Greening in relation to an improving environment

Lisa de Groot, Emil Dutour Geerling, Joeri Pieterson & Meik Verdonk Interdisciplinary Project 2017-2018

Docent: J. Rothuizen Universiteit van Amsterdam

Greening in relation to an improving environment

A case study of de Pijp, Amsterdam

Abstract

A green urban environment is linked with psychological benefits and is advantageous for urban ecosystems. Since the number of inhabitants in the major cities of the Netherlands is increasing, urban greening is becoming an important topic. To understand and to develop green urban area further, the processes and trends influencing urban greening must be known. This study focuses on urban greening influenced by gentrification in De Pijp, Amsterdam. The degree of urban greening will be measured concerning top down policy and bottom up initiatives.

1. Introduction

4

2. Theoretical Framework

5

2.1 Urban ecology and the influences of socioeconomic factors 5

2.2 Reconciliation ecology, bottom up and top down 6

2.3 Urban and environmental justice 6

2.4 Gentrification 7

2.5 Urban greening 8

2.6 Intensification by business 9

3. Research Design

10

3.1 Research problem and complexity 10

3.2 Interdisciplinary approach 11

3.3 Selected method and data 11

4. Results

13

4.1 Bottom-up Results 13

4.1.1 Interviews 13

4.1.2 Quantitative bottom-up results 16

4.2 Top-Down Results 19

4.2.1 Interviews 19

4.2.2 Planting of trees in De Pijp 21

5. Discussion

22

References

26

Appendixes

28

Questions for businesses in De Pijp 28

Questions for business consultant De Pijp 29

Appendix B 30

Interview Questions residents de Pijp for bottom-up initiatives 30

Appendix C 31

Interview questions with municipality personnel 31

1.Introduction

De Pijp is a neighbourhood of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was an old, densely-populated, working class neighbourhood, until 1990 when it became the embodiment of gentrification in Amsterdam and one of the most desirable residential neighbourhoods. Gentrification is defined as the upgrading of the social, cultural and economic status of the neighbourhood (Glass, 1964), which is very visible in De Pijp. On every corner of De Pijp a café or pop-up store is located, the streets are green and lively, the apartments are expensive. Gentrification brings both advantages and disadvantages to the neighbourhood which often causes the old inhabitants being replaced by the richer upper-middle class, with the exception of a few social housing units (Boer, 2005).

One of the factors influencing gentrification in a neighbourhood is how residents experience there immediate surroundings, which is largely affected by

the amount of green present (McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010; Jennings, Johnson Gaither & Gragg, 2012). These green services are not always equally distributed in a city and there even have been indications that this distribution is dependent on the socioeconomic status of a neighbourhood (McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010; Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Jennings, Johnson Gaither & Gragg, 2012). To see whether and how this may also have been happening in De Pijp, an analysis of the relationship between gentrification and the amount of green will be done in the research. To get a clear understanding of the issue, a distinction of bottom-up initiatives from the residents and top-down policies from the municipality is made.

Hence, to make a complete depiction of the problem it is necessary to understand underlying influences that could have an impact on the development of green areas. Gentrification is the main process at play here, however there are some other variables that are stimulated by gentrification and also have an impact on urban greening, making it an interdisciplinary study: urban and environmental (in)justice, urban ecology and intensification by business in De Pijp are all factors that could have impact on urban greening (Niemelä, 1999a & 1999b; McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010). Knowledge about the development of urban greening in De Pijp could guide further improvements in urban green spaces in other parts of Amsterdam. De Pijp is one of the first neighbourhoods in Amsterdam affected by gentrification, which makes this neighbourhood the most logical choice to study.

The aim of this study is to provide an answer to the question “What is the relation between gentrification and urban greening of the neighbourhood De Pijp in Amsterdam since 1990?”. First a theoretical framework including theories of all disciplines at stake has been formulated. This helps to comprehend the underlying trends, forces and principles. Theories concerning human geography,

ecology and business are being used to gain a comprehensive view about this relationship. From insights derived from the theoretical framework questions are formulated, which will act as a guide in semi-structured interviews with local residents, shop managers, local district centre and employees from the municipality. There are two key variables in this research, namely the bottom-up initiatives from residents of the neighbourhood and top-down policies from the municipality of Amsterdam concerning urban greening in de Pijp. Therefore, to formulate an answer to the main research question it is important to understand the processes of, and the level of cooperation between bottom-up initiatives and top-down policies. This led to the following sub-questions: 1. What is the influence of bottom-up initiatives on the process of urban greening in de Pijp since 1990? 2. What is the influence of top-down policies on urban greening in de Pijp since 1990? The answers of these two sub questions are the foundation on which the answer to the main research question is built on.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Urban ecology and the influences of socioeconomic factors

The process of urbanization has been going on for over 200 years. Nevertheless, increasing urban area has a downside; more urban area means less (semi) natural and cultural landscapes (Niemelä 1999b). As a result, ecosystem services and goods will decrease and existing ecosystems are being replaced with new urban ecosystems. These new urban ecosystems need a different ecological approach than the ecosystems they replaced; urban ecosystems are more fragmented and isolated, more vulnerable for invasion and under constant urban pressure (Niemelä 1999a & 1999b). Urban ecosystems are dynamical and completely influenced and formed by humans. Habitats and niches are constantly alternating, resulting in extinction, colonization and the invasion of alien species. For a long time urban ecology has been inferior to rural ecology; ecologists tends to be more interested in ecosystems little or not affected by humans. Ecosystems formed by urbanization receive increasing recognition, but there is not yet a comprehensive theory. In general, existing theories are applied when researching urban ecosystems.

