Private and Public Green Spaces Meaningful but ...

URBAN DYNAMICS & HOUSING CHANGE - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd Millennium

Private and Public Green Spaces Meaningful but Different Settings Henny Coolen Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

Janine Meesters Municipality ‘s-Hertogenbosch, Department O&S, Postbus 12345, 5200 GZ ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract The increased demand for more dwelling space in Western countries is in the Netherlands expressed in among others an overwhelming preference for a single family dwelling with a garden. In contrast with these consumer preferences the compact-city concept, which implies high-density and mixed-use cities, is on the agenda of governments. This gap between consumer preferences and governmental policies has led many policy makers, planners and developers to design dwelling concepts in which the private domestic garden is substituted with public green space. In this paper we investigate whether this substitution makes sense or not by comparing the meanings people attach to both the private domestic garden and public green space. Our results clearly show that unique combinations of functions and meanings are attached to the domestic garden and public green space. Key aspects of public green space are its contribution to the livability of the dwelling environment and to the experience of nature. A key feature of the domestic garden is that it is considered as an outdoors extension of the privacy that is afforded by the dwelling. So, public and private green spaces are not just simple substitutes for each other.

Keywords: housing preference, private green space, public green space, meaning

Introduction Several authors (Heins, 2002; Dowling, 2008) have argued that in Western countries there is, because of rising wealth, an increasing demand for more quality in the dwelling and residential environment. This becomes manifest in a demand for more space, both in the dwelling and residential environment. As far as the residential environment is concerned, many people prefer to live in a suburban type of residential environment, as it provides peace and quiet and green space (Rapoport, 2001; Van Dam et al, 2002). In the Netherlands, this increased demand for space is expressed among others in an overwhelming preference for a single-family dwelling with a private garden. Within this context the private domestic

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL, 22nd International Housing Research Conference

WS-18: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GREEN AND OPEN SPACES OF HOME

garden turns out to be a special housing feature, because for many people it is a non-compensatory preference (Boumeester et al., 2006). This means that many people who intend to move indicate that they will not accept another dwelling without a garden. Apparently, the private domestic garden is an important aspect of the quality of the dwelling and the residential environment. In contrast with these consumer’s preferences for a green, quiet neighborhood and spacious dwelling with a garden is the compact-city concept, as part of the promotion of sustainable urban areas, on the agendas of governments. Sustainable urban areas aim at a good quality of the physical environment, both spatially and socially. That means that the environment is well-maintained, clean, healthy and safe. Furthermore, it should allow residents a freedom of choice (Van der Valk, 2002). In Europe, but also the US and Australia there is a strong advocacy for this compact-city concept, which implies high-density, mixed-use cities with clear boundaries (Geurs and Van Wee, 2006). Dutch spatial planning policies implemented the compact city concept in various ways. For example, it was used in the redevelopment of already existing urban areas as well as in the development of new greenfield locations near existing cities. In urban areas the contrast between the compact-city concept and the demand for more space and green environments leads to a gap between governmental policies and consumer’s housing preferences. Developers and planners are looking for new dwelling concepts that might be developed in a relatively high density, but also respond to the increasing demand for space. Building in urban areas is expensive and space is limited, so there is a tendency for developing (luxurious) multi-family dwellings. Furthermore in these concepts private green space is often substituted with public green space, such as a communal garden or neighborhood park. This apparently self-evident substitution ignores the question whether public green space can be a substitute for private green space? Research by Bernardini and Irvine (2007) performed in Leicester (UK) suggests that these types of green space might not be substitutes for each other, because the private garden and public green space fulfill, among others, different functions. To understand whether and to what extent private green space can be substituted by public green space in the Netherlands, it is important to know first what both spaces afford to residents. Therefore we need to explore more in-depth the motivations underlying people’s preference for private domestic gardens and public green space. Traditionally housing preference research only focuses on which features people prefer (Jansen, Coolen and Goetgeluk, forthcoming). This study builds on that tradition, but adds another dimension by also investigating why people have certain preferences. It focuses on the affordances of the private domestic garden and public green space from a resident’s point of view. We use a conceptual framework that relates people’s housing preferences to their underlying motivations, which are called affordances (cf. Coolen, 2008). In contrast to most studies on private and public green space, we regard both the private domestic garden and public green space as an integral part of the dwelling and residential environment. By doing so, we can compare the affordances and investigate whether and to what extent public green spaces could be a substitute for private green space. Therefore, this paper addresses three research questions: 1) Which affordances do people attach to the private domestic garden? 2) Which affordances do people attach to public green spaces? 3) What are differences and similarities in the affordances? The structure of the remainder of the paper is as follows: Section two describes the conceptual framework used in this study. The third section presents the tool we used for empirically investigating people’s housing preference and determining the underlying motives. It also presents some key features of our respondents. The fourth section investigates the affordances of the private domestic garden and public green space. These are presented in so-called meaning structures which summarize the most important reason for people’s preference for the private domestic garden and public green space. We then compare both meaning structures and discuss to what extent public green space could be a substitute for the private domestic garden.



