Nature-based solutions : the anticipated vs. real social impact in the case of Dakpark, Rotterdam

(1)

Master thesis

Urban & Regional

Planning

Nikoletta Evangeliou: 12077283

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Maria Kaika

Date: June 2019

Word count: 15.454

Nature-Based Solutions:

The anticipated vs. real social impact in the case

of Dakpark, Rotterdam.

(2)

1

ABSTRACT

Increasing urbanization, climate change and its’ impact are affecting the earths’ surface and especially the urban environment and health, creating many challenges that require innovative strategies in order to provide climate change adaptation and mitigation action and sustainable cities with high quality of life. That is how the concept of Nature-Based Solutions emerged in environmental sciences. Nature-Based Solutions provide several advantages; they increase sustainable urbanization, stimulate economic growth, improve the urban environment, enhance human well-being and develop climate change adaptation and mitigation through resilient responses. Nature-Based Solutions not only provide climate change resilience, but they also ensure access to basic necessities, support health-promoting activities and social interactions among citizens, improve the attractiveness of cities to residents and businesses and enhance economic activity.

In the context of Nature-Based Solutions and their environmental, social and economic effects, this thesis will focus on the social impact of a park on the nearby residents. The chosen case study is the elevated roof park, i.e. Dakpark (in Dutch), in the city of Rotterdam, because it is a unique project that was created by the municipality of Rotterdam and developers alongside residents, in order to combine commercial (indoor) space with a large public (outdoor) roof park, resulting in multiple positive effects, not only for the surrounding neighborhood but also for the whole district and environment. The residents were a constant and critical factor during the different phases of the park (wish, design and realization), but also after its completion. For this reason this case study is an excellent choice to study the positive and negative social impact of the park. This thesis examined the anticipated and real social impact of the Dakpark, within the context of Nature-Based Solutions and their effects on people, and the social benefits that the park provides, in order to determine the social impact of the park to the residents.

Four main findings emerged through this research, while covering my theoretical framework regarding Nature-Based Solutions, urban parks and their social impact, social functions of urban green areas (e.g. social interaction, social cohesion, recreation, crime reduction, aesthetics and regional identity) and social participation in climate adaptation. Firstly, the Dakpark, as a multifunctional dike, covers all the characteristics of a Nature-Based Solution by providing several environmental and economic benefits. Secondly, the complex involvement of many actors in the project with clashing interests led to various barriers and difficulties and a very long duration of the planning process. Thirdly, the resident’s participation in the project and their interaction with the implementing stakeholders has proved to be very valuable and unique during the planning phase, but the residents want to be more involved in the managing phase of the park. Lastly, the park is a rather successful project that has achieved its main goals, by offering several social benefits, and the outcomes after its completion are well accepted.

(3)

2

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem statement

In recent years there has been an avid interest not only in urban space, but in its’ problems too. The largest percentage of the human population has settled in urban centers, which has led to an uncontrollable urban sprawl over the last decades, and respectively to the degradation of these areas (Kabisch et al., 2017). Todays’ cities have characteristics that decrease the quality of life and create intolerable environmental conditions such as high building density, lack of green and outdoor spaces, increased traffic load and air and noise pollution. This dramatic rise of urbanization alongside the adverse impacts of climate change are affecting the earths’ surface and especially the urban environment and health, thus creating many challenges that require innovative strategies in order to provide sustainable cities and healthy living (Kabisch et al., 2017; van den Bosch & Sang, 2017).

Cities, urban planning and people involved in the decision making processes play a crucial role in dealing with these challenges and climate change mitigation and adaptation is fundamental (Kabisch et al., 2017). Even though climate change adaptation is still a novel subject in city planning, there are many European cities that are already engaged with mitigating climate change effects (EEA, ETC/CCA, & ETC/ULS, 2016). In some cases the required innovative climate adaptation and mitigation measures can derive from citizens’ initiatives. These initiatives, such as neighborhood parks and vegetable gardens, are not only environmentally beneficial, but economically and socially too, while giving the opportunity to the residents to participate and intervene in their own way in the (re)development of urban public space. However, relations and communication with key actors, such as municipalities, local authorities, and developers, are still difficult.

1.2 Context – Case study: Dakpark Rotterdam

Until 1998, the ‘Dakpark’ in Delfshaven Rotterdam (see Image.2) was a marshalling yard, a port railway line from Prorail (see Image.1). In 1998, Prorail no longer needed the area and transferred it to the municipality of Rotterdam. So in 1998, there was a need for commercial space from the harbor and green space for the residential area. The design was therefore twofold: there was need for green for the residents and business offices for the harbor. However, the spaces in the building complex became shops, instead of harbor-related companies and offices, and the roof of the building

(6)

5 was transformed into a stunning large green park. Completed in 2014, the Dakpark (Dutch for roof park) measures approximately 1 kilometer long by 80 meters wide (80,000 m²) by 9 meters high and it is the largest roof park in Europe demonstrating the integrating power of spatial design. It is a multifunctional, attractive and well-maintained park with an integrated dike over an actual commercial building complex, which sees a lot of use and is composed by three main elements.

Image 1. The Dakpark before (left) and after (right). Source: http://www.dakparkrotterdam.nl

Image 2. The location of the park (green outline) in the Delfshaven area (white outline) in Rotterdam. Source: Google Earth

Firstly, the business (building complex/shopping center) is the first important component and also the enabler of the roof park. The park, located on the roof of the shopping center, also includes a parking garage with space for approximately 750

(7)

6 cars. Secondly, the green character of the roof park is a crucial element. It has lots of greenery, many places to eat and drink or just sit down and relax (e.g. wide open grass meadows and slopes, barbeque areas with grills and tables), communal themed gardens [e.g. neighborhood vegetable garden, Mediterranean herb garden (see Image.4)], and facilities for children [e.g. playground, water stairs (see Image.3) and fountains they can play with]. The park is easily accessible from the neighborhood since there are entrances in all sides and it is also near to the Marconinplein Metro station. Thirdly, the Dakpark is a good example of spatial innovation that responds to the changing climate and its’ effects, such as drought and heat stress, but also excessive rainfall and flooding. Due to its location, Rotterdam is a vulnerable, to the effects of climate change, city and especially to flooding. For this reason, the large roof park has a very useful function. It works as rainwater storage, as rainwater is collected and released to the sewer via a drainage system. Moreover, the primary flood defense, the Hudsonstraat dike, has been integrated in the building complex and the park, reinforced and retained its function.