With a growing urban population it is important to know what effect urbanization has on ecosystem development. Demography is influencing the structure of a city. The age, incomes and diversity of a human population have to be taken into account when defining ‘urban’. These aspects have major effects on the prefered layout of public areas and even more effect on the content of gardens and private areas (McIntyre, Knowles-Yanez & Hope 2008). Socioeconomic drivers such as gentrification and human geographical drivers such as urban greening should be included as well:

top-down policies of the municipality such as planting trees and adjusting the green infrastructure of the city and bottom-up initiatives such as placing flower pots and street gardens have major influences on the distribution of flora and fauna, biodiversity and ecosystems in an urban area.

2.2 Reconciliation ecology, bottom up and top down

Since humans affected most areas on earth, nearly all flora and fauna species will be influenced by human disturbance. Normal (conservation) biology focuses on preserving areas not in use by humans (nature reserves); reconciliation ecology focuses on placing different species in an urban ecosystem in a way beneficial for both human and non-human species, thus expanding natural area within urban area. Existing wall facades and normal roofs, for example, can easily replaced by green roofs and walls without changing a city's infrastructure and layout, although these are mostly bottom up initiatives and depend on the willingness of the neighbourhood to change and to invest. Therefore socioeconomic barriers and existing infrastructure play a major part in reconciliation ecology, not only the amount of money citizens can invest (bottom up) but the suitability of the neighbourhoods’ infrastructure for green structures as well (top down). As explained, urban ecology is not a monodisciplinary field of study; to completely understand ecosystems in urban areas an interdisciplinary approach is needed. Human ecosystems, human interactions and drivers such as gentrification cannot be ignored when researching and improving urban ecosystems.

2.3 Urban and environmental justice

Because of large socioeconomic differences across neighbourhoods in most cities, the layout of public areas are different. These differences include higher prioritisation of renovation and updating of the neighbourhoods with residents of a higher socioeconomic class, but also more attention and money being invested in green areas in these neighbourhoods. This is often viewed as unequal treatment by the local government and has been named environmental injustice (Schlosberg, 2007). The concept of environmental justice was initially brought forward in the United States in 1968 by the environmental justice movement. This movement consisted of a group marginalized citizens that addressed inequality of environmental protection within their communities. Over the years, the term environmental (in)justice has developed into a widely used term to address inequalities within environmental policies on all scales (Schlosberg, 2007). Taylor (2000) takes it a step further and states that the environmental justice movement has developed an environmental justice paradigm which uses an injustice frame to effectively reform the environmental discourse. It has accomplished so by building a master frame which links the term environment, labor and justice. With these three terms

combined, Taylor (2000) argues that the environmental justice movement could reach a significant broader public.

Still, most discussions about environmental justice focus on maldistribution: the marginalized communities consisting of predominantly minorities have less access to environmental goods, more environmental bads, and less environmental protection (Schlosberg, 2004). However, Schlosberg (2004) argues that environmental justice goes beyond solely the maldistribution of environmental ills and benefits and is actually a threefold: the equal distribution of environmental risks, the recognition of the diversity within groups and needs and participation in the political processes concerning environmental issues.

Building forward on the broadness of the justice theme, Gelobter (1994) expresses the importance of the differences between urban and environmental justice. He argues that the city faces considerably different environmental injustice issues and therefore needs to be studied as a separate entity. He distinguishes three different types of urban environmental justice issues: health-related environmental issues, space-based problems and structural economic environmental injustice. These three categories are all interlinked and cannot be separated from each other in reality, yet they form a framework to visualize the different components of urban environmental justice. The health-related issues can be traced back to socioeconomic differences between neighbourhoods in the same city. Gelobter (1994) shows that there is a strong connection between health issues and low income, colored neighbourhoods. These marginalized groups experience considerably more environmental ills in comparison to their white and rich counterparts living in better, greener neighbourhoods. This leaves the marginalized, lower income, colored communities within significantly unhealthier neighbourhoods with less green space. Besides, Gelobter (1994) points out the structural economic environmental injustice in urban environments. These are the economic structures within cities that continually drive environmental injustices. These structures consist of policies and certain economic discourses that are drivers for structural injustices.

2.4 Gentrification

One of these drivers (see above paragraph) is the phenomenon of gentrification. The theory of gentrification was defined by Ruth Glass in 1964 and has been used extensively ever since. The terms urban renewal or urban revival are often used synonymously in literature. In scientific literature, gentrification is defined as a change in the composition of socioeconomic status of the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, for which new tenants tend to feature a higher socioeconomic status compared to the original residents of a neighbourhood (Glass, 1964).

There are two important elements characterizing the process of gentrification: upgrading of the urban area; and displacement of residents of lower socioeconomic classes. Several important aspects of urban upgrading are the renovation of existing buildings, the construction of new housing and, critical for this research, the investment in neighbourhood facilities, such as urban greening and playgrounds (Clark, 2016). Displacement of residents of lower socioeconomic classes is a passive process, which is caused by the disappearance of affordable housing (Glass, 1964; Coenen, 2014). The upgrading of an urban area induces the rental prices to rise and become too expensive for the original tenants, which obligates them to move to another, less expensive neighbourhood. Another aspect that generates this displacement is the disappearance of rental possibilities, through the change from rental houses to apartments being sold for prices the original tenants are unable to afford. Lastly, a possible, but debatable cause for the displacement is the change of a neighbourhood’s character that moves original tenants out, since they might not feel comfortable anymore with for instance the new people, facilities or esthetics (Coenen, 2014).