Theory Private and Public Green Space The private domestic garden as a setting of the dwelling has received relatively little attention in housing research (Sime, 1993; Gross and Lane, 2007). Indeed, as Sime argues this research has mainly concentrated on the dwelling as an interior space circumscribed by the walls of the house. And if the house is contrasted with the dwelling environment as the wider context beyond the house it seems as if the garden does not exist. Although the dwelling and dwelling environment are considered as central to basic human needs, higher-order needs, social relationships and to our identity (Gunther, 2000; Rapoport, 1981), the domestic garden is seldom treated in the same way as the interior space of the dwelling; that is as an external setting that forms an integral part of the dwelling (c.f. Gross and Lane, 2007). The meaning of gardens has attracted more attention from researchers (Francis and Hester, 1990; Bhatti, 1999; Gross and Lane, 2007), but only a small fraction of this research is devoted to the private domestic garden, since in many of these studies the term garden is used as a generic term for different types of nature or natural settings. Moreover, the body of literature that has investigated the meaning of gardens, nature and natural settings focuses to a large extent only on various aspects of psychological well-being (Gross and Lane, 2007). In recent years a growing interest in the study of the private domestic garden and its meanings seems to be developing (Bhatti, 1999; Bhatti and Church, 2004; Gross and Lane, 2007; Meesters and Coolen, 2008b). A brief survey of the literature shows that the meaning of gardens has been studied from different perspectives and with a variety of approaches. Grampp (1990) distinguished on the basis of the use of and the meanings attached to gardens by homeowners three types of gardens: a. the living garden, which is an outdoor extension to the dwelling more suited for domestic activity than the requirements of plants; b. the well-tempered garden, which is a formal, ordered, neat and well-attended to garden that is hardly used for leisure; and c. the expressionist garden, which is a place for cultivation by their owners who love gardening. Based on interviews with Californian and Norwegian gardeners Francis (1990) distinguished ten personal garden meanings: 1. the garden as a place to be, 2. a place to care for growing things, 3. a place to control, 4. a place to exert creativity, 5. a place that reflects personality, 6. a place of freedom, 7. a place for productive work, 8. a place to own, 9. a place that develops over time, and 10. a place of retreat. Bhatti (1999) characterizes the functions and meanings of the garden as multifaceted and multidimensional; he focuses mainly on the naturalist and environmentalist dimensions of the garden. Coolen and Hoekstra (2001) found that dwellers that prefer a house with a garden associate such values as unity with nature, creativity, enjoying life, freedom, cosiness, and true friendship with the garden. Bhatti and Church (2004) conclude from a survey among visitors to garden centres that the garden is an important site for privacy, sociability and sensual connections to nature. Despite the fact that the meaning of gardens has been studied from different perspectives most empirical studies that are concerned with the private garden, with the exception of Gross and Lane (2007), lack the integrative approach advocated by Sime (1993). Public green space as an integral part of the dwelling environment seems to have received attention mainly from developers and planners (c.f. Pincetl and Gearin, 2005), while the meaning of these settings for the inhabitants has received scant attention in the literature. One of the few exceptions we know is the study by Burgess, Harrison and Limb (1988), who found among others that the most valued open areas are often the intimate and familiar ones which play a part in people’s daily lives, rather than the distant parks and outstanding landscapes far from home. They also found that the main reasons that motivated people to visit an open space are to get out of the house, to take the children out, to get some exercise, and because the weather was good. In a recent study Bernardini and Irvine (2007) investigated the comparative value of private gardens and public parks for people’s place identity from the perspective of sustainable cities. They found that gardens are integral to people’s identity providing a place to express personal values, that parks are valued by people who do not have a garden, and to bring people together. Their research in Leicester (UK) suggests that the private domestic garden and public green space are important settings of the dwelling and dwelling environment for the inhabitants, but that these settings are not substitutes for each other, since they fulfill different functions and have different meanings. ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL, 22nd International Housing Research Conference


