterways and wetlands, and external areas to public buildings” (p. 84). UGS can play an important role

in regulating an urban water system, through rainwater drainage and retainment. The vegetated areas of UGS release pressure from sewage systems through rainwater infiltration, while simultaneously causing groundwater levels to rise and create a buffer for periods of drought (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999; Bernatzky, 1983). Aside from ecological functions, UGS provide social benefits, such as recreational value (Hong & Guo, 2017), physical and mental health improvement (Coppel & Wüstemann, 2017) and social interaction and integration (Zhou & Rana, 2012).

These benefits, however, can be subjected to unequal distribution. The concept of green space equity focuses on how the availability of and access to UGS are distributed across socioeconomic groups (Xu et al., 2018). Several case studies have pointed to a correlation between lower UGS quantities and neighborhoods with a higher share of socioeconomically vulnerable residents, indicated by wealth, ethnicity and education (Kabisch & Haase, 2014; McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010). Furthermore, in developing new UGS green space equity is also a factor. Research in Philadelphia (Shokry et al., 2020) found that new green infrastructure has to a greater extent gone to more advantaged neighborhoods and that UGS placement in disadvantaged neighborhoods resulted in relocation of socioeconomically vulnerable residents, because of new green infrastructure making the neighborhood more attractive (Shokry et al., 2020; Anguelovski et al., 2016).

This research focuses on Haarlem, the Netherlands. In 2003, Haarlem was ranked last in a study on the quantity and quality of green space in the 30 largest cities in the Netherlands (Bezemer & Visschedijk, 2003). Within the city borders, Haarlem had 41m² green space per property, while the study considered 75m² per property the norm for green cities. Haarlem had significantly less green space than other large cities, such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam, which had 67,5 and 74,3 m² per property, respectively (Bezemer & Visschedijk, 2003). In response to this study, the municipality started developing a green structure plan in 2007 in order to increase and improve quantity and quality of UGS in the city (Gemeente Haarlem, 2009). However, due

5 to criticism by residents and the city council on the plan’s content, it was not officially implemented. Therefore, Haarlem remained a city with green space ambitions, but without a clear green space policy.

In 2017, the city adopted a new structure plan, with an emphasis on green space and therefore the question of how the city’s policy in the last decade has impacted UGS development and what consequences it has for green space equity in Haarlem arises. This leads to the research question: How has the municipality’s green space policy influenced green space equity in

different districts in the city of Haarlem, the Netherlands? This research question will be

answered through the sub questions: (1) What is the municipality’s green space policy and how does it address UGS distribution across districts in the city? and (2) How has actual availability of UGS in neighborhoods with different socioeconomic statuses changed since 2009?

The aim of this research is to evaluate the consequences of the municipality’s green space policy and planning for green space equity in the city and investigate how a certain policy may lead to exclusion or relocation of vulnerable residents. This can be useful to the municipality of Haarlem, as it will uncover how green space policy may have unintended side-effects on its residents. This will allow the city to, going forward, take these issues into account for a more equitable distribution of UGS. Moreover, this research is relevant to other cities that are trying to implement green space policy, because it will identify how policy influences socioeconomic dynamics in a city and how this can lead to exclusion and gentrification. Lastly, over the last couple of years there has been a lot of research on green space equity, however, little research on the subject evaluates a policy plan’s influence on equity. Therefore, this case study will prove a useful addition to the research on this relatively new concept, as especially in European cities, little research has been done.

This thesis starts off with an introduction of the general problem and research question. This is followed by a theoretical framework, where the most important concepts are explained and the conceptual model is presented. Next is the methodology of both the document analysis and spatial analysis. Then the results of both analyses are presented in their respective chapters and the thesis ends with a conclusion.

6

2. Theoretical Framework

This section contains a literature review, where the most important theoretical concepts are explained. This is followed by a conceptual framework, which illustrates the relationship between green space policy and planning and green space equity.

2.1 Literature review

2.1.1 Green space policy and planning

According to CABE (2006) a green space plan or strategy describes an authority's vision and goals with regards to UGS, as well as the resources, methods and time it takes to achieve these goals. The green space plan forms the link between local strategies and policies, and overarching objectives from higher levels of government. Davies and Lafortezza (2017) describe several principles in urban green space planning and policy, which form the basis for a well-developed strategic approach.Firstly, the concepts of connectivity, multifunctionality, grey-green integration and multi-scale are discovered in green space planning approaches. In the planning process of UGS, the emphasis lies on strategy, inter- and transdisciplinary processes and social inclusion and public participation. Lastly, the article notes how various policy themes are often linked to UGS planning, such as biodiversity, ecosystem services, climate change adaptation, green economy, human health and social cohesion.

Haaland and van den Bosch (2015) point to several challenges in UGS planning for urban planners and policymakers. The first challenge is green space provision in densifying areas. This issue is prevalent in growing cities with limited space, where a discrepancy between a government's compact city policy and residents’ preference for UGS occurs (Giezen et al., 2018; Lin, Meyers & Barnett, 2015). Densification takes place through infill development, in which vacant lots are used as building sites instead of green space. Simultaneously, densifying areas experience a loss of private green space, without compensation in the form of public green space. A way to address the challenge of densification is by determining clear standards for UGS quantity and quality. A second challenge for urban planners is consideration of resident perspectives. There are differences in the way UGS are perceived and used, influenced by demographic factors, such as age and income, as well as an area's social cohesion and integration. Planners can take these differences into account by, for instance, developing larger parks for recreational purposes and smaller parks for increased social interaction. Lastly, institutional constraints related to planning and regulations form a challenge to urban planners and policymakers. In most countries, green spaces are non-statutory, meaning they do not fall

7 under formal law, which makes implementation and regulation more difficult. Moreover, there is often a lack of comprehensive green space planning and a discrepancy between local government plans and actual outcomes. This discrepancy is caused by responsibilities being divided among different units of government, making it less effective (Kabisch, 2015).