Image 3. Water stairs - the main attraction of the park. Source: personal archive of the author

This project fulfills two special desires of the Rotterdam municipality: (1) the need for a new park for the surrounding neighborhoods and (2) improved quality of life in the district. The Dakpark also has a socio-economic function for the neighboring districts. The businesses and the construction of the park created 600 new jobs in total and the park simultaneously provides a recreational space for the residents,

(8)

7 visitors and employees. Additionally, the residents have been actively and intensively involved in various stages of the Dakpark project and especially during the planning phase, since their constant pressure for more green in the neighborhood was the reason that the park was created in the first place. However, the neighborhood residents wanted to permanently affect their park. Due to this reason, the ‘Dakpark Foundation' emerged from the residents' initiative and was founded in 2013. The foundation, which consists of several volunteer groups supported by a board and coordinators, not only provides part of the daily park management, but also organizes several activities such as maintenance of the gardens, guided tours, events and workshops.

Image 4. Mediterranean herb garden. Source: personal archive of the author

1.3 Objectives

This thesis examines the anticipated and real social impact of the Dakpark in Rotterdam within the context of nature-based solutions and their effects on people, in order to determine the social impact of the park to the residents. The roof-park (Dakpark in Dutch) in Delfshaven, is a unique project that was created by the municipality of Rotterdam and developers alongside residents, in order to combine commercial (indoor) space with a large public (outdoor) roof park, resulting in

(9)

8 multiple positive aspects, not only for the surrounding neighborhood but also for the whole district and the environment.

The research aims to determine how the Dakpark impacts the nearby residents socially, by examining the anticipated and real social impact of the park within the context of Nature-Based Solutions and their effects on people and the social benefits (e.g. recreation, social interaction, social cohesion, crime reduction, aesthetics, regional identity etc.) that the Dakpark provides.

My objective is to define if and how the park is used and to compare the anticipated with the real social impact. The anticipated social impact is the one that the actors involved in the design expected the park to have i.e. what did they say they would make, where the real social impact is the one that the actual residents experience now from the park i.e. what was actually made. Moreover, the research aims at giving attention to the relationship of the social and ecological elements of Nature-Based Solutions and to show the advantages and contributions of ‘green’ interventions such as the Dakpark to the urban environment and society and to promote such projects.

1.4 Research questions

What social impact does the Dakpark in Rotterdam have as a Nature-Based Solution?

 What was the anticipated social impact that was originally planned by the involved actors and what is the real social impact of the park?

 What kind of social benefits does the park provide to the residents?  What are the adverse effects of the park on the residents?

1.5 Methodology

As my key research aim is to determine how the park is used and how positively or negatively it affects the residents, in order to determine and compare the anticipated with the real social impact, a single case study, i.e. the Dakpark in Rotterdam, was chosen as my research strategy. Due to the fact that the residents, the most significant group of the participants, were a constant and critical factor during the various stages of the Dakpark project, the selection of this case study seems to be the right choice that fits the theoretical framework and the context of the research questions. Regarding data collection techniques, semi-structured interviews and field and participant observations were used as an inductive approach to theorizing and conceptualization. Also shared documents and other

(10)

9 sources, such as newspaper articles and websites, regarding the park, were used for the purpose of triangulation and validation of the gathered data. The interviewees were selected from different organizational levels and positions, such as residents/visitors, the construction company responsible for the roof and a volunteering group from the ‘Dakpark Foundation'. Snowball sampling was also acceptable in order to have a wider perspective of the case study.

Regarding ethical concerns, the interviews were carefully planned to meet the Ethical Guidelines protocol. They were conducted with the adult population, with appropriate explanation of the nature and objective of the research, in public space. The participants were also informed that the study is voluntary and that the interview would be recorded, but anonymity, confidentiality and privacy would be strictly preserved.

1.6 Outline

This thesis consists of 5 chapters. In this chapter (Chapter 1) the study begins with an introduction to the existing problem of climate change and urbanization and the context/case study of the thesis. The core objectives of the research and the research questions are presented, and a summary of the research methods that were used is also described. The introduction is followed by Chapter 2, which contains the theoretical framework of existing literature regarding Nature-Based Solutions, urban parks and their social impact, and social participation in climate adaptation. Chapter 3 covers the argumentation for the methodology chosen to answer my research questions. The chapter also explains the selection of the case study, the data collection methods and techniques, data analysis as well as ethical concerns. Chapter 4 consists of the analyzed data described in three main themes and their sub-themes that emerged according to my research questions and theoretical framework. The final chapter (Chapter 5) contains the main findings from my research and their relation to the theoretical framework. Moreover, suggestions and opportunities for further research are discussed, as well as the limitations of this research.

(11)

10

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction

Increasing urbanization, climate change and its’ impact are affecting the earths’ surface and especially the urban environment and health, creating many challenges that require innovative strategies in order to provide sustainable cities and healthy living (Kabisch et al., 2017). Cities, urban planning and people involved in the decision making processes play a crucial role in dealing with these challenges and climate change mitigation and adaptation is fundamental (Kabisch et al., 2017). Even though climate change adaptation is still an innovative subject in city planning, there are many European cities that are already engaged with mitigating climate change effects (EEA, ETC/CCA, & ETC/ULS, 2016). It is known that cities have the potential to be the “main implementers of climate resiliency,

adaptation, and mitigation”, but they might also “not be able to address the challenges and fulfill their climate change leadership potential without transformation” (Rosenzweig et al., 2015). Usually, people involved in urban

planning and practitioners rely on conventional engineering interventions for climate change adaptation, however this is not sustainable, cost-effective or sufficient in most cases (Kabisch et al., 2017).

2.2 Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)

Rather than relying on conventional engineering solutions, international organizations, such as IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and the World Bank, searched for ways to work with ecosystems for climate change adaptation and mitigation, “while improving sustainable livelihoods and

protecting natural ecosystems and biodiversity” (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). That

is how the concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) emerged in environmental sciences. Specifically, the IUCN defines Nature-Based Solutions in the climate change era as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or

modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.”

(Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Kabisch et al., 2017).

There are many definitions for NBS, however the European Commission (2015) has summarized them in four main objectives that can be achieved through Nature-Based solutions:

(12)

11 1 . “Enhancing sustainable urbanization through nature-based solutions can

stimulate economic growth as well as improving the environment, making cities more attractive, and enhancing human well-being”,

2. “Restoring degraded ecosystems using nature-based solutions can

improve the resilience of ecosystems, enabling them to deliver vital ecosystem services and also to meet other societal challenges”,

3. “Developing climate change adaptation and mitigation using nature-based

solutions can provide more resilient responses and enhance the storage of carbon” and

4. “Improving risk management and resilience using nature-based solutions

can lead to greater benefits than conventional methods and offer synergies in reducing multiple risks”.

Nature-Based Solutions offer the opportunity to address many challenges, but it is significant to pay attention to the participation and involvement of individuals and the society, with the goal to raise awareness of social benefits, re-connect people with nature and create a public demand for healthy natural environments (EC— European Commission, 2015). Furthermore, the European Commission (2015) also states that NBS can also have “a pivotal role in many areas - ensuring access to basic

necessities, as well as supporting health-promoting individual activities and meaningful interactions among fellow citizens as well as improving the attractiveness of cities to residents and businesses, thus influencing property value and economic activity and providing climate change resilience”.

Societal challenges, due to climate change and urbanization, can be addressed in a sustainable way by NBS (Kabisch et al., 2017), while these solutions are simultaneously providing environmental, economic and social benefits (Balian et al., 2016). Nature-Based Solutions are usually related to environmental and ecological issues, but their social impact to the individuals and the community should be given importance, since there is plenty of evidence that shows how green spaces and good quality landscapes affect positively human mental and physical health, well-being and social cohesion (EC—European Commission, 2015; Kabisch et al., 2017.

2.3 Urban Parks & Social impact

Studies have shown that green spaces, e.g. parks, pocket parks, street greenery and private planted areas, are related with several health benefits such as improved mental health and cognitive function, reduced cardiovascular morbidity, reduced prevalence of type 2 diabetes, improved pregnancy outcomes and reduced mortality (World Health Organization, 2016). For example, De Vries et al. (2013) associated the

(13)

12 quantity and quality of streetscape greenery with perceived social cohesion at a neighborhood scale, through an indicator of the latter that they developed. This study suggested that feelings of loneliness and lack of social support have been linked with shortage of green space. Many researchers have also mentioned several urban green space related pathways that lead to improved health and well-being ( Kabisch et al., 2017; World Health Organization, 2016). Hartig, et al. (2014) proposed improved air quality, enhanced physical activity, stress compensation and greater social cohesion, whereas Lachowycz and Jones (2013) suggested physical activity, engagement with nature, relaxation, and social interactions as major pathways to health. Moreover, Villanueva et al. (2015) argued that the urban heat island effect is mitigated because of urban green spaces, since they provide protection from heat-related health hazards, and that they improve social capital, social cohesion and enhance physical activity. Lastly, Kuo (2015) proposed that exposure to natural microbes and enhanced immune system functioning are major pathways linking nature and health.

According to Konijnendijk et. al (2013) “Urban parks are defined as delineated open

space areas, mostly dominated by vegetation and water, and generally reserved for public use. Urban parks are mostly larger, but can also have the shape of smaller ‘pocket parks’. Urban parks are usually locally defined (by authorities) as ‘parks’.”

Taking into account this definition, urban parks (e.g. roof parks) provide plenty of the benefits mentioned above, such as improvement of human health, well-being social cohesion etc. As nowadays the daily life in the city can be hectic, stressful and quite harmful to our health, there is evidence that shows that parks can contribute positively to human health, well-being and to the quality of residential life (World Health Organization, 2016; Rakhshandehroo et al., 2015). Parks, green spaces and nature in general have several positive direct effects on mental and physical well-being including mental and self-reported general health, psychological well-well-being, enhanced concentration capacity, feelings of pleasure, enjoyment, tranquility and relaxation, reduced obesity, stroke mortality, cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity and Attention Disorder Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms, as well as indirect effects like reduced stress and depression through increased physical activity in open green spaces (Konijnendijk et. al, 2013; Rakhshandehroo et. al, 2015).

2.3.1 Social functions of urban green areas

Urban parks have other functions too. From a social point of view, parks provide social benefits such as social interaction, social cohesion, recreation, crime reduction, aesthetics and regional identity (Rakhshandehroo et. al, 2015).

(14)

13

2.3.1.1 Recreation & Social interaction

Compared to other places of a city, there are higher chances of people to meet and interact in an urban park (Konijnendijk et. al, 2013). This happens due to the fact that a public park is open to everyone and it is a perfect place for people to meet, socialize and interact through various facilities and common services such as playgrounds, sport courts, swimming pools resting areas, meeting places for smaller or larger groups, activities etc. (Givoni, 1991; Konijnendijk et. al, 2013; Rakhshandehroo et. al, 2015). These different facilities can cover the different active recreational needs and preferences of the people, whereas passive recreation may involve observing the nature and wildlife, enjoying the view or just sitting and relaxing (Rakhshandehroo et. al, 2015). It should also be noted that social relations,

“derived from people’s engagements with every-day public spaces” and other

people, play an integral and therapeutic role in the well-being benefits (Dinnie et. al, 2013). According to Givoni (1991), social interactions can be affected by several factors such as:

 “the specific needs of different population groups, with regard to types of

activities and facilities in the park”

 “the capacity of the park, from the aspect of its total area and that area given

to actual usage, as well as from the aspect of type and size of the population being served”

 “layout of facilities and types of activities in the park area, and the degree to which this layout causes mutual disturbances between the various activities” and

 “in the case of large urban parks, the existence of various special public

events, and their organization”

2.3.1.2 Social cohesion & Social inclusion

Social interaction does not have always positive outcomes. “On the one hand, it can

provide for communication and mutual acquaintance, while on the other hand, it can contribute to the development of conflicts and competition for the use of facilities, as well as to quarrels and tensions between the neighborhoods' residents” (Givoni,

1991). Globalization and migration have made communities more heterogenic and multi-cultural, which can sometimes increase those conflicts or even decrease social interaction and cohesion (Givoni, 1991; Konijnendijk et. al, 2013; Rakhshandehroo et. al, 2015). However, under the right circumstances, social cohesion is facilitated through urban parks by creating spaces for social interaction (Konijnendijk et. al, 2013). Urban parks are not just used for recreational reasons and leisure. They are also “a significant part of community and urban development, which can be used to

(15)

14

eliminate social distinction” and “they contribute to social justice by creating opportunities for all people to participate in close interaction between social layers of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds”, thus increasing the feeling of “communal closeness” and “social support” (Rakhshandehroo et. al, 2015).