Although the study by Bernardini and Irvine (2007) is a good starting point, there is still little known about the comparative value of private gardens and public green space. Therefore, in this paper we will present data on the meaning of the private domestic garden as an integral setting of the dwelling and about the meaning of public green space as a setting of the dwelling environment from a survey in the Netherlands based on the conceptual framework presented next.

Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework that is used for studying the meanings of the private garden and public green space is an extension of the framework that has been introduced in the introductory paper (Coolen and Meesters, forthcoming) of this special issue and is presented in figure 1. A dwelling is defined as the system of settings, being a subsystem of the environment, that affords certain systems of functions. This makes it for the inhabitants the primary anchor in the environment. These systems of functions comprise activity systems, such as eating, sleeping, relaxing, and entertaining family and friends, but may also include socio-psychological functions, for example family life, safety, and privacy. The term primary anchor indicates that a dwelling is the operating base that provides shelter and concealment, and from which most people undertake activities, explore and experience the world and where they return. Considering a dwelling as a sub-system of the environment makes it possible to understand its specific functions, such as a place of retreat, not only in terms of its occupiers but also in the context of the other sub-systems in the environment. Only a subset of all the relevant functions is afforded by a dwelling. This subset of functions may be different for different individuals and the subsystem of settings that makes up the dwelling may also vary. It may include for instance, a certain number of rooms, a garden, a driveway, a garage, a certain layout, an attic, and many other settings. This does not mean that a dwelling is completely idiosyncratic and that there are no common or shared conceptions of what a dwelling is in terms of settings and functions. As many (Rapoport, 1969; …) have argued a dwelling can be considered as a cultural artefact, which implies the existence of more or less shared conceptions of dwellings within cultures.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for studying the meaning of dwelling (environment) features

Meaning Society

Individual

Economy

Culture

Affordance

Dwelling (environment) feature

Politics

The environment may be conceived as consisting of several subsystems, one of which forms the dwelling. Another important subsystem from the perspective of the inhabitants of dwellings is the