2.5 Urban greening

As stated above, the upgrading of the urban area is seen as a main driver for the process of

gentrification (Clark, 2016). An important component of the upgrading process is the greening of that particular neighbourhood. City planners and citizen initiatives are the drivers behind environmental gentrification. Environmental gentrification occurs when the increase in these green spaces is at the core of the gentrification process. Environmental gentrification describes the merging of city

redevelopment and environmental justice in a vastly changing urban environment (Checker, 2011). According to Checker (2011) environmental gentrification occurs under an a-political rubric that uses the environmental justice paradigm to raise the socioeconomic status of a neighbourhood. The foreseen upgrade of the neighbourhood in the form of the removal of environmental burdens and the installation of environmental benefits, creates a playground for affluent residents. What seems as a politically neutral way of planning is in reality a way for city planners to gentrify neighbourhoods and attract wealthy residents. This development of environmental gentrification is seen as the ‘urban greening paradox’: the creation of green spaces to counter environmental injustices leads to a healthier neighbourhood and drives up the housing value. Ultimately this can lead to the displacement of the lower income residents to which the initial green spaces were directed.

However, Curran & Hamilton (2012) argue that environmental gentrification is not inevitable and they advocate for a ‘just green enough’ strategy in order to achieve environmental remediation without necessarily promoting gentrification. This strategy focuses on urban sustainability planning

that promotes diversity democracy. This builds forward on the environmental justice of Schlosberg (2004), for the reason that it goes beyond the maldistribution of environmental goods and states that environmental justice also concerns the voice and the recognition of the marginalized groups.

2.6 Intensification by business

The business approach also has significance when it comes to the gentrification and the environmental injustice it creates (Byrne et al., 2009; McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010) (Dai, 2011; Jennings et al., 2012). Indirectly businesses have an impact through links that magnify the gentrification process . The upper-middle social class, living in gentrified neighbourhoods, tends to be more likely to be interested concepts like sustainability. This is called the endogenous determination of time preference and depends on the level of education; the higher the level of education the more people tend to care about concepts that develop importance over time, like sustainability and green business (Becker & Mulligan, 1997). Accordingly, a high concentration of people from this social class living in a neighbourhood might attract green businesses . These businesses, with a relative high regard for environmental issues reflecting the perception of the local residents, may also care about urban green areas and their ecology, creating more awareness for the layout of the neighbourhood.

Moreover, green businesses may come to play an increasingly important role in the business environment climate since a sustainable way of doing business is a progressively hot topic (Heinkel, Kraus & Zechner, 2001). Therefore, many businesses have some way to respond to this (Aragón-Correa & Rubio-Lopez, 2007) (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). Larger corporations have entire sustainability programs to augment their corporate social responsibility (CSR) and little businesses often collaborate with third parties that may use their waste products. In this way, communication of green awareness exists throughout all layers of the business environment. Because businesses in a neighbourhood respond to the wishes of nearby potential customers through maintaining a green appearance, an already gentrified neighbourhood attracts even more like-minded people from the same social class (Grossmann & Haase 2016). This creates a positive feedback loop of green awareness of local residents and businesses and, thus, possibly the increase of urban green areas. However, some businesses, mostly non-local firms and chains, might not actually care about the neighbourhood, but do try to uphold their green appearance. This phenomenon, frequently seen in multinationals, is called greenwashing, which means that a business only acts if they care about their environment and the people in it (Laufer, 2003). Through extensive PR-campaigns, for example, an image is created that this business is a do-gooder, while actually this is just a charade. Within the context of neighbourhoods this exists, of course, on a much smaller

scale. Nonetheless, it could be relatively substantial and therefore have an effect on the overall impact business has on the greening of a neighbourhood.

3. Research Design

3.1 Research problem

and complexity

A problem can be complex if it consists of elements interacting in various ways with each other. Interdisciplinary research is always complex, consisting of more than one discipline interacting and merging with other disciplines to understand a certain topic. A single disciplinary approach would not be sufficient. The complexity of the research question of this report lies in the direction in which urban greening and gentrification are related to each other and how the different disciplines influence the problem. The truthfulness of environmental gentrification has been proven in many studies (Banzhaf, H. S., & McCormick, E. ,2006; Dooling, S. ,2009), yet the direction is still questionable in different cases. Has the gentrification process initiated the increase of green urban space in the Pijp, or is it the other way around, and has the Pijp gentrified due to an increase of green urban space. As an

addition to the complexity of

this problem, there is the difference between bottom-up initiatives and top-down policies concerning urban greening. When the gentrification has been set in motion by government initiatives, there is a greater social debate as when the residents themselves initialized the gentrification process within their neighbourhood. Gentrification

and urban greening are elements of the research question found in all disciplines, but approached to differently depending on the field of study. In order to investigate this complex relation, it is necessary to make use of an interdisciplinary approach, since it covers theories that go beyond the borders of certain disciplines.

3.2 Interdisciplinary approach

The main concept of this study is gentrification. Thus, every studied concept is linked to gentrification, but each discipline approached gentrification from their own separate set of concepts. Since three separate disciplines lie at the basis of this study, the starting points of research needed some redefining. Hence, to create common ground from which this research could be carried out, different integration tactics have been applied. First the tactic of extension was used to expand the meaning of several concepts so that they overlapped. From the biology discipline the concept of

11

Figure 1, research problem and complexity

reconciliation biology was linked to the concept of urban greening, which was defined through the human geography discipline. Urban greening was then linked with the concept of CSR which was defined through the business discipline. At the centre of the extension of these three concepts is the definition of urban greening, since this is also at the core of this research. Furthermore, the tactic of organisation was applied to get a good overview of all the relevant concepts. After the extension of the concepts it was possible to derive the commonality of the concepts depicted above in the Venn diagram. They were organised in such a way that the causal links between them became clear, so that they could be applied for the whole study.

3.3 Selected method and data

To answer the research questions asked in this research, qualitative research methods are used with an inductive research perspective, as well as analysing quantitative data obtained by fieldwork. Primary data through the interpretation of observations and the data gathered are the cornerstones of the report, from which ultimately conclusions concerning the outcomes of the relationship between gentrification and urban greening in the neighbourhood De Pijp have been formulated.