2.1.2 Green space Equity 

In the 1970s in the United States, the concept and social movement of environmental justice emerged (Schlosberg, 2009). Ernstson (2013) describes environmental justice as the spatial distribution of environmental goods and bads amongst people. While the movement first mainly focused on the distribution of environmental bads, such as pollution and waste dumps (Moseley et al., 2014; Kabisch & Haase, 2014), more recent studies have highlighted the other aspect of environmental justice, focusing on access to and distribution of environmental goods, such as UGS and other environmental resources (Xu et al., 2018; Jennings et al., 2012; Boone et al., 2009). This new focus on access and benefits of environmental goods is expressed in the concept of green space equity.  

Several studies have pointed to a relationship between socioeconomic status and access to UGS: A case study on the most populous Australian cities found that neighborhoods with a larger percentage of low income household had less UGS availability (Astell-Burt et al., 2014); Similarly, a case study in Berlin discovered that in some high density neighborhoods, in which immigrants were over-represented, there was disproportionately less UGS available (Kabisch & Haase, 2014); Another Australian study also took education into consideration and found a correlation between neighborhoods with lower educated residents and less UGS availability (Shanahan et al., 2014).  

According to Jennings et al. (2012), green space inequity can be addressed by implementing an allocation strategy for new UGS by persons per unit of space or funds per capita. Such a guideline will encourage a more even distribution of UGS across different neighborhoods, regardless of size or population density. Heynen et al. (2006) argue that privatization of urban environmental management increases and intensifies inequity in the availability of UGS and therefore public government responsibility is key for an equitable UGS distribution. Additionally, Jennings et al. (2012) emphasize the importance of participatory approaches in green space planning. Residents should be entitled to decide where to allocate and how to design UGS, rather than only being engaged in the process through simple surveys (Li et al., 2021). To achieve both government responsibility and public participation, more interdisciplinary

8 communication between scientists, planners, local government and local residents is needed (Jennings et al., 2012; Li et al., 2021).

2.1.3 Acts of omission and acts of commission 

Developing new UGS is tightly connected to socioeconomic dynamics and structures in a city. According to Anguelovski et al. (2016), plans for new green infrastructure can increase inequalities on a city level when the plans protect economically valuable areas over low-income neighborhoods (Anguelovski, 2016). This would be the case when new UGS are to a lesser degree allocated to socioeconomically vulnerable neighborhoods, compared to richer neighborhoods. Moreover, policy can use framing to present adaptation as a private rather than a public good and therefore shift responsibility to residents, or policy development does not involve affected groups in the process (Anguelovski et al., 2016). These processes are defined as acts of omission by local government, as they fail to protect vulnerable groups through inaction or negligence of certain areas and therefore increase inequities within a city. 

At the same time, when new UGS are sited in low-income neighborhoods, a process of dispossession is found (Anguelovski et al., 2016). With the introduction of infrastructure investments and protective amenities, a certain neighborhood becomes more attractive, causing local, often socioeconomically vulnerable, residents to be relocated to another neighborhood or city in a process called green gentrification (Shokry et al., 2020; Haase et al., 2017). Processes like green gentrification are categorized as acts of commission, because in these cases local government takes action, but in doing so creates new inequities (Anguelovski et al., 2016). These two concepts illustrate how inequity is embedded in UGS planning processes: on the one hand, disadvantaged neighborhoods are ignored and disregarded as UGS sites and minorities are not included in decision-making processes; on the other hand, when UGS are sited in disadvantaged neighborhoods, the local residents are relocated, as the area becomes more attractive to higher income residents and they end up in other disadvantaged neighborhoods (Anguelovski et al., 2016). These processes increase inequity with regards to UGS availability in areas that were already disadvantaged. 

2.2 Conceptual Framework

The framework in figure 1 illustrates the relationship between UGS development policy and green space equity, which is adapted from the framework in Anguelovski et al. (2016). According to their research, green space policy and UGS development can give way to two processes: acts of omission and acts of commission.Acts of omission represent processes where

9 certain groups are disadvantaged because of a lack of policy, which is illustrated with a negative relation between UGS policy and acts of omission in figure 1. In the case of green space planning, this lack of policy then leads to less UGS development, compared to other groups, thereby increasing green space inequity between groups or districts.

Acts of commission can be present if, in contrast with acts of omission, policy is applied to certain disadvantaged groups and they do receive UGS development, depicted by the positive relationships between UGS policy, acts of commission and UGS development in figure 1. However, this new green infrastructure can lead to gentrification, when the districts become more attractive to affluent residents and the original residents are forced to relocate to districts with less UGS. This way the allocation of new green infrastructure can also lead to increased green space inequity.

As mentioned before, green space policy does not necessarily have to lead to increased inequity. Through good public participation processes in planning UGS and by defining concrete norms for green space, increased green space inequity can be avoided and acts of omission and commission are prevented.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework illustrating the relationship between UGS policy and green space equity

+

+

Green Space Equity

-

-

-

+

-

10

3. Methodology

This chapter first discusses the research design of this thesis. It is followed by the operationalization, data collection and data analysis of the document analysis and spatial analysis.

3.1 Research design

This research is a case study, which means the research focuses on getting an understanding of a specific event, while simultaneously generating findings that are relevant beyond the individual case (Fidel, 1984). For this research a case study was chosen to examine the relationship between policy and equity by looking at the situation in Haarlem. Case studies are not extensively planned out, but instead are guided by findings acquired during the process (Fidel, 1984). This flexibility makes the case study particularly useful for this thesis, as this allows for a more responsive research, especially during qualitative analysis.

In order to increase the validity of the research, a mixed methods approach is employed. Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) define mixed methods as research in which data is collected and analyzed and findings are integrated using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study. The mixed methods approach used in this study follows a sequential design, meaning the qualitative data is collected first and then followed by the quantitative data (Patten & Newhart, 2017). The qualitative method used in this case study is a document analysis. This analysis is used to research the municipality’s policy, the processes in developing and establishing the policy and the effects this policy may have on an equitable distribution of green space. This is then followed by the quantitative method in the form of a spatial analysis, which is meant to reveal actual green space development in relation to socioeconomic data over the last decade.