2.3.1.3 Crime, Aesthetics & Regional Identity

Regarding crime, Givoni (1991) states that if parks are not used by people then “criminal elements” are attracted due to the lack of use. This situation influences negatively the surrounding neighborhoods, thus making the park an undesirable and dangerous area, which people keep their distance from. For this reason, special attention must be payed to designing and planning the parks, so as to be more attractive and used by people. “It is reasonable to assume that the more there are

interesting and convenient opportunities to enjoy in the open spaces, the higher degree of participation will be expected” (Givoni, 1991). The same author also

mentions that urban green spaces have another social/psychological function, which is the provision of aesthetic enjoyment for both residents and visitors (Givoni, 1991). Aesthetically speaking, green spaces are significant to the community because they do not only provide “pleasing and calming vegetation” but they are also “valuable to

the communal domain” (Rakhshandehroo et. al, 2015). Lastly, big urban parks play a

crucial part in the regional identity of cities by “establishing the image of a city” (Givoni 1991). Specifically Rakhshandehroo et. al (2015) note that “well-designed

and maintained open green spaces define the identity of towns and cities, because they offer a diversity of land uses and opportunities for a wide range of activities, therefore improving attraction for living, working, investment, and tourism”.

2.4 Social participation in climate adaptation

As mentioned before, climate change is a complex environmental problem which creates multiple issues and challenges. These challenges need a variety of actors, across the public–private divide, to implement climate change adaptation and mitigation measures (Kabisch et al., 2017; Mees et al., 2012; Hegger et al., 2017). Gatien-Tournat et al. (2017) define adaptation as “the process of adjustment to

actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. Therefore, adaptation includes initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against natural hazard impacts”.

Even though adaptation planning appears to be government-led in practice, there is plenty of literature by policy-makers and scientists, that suggests the involvement of

(16)

15 both public and private actors and highlights the significance of participatory and deliberative processes (Mees et al.,2012; Mees et al., 2014), “so that responsibilities

can be shared and all of society’s resources can be fully exploited” (Mees et al.,2012).

Moreover, the “active involvement of all societal actors might overcome problems of

inefficiency and raise the legitimacy of adaptation action” (Mees et al., 2012).

Specifically, the role of residents in addressing the lack of adaptation or maladaptation is imperative (Hegger et al., 2017). Their initiatives and consent are often essential in implementing adaptation measures and accommodating these measures “in terms of technical (im)possibilities, specificities of climate risks and

residents’ individual needs” (Hegger et al., 2017). The participation of residents

provides other advantages too, such as “increased legitimacy of adaptation

measures, increased awareness, more innovative capacity, less (financial) pressure on governmental actors and enhanced mainstreaming of adaptation into other activities” (Hegger et al., 2017).

Lastly, governmental actors themselves have a facilitating role in promoting residents as members of civil society and their initiatives (Hegger et al., 2017). These activities are usually bottom-up and governmental actors can benefit them by

“establishing knowledge-sharing dialogues to stimulate social learning, deliberations and negotiations (…) and allowing for experimentation by providing legal exemptions or financial support”. The participation of residents in climate change adaptation

strategies should be promoted more, since it contributes to the use of unexploited potential that might be highly advantageous in adaptation action.

2.5 Link to next chapters

In the context of Nature-Based Solutions and their environmental, social and economic effects, this thesis will focus on the social impact of a park on the nearby residents. The chosen case study is the elevated roof park (Dakpark) in Rotterdam, because it is a unique project that was created alongside the residents for the residents. The residents were a constant and critical factor during the different phases of the park (wish, design and realization), but also after its completion. For this reason this case study is an excellent choice to study the positive and negative social impact of the park. Since there is not much literature about the Dakpark, this thesis and the Dakpark Rotterdam project will hopefully be important additions to the NBS literature. Moreover, the definition and comparison of the anticipated social impact with the real social impact can be used to measure the success of existing projects that involve in a large extent social actors like the residents and the community. The ‘anticipated vs. real social impact’ comparison can also be used in future projects as a guideline to achieve social benefits in such projects.

(17)

16

3 RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter covers the argumentation for the methodology chosen to answer my key research question:

 What social impact does the ‘Dakpark’ Rotterdam have as a Nature-Based

Solution?

and the sub-questions:

 What was the anticipated social impact originally planned by the involved

actors and what is the real social impact of the park?

 What kind of social benefits does the park provide to the residents?  What are the adverse effects of the park on the residents?

Firstly, in section 3.2 the research design is discussed, where the reason for choosing the Dakpark Rotterdam case study is described. In section 3.3 the justification for choosing a single case study is explained. Section 3.4 outlines the methods that were used for data collection and section 3.5 describes the methods that were used for data analysis. Finally, in section 3.6 any ethical concerns regarding the methodology are addressed.

3.2 Research Design

My key research aim is to determine how the park is used and how positively or negatively it affects the residents, in order to determine and compare the anticipated with the real social impact on the residents. For this reason, a qualitative inductive research strategy has been chosen using a single case study design, as it can be analyzed in-depth and comprehensively (Bryman, 2012) and examined to understand complicated social phenomena (Yin, 2009).