The data collection proceeded through qualitative interviews in the form of unstructured interviews with inhabitants of De Pijp

that have been living in the neighbourhood at least since 1990, as well as semi-structured interviews with two employees of the department of De Pijp of the municipality of Amsterdam (Esther Blommestijn & Stephan Sliepenbeek) to gain an insight in the top-down policy changes the neighbourhood has been experiencing since 1990. Lastly, two employees of

Wijkcentrum De Pijp have been interviewed, since these respondents form an important shackle in the relation between bottom-up initiatives and top-down policies, because they stand close to the neighbours, as well as to the municipality. If possible and allowed by the interviewee, the interviews have been recorded to be transcribed later on.

The unstructured interviews provided data to analyse changes in bottom-up initiatives on urban greening provided by inhabitants of De Pijp throughout the undergoing process of gentrification the neighbourhood experienced. These respondents have been found through the

Figure 3, map of de Pijp and Frans Hals District, Google Maps 11-12-2017

process of snowball sampling, which makes use of the social circle of certain inhabitants of the neighbourhood to find suitable respondents. In this case it is important to find a significant amount of respondents in order to falsify their statements, since their perceptions about the greening of the neighbourhood may vary considerably depending on different factors like interests and path dependency.

Secondary data sources on gentrification in De Pijp have been used to strengthen the discussion on top-down policies in De Pijp in order to answer the subquestions and contribute to the central research question of the report.

Top down data is released by the municipality of Amsterdam. Tree records can be found at their database, containing over 270.000 trees and their genus and planting year. These trees are mostly planted by the municipality of Amsterdam, which makes the data suitable to calculate the biodiversity accomplished by top down initiatives. The bottom up data of urban greening contains counting flowerpots and wall gardens, placed by inhabitants. De Pijp is a small neighbourhood, containing 15 streets on an area of 68 ha, what makes it possible to collect data of the entire neighbourhood.

To explore the business side of this subject secondary data has been studied, from which the insights will be the foundation for qualitative research among small businesses in De Pijp and a municipal business consultant. For this primary study three small businesses that have operated in De Pijp for at least the last decade have been chosen to be interviewed about their experience and own contribution regarding to the greening of the neighbourhood.

4. Results

In the following section both the qualitative and quantitative results will be presented. The structure of this section is based on the bottom-up and top-down data that have been gathered. The underlying consideration behind this arrangement is to clearly demonstrate the differences between resident initiatives and policies by the municipality. First, the qualitative bottom-up results will be presented followed by the quantitative bottom-up outcomes. Subsequently, the qualitative top-down data and the quantitative top-down data are depicted. From these sections it becomes possible to make statements concerning the relation between urban greening and gentrification

4.1 Bottom-up Results

Before the process of gentrification started in de Pijp, the composition of the residents in the neighbourhood consisted mainly of people with a relative low socioeconomic status. Derived from the interviews with the local district centre and (former) residents it became clear that, before gentrification, de Pijp was a run down neighbourhood that lacked a substantial amount of urban green (Image 1) From the early 90’s these residents started facilitating urban green themselves in the form of flower pots and by (illegally) installing street gardens.

“Former residents illegally started greening de Pijp to improve the street scene” (Anna, Wijkcentrum de Pijp)

A couple of years after these street gardens were installed, the municipality of Amsterdam recognized the positive effects of the, before then, illegal increase of bottom-up urban greening and decided to provide a legal framework for the provision of street gardens for its residents. These positive effects entailed the improvement of the street scene and the stronger neighbourhood connections the urban green enabled. In the following years, the increase of street gardens and flower pots in de Pijp remained and paved the way for the contemporary street scene regarding urban green (Image 2). Next to the increase of urban greening in de Pijp, the process of gentrification originated in the same period and ran linear to it. As a result of this process de Pijp started attracting different residents, which changed the neighbourhood composition from a low socioeconomic to a high socioeconomic one. The composition of the contemporary residents in de Pijp is not of a uniform nature and can therefore not easily describe the way they provide urban green on the streets. According to the observers from the local district centre in de Pijp there are many factors that play a role in whether a resident is active in providing and maintaining urban green within their street. However, two main overlapping factors seem most important: the level of neighbourhood affinity and the level of environmental awareness. Especially the former one seems to play the most important role for the choice of the resident to provide urban green.

“There is a strong division in terms of neighbourhood affinity within the contemporary residents of de Pijp. For example, expats only live in de Pijp for a short amount of time resulting in a low neighbourhood affinity, whereas yup’s who start businesses in the neighbourhood show a lot more care for it.” (Lillian, Wijkcentrum de Pijp)

Moreover, another factor in relation with the providence of urban green that was being mentioned consistently, was the change in the way urban green is being experienced. Formerly, the urban green

had an esthetic purpose and was there to improve the street scene. Nowadays, the purpose of the urban green goes further and is being actively experienced.

“Young residents show care about the environment and use the green neighbourhood facilities in a new way.” (Esther Blommestijn, Stadsdeel Zuid)

Not only the residents provide and experience urban green differently than before. To see what the role of the business sector is, three local businesses in De Pijp and a business consultant of the municipality have been interviewed. The businesses will be referred to as R1, R2 & R3 and the business consultant will be referred to as R4, or collectively they will be referred to as respondents. From R1, R2 & R3 local experiences and point of views were obtained while R4 provides a more overall idea of the role the business sector plays in the relation between gentrification and urban greening in De Pijp.

Principally, what businesses need to do is tempt as many potential customers as possible to buy their products or services. One way to do this is through making your store front attractive. Thus, it was not surprising that R1, R2 & R3 all replied that they made an effort to make the front of their store appealing to their customers by making it more green. However, they also all replied that they did not think that the amount of green in De Pijp was significantly influenced by businesses. For example, R3 said:

“I think that the amount of planters businesses put outside to attract customers is negligible compared the trees and parks that are planted by the municipality. This is way more, so businesses do not really play a big role.”