3.2 Document Analysis

The first part of the research is mainly focused on the relationship between UGS policy and green space equity and therefore these are the two concepts used to analyse the documents. Firstly, UGS policy and planning is operationalized using four indicators: (1) planning approaches, which encompasses the purpose of a certain green space plan, (2) planning processes, regarding how a policy plan came about, (3) policy themes, that are addressed in the plan, and (4) challenges for the implementation of green space planning (Davies & Lafortezza, 2017).

11 The concept of green space equity can be analyzed by looking at access of certain groups to green space, availability of green space in certain areas and overall differentiation in policy on the basis of socioeconomic factors.

Table 1: Operationalization table for document analysis on UGS policy and planning and green space equity

Concepts Definitions Indicators Codes UGS policy and

planning (Davies

& Lafortezza, 2017; CABE, 2004; Haaland & van den Bosch, 2015)

“a strategic approach to green space planning

provides a bridge between local delivery, policy, and overarching aims and objectives which may have been set at the local level, or possibly at a higher tier of government (Davies & Lafortezza, 2017, p. 94)” Planning approaches • Connectivity • Multi-functionality • Integration • Multi-scale Planning processes • Strategic • Inter- and transdisciplinary • Participatory processes

Policy themes • Biodiversity

• Ecosystem services • Climate change adaptation • Green economy • Human health • Social cohesion Challenges • Densification • Institutional constraints • User experiences • Resident perspectives • Social inequalities • Gentrification

Green space Equity (Xu et al., 2018; Jennings et al., 2012; Anguelovski et al., 2016) “Spatial disparities of green space provision or accessibility with different social groups based on socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic or religious characteristics, migration background, age, (dis)ability, population density and other axes of difference.” (Xu et al., 2018, p. 513)

Access • Spatial distance

• Perceived Distance • Connectivity Availability • Distribution • Quantity • Quality • Fit to public needs Differentiation • Income • Education • Population density • Ethnicity • Age

12

3.2.2 Data Collection

The main data source for the document analysis are policy documents (see appendix I). The different structure plans on green space by the municipality, Green Structure plan (1991), Green structure plan 2020 (2009) and Structure vision public space (2017), form the basis for this analysis. These will give an overview of the city’s policy, ambitions and concrete green space measures. Information on the green space planning processes is provided by minutes of city council meetings, discussions with local residents and letters to the city council. To discover how the green structure plans were used in practice, I have also analyzed several district and neighborhood development plans.

The majority of these documents were retrieved online, in the policy document repository of the municipality. A scan of the first green structure plan from 1991 was retrieved through a request with the archives of the province of North-Holland, as this was not available online.

3.2.3 Data Analysis

The documents were analyzed using Atlas.ti software. In analyzing the documents axial coding was used, which is a qualitative research method used to relate data to each other and reveal themes (Bowen, 2009). This coding method was chosen, because it was For this analysis, sections and statements related to the variables from the operationalization were coded accordingly. The codes used for this analysis can be found in the codebook (Appendix II). Afterwards, the statements coded under the green space policy and planning variables, could give an insight into the greenspace policies and strategies used over the last decade. Statements related to green space equity revealed what role differentiation has played in green space policy. Furthermore, special attention was given to participatory processes, as this plays an important part in equitable green space policy.

3.3 Spatial Analysis

For the spatial analysis, the concepts of general green space equity, acts of omission and acts of commission were analyzed separately, as these have different indicators and can reveal different kinds of green space (in)equity.

General green space equity is indicated by UGS quantity and socioeconomic status of a specific district. Green space quantity is determined by the average area of green space per household or property, because this will provide a more even comparison between districts regardless of their sizes. Socioeconomic status is given by the most recent demographic data available of the

13 percentage of non-western migrant residents per district, the percentage of households that fall under the national 40% lowest incomes per district, and the percentage of households that fall under the national 20% highest incomes per district. Acts of omission are indicated by the difference in the amount of UGS between 2009 and 2020, and the socioeconomic status in 2009. The difference in UGS quantity is given by subtracting the amount of green space per household in 2009 from the amount of green space per household in 2020. Socioeconomic status has the same variables as when measuring green space equity, but uses data from 2009 instead of the most recent numbers. Acts of commission are also indicated by the difference in UGS quantity between 2009 and 2020, but here it is compared to changes in socioeconomic status. These socioeconomic status are determined through the change in percentages of non-western migrants, low-income households and high-income households, giving a percentage point difference that determines changes in the demographic composition of a district.

Table 2: Operationalization table for spatial analysis on green space equity, acts of omission and acts of commission.

Concepts Indicators Variables

Green space equity UGS coverage • m² of green space per household

Socioeconomic status • Percentage of minority

residents

• Percentage of low-income households

• Percentage of high-income households

Acts of Omission Difference in UGS quantity between 2009 and 2020

• Change in m² of green space per household between 2009 and 2020.

Socioeconomic status in 2009 • Percentage of minority residents in 2009. • Percentage of low-income households in 2009. • Percentage of high-income households in 2009 Acts of Commission

Difference in UGS quantity between 2009 and 2020

• Change in m² of green space per household between 2009 and 2020.

Difference in socioeconomic status between 2009 and 2020

• Change in percentage of minority residents between 2009 and 2020. • Change in percentage of low-income households between 2009 and 2020. • Change in percentage of high-income households between 2009 and 2020

14

3.3.2 Data collection

Data on green space quantity is retrieved from the online database of the municipality of Haarlem. The registration of public space management section has data on trees, grass areas, vegetation and other forms of green space. For this analysis only grass and vegetation data was selected, as these gave a representative image of green space in the district and were the easiest to transform to area per household variables. Differentiation between districts was made by separately selecting and downloading the grass and vegetation areas per districts, after which the data for each district was combined in one database. The online database was recently updated and only contained the most recent green space data. However, the year of installation was also included in the grass and vegetation numbers, which allowed for retrieval of the green space quantities in 2009 by excluding the green space areas installed after that year. A limitation of this method is that it only shows increases in green space and green space loss is not included, which could give an inaccurate impression of green space development over the last decade. This data collection method was chosen, instead of doing a remote sensing analysis, because the required data in the form of satellite images at an appropriate scale of Haarlem was not available.