While covering my theoretical framework regarding Nature-Based Solutions, the research also aims at giving attention to the relationship of the social and ecological elements of nature-based solutions and to show the advantages and contributions of ‘green’ interventions, such as the Dakpark, to the urban environment and society. Theory and observations are crucial elements of scientific research, and for this reason this research was done on an empirical level, since it “is concerned with

testing the theoretical concepts and relationships to see how well they reflect our observations of reality, with the goal of ultimately building better theories”

(18)

17 (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Moreover in an inductive research i.e. theory-building research, the researcher aims at linking observed data with theoretical concepts (Bryman, 2012; Bhattacherjee, 2012)

3.3 Case study selection

Due to the fact that the residents, the most significant group of the participants, were a constant and critical factor during the different phases of the project, the selection of the Dakpark in Rotterdam case study was chosen, since the key research aim is to determine the social impact and other effects of the park towards the residents. This case study fits the purposes of this research, since qualitative research is based on the collection and analysis of documents and texts, participant observations and interviews, which are the data collection methods that were used in this dissertation, rather than quantitative data (Bryman, 2012; Bhattacherjee, 2012).

A single case study design was chosen for this research because it allows for a

“detailed and intensive analysis” (Bryman, 2012) and assists to extract “richer, more contextualized, and more authentic interpretation of the phenomenon of interest than most other research methods by virtue of its ability to capture a rich array of contextual data”(Bhattacherjee, 2012). In a case study the “phenomenon of interest”, i.e. the social impact and other effects of the park, can be examined from

the viewpoint of various participants, e.g. community, developers, ‘Dakpark Foundation’ (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Moreover, a case study is useful for hypothesis testing and theory building and it can be crucial to scientific development through generalization “as supplement or alternative to other methods” (Flyvbjerg, 2006)

3.4 Data Collection

Primary data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews with different participants (i.e. the community, developers and the ‘Dakpark Foundation’), participant observations and gathering any relevant documentation. The semi-structured interviews and participant observations were used as an inductive approach to theorizing and conceptualization (Bryman, 2012).

Besides primary data, secondary data was collected through focused literature review regarding topics such as urban nature, green infrastructure, societal challenges due to climate change and urbanization, social participation, Nature-Based Solutions and their impact on people. Grey literature regarding the Dakpark, like news articles and websites, was also used.

(19)

18

3.4.1 Semi-structured interviews

The semi-structured interviews gave me the opportunity to discuss topics that are relevant to my research questions while allowing the interviewee to impart their viewpoint. Open questions were also used because they offer many advantages such as “respondents can answer in their own terms; they allow unusual responses to be

derived; replies that the survey researcher may not have contemplated (…) are possible; they are useful for exploring new areas or ones in which the researcher has limited knowledge” (Bryman, 2012). The interviewees were selected from different

organizational levels and positions i.e. residents/visitors of the park (community), the construction company(developer) and the ‘Dakpark Foundation', and snowball sampling was also acceptable in order to have a wider perspective of the case study (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Yin, 2009). According to the specific actor that was interviewed, three different sets of questions were created, one for each type of interviewee (i.e. community, developers, the parks’ foundation), in order to define the experiences and perspectives of the participants. All interviews were done separately, except the Groen Groep interview with the 4 volunteers, which was a group interview. It was conducted the same way the rest of the interviews were, with the only difference that the 4 volunteers were all present and would answer my questions when it was their turn. This wasn’t an obstacle since all volunteers are friends with each other and they were the ones that recommended doing the interviews in one group over dinner. All interviews were carried out using an interview guide and item list, which included the core concepts, contained in my theoretical and conceptual framework, and helped me keep the interview focused and purposeful, while providing enough data to answer my research question. For the interviews (13 in total) I used three different lists of questions, one for each type of the interviewee. The first list consists of questions for the representative of the construction company. The second list consists of questions for the 5 volunteers of the ‘Groen Groep’ (Green Group) of the ‘Dakpark Foundation’. The 4 of the 5 volunteers were interviewed in a group interview and the remaining one was interviewed separately. The third list consists of questions for the 7 visitors I interviewed in the park. For easier referencing in the text, the interviews are mentioned as such:

1. The construction company representative is referenced as ‘CC’

2. The Groen Groep is referenced as ‘GG1’ (one volunteer) and ‘GG4’ (four volunteers )

(20)

19

3.4.2 Participant observations

The Dakpark is a public space that is open all day, something that allowed me to use the ethnographic method of participant observation whenever possible. According to Bhattacherjee (2012), through participant observations the researcher acts as “an

active participant in the phenomenon”, and has to rely on his or hers “unique knowledge and engagement to generate insights (theory) and convince the scientific community of the trans-situational nature of the studied phenomenon”. Atkinson and

Hammersley (1994) also mention that “we cannot study the social world without

being part of it”. This method allowed me to gain further insight concerning the main

social benefits provided by the park, which are recreation, social interaction, social cohesion, aesthetics and regional identity. Participant observations were also significant for gathering data regarding the purpose, use and impact of the park and for giving me the opportunity to see things from the perspective of the people involved.

Image 5.Participant observation 2 (13-04-2019): Compost workshop with the Groen Groep. Source: personal archive of the author

During the first one (Participant Observation 1, 06-04-19, Rotterdam), I was introduced to some of the Groen Groep volunteers, got to know more information about them and the park, and helped them with their weekly gardening work. They were all very friendly and kind with me and even had the idea to do the group interviews over dinner so it wouldn’t interfere with the volunteering work we were doing that day. The second participant observation (Participant Observation 2, 13-04-19, Rotterdam) was a workshop regarding compost (see Image.5). It was

(21)

20 conducted by the gardening company, which is responsible for the biggest part of the parks’ maintenance, for the Groen Groep. During the workshop I was also introduced to another volunteer (GG1), who is a former member of the district council and was deeply involved in the planning phase of the park. This interview helped me gain deeper insight in the complex planning phase of the park and the key actors involved.

3.4.3 Documentation

For the purpose of triangulation and validation of the observed data (Bryman 2012; Bhattacherjee, 2012; Gerring 2007), transcripts from the interviews, field notes from participant observations and any documentation provided from the involved actors and other sources (e.g. news articles and websites regarding the park) were collected and analyzed. The documents I was sent are the following:

 Supply drainage mats for the Vierhavenstrip rooftop park (in Dutch: “Leveren van drainagematten voor het dakpark Vierhavenstrip”) - official proposal from the municipality of Rotterdam regarding the delivery of the drainage system for the roof-park (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010b).