15

Image 1 & 2: Tweede Jan Steenstraat 1982 (Stadsarchief amsterdam 09/12/17) and Tweede Jan Steenstraat 2016 (Google maps, 10/12/17)

Apparently, businesses do not see themselves as having much direct impact. However, the respondents do see a connection between the presence of green services and gentrification. R1, R2 & R3 all saw this relation as being a rather direct one. R2 said:

“The more green there is in a neighbourhood the more attractive it will be for potential residents. If you are looking for a new home you would like to see a park for your kids to play and not a parking lot”.

Similarly, when you ask them about their role in the gentrification process they reply that there definitely is a connection. The respondents recognize the position they have in the neighbourhood and the part they play when it comes to the changing of De Pijp as influential. From the reply of R1 it was clear that he views the business sector as a result of, but also as a cause of gentrification. R1 replied:

“The gentrification of De Pijp has been going on for a long time now and I have experienced this from close by. I have seen the type of businesses change from locally owned standard shops like bakeries and greengrocers to coffeeshops and burger joints. I too had to change the menu so that my new customers would like it, but the new type of businesses just appeared because of the new residents”. What seems clear from this reply is that R1 finds that the new highly specialized businesses appear because of gentrification, but he himself also altered his range of products to cater to the new gentrified neighbourhood. Thus, existing businesses disappear or change because of the new wishes and demands of their customers, thereby further intensifying the gentrification process just like the new types of businesses do. This is also corroborated by R4 who admits to being much more willing to accept a new trendy shop than a more “normal” kind of business. Although, according to R4 there exists no municipal policy concerning the relation between gentrification and the business sector. When asked about whether the bottom-up initiatives of the renewing business sector also play a part in the greening of the neighbourhood and, thus, in the gentrification process, the respondents reply that they do not see any significance of their own actions compared to the top-down initiatives of the municipality. Thus, it is found that the business sector has no significant role when it comes to the relation between gentrification and the greening of De Pijp. Something all respondents agreed on though, was the increase of green areas they witnessed in De Pijp. Not all respondents had been active in De Pijp for three decades, but the ones that were not also saw an increase in the shorter time period they had been active.

4.1.2 Quantitative bottom-up results

As stated in the methodology, for this research all the flower pots and street gardens were counted in terms of quantity and the amount of species available per street garden. The results of this research are shown in figure 4, 5 and 6. Besides these figures, the municipality website of Amsterdam provided a figure with the average Tax (WOZ) values per m2 in the Pijp (figure 7). By assessing these maps, it becomes possible to find connections between the amount of green and value of houses in the neighbourhood. First the amount of flower pots per 100 meters is being compared to the housing values, then the number of street gardens investigated followed by the average species richness per street garden.

By comparing the amount of flower pots and the housing values per m2 it becomes clear that there are almost no significant differences between the distribution of housing values within the neighbourhood. The overall picture shows that all streets in the Pijp are above the average value per m2. There are, however, two parts of the neighbourhood that show some different tendencies. Firstly, the Frans Hals district in the upper left corner of the Pijp shows considerably higher housing values per square meter when comparing it to the other districts. In this particular district, the amount of flower pots per 100m is significantly stands out of all districts. Secondly, the Hercules Seghers district straight beneath the Frans Hals district also shows a different trend. On average of the neighbourhood, this district shows the lowest average housing values. This is, however, not the case for the amount of flower pots per 100m which stays within the average of the neighbourhood. Taken as a whole, the data concerning the tax values per m2 and the amount of flower pots per 100 meters does not give sufficient dissimilarities to make statements concerning a certain connection between the amount of greening and housing values within the Pijp. it does however, show how that an area like the Frans Hals district, with a slightly higher average tax per m2, can differ substantially from the other districts in the amount of green that is present.

In the case of the amount of street gardens per street, the distribution shows no relation with the average tax per m2. There is not a significant higher number of street gardens in a particular district in de Pijp that is connected to higher housing values. There are, however, differences in the species richness per street garden per street in de Pijp as can be seen in figure 3. The species richness within the Frans Hals district is substantially higher than other districts in de Pijp and, as mentioned before, the average housing values per m2 also stands out within this district. This shows that not only the amount of flower pots is considerably higher within the Frans Hals district, but also the species richness per street in de Pijp.

Figure 4: The distribution of the amount of flower pots per 100 meters in the Pijp, Amsterdam.

Figure 6: The distribution of species richness per street garden in the Pijp, Amsterdam.

FIgure 7: Average tax per m2 in de Pijp, Amsterdam (Amsterdammapswozwaarde, 12/12/17)

4.2 Top-Down Results

According to interviews that have been executed with two employees of the municipality of Amsterdam, namely Esther Blommestijn and Stephan Sliepenbeek, the following results have been gathered.

First of all, both employees stressed that de Pijp is a small, densely populated and crammed neighbourhood, which deducts the ability of providing the neighbourhood with new urban green. Therefore, the municipality does not take an active role in providing de Pijp with urban green. However, the municipality maintains the ‘No grey for green’-principle, to keep the amount of urban green provided in a top-down way in balance. The principle means that no urban green can be removed or changed for buildings or other ways of urban renewal. If there is no other way than the removal of certain

urban green, it has to be placed elsewhere in the neighbourhood or its estimated value has to be invested into a

foundation that

supports urban green in the area.

“There is limited space in de Pijp for new urban green” (Esther,

stadsdeel Zuid). Secondly, Stephan Sliepenbeek points out that the municipality handles the

Principle Zoning Profile (figure 8), which shows that the street scene is strongly regulated with strict measurements according to the sizes of different street aspects. The Principle Zoning Profile allows 60 cm on each side of the street for urban green initiated by residents themselves and has standard design for the placement of trees with several different functions.

“The municipality provides a basic street structure with room for green initiatives” (Stephan Sliepenbeek, city Planner Frans Hals district).