Socioeconomic data was retrieved from the online database of the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Key figures on districts and neighborhoods contained data on income and ethnicity that was used for the spatial analysis. Because the city of Haarlem used a different district classification in 2009, for this year I used the socioeconomic data on neighborhood level and combined the numbers into the current districts. For the most current ethnicity data, I used migrant shares per district from 2020, but for income data 2018 was the most recent year.

3.3.3 Data Analysis

In order to analyze the geographic data, I have combined the green space and socioeconomic data into ArcGIS maps. The process of this GIS analysis is illustrated in the flowchart in figure 1. First, the three concepts that had to be visualized using the ArcGIS maps were defined: green space equity, acts of omission and acts of commission. Then I created a shapefile of Haarlem’s districts by only selecting the 21 districts in Haarlem from a shapefile on key numbers districts and neighborhoods 2020 of all districts in the Netherlands provided by the CBS. This shapefile already contained data on non-western migrant shares in 2020. Next, the data on low and high income households in 2018, as this was the most recent data available, as well as migrant shares and low and high income shares data from 2009, were added to this file. Lastly, green space data from 2009 and 2020 was added to the file. This resulted in a dataset containing data on

15 green space and socioeconomic data, which was then used to visualize the separate concepts in the form of maps.

To visualize green space equity, four maps were created: the area of green space per household, the percentage of non-western migrant residents, the percentage of low-income households, and the percentage of high-income households. For acts of omission maps on the change in green space area per household, percentage of low-income households in 2009, and percentage of non-western migrant residents in 2009 were created. Acts of commission used the same green space map as acts of omission and compared this to maps showing the difference in low-income and high-income household shares between 2009 and 2018.

For this analysis, the concepts were visualized using geographical maps, as this allowed for spatial comparison between districts. The visualizations make it easier to find spatial trends and clusters of districts showing the same patterns with regards to green space equity. The separate maps on green space and socioeconomic statuses allow for analysis on whether there is a correlation between the districts that score higher on green space and their respective socioeconomic status.

Start

Define concepts to be visualized

1.Green space equity 2. Acts of omission 3. Acts ofcommission

Acquire data Datasets

Quality assurance

Analysis

Create products

Distribute data End

Green space equity maps

16

3.4 Ethical considerations

This thesis complies with the ethical guidelines of the Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam. This ensures academic integrity throughout the research, consisting of the core principles of honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, independence and responsibility. Furthermore, I am aware of my own position as a Bachelor’s student of Future Planet Studies and have made a conscious effort not to be influenced by my own bias in conducting this research and interpreting its results. As the data used in this study primarily consists of secondary data that is available online, in the form of policy documents or socioeconomic and green space data, concerns on privacy and security of respondents are not applicable to this research.

17

4. Haarlem’s green space policy

This chapter discusses the results of the document analysis on Haarlem’s green space policy. The findings will provide an answer to the sub question: What is the municipality’s green space policy and how does it address UGS distribution across districts in the city?. The chapter is divided into three parts. First, some context on the city’s green space policy is provided. This is followed by a section on the green space strategies and policies used in the period between 2009 and 2020. The last section discusses how the city’s policy might have influenced green space equity.

4.1 Green space policy context

In a study published by Wageningen University in 2003, Haarlem was ranked the least green out of the thirty largest Dutch cities. The research looked at square meters of green space per property: Haarlem on average had 41 m² of green space per property, where the study considered 75 m² of green space per property as a norm. The study also found that residents in the center of Haarlem did not have good access to green space, as there was not always green space available within 500 meters of their houses (Bezemer & Visschedijk, 2003).

For some concerned residents, this study was reason to establish an initiative and call for action from the municipality. They started the initiative “Haarlem’s public green space under pressure” in an effort to put UGS higher on the political agenda, as they were alarmed by the study as well as by new development plans, where green space was not considered a priority (Gemeente Haarlem, 2009; Haarlems openbaar groen in de verdrukking, 2006). The initiative called for the municipality to (1) address Haarlem’s lowest ranking of the 30 largest cities, with regards to public green space, (2) develop a hard green standard for new development projects, (3) where possible, adjust development projects according to this green standard, (4) acknowledge the broad economic value of UGS, (5) develop concrete measures to improve the quality of public green spaces, and (6) establish a think tank for finding creative ways to tackle the problem of housing shortage and public green space (Haarlems openbaar groen in de verdrukking, 2006).

In response to these concerns, the municipality developed the “Green structure plan 2020”. This plan describes the city’s ambitions until 2020 for the conservation of green space, how much green space the municipality pursues in order to make the city livable, how and where the quality of UGS needs to be improved and how they plan to make green space more accessible (Gemeente Haarlem, 2009). Concrete measures proposed in the plan include a differentiated

18 green guideline, based on housing typology, to ensure the conservation of UGS and encourage new green space development in the different districts and neighborhoods, as well as several instruments to improve green space quality, such as public space layout manuals, green tests and neighborhood development vision (Gemeente Haarlem, 2009).

However, the green structure plan received criticism from the concerned residents the plan was supposed to cater to. The residents felt like the plan lacked ambition and was too vague with regards to concrete plans to address the quality and quantity of public green space (Gemeente Haarlem, 2010a). In a meeting on the adoption of the green structure plan in January 2010, the city council agreed with these critiques. Multiple councilors expressed that the plan gave no assurance of actual conservation of green space, or even an increase in the amount of green space and therefore did not meet the residents expectations. While some councilors still wanted to use the plan provided that the ambitions and instruments became more concrete, the majority wanted a complete re-evaluation of the plan, resulting in the following statement: “The city

council proposes to evaluate the current structure plan (vision) and to explicitly involve the residents’ initiative and proceeds with the order of the day.” (Gemeente Haarlem, 2010c, p.