 ‘Financing Urban Green. An exploration into various forms of financing the construction, development and management of urban greenery’ (in Dutch: “Financieren van stedelijk groen. Een verkenning naar verschillende vormen van financiering van aanleg, ontwikkeling en beheer van stedelijk groen”) (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013).

 Results of the GGD (Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst - Municipal Health Service) project ‘Green in the neighborhood’ (in Dutch: ‘Resultaten van het project Groen in de wijk’) (GGD et al., 2018).

 Case study report of the Dakpark from the TRANS-ADAPT project called “Societal transformation and adaptation necessary to manage dynamics in flood hazard and risk mitigation” (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015).

 Annual tasks and plans of the Groen Groep, the group of volunteers of the park (Groengroep, 2014 & 2018).

 Land use plan of Vierhavenstraat and the surroundings (in Dutch: Bestemmingsplan Vierhavenstraat en omgeving) (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010a)

 Factsheet – Dakpark Rotterdam from the municipality of Rotterdam (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2011).

Specifically the construction company shared with me the official proposal from the municipality of Rotterdam regarding the delivery of the drainage system for the rooftop park. The ‘Dakpark Foundation’ shared documents from studies and projects regarding topics used in the creation park. The first one is a 2013 report from the municipality of Amsterdam called ‘Financing Urban Green - An exploration into

(22)

21 various forms of financing the construction, development and management of urban greenery’ In this report there is a chapter regarding the use of volunteers, like in the Dakpark, and non-profit organizations and their important contribution to urban greenery in the form of ideas, extra hands, supervision and sometimes also financially. The second document is the results for the GGD (Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst - Municipal Health Service) investigation ‘Green in the neighborhood’. This is a study of how residents and professionals view the green in the neighborhood and its’ relationship with human health. This study was conducted in Rotterdam and some of the participants were residents in the neighborhood near the Dakpark. The third document is the case study report of the Dakpark from the TRANS-ADAPT project called ‘Societal transformation and adaptation necessary to manage dynamics in flood hazard and risk mitigation’. This project focused on the analysis and evaluation of “the multiple use of natural hazard mitigation schemes

with a particular focus on underlying social transformation in communities exposed”

in four European countries (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2017). The 2015 case study report about the Dakpark gave me a lot of insight regarding the history and background of the park, governance arrangements and processes, drivers and challenges and even performance evaluations. Moreover, the Groen Groep shared with me documents regarding their annual tasks and plans, including the plan for the year the park opened. Last but not least, after personal research in the website of the municipality of Rotterdam, I came across the 2011 land use plan of Vierhavenstraat and the surrounding area that includes the master plan of the Dakpark. I also came across a 2011 factsheet concerning the Dakpark in which information about the parks’ location, appearance, involvement of the residents, economic importance, sustainability and more, are summarized.

3.5 Data Analysis

In order to analyze the collected data, a thematic analysis was employed. In thematic analysis, key themes or patterns are defined within the data (Braun & Clarke 2006; Bryman 2012). These themes are used to address the research question and are important for the description the phenomenon that is examined in the research (Braun & Clarke 2006; Bryman 2012). A critical process for developing themes is coding, which is the organization of data into categories or “component parts” that represent and encapsulate information using a code (Bryman, 2012). “Codes identify

a feature of the data that appears interesting to the analyst” (Braun & Clarke, 2006),

which allows the researcher to sort out the data and identify any links and relationships within the data and then form patterns. This method gave me the

(23)

22 ability to understand and interpret the collected, coded and analyzed data and to link them to my research question and theoretical framework.

3.6 Ethics

The interviews were carefully planned to meet the Ethical Guidelines protocol. During initial conversations with the adult population, the nature and objective of the research and how the data would be collected and used was described to the interviewees either verbally or in an information sheet that was provided to them. They were given the opportunity to ask any related questions and also were informed that the study was voluntary and that they were free to leave whenever they would like. Since the interviews were recorded and notes and transcripts were made for data analysis, the participants were also strictly informed about anonymity, confidentiality and privacy prior of the interview and they were given a consent form to sign in order to participate.

(24)

23

4 ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This thesis examines the anticipated and real social impact of Dakpark in Rotterdam within the context of Nature-Based Solutions and their effects on people and the social benefits they provide (e.g. recreation, social interaction, social cohesion, crime reduction, aesthetics, regional identity etc.), in order to determine the social impact of the park on the residents. The anticipated social impact is the one that the actors involved in the design expected the park to have i.e. what did they say they would make, where the real social impact is the one that the actual residents experience now from the park i.e. what was actually made. Regarding the research methods for data collection I used interviews, participant observations and documents that I retrieved from personal research and received from the company that was responsible for the construction of the roof and its’ drainage system and from the ‘Dakpark Foundation’, the parks’ organization that provides part of the daily park management and organizes several activities such as maintenance of the gardens, events and workshops.

I collected and analyzed data in order to answer my key research question:

 What social impact does the ‘Dakpark’ Rotterdam have as a Nature-Based

Solution?

and the sub-questions:

 What was the anticipated social impact originally planned by the involved actors and what is the real social impact of the park?

 What kind of social benefits does the park provide to the residents?  What are the adverse effects of the park on the residents?

For the interviews (13 in total) I used three different lists of questions, one for each type of the interviewee. In Table.1 the list of all interviewees is presented. For easier referencing in the text, the interviews are mentioned according to Table.1 as such:

1. The construction company representative is referenced as ‘CC’

2. The Groen Groep (5 in total) is referenced as ‘GG1’ (one volunteer) and ‘GG4’ (four volunteers )

(25)

24

Table 1. List of interviews.