Lastly, according to Esther Blommestijn and Stephan Sliepenbeek the municipality takes a passive role in the providing of urban greening of de Pijp through facilitating subsidies for initiatives of residents and the placement of free street gardens upon requests, as long as the initiatives fit the Principle Zoning Profile.

“The municipality facilitates urban green through subsidies for initiatives by residents” (Stephan Sliepenbeek, city planner Frans Hals district).

In order to maintain the street gardens by the local residents, spaces in the streets need to become available. There are multiple ways these spaces can be placed: Firstly, via subsidies the local residents

Figure 8, Principle Zoning Profile Frans Halsstraat (Gemeente Amsterdam, 11/12/17)

can request space for their own street garden (Nmtzuid). This combination of bottom-up and top-down interaction shows how local environmentally aware residents find a platform facilitate more green space within their street. A second way space for street gardens is made available, is during the renovation of streets. Hereby, the municipality takes the initiative and decides what parts of the streets need to become greener. Thirdly, the street gardens are made by the residents themselves without permission of any authority. This way of providing green urban space is illegal and will not be

tolerated by the established regulatory bodies.

The way that a street garden is established, generally shows a significant correlation with the way that street garden is being maintained over time. When the street garden is provided as a request from local resident, the overall quality of the street garden is better preserved then when the space is soundly provided by

the city municipality. The rationale behind this phenomenon is that the street gardens that are being provided by the authorities do not always find the most suitable residents that want to maintain them. As a consequence, the street scene can be strongly influenced by the willingness of residents to preserve their street gardens. For this reason the municipality of Amsterdam chose to solely provide street gardens on request of local residents.

4.2.2 Planting of trees in De Pijp

De Pijp houses many trees, of which the oldest are planted by the municipality in 1891 (on the Ceintuurbaan). However, using the tree data released by the municipality of Amsterdam (see figure 9), it becomes clear that most of the trees are planted after 1980. The years 1980, 1985 and 1990 are most represented in this data set. After 1990 only removed trees are replaced by the so called “no grey for green” policy (Stephan Sliepenbeek, city planner Frans Hals district) because between 1970 and 1990 all space for green in De Pijp is used, leaving little space for new green.

5. Discussion

In this section of the report the main findings from the research are being put together and discussed in order to find the correlation between urban greening and gentrification in de Pijp. The structure will be divided into two sections: urban green before and after the process of gentrification in de Pijp. By structuring this way, it clearly visualizes in what direction and scope of the relationship being invested.

5.1 Before gentrification

Derived from the results it becomes clear that before the process of gentrification both the bottom-up and the top-down urban greening were already increasing. The former one by the previous residents of de Pijp that tried to improve the street scene by installing street gardens and flower pots, and the latter one through the municipality of Amsterdam that installed the highest amount of trees during the period of urban renewal between 1970 and 1990 (Figure 9). Both these findings suggest that the increase in urban green to affect the process of gentrification. As stated before, de Pijp was a run down neighborhood that lacked a substantial amount of urban green and resided mostly people with a lower socioeconomic status. Directly after both the top-down and bottom-up urban greening started occurring, the process of gentrification initiated. This may imply that the improvement of the street scene thereby influenced the popularity of the neighborhood. There are, however, questions to what extend the urban green improved the neighborhood economically since multiple other factors have to be taken into account when studying the process of gentrification. Nevertheless, this research implies that there is a relationship, since the urban green is a part of the overall attractiveness of a neighborhood and thereby amplifies the process of gentrification.

5.2 After gentrification

Urban green has been influenced by the process of gentrification in several ways, mainly through bottom-up initiatives.

Firstly, an important time aspect is at stake when considering the process of gentrification as happened in de Pijp influencing urban greening. The way in which urban green is experienced by residents has changed since the years gentrification started, according to interviews with Esther Blommestijn and Wijkcentrum De Pijp. However, important to note is, that this was not necessarily a consequence of gentrification itself, since there are many more factors at stake. Urban green was

mainly expected to be looked upon before the 1990’s, but now urban green has to be experienced in a different way, by sporting or meeting in a park and playgrounds for children being placed in the middle of urban green for instance.

Secondly, the process of gentrification has brought many newcomers to de Pijp such as expats and young urban professionals. All interviews with the municipality, as well as the interview with Wijkcentrum de Pijp suggest that neighbourhood affinity is the most important factor considering participation in urban greening initiatives. However, the affinity of these newcomers differs. On the one hand, expats are only living in the neighbourhood temporarily, which indicates a low level of neighbourhood affinity and therefore no commitment according urban greening initiatives. On the other hand, young urban professionals who tend to settle in de Pijp for a longer period of time and might even raise their kids in the neighbourhood create more affinity with it and therefore pay more attention to urban greening in terms of money and time. Though, what has to be taken into account here is the time aspect mentioned before, since de Pijp hosts a different generation than before the process of gentrification. Current generations are expected to be more environmentally aware and have more affinity with sustainability than older generations, which could influence the direct relation between neighbourhood affinity and urban greening.

Thirdly, It is important to note that the municipality took their hands off actively providing urban green to the neighbourhood after its process of urban renewal that ended in the 1990’s. The municipality adopted the ‘No grey for green’-principle, argues that there is a limited space in de Pijp for new urban green and therefore, top-down policies can’t be seen as taking an active role in the urban greening after the process of gentrification in the neighbourhood de Pijp. However, according to interviews with Esther Blommestijn and Wijkcentrum De Pijp it has to be taken into account that the municipality has not taken their hands off urban greening all the way, but changed its role to a more passive one by the facilitation of subsidies and free placement of street gardens upon request. These subsidies can be invoked upon by residents that actively want to upgrade the amount of urban green in their neighbourhood. In this way the municipality became the facilitating actor and residents became the executing actors of urban greening in the neighbourhood after the process of gentrification. This indicates that urban greening is not influenced by just top-down policies or bottom-up initiatives, but that both are closely interlinked and influence urban greening together. Bottom-up through initiatives from residents and top-down through facilitating subsidies and agreeing to initiatives. To strengthen the connection between bottom-up and top-down, Wijkcentrum De Pijp acts as an important link between the two. Firstly, through their neighbourhood network and secondly, through their knowledge of subsidies and policies from the municipality, which lowers the threshold for implementing urban green.