dwelling environment, which consists of those settings that afford functions which the inhabitants want to be realized in the immediate vicinity of their dwelling. The dwelling environment may include shops, a school, a park, a church, a playground, and many other settings. Most research into the meaning of a dwelling has taken a holistic view of a dwelling (Rapoport, 1995; Moore, 2000), which means that in terms of (Coolen and Meesters, forthcoming) the dwelling is considered as the environmental object. However, the conceptual framework in that paper also allows one to study features of dwellings, that is separate settings, since these may be treated as environmental objects too. These features will often be physical ones, for instance the number of rooms or the size of the living room, but may also be non-physical in nature as in the case of the feature tenure. There are several reasons for studying the meaning of dwellings from the perspective of dwelling features. First, there is the heterogeneity of the category of dwelling. There are many different types of dwellings that differ mainly in their features. Secondly, people perceive dwellings not only holistically but also in terms of their features, clearly demonstrated in research into the reasons for moving, where many people include dwelling features as a reason (Rossi, 1955). Thirdly, the holistic view of a dwelling and the feature view of it are just two different ways of considering the same object: every dwelling is made up of a certain collection of features. And last but not least, a dwelling has many potential uses and people are looking for multi-functional dwellings that can have many different affordances, which are, in the first place, afforded through the features of dwellings. So, the affordances dwellings provide for people lie in the relations between the features of dwellings on the one hand and the goals and intentions of people on the other. But affordances are not the only meanings that matter in our framework, since affordances may also have meanings of their own (Coolen, 2008). For instance, the activity of watching tv, that is afforded by the living room, may satisfy such values as relaxation or being together with the family, and a room for every family member afforded by a spacious dwelling, may satisfy a desire for privacy. These meanings form the extension of the conceptual framework presented by Coolen and Meesters (forthcoming). The difference between affordances and meanings is similar to Rapoport’s (1988, 1990) distinction between levels of meaning in the built environment. The basic distinction he makes is between manifest functions, or everyday meanings such as accessibility and seating arrangements, and latent functions such as identity, privacy, wealth, etc. According to Rapoport these everyday meanings have mostly been neglected in research on the meaning of the built environment, although they are essential for understanding the built environment. People’s activities and built environments are primarily linked by manifest functions, although latent meanings also tend to be important. In this sense especially manifest and latent functions are related to specific features of dwellings (Rapoport, 1988). The term meaning is used here in very much the same way the concept is used by Rapoport (1988, 1990a) and Chemero (2003). Rapoport’s conceptualization of the meaning of the built environment is very similar to our conceptualization of the meaning of the environment. Both approaches are based on a certain layering of functions or meanings. In our approach the meanings of an environmental object are denoted as affordances and meanings, while Rapoport refers to manifest and latent functions. More importantly it seems that manifest functions and affordances are very similar concepts. People’s activities and built environments are primarily linked by manifest functions, and affordances reflect this basic congruence between structural features of the environment and the intentions and goals of individuals. So the chain dwelling (environment) feature – affordance – meaning, which is called a meaning structure, forms the basis of the conceptual framework presented in figure 1. This framework shows the interrelations between the individual, affordances, meanings, and dwelling (environment) features, and at the same time depicts how these phenomena and interrelations are embedded in the social, political, cultural and economic system (c.f. Coolen and Meesters, forthcoming).



Data and Method Data In 2008 the OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment developed a measurement instrument called Picture Enabled Preference Survey Interface (PEPSI) for the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and for the Association (VROM) of Dutch Property Developers (NEPROM). With this instrument several aspects of people’s housing preferences can be measured. What people’s housing preferences are is determined by means of conjoint measurement, while the extent to which the absence of a preferred housing feature may be compensated for by another feature is measured by the decision plan net approach. With PEPSI one can also determine why people have certain housing preferences, for which the meaning structure method (Coolen, 2008) is used. PEPSI was tested in a pilot study in which 120 respondents participated which were selected from the WoON 2006database, a large housing survey commissioned by the Ministry of VROM. One part of the respondents filled out the web based questionnaire, while the other part filled it out by means of computer aided personal interviewing. All respondents live in the Randstad, the urbanized western part of the Netherlands. The data presented in this paper come from this pilot study, and the available characteristics of the respondents are presented in table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents (n = 120) Relative frequency Age: 1. < 34 2. 35 – 64 3. > 64

11 38 51

Household size: 1. one person 2. two persons 3. three or more persons

20 45 35

Income: 1. < 1500 2. 1500 – 2000 3. > 2000

21 26 53

Ethnicity: 1. native Dutch 2. immigrant

72 28

From the questionnaire we used the questions about private and public green space and about the meanings that people attach to these spaces. The question about the private garden read as follows: ‘Do you prefer a dwelling with a garden or a dwelling with a balcony?’, while the question about public green space read ‘Which type of public green space do you prefer in your dwelling environment: one centrally located big park, or several smaller public green spaces, or little green space?’. Having indicated their preferred private outdoor space the respondents were asked ‘What is the most important reason for you to prefer a dwelling with a garden/balcony?’. The questionnaire contained a similar question for public green space. These were semi closed-ended questions which aimed at determining the affordances that people attach to respectively the private garden and public green space. The sets of categories that were used for these questions were compiled on the basis of several pilot projects in which semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted, which were subsequently transcribed and content analyzed. If a respondent’s answer would not fit into one of the supplied