INTERVIEWEE DETAILS REFERENCE

IN TEXT DATE PLACE 1.Construction

company Technical and Sales advisor CC 10-04-19 Kerkrade

2.Groen Groep Volunteer A, nearby resident GG4 11-04-19 Rotterdam Volunteer B, nearby resident GG4 11-04-19 Rotterdam Volunteer C, nearby resident GG4 11-04-19 Rotterdam Volunteer D, nearby resident GG4 11-04-19 Rotterdam Volunteer, nearby resident,

former chairman of ‘Dakpark Foundation’, former member of the district council

GG1 13-04-19 Rotterdam

3.Visitors

Parent with 2 children,

nearby resident Vis.1 09-05-19

Dakpark, Rotterdam Parent with 1 child, nearby

resident Vis.2 09-05-19

Dakpark, Rotterdam Man, not resident, just

visiting the park Vis.3 09-05-19

Dakpark, Rotterdam Parent with 3 children,

nearby resident Vis.4 11-05-19

Dakpark, Rotterdam Woman, nearby resident Vis.5 11-05-19 Dakpark,

Rotterdam Man, nearby resident Vis.6 11-05-19 Dakpark,

Rotterdam Man, nearby resident Vis.7 11-05-19 Dakpark,

(26)

25 After collecting and analyzing the data, three main themes were defined. These themes and their sub-themes emerged according to my research questions and theoretical framework and are described below in section 4.2.

4.2 Themes

4.2.1 A Nature-Based Solution

Nature-Based Solutions are measures used for climate change adaptation and mitigation, and they are specifically defined as “actions to protect, sustainably

manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Kabisch et al., 2017).

Before the idea of the Dakpark was even conceived, the area used to be a railway switching station. It was a very grim and dangerous place as it was full of crime activities, with mostly drug dealing and prostitution. It was considered as a bad neighborhood, and people didn’t like that. They wanted to transform that place. When I discussed with the construction company representative and the Groen Groep the reasons that the park was designed, one of the main reasons they all mentioned is that the people from the neighborhood really wanted to remove that awful place. Even a visitor told me that it “was the worst place in Rotterdam” (Vis.4, 11-05-19, Dakpark Rotterdam). However there were many ideas of how to transform that horrible place into something beneficial.

4.2.1.1 Reasons to transform

The first main topic I discussed with the construction company and the Groen Groep volunteers was the reasons that the park was designed in the first place. Since the railway was removed from that neighborhood many different ideas came up of what the place should be. One plan, which originated from the side of the port authority and the municipality, was to renovate that part of the harbor (the fruit harbor), when the port authority decided to move part of the harbor activities to a different location, and to create a building for new business and office spaces related to fruit processing (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). Another plan, that the Groen Groep volunteers mentioned, was to reinforce the existing dike in Hudsonstraat since it is the primary flood defense structure along the river Meuse (GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). The construction company representative also told me that he city thought that ‘shopping’ could be one of the key points in that area, but there was need for more parking space too (CC,

(27)

10-04-26 19, Kerkrade). On the other hand, the people of the neighboring residential area wanted more green in the area and saw their chance for a neighborhood park (CC, 10-04-19, Kerkrade; GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). A Groen Groep volunteer said: “The citizens heard that the

railway would disappear and then they claimed that the area was too ‘stony’, with no green, no quality of life, and they asked for a park” (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam).

While talking with the other four volunteers they told me that after the railway was removed “the municipality wanted to make buildings, but the community wanted

more green like a park” (GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam).

The wish from the residents of the surrounding area to create more green space was crucial and lead to the emergence of the idea of creating a project with multiple land-use functions (CC, 10-04-19, Kerkrade; GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). Multifunctional dikes, which in addition to their flood defense function also offer room for other functions, are gaining momentum in the Netherlands in view of the shortage of space and the need for reinforcement of existing dikes due to climate change (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2017; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). While discussing the idea of a multifunctional dike with the Groen Groep volunteers, they mentioned that the people from the neighborhood were insisting in creating more green space, since they thought that their neighborhood was too “stony” and too paved (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam). Volunteer GG1 (13-04-19, Rotterdam), who was in the council of the local municipality before he was a volunteer in the Groen Groep, also informed me that in some old plans of the municipality it was mentioned that the area should have more green.

So the residents, as the Groen Groep volunteer (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam) said,

“made a strong group of citizens and made their claim very pronounced” and kept

insisting in the ‘more green’ in the neighborhood. That pressure from the residents was responsible for the realization of the park. After years of discussions, the city decided to use the existing dike and make it multifunctional (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015; Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010a). According to the land use plan (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010a) the spatial assignment was based on two spatial demands: (1) the need for various types of business space and employment at the urban and regional level, and (2) the need for more high-quality outdoor space for the residents of the neighboring city districts. So, that deprived, densely populated neighborhood that lacked of green, would finally transform to something better (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam).

(28)

27

4.2.1.2 Discussion – Relevance to Literature

Nature-Based Solutions, as stated by the European Commission, not only provide climate change resilience, but they also ensure access to basic necessities, support health-promoting individual activities and social interactions among citizens, and improve the attractiveness of cities to residents and businesses, hence they influence property value and economic activity. According to the two spatial demands of the land use plan and the fact that the park was built as a reinforcement of the existing dike, i.e. the primary flood defense structure, the Dakpark project covers all these characteristics. In addition, the roof park is basically a very large green roof, which means that it provides the same environmental benefits as a normal green roof. These benefits include the increase of rain water capacity, the decrease of urban air temperatures and the mitigation of the Heat Island Effect (Mees et al.,2012) Moreover it generated a lot of employment opportunities (600 jobs) for the area, not only during the construction phase but after its completion too, thus providing economic benefits (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015).

According to Givoni (1991), urban ‘green’ areas like parks “have a marked effect on

many aspects of the quality of the urban environment and the richness of life in a city. The environmental conditions within a public urban open space may have significant impact on the comfort conditions experienced inside them and consequently on their utilization by the public, especially in places or seasons of stressful climate”. Moreover the author states that urban vegetation not only affects

the microclimate around buildings and the overall urban climate, but also air pollution, the level of nuisance, social activities, aesthetic appearance etc. An attractive green environment offers the opportunity to reduce health differences between high and low SES (Socio-Economic Status) neighborhoods. Various studies show that vulnerable, low SES groups benefit the most from an attractive, green environment (GGD et al., 2018). The economic profile of this neighborhood is below national average. This neighborhood has been troubled by crime in the past (e.g. crime, drugs, prostitutes) and there is also a relatively high number of immigrants from many different countries (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015).