Furthermore, as shown in figure 7, the tax-values near the Frans Hals area are above average, which tend to indicate that inhabitants with an higher socioeconomic status are living in this area, since they are able to afford these higher taxes. When taking figure 1 and 3 into account, the figures show that the highest density of flower pots per 100 metres, as well as the highest species richness per street garden are in the same area (Frans Hals) as the highest tax-values. Multiple reasons could be at the core of this phenomenon: Firstly, it is possible that the correlation is purely coincidental that the people in the Frans Hals district are more environmentally active. Secondly, there is a potential that people with a higher socio-economic status are more active in terms of providing flower pots and street gardens in their streets, as well as maintaining them. Thirdly, other factors could play a role in the high amount of flower pots in the Frans Hals district. One of those other factors, that became clear during the fieldwork, was the influence local residents have on their surrounding co-residents. The active residents that maintained a large number of flower pots were working as a catalysator on the level of urban green in the rest of the street. In over 80% of the cases where there was a cluster of many flower pots found during the fieldwork, it was noticeable that the other residents had also relatively more flower pots in front of their houses. This was also the case in the Frans Hals district where many clusters of urban green were located. This aspect of catalyzation is supported by the interview done with Wijkcentrum de Pijp and also corresponds with their statement that neighbourhood affinity of residents is the most important aspect of their participation in the provision of urban green in the neighbourhood.

When considering the data from the interviews held with the business sector in De Pijp, it becomes clear that local businesses are not influential in the relationship that exists between urban greening and the gentrification process. However, the business sector does have an intensifying influence on the gentrification process in De Pijp. Since it is found that gentrification acts as a driving force for urban greening, businesses indirectly affect urban greening through this mechanism.

6. Conclusion

In the previous sections of this paper the relationship between urban greening and gentrification in de Pijp has been researched both in terms of bottom-up initiatives and top-down policies. To conclude, it can be stated that this relationship goes in both directions. Urban greening has affected gentrification both through bottom-up initiatives as well as top-down policies. The former residents in de Pijp started greening the neighbourhood in terms of flower pots and street gardens before the process of gentrification commenced. Besides, the municipality also started planting the highest amount of trees before de Pijp started gentrifying. Furthermore, the gentrification had an influence on the urban greening in the Pijp as well. However, this is solely the case for the bottom-up initiatives. A significant share of the contemporary residents of de Pijp shows a high affinity with the neighbourhood and fulfills an active role in the facilitation of street gardens and flower pots within

the neighbourhood. The municipality, however, does not seem to promote the amount of urban green in de Pijp during and after the process of gentrification. So to answer the research question “What is the relation between gentrification and urban greening of the neighbourhood De Pijp in Amsterdam since 1990?” using the interviews and fieldwork results it becomes clear that there is a connection present between the amount of urban green and the process of gentrification in a neighbourhood. Yet, the extent of this connection does not become clear from this research. Beside urban green, there are many other factors that have been shown to affect the process of gentrification (Glass,1964). Moreover, there are also many more social and spatial aspects that influence the local residents and regulatory bodies in their choices to install more urban green. Nevertheless, the research does show that there is a connection between the two processes and therefore should be taken into account when considering policy measures with regard to urban green. This proven connection also provides possibilities for further research into the the strength of the relationship and for possible differences between neighbourhoods within Amsterdam.

6.1 Recommendations

This research is a stepping stone for further (interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and mono disciplinary) research and policy making: it is a case study that can be applied or adjusted in many ways. We have provided scientific and policy recommendations.

6.1.1 Scientific recommendations

The research is conducted in only one neighborhood in Amsterdam, to get a complete picture of the relationship between urban greening and gentrification in Amsterdam it is necessary to conduct the same research in different neighborhoods which differ in the process of gentrification in order to compare the results and analyse the similarities and differences. Gentrification is context specific in the perspective of neighbourhood and time and dependent on many different drivers, therefore in further research on the relation between gentrification and urban greening these certain drivers have to be taken into account in a more integrative way to be able to make a statement on the level of the relation between the two.

Urban green is present in De Pijp, but only the amount is measured. Further research on the biodiversity and species distribution in De Pijp has to be done. Environmental gentrification leads to an increase of (luxury) urban green but does not necessarily contribute to a richer ecosystem; with information of the biodiversity in De Pijp it is possible to increase the biodiversity by giving recommendations of which plant species have to be planted to improve for example the bee population in Amsterdam.

6.1.2 Policy recommendations

To improve a neighborhood and to provide a healthier environment it is essential to create more neighborhood affinity among the residents to promote urban greening. The municipality does not have an active role in urban greening, except in maintaining the green infrastructure. To improve the affinity the municipality should start with financing projects leading to higher neighborhood affinity and improve the communication between municipality and residents to increase the level of awareness. Street gardens, for example, must be requested by the municipality. However, only a few residents are aware of this and it is even harder for residents who experience a language barrier.

References

Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Rubio-Lopez, E. A. (2007). Proactive corporate environmental strategies: myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 357-381.

Banzhaf, H. S., & McCormick, E. (2006). Moving beyond cleanup: Identifying the crucibles of environmental gentrification.

Becker, G. S., & Mulligan, C. B. (1997). The endogenous determination of time preference. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 729-758.