49). This meant the green structure plan was not adopted and therefore not formally used by the municipality.

4.2 Urban green space policy and planning

Although the council expressed the ambition to re-evaluate the plan and provide a strategy within a short term, it was not until 2017 when a new plan was actually presented in the form of the “Structure vision public space 2040”. In this structure vision the emphasis was on making Haarlem a green and accessible city, therefore paying attention to UGS and mobility in the city (Gemeente Haarlem, 2017).

In the period between the dismissal of the green structure plan 2020 and the adoption of the new structure vision, the city’s green space policy is not very well-defined. The municipality went on to create development visions for several districts and neighborhoods, which was one of the suggestions in the green structure plan. Some of these development visions even referred to the green structure plan as if it was not rejected and was the overarching policy document in place (Gemeente Haarlem, 2015).

“In 2009 the Green Structure plan 2020 was installed. The aim of this plan is strengthening green space with ecological value, as well as green space with urban value. The green structure plan is a green elaboration on the Structure plan 2020 and replaces the Green Structure plan

19

from 1991. The plan has a differentiated green guideline, which should be useful for examining construction plans.” (Gemeente Haarlem, 2015, p. 24).

Meanwhile, other policy documents and development plans fell back on the previous green structure plan from 1991. This resulted in unclear green space policy, where some decisions in public space development were based on a structure plan that was never formally installed, some were derived from an outdated structure plan that was more than 20 years old, and others entirely ignore green space in favor of housing or other functions (Gemeente Haarlem, 2015; Gemeente Haarlem, 2018).

In a council meeting in 2018, a resident expresses her critiques of current green space policy. She remarks how the city lacks an integral green space policy to base development plans on and has no policy to address sustainability, green space management and conservation, and resident participation (Gemeente Haarlem, 2018). She concludes her argument with the following statement: “There are no norms or agreements; there simply is no general policy for

green space.” (Gemeente Haarlem, 2018, p. 4).

Overall, the city’s green space policy in the last decade can be described as confusing. The city has adopted some measures from the green structure plan from 2009, such as green space quality exams, development visions and an updated main green structure in the city. However, it has not implemented one of the most prominent measures in the plan: a differentiated green guideline for neighborhoods, which gave a target value for the amount of green space in each neighborhood.

4.3 Green space equity

The different green space policy document address green space equity to varying extents. The green structure plan from 1991 differentiates between age groups, incomes and composition of households. According to the plan, these different groups make use of green space in different ways and have different needs when it comes to the planning of UGS. Elderly make different use of public parks than younger people and low-income households are generally more dependent on public green space (Gemeente Haarlem, 1991). These insights do, however, not lead to a differentiated approach or policy based on socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, the plan does not include concrete allocation strategies based on persons or properties per unit of green space, where these could address green space inequity by encouraging a more even distribution of UGS among districts and neighborhoods, regardless of size or population density (Jennings et al., 2012).

20 In contrast with the preceding plan, the green structure plan from 2009 proposes a concrete allocation strategy in the form of a differentiated green guideline for neighborhoods. This differentiation was mainly based on housing typology: neighborhoods with green poverty and limited space within the neighborhood had a guideline of 15 m² per property; other compact neighborhoods with or without front yards had a guideline of 20 m² per property; mixed neighborhoods and villa districts had a guideline of 30 m² per property; low-traffic residential areas a guideline of 45 m²; and the city center and other protected townscapes had no guideline, with the condition that the amount of green space should not decrease (Gemeente Haarlem, 2009). This differentiation was applied because of practical reasons; in more compact neighborhoods there is less room for green space, which forced the municipality to apply customization to their policy. However, because this plan was never formally adopted, the differentiated green guideline was not used and no concrete green space distribution policy was in place.

The structure vision from 2017 primarily differentiates on a spatial level. The document recognizes three different zones in the city, each having its own challenges and focus areas. For the inner city, which historically has little green space, the amount of green space needs to be maintained and parks should be made suitable for more intensive use. The central urban area, similar to the inner city, is compact and has little green space, except for some parks at the edges of this zone and increasing population in this zone will lead to more intensive usage of these parks. Development opportunities in this zone consist of creating more room for green space and improving connections to parks outside of this zone. Lastly, the urban area already has sufficient green space and good connections to nature outside of the city and therefore no special attention to green space in this area is needed. Although the structure vision does not entail the concrete measure of a green guideline, it still proposes several key development projects in public space areas in the different zones, with protection and reinforcement of the green structure as the highest priority.

Participatory approaches have also been identified as important in providing an equitable green space distribution. Resident involvement in planning processes can lead to UGS development that is better fit to the needs of residents, as well as improve the public attitude towards green spaces and ensure a more equitable distribution of UGS (Li et al., 2021; Shan, 2012). Therefore, adequate participation processes in green space planning are an integral part of equitable green space allocation. In Haarlem, resident participation has been a central theme in green space policy over the last decade. The structure plan from 2009 was written in response to an initiative

21 by local residents, who were concerned about the state of green space in the city. The initiative “Haarlem’s public green space under pressure” was established in an effort to put UGS higher on the municipality’s agenda. The residents behind the initiative were alarmed by the report of Bezemer and Visschedijk (2003), which included the information that of the thirty largest Dutch cities Haarlem had the least amount of green space per property. Furthermore, the initiative believed green space was not considered a priority in new development plans, which resulted in decreasing amounts of green space in development areas (Gemeente Haarlem, 2009; Haarlems openbaar groen in de verdrukking, 2006).

During a city discussion in 2010 on the green structure plan, residents and members of the initiative expressed their disappointment in the proposed plan. According to them, the plan lacked ambition and was too vague with regards to concrete plans to address the quality and quantity of public green space (Gemeente Haarlem, 2010a). Instead of the hard green standard of 75 m² per property, the city proposed guidelines of 10 to 45 m² per property. And while the residents expected an instrument to increase and improve green space quantity and quality, they received a vision without any strong commitments (Gemeente Haarlem, 2010a).