When interviewing the visitors, they all mentioned that they enjoyed the greenery of the park. Visitor 3 said about the park: “I love it. You’re surrounded by nature, even

has a playground and lots of trees” (Vis.3, 09-05-19, Dakpark Rotterdam). However,

even though they like the wide grassy spaces for different activities (e.g. picnics, barbeques, sitting, walking, kids playing sports), some of them told me that they would prefer more ‘natural’ green (e.g. more trees and bushes). Visitor 1 said that the park is “a man’s creation made for people” and “it doesn’t look natural” (Vis.1, 09-05-19, Dakpark Rotterdam), while visitor 2 prefers more trees because “when it’s

(29)

28 discussed with the Groen Groep. They told me that “the park is too sterile” and they would prefer “bushy gardens” (GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam). In general, green in the neighborhood is much appreciated by the residents, but better quality of greenery contributes to more use of the greenery. Vulnerable residents are often more dependent on greenery close to their home than residents with a high socio-economic status (GGD et al., 2018). That is why it is important that, especially in neighborhoods with a low socio-economic status, there is sufficient and high-quality greenery.

4.2.2 Social impact: anticipated vs. real

The anticipated social impact is the one that the actors involved in the design expected the park to have i.e. what did they say they would do, where the real social impact is the one that the actual residents experience now from the park i.e. what was actually made.

4.2.2.1 PLANNING PHASE

Even though the planning of the project started at the end of the ‘90s by the municipality of Rotterdam, the actual plan development started in 2000 and the Roof-park was officially opened in 2013. While interviewing the representative from the construction company and the Groen Groep, the duration of the planning phase was an interesting topic.

 Anticipated

For this project not only the Vierhavensstraat (the shopping street) but also the disused railyard on the north-east side of this street was to be redesigned. The focus was on the development of a large, elongated building called ‘Vierhavensstrip’ (the Strip) that would accommodate a mixed, urban program consisting of, among other things, shops, companies and cultural and educational functions. In combination with this largely commercial program, a large public park would be built on to the roof of the Strip. Due to its size and high-quality furnishings, the rooftop park would be a high-quality outdoor space for the residents of the neighboring city districts. Moreover, the building would fall within the flood defense zone which was not desirable. However, the development of the Vierhavensstrip would ensure the strengthening of the pre-existing dike (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010a; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015; CC, 10-04-19, Kerkrade; GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam).

(30)

29  Real

After 15 years of development the project was completed. The shopping mall was completed in 2012, and the roof-park above it at the end of 2013. Even though in the initial plans between the municipality and the private developer it was agreed to develop a building for offices and business related to the fruit harbour, the function of the building was changed to retail. Now the Dakpark works as a multi-functional dike that has integrated not only the flood defense structure, but also the retail center (shops) with a parking garage and a large park on the roof of the building (the Strip) for the residents of the neighborhood and visitors.

4.2.2.2 KEY ACTORS

The whole project lasted for almost 15 years, a very long time, due to the financial crisis but also because of various problems between the many different actors (stakeholders) and their conflicting interests. In table.2 an overview of the most important actors for the entire duration of the project, their roles, their interests and their relevant power base, is presented (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2011).

Table 2. Overview of the key actors/stakeholders for the entire duration of the project. Source: Gemeente Rotterdam, (2011)

KEY ACTORS/

STAKEHOLDERS MAIN ROLES MAIN INTERESTS POWER BASE Municipality, dept.

of City development incl. landscape planning

Initiation, planning, designing of the park

Create a multifunctional building with an integrated dike; create a park for the residents

High: former owner of the land before it was sold to the private project developer

Municipality, dept. of Project

Management

Project coordination

Bring project to fruition, control budgets, mediate functions and interests

Medium: provision of budgets; approval procedures for the building

Private project developer

Design and construction of the building

Achieve high tenant occupation rates; sale of the building to an investor

High: owner of the land; generation of cash, jobs & economic activity

Residents and their professional facilitator/ representative of the residents

Design of the park; daily management of the park

Ensure that residents’ needs are integrated into the park design; maintain influence on the management of the park

Medium – low: residents involvement in the design was a condition for the subsidy from the national government

(31)

30  Anticipated

The municipality (department of city development) was the main actor and initiator of the project (CC, 10-04-19, Kerkrade; GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). However, over the course of the project many different municipal officers/civil servants were involved from different departments (city development, project management, green planning, city maintenance, sub-municipality), and with several personnel changes and reorganization along the way (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). Besides the municipality, various other stakeholder groups were involved one way or the other during the different stages of the project (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). The private developer was a very powerful actor throughout the project. The municipality, although having budgetary and regulatory power, often chose to take the developer’s side because the creation of the park was dependent on the building (the Strip) being developed, both physically and financially (sale of the land, economic activity and jobs). The water board was a very powerful actor in the planning stage due to its mandated authority to safeguard the water safety of its jurisdiction, which basically meant that no one would interfere with the existing dike. The residents have had some power and influence on the project. They exercised considerable pressure on the municipality to create new green space in the neighborhood (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam; Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). This pressure turned out to be a main driver for the decision to build a park on top of the building. Their influence in the project was realized in the prescription of 8 commandments (wishes) for the design of the park (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015; Gemeente Rotterdam, 2011). The residents’ participation was also a precondition of the subsidy from the national government (GG1, 13-04-19, Rotterdam; Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010a). Also the municipality was stimulated by local politicians to involve the residents as I was told by volunteer GG1 (13-04-19, Rotterdam).

 Real

After the completion of the project, the main actors in the implementation phase of the project were the municipality and the project developer. Since it is a new and complicated project, the development of a public park on a private building “resulted

in many efforts put into legal arrangements to settle responsibilities and liabilities between the municipality and the project developer” (Gatien-Tournat et al., 2017;

Gatien-Tournat et al., 2015). Moreover, the fact that several different project managers have been working on the project from start to finish shows that they didn’t have a real connection with the work and the ‘Dakpark Foundation’ volunteering groups, causing incoherence and bad communication with other actors (GG4, 11-04-19, Rotterdam). One of the GG4 volunteers (11-04-19, Rotterdam) even