Boer, J. (2005). Gentrification van de Oude Pijp en de Jordaan. Een onderzoek naar de rol van de

overheid en het particulier initiatief. Doctoraalscriptie Stadsgeografie. Universiteit Utrecht.

Byrne, J., Wolch, J., & Zhang, J. (2009). Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(3), 365-392.

Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., ... & Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 221-228.

Centraal Bureau voor de statistiek. (2017). Regionale prognose 2017-2040; bevolking, intervallen, regio-indeling 2015. Retrieved on March 15, 2017 from http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?

VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=83491NED&D1=0&D2=a&D3=a&D4=0-12&D5=3,13,l&HD=160912-0835&HDR=T,G3&STB=G1,G4,G2

Checker, M. (2011). Wiped out by the “greenwave” environmental gentrification and the paradoxal politics of urban sustainability. City and society. 23 (2). 210-229.

Coenen, A. (2014). Is gentrificatie meetbaar? Retrieved on September 23, 2017 from

https://stad.gent/sites/default/.../is%20gentrificatie%20meetbaar_Ad%20Coenen.pdf

Clark, E. (2016). The Order And Simplicity Of Gentrification Ication—A Political Challenge. Gentrification in a Global Context 256-264. Web. 27 Sept. 2017.

Curran, W., Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environment The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. 17(9). 1027-1042.

Dai, D. (2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234-244.

Dooling, S. (2009). Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 621-639.

Glass, R. L. (1964). London: aspects of change (Vol. 3). MacGibbon & Kee.

Grossmann, K., & Haase, A. (2016). Neighborhood change beyond clear storylines: what can assemblage and complexity theories contribute to understandings of seemingly paradoxical neighborhood development?. Urban Geography, 37(5), 727-747.

Heinkel, R., Kraus, A. & Zechner, J. (2001). The Effect of Green Investment on Corporate Behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 431-449.

Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., Fagan, W. F., Redman, C. L., Grimm, N. B., ... & Kinzig, A. (2003). Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100(15), 8788-8792.

Jennings, V., Johnson Gaither, C., & Gragg, R. S. (2012). Promoting environmental justice through urban green space access: A synopsis. Environmental Justice, 5(1), 1-7.

Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of business ethics, 43(3), 253-261.

Kohsaka, R., Shih, W., Saito, O., & Sadohara, S. (2013). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. In Springer Netherlands.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value.Journal of marketing,70(4), 1-18.

McConnachie, M. M., & Shackleton, C. M. (2010). Public green space inequality in small towns in South Africa. Habitat International, 34(2), 244-248.

Niemelä, J. (1999a). Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and conservation, 8(1), 119-131 Niemelä, J. (1999b). Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology?. Urban Ecosystems, 3(1), 57-65. Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental politics. 13(3). 517-540.

Smith, N. (1979). Toward a theory of gentrification a back to the city movement by capital, not people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), 538-548.

https://nmtzuid.nl/project/geveltuin/

Appendixes

Appendix A

Questions for businesses in De Pijp Q1.

What do you think of the amount of green areas in De Pijp? Q2.

Do you pay attention to the outlook of your store front by putting out planters and other kinds of green?

Q3.

Do you think businesses significantly increase the amount of green areas in De Pijp? Q4.

Do you think that the amount of green areas in a neighbourhood influences the gentrification process?

Q5.

Do you think businesses directly cause an intensification of the gentrification process in De Pijp? Q6.

Do you think that the amount of green areas that businesses provide intensify the gentrification process?

Q7.

Have you seen an increase in the greening of the neighbourhood since the last three decades?

Questions for business consultant De Pijp Q1.

Could you give a short description of your job?

Q2.

What do you think about the amount of green in De Pijp?

Q3.

What do you think about the gentrification process in De Pijp?

Q4.

What kind of policy does the municipality have when it comes to the relation between the business sector and the gentrification process in De Pijp?

Q5.

Do you think businesses directly cause an intensification of the gentrification process in De Pijp?

Q6.

Is the makeup of store fronts / amount of planters outside etc. communicated with the municipality and are their restrictions or regulations?

Q7.

Do you think that the amount of green areas in a neighbourhood influences the gentrification process?

Q8.

Do you think that the amount of green areas businesses provide intensify the gentrification process in De Pijp?

Q9.

Do you think the amount of green business provide in the neighbourhood has increased over the last three decades?

Appendix B

Interview Questions residents de Pijp for bottom-up initiatives

1. Time aspect: When did the plant pots and front gardens erupt?

2. Has there been a change in the amount and the quality of green facilities in the neighborhood over the last 30 years?

3. If there are changes, what do you think are the most important factors for change? 4. How do you see the relationship between gentrification and the number of front gardens

and pots in your neighborhood? Positive influence?

5. Are there any incentives from the municipality for the improvement of green facilities?

Appendix C

Interview questions with municipality personnel

1. Could you give us a short description of your job, tasks at the municipality according to city planning and/or urban greening in Amsterdam?

2. How have policies of the municipality according to providing and maintaining urban green in de Pijp/Amsterdam changed in the last 20/30 years?

3. Which urban greening facilities/services are part of the municipality and which are provided by the residents themselves? Are there any services that exist in cooperation (subsidies, street gardens? And what is the position/view of the municipality on these cooperations? 4. Do you have knowledge about the quantities and qualities of initiatives by residents on the

concept of urban greening in de Pijp? If yes, what trends are visible over the last decades according the scope and quantity of these initiatives?

5. Is there a certain vision according to gentrification to be found in ‘green’ policies by the municipality? How has this vision been established/developed over the last 20/30 years, what are the drivers of this vision? -> What discussions have been hold and what are the different points of view?

6. What are the differences between the policies on urban greening in de Pijp and the rest of the city of Amsterdam/other neighbourhoods? -> Differences in money between parts of the city?

7. Would you agree with the statement that urban greening in de Pijp caused/fueled the process of gentrification, or do you think that the relation should be the other way around?