A majority of city council members admitted that the municipality had failed with regards to the participatory processes. In a council meeting in January 2010, a councilwoman for the PvdA (Labor party) describes the failure of the structure plan: “The process of the plan was

unsuccessful, which is also acknowledged by the board. This is disappointing and we regret the failure of the residents’ initiative, which is something the council should take seriously. The expectations of the various parties were too different, resulting disappointment and frustration for all groups involved.” (Gemeente Haarlem, 2010b, p. 3). From the start of the initiative, the

residents’ expectations had been too high, which caused a discrepancy between the residents’ expectations and what the municipality was actually able to deliver upon, eventually resulting in disappointed residents. This could have been prevented through better communication between the municipality and the residents (Gemeente Haarlem, 2010b).

Although the rejection of the structure plan was partly based on criticism by local residents, the policy vacuum the structure plan left was not desired by the residents either. The original initiative was started because of concern over a lack of green space policy and with the rejection of the green structure plan, there was once again no up to date green space policy. While the council had expressed their ambition to re-evaluate the current plan and ensure better resident involvement going forward, it was not until 7 years later when a structure plan was actually approved (Gemeente Haarlem, 2010c; Gemeente Haarlem, 2017).

22 The failed participatory processes resulted in a lack of green space policy and the disengagement of several residents, who were previously involved in the local initiative and the general state of green space in the city. Moreover, the failed initiative and resident participation were not beneficial to green space equity, as without a clear policy and local input, neighborhoods that were previously overlooked with regards to green space allocation were likely to be overlooked once again.

4.4 Conclusion

Due to the Green structure plan 2020 being rejected in 2010, the green space policy over the last decade has been confusing. Policy partly consisted of the outdated green structure plan from 1991. Additionally, components of the rejected structure plan, such as development vision and green tests, were being used, making the city’s green space policy confusing. In 2017 a new document, the Structure vision 2040, was developed and adopted, which emphasized the importance of green space and prioritized green functions above others in public spaces. Two elements of Haarlem’s green space policy could have had negative effects on green space equity in the city. The first of which is a lack of concrete allocation strategies in the form of a norm or guideline for units of green space per person or household. Such a measure can ensure a more even distribution of green space and was absent in the policies from 1991 and 2017. In the structure plan from 2009, a green guideline was included, however, it was not used as the plan was never officially adopted. The second element of the green space policy that might have negatively influenced equitable green space development was the failed participation process. Discrepancies between the residents’ expectations and what the municipality could deliver upon resulted in disappointment and frustration with the residents and eventually led to the plan being rejected.

23

5. Green space equity in Haarlem

This chapter will contain research on green space equity in Haarlem in order to find an answer to the sub question: How has actual availability of UGS in neighborhoods with different

socioeconomic statuses changed since 2009? The research consists of three parts, based on the

three main concepts of general green space equity, acts of omission and acts of commission and the research is supported by maps on green space availability and demographic data.

5.1 Green space equity

In this research, green space equity is measured by comparing green space quantity to socioeconomic factors, in this case income and migration background, in a district. This comparison allows for determining whether there is a correlation between the amount of green space in a district and the socioeconomic status of its residents.

Figure 3A shows the green space quantities per household for each of the districts. The map depicts how districts on the eastern and south-eastern side of Haarlem have a larger amount of UGS than other parts, surpassing the recommended 75 m² of green space per household. On the west and north side of the city, districts do not meet this guideline, with green space quantities varying between 20 and 75 m² of green space per household. The lowest numbers are found in the center of Haarlem, where quantities of 4 to 20 m² of green space per household can be found. The center of the city, consisting of Oude Stad, Zijlwegkwartier, Amsterdamsewijk, Transvaalwijk and Indischewijk, therefore does not come close to meeting the recommended amount of UGS. Zijlwegkwartier is the least green district, having only 4,8 m² of green space per household.

Comparing these results to the map in figure 3D showing the percentages of non-western migrants in each district, does not give concrete evidence for green space inequity based on ethnicity. The south eastern and eastern parts of the city, where high quantities of green space per household were found, also tend to have a higher share of residents with a non-western migration background. Especially the districts Parkwijk, Boerhaavewijk, Meerwijk and Europawijk have high percentages of migrant residents, varying from 25% to 47%, while also having more available UGS than the recommended 75 m² per household. Simultaneously, four of the low scoring districts with regards to green space, also have slightly higher shares of residents with a migration background, compared to their neighboring districts.

Looking at figures 3B and 3C, depicting low and high income household percentages per district, we can see that districts in the south east part of the city also tend to have higher shares

24 of low income households and subsequently lower shares of high income households. Aside from these districts some parts of the center of Haarlem, such as Transvaalwijk and Amsterdamsewijk, also have high percentages of low income households of 46 and 48% respectively.

A. B.

C

.

Figure 3: Green space equity maps. (3A): amount of green space per household in 2020. (3B): percentage low income households in 2018. (3C): percentage high income households in 2018. (3D): percentage non-western migrants in 2020.

25 Overall, the city shows differing results when it comes to green space equity. On one hand, the south eastern part of the city, which can be regarded as most socioeconomically vulnerable having the highest shares of low income households and non-western migrants, has more than the recommended 75 m² of green space per household. This indicates that green space inequity based on income and ethnicity, as was found in multiple cities in Australia and Germany (Astell-Burt et al., 2014; Kabisch & Haase, 2014; Shanahan et al., 2014), is not applicable to this part of Haarlem. On the other hand, in some more central areas of the city, the maps also show higher percentages of low income households and non-western immigrants than their neighboring districts, while also having the least green space per household of the entire city.