categories, the category ‘other’ could be marked and the respondent could specify his/her answer. After the survey it turned out that more than 95% of the answers were given in one of the pre-specified categories. A content analysis was performed on the other answers, which resulted in one additional the category for the affordances of public green space: walking the dog. The few remaining answers were too idiosyncratic to be categorized and were collected in the category ‘other’. Given the affordance that people mentioned for both the private garden and public green space they were subsequently asked ‘Why is the reason you just mentioned, namely [fill in the affordance just mentioned], important to you?’. This semi closed-ended question was put to the respondents for both the affordance of the private garden and the affordance of public green space, and aimed at determining the meaning that people attach to these spaces. For both questions similar category systems were used as for the affordance question, while the category ‘other’ was hardly marked by the respondents and did not contain additional information.

Method Following the procedure that was described in the previous section for every respondent a meaning structure, i.e. the chain feature – affordance – meaning, was collected for the feature private garden and for the feature public green space. These meaning structures can be analyzed in several ways (Coolen, 2006). One way is to ignore the relationships between feature, affordance and meaning, and to just analyze each of these elements of the meaning structure in a univariate way, for instance by inspecting frequency distributions of features, affordances and meanings separately. Another way is to take the relational aspects of the meaning structures explicitly into account, which may result in a meaning network. This is accomplished by collecting the individual affordance – meaning relationships for either the garden or public green space, in a so-called valued adjacency matrix (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). In such a matrix the rows are formed by the affordances, the columns by the meanings, and a non-zero cell entry indicates the frequency with which a certain relation has been mentioned by the respondents. As an example the valued adjacency matrix of the private garden is presented in table 2.

Table 2. Valued adjacency matrix of the feature private garden Being Hobby Activities Freedom Peace Enjoying Nature Privacy Recreation Health outside and life quiet Being outside -

6

2

4

25

1

1

5

3

0

Gardening

4

1

2

0

1

4

0

0

1

1

Playground

1

0

3

0

1

1

0

0

2

0

Freedom

1

1

3

-

0

2

1

1

0

0

Nature

0

0

2

0

1

2

-

0

0

1

Privacy

1

0

0

2

1

0

0

-

0

0

Adjacency matrices can be represented graphically in a network (Wasserman and Faust, 1994), and the graphical display of the relationships in table 2 is called a meaning network, in which the affordances and meanings are represented as nodes and the relationships as links. The meaning network of the private garden is displayed in figure 2. The red dots represent the affordances, the blue squares the meanings. The numbers between brackets are the frequencies of the affordances, while the numbers



along the links are the frequencies with which the relationships between affordances and meanings are mentioned. Generally, a cut-off level is used to represent only the main relationships in the network (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). In this study a cut-off level of 2 is used, which means that only the relationships that have a frequency of at least 3 are represented in the meaning networks.

Results In this section we discuss the affordances and meanings of the private domestic garden and public green space. We first explore why people prefer either a garden or public green space. We then compare the affordances and meanings of the private domestic garden and public green space to investigate to what extent public green spaces can be a substitute for a private domestic garden.

Affordances and Meanings of the Private Domestic Garden Of all people who participated in our study, almost 80% preferred a garden, whereas 20% prefers a balcony (see table 3). This preference is not affected by such socio-demographic characteristics as income and ethnicity. However, there is a relation between the preference for a garden or a balcony and age and household size. With increasing age, people more often prefer a balcony instead of a garden, while smaller households also prefer relatively more often a balcony over a garden. The advantage of a balcony instead of a garden that might be relevant for old age, is that a balcony requires less maintenance. For larger households, which will often have children, an important function of the garden is that of a playground (Meesters and Coolen, 2008b). And since balconies are not considered suitable as a playground due to their size (too small) or are considered as too dangerous (falling of) (Boumeester et al, 2008), this might explain why larger households more often prefer a garden.

Table 3. Preference for private outdoor space (n = 120) Relative frequency Balcony