These differences between parts of the city might be explained by the historical structure of Haarlem. The more central districts, such as Transvaalwijk and Amsterdamsewijk, were built around 1900, when Haarlem experienced a large population increase due to new industrial companies in the city. The new districts were working-class neighborhoods, aimed at providing residence to as many workers as possible, resulting in compact districts with little green space (Vuuren, n.d.). In contrast, the south eastern parts of the city were added in the period between 1960 and 1975, when green space had a much more prominent role in urban planning (Vuuren, n.d.). With the rise of the post-war garden city movement, planners believed in the importance of green space that was widely accessible and available, instead of confined in enclosed city parks and separate from housing areas (Feddes, 2012). This resulted in spacious districts with much green space, compared to the rest of Haarlem.

5.2 Acts of Omission

Acts of omission, in the context of UGS planning, are prevalent when more socioeconomically vulnerable, receive less new green spaces. For this research, these acts are measured by comparing the change in UGS from 2009 to 2020 with socioeconomic data on income and ethnicities from 2009. This will reveal whether districts with higher shares of low income households and non-western migrant residents received less new UGS than other districts.

26 According to figures 4B and 4C, the districts in the south east of Haarlem were the most socioeconomically vulnerable in 2009, having the largest shares of migrant and low income residents. These districts have up to 64% low income households and 42% non-western migrants. Furthermore, districts in the city center, like Oude Stad, Transvaalwijk and Amsterdamsewijk, have relatively high percentages of low income households and migrant residents.

If the city of Haarlem committed acts of omission, the south eastern districts would have received the least new UGS over the last decade, followed by the central districts. However, looking at figure 4A, which depicts how the amount of green space per household has changed between 2009 and 2020, we can see this is not the case. The two districts on the east side, Waarder- and Veerpolder and Parkwijk, have the highest increase in green space, while also having high shares of low income residents. These are followed by Molenwijk and Meerwijk in the south, which similar to the eastern districts are relatively socioeconomically vulnerable. The districts in the central area of the city that had lower amounts of green space per household in 2020 (see figure 4A) also show smaller changes in green space over the last 10 years. As these districts are more socioeconomically vulnerable than some neighboring districts this could point to acts of omission in these areas.

Similarly to green space equity, the discrepancy between these results and previous studies on acts of omission, is explained by the historical structure of the city. The post-war districts in the

A. B. C.

Figure 4: Acts of omission maps. (4A): green space difference per household between 2009 and 2020. (4B): percentage low income households in 2009. (4C): percentage non-western migrants in 2009.

27 south eastern part of the city were more spacious and therefore provided more opportunities for green space development (Vuuren, n.d.). As a result, acts of omission are only found in the central districts, where space is limited.

5.3 Acts of Commission

Acts of Commission occur when green space inequity is increased through policy implementation, most notably in the form of green gentrification. This phenomenon refers to relocation of socioeconomically vulnerable residents as a result of new green infrastructure. Green gentrification is measured by looking at UGS differences over the last 10 years and comparing this to socioeconomical changes in low income and migrant percentages.

Differences in green space per household are retrieved from figure 5A, which shows Waarder- and Veerpolder, Parkwijk and Te Zaanenkwartier having the highest increase in green space over the last decade. This coincides with these districts having the highest decrease in share of low income households (figure 5B) as well as the highest increase in high income households (figure 5C). This strongly points to these three districts getting more attractive because of the increase in green space. As a result, the housing prizes and rents increased, causing low income households to move to other districts or cities and higher income residents move in.

Once again the districts in the south east behave differently to the rest of Haarlem. In these districts the increase in green space was amongst the highest in the city, while figure 5B shows

A. B. C.

Figure 5: Acts of commission maps. (5A): green space difference per household between 2009 and 2020. (5B): percentage low income household difference between 2009 and 2018. (5C): percentage high income household difference between 2009 and 2018.

28 that, in contrast to the districts mentioned above, these districts increased in low income shares. This deviation can be explained by the high shares of social housing in these districts. Meerwijk, for instance, is one of the districts in the southeast with an increasing share of low income households in combination with a relatively large increase in UGS. The district shows an effect contrary to green gentrification, which might be due to the fact that 76% of houses fall under social housing in Meerwijk (Gemeente Haarlem, 2020). Social housing removes housing from the private market, making it less prone to rising rent and housing prizes as a result of increased attractiveness in the neighborhood (Ley & Dobson, 2008). Therefore large shares of social housing in districts leads to less displacement of socioeconomically vulnerable residents and decreases the green gentrification effect.

5.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, the central districts of Haarlem show signs of green space inequity, having large shares of non-western migrant residents and low income households in combination with smaller amounts of green space per household than other districts. Acts of omission can also be found in these districts, as they were more socioeconomically vulnerable than their surrounding districts and consequently received less new UGS over the last decade. In two districts on the east side of Haarlem acts of commission were prevalent, where an increase in green space has led to gentrification.

The south east part of the city forms an exception to these patterns found in other districts. This part of town is the most socioeconomically vulnerable, however, it also has the highest quantity of green space per household. Furthermore, while having among the highest increases in UGS quantity, these districts show no signs of gentrification. These deviations can be explained by the fact that these districts were added in a post-war period, when planners paid more attention to quality of life, resulting in spacious districts with much green space. Moreover, the districts predominantly consist of social housing, making it less susceptible to gentrification.

29

6. Discussion

In this chapter, the limitations of the research are discussed. This is followed by a section on how the results relate back to the conceptual framework.

The limitations of this research include time constraints and limitations in resources and data available. This bachelor project was conducted within a limited timeframe of three months: from March 1st _{to May 28}th _{2021. A larger timeframe would have allowed for a more extensive}

analysis, by, for example, expanding upon the document analysis through interviews with policymakers and local residents. For the spatial analysis, some required data was not available, which led to income data from 2018 instead of 2020 being used. Furthermore, the data on changes in UGS only takes into account increases in green space. A remote sensing analysis, using satellite images from 2009 and 2020, might have given a more accurate image of the UGS development, as this also considers decreases in green space.

The results from the spatial analysis seem to differ from the conceptual framework in chapter 2. According to the theory, the lack of clear green space policy over the last decade should have led to acts of omission being most clearly noticeable in Haarlem. However, these acts are only to a small degree found in the most central districts of the city. Furthermore, the most socioeconomically vulnerable districts of Haarlem have some of the highest amounts of UGS and the most newly added UGS in the city. This is explained by the historical structure of this part of the city. While the central districts were primarily built compactly, in designing these south eastern districts more attention was given to public space and quality of life, resulting in spacious neighborhoods with a lot of room for green space (Vuuren, n.d.; Feddes, 2012). These south eastern districts also have less green gentrification, due to large shares of social housing in the districts, resulting in increases of green space having less effect on housing prizes.

The findings in the south eastern part of town, seem to indicate that these districts do not show the same green space equity patterns as other studies in North American and Australian studies. However, the findings could be representative of districts in other Dutch cities, especially the ones developed during the same period, such as the garden cities in Amsterdam. Further research could indicate whether these results are also prevalent in other cities in the Netherlands.

30

7. Conclusion

This study focused on the relationship between green space policy and green space equity in the city of Haarlem, the Netherlands. The results show how Haarlem, after being ranked the least green Dutch city in 2003, had great ambition with regards to green space policy and development. However, after a failed participation process and a rejected green structure plan, the city’s green space policy became confusing and outdated.

The failed participation process, caused by a discrepancy between the residents’ expectations and what the municipality could actually deliver upon, might have had a negative effect on green space equity. This resulted in residents being disappointed and less involved, which could lead to the neighborhoods and residents that were previously overlooked by green space policy, to be overlooked once again. Furthermore, the city’s policy shows a lack of concrete green space norms on neighborhood or district level, while these could help in providing a more even distribution of green space, regardless of a district’s size, population density or socioeconomic status.

The spatial analysis on green space quantities and socioeconomic data per district show the actual green space equity patterns in the city from 2009 to 2020. These results point to greenspace inequity in the most central districts, which have the least green space in combination with being more socioeconomically vulnerable than surrounding districts. Moreover, less new green infrastructure was allocated to these central districts in comparison to other districts, indicating acts of omission in this part of the city. Additionally, the districts that have received the most new green space, also tend to be the most gentrifying.

Going forward, the municipality should ensure that participatory processes are an integral part of green space policy development. Improved communication between local residents and the municipality can resolve discrepancies between the residents’ expectations and the city’s aims. Furthermore, concrete instruments and measures, such as a green space guideline, could help in creating a green space objective for different neighborhoods. This will allow the municipality to better address green space equity in the future.

31

References

Albers, R. A. W., Bosch, P. R., Blocken, B., Van Den Dobbelsteen, A. A. J. F., Van Hove, L. W. A., Spit, T. J. M., ... & Rovers, V. (2015). Overview of challenges and achievements in the climate adaptation of cities and in the Climate Proof Cities program.

Anguelovski, I. (2016). From toxic sites to parks as (green) LULUs? New challenges of inequity, privilege, gentrification, and exclusion for urban environmental justice. Journal of Planning Literature, 31(1), 23-36.

Anguelovski, I., Shi, L., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., Goh, K., Lamb, Z., ... & Teicher, H. (2016). Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from the global north and south. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(3), 333-348. 

Astell-Burt, T., Feng, X., Mavoa, S., Badland, H. M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1-11.

Bernatzky, A. (1983). The effects of trees on the urban climate. Trees in the 21st Century.

Academic Publishers, Berkhamster, 59-76.

Bezemer, V., & Visschedijk, P. A. M. (2003). Groene meters deel II : analyse van het stedelijk

groen in de G30 steden. (Alterra-rapport; No. 833). Alterra. https://edepot.wur.nl/120555

Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological economics, 29(2), 293-301.

Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, 99(4), 767-787.

Boulton, C., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., & Byrne, J. (2018). Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: A systematic review of the literature. Landscape and urban planning, 178, 82-101. 

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research

journal.

Coppel, G., & Wüstemann, H. (2017). The impact of urban green space on health in Berlin, Germany: Empirical findings and implications for urban planning. Landscape and Urban

32 Davies, C., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy compliant?. Land use policy, 69, 93-101.

Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and

urban planning, 109(1), 7-17.

Feddes, Y. (2012). Het groene kapitaal van tuinsteden. Agora-Utrecht, 28(2), 14.

Fidel, R. (1984). The case study method: a case study. Library and Information Science

Research, 6(3), 273-288.

Gemeente Haarlem. (2009, juni). Groenstructuurplan 2020.

http://degroenestad.wis-studio5.wis.nl/Media/download/2400/GSP_2020_Haarlem.pdf

Gemeente Haarlem. (2010a, January). Verslag van het stadsgesprek Groenstructuurplan

(GSP). https://gemeentebestuur.haarlem.nl/bestuurlijke-stukken/2010018173-Verslag-Stadsgesprek-Groenstructuurplan-d-d-7-januari-2010-1.pdf

Gemeente Haarlem. (2010b, January). Verslag gecombineerde vergadering commissies Beheer en Ontwikkeling. https://gemeentebestuur.haarlem.nl/Vergaderingen/Commissie-beheer/2010/14-januari/20:00/2010-305.pdf

Gemeente Haarlem. (2010c, January). Raadsverslag 28 January 2010.

https://gemeentebestuur.haarlem.nl/Vergaderingen/Raad/2010/28-januari/20:00/2010-59.pdf Gemeente Haarlem. (2010d, February). Inspraaknotitie groenstructuurplan. https://gemeentebestuur.haarlem.nl/bestuurlijke-stukken/2010018187-Aanvulling-op-de-inspraaknotitie-Vaststelling-Groenstructuurplan.pdf

Gemeente Haarlem. (2015, December). Bestemmingsplan De Entree Oost.

https://gemeentebestuur.haarlem.nl/bestuurlijke-stukken/2015457478-3-Bijlage-A-De-Entree-Oost-toelichting-2.pdf

Gemeente Haarlem. (2017, December). Structuurvisie openbare ruimte 2040. https://gemeentebestuur.haarlem.nl/bestuurlijke-stukken/2017081633-3-Bijlage-Haarlem-2040-Groen-en-bereikbaar.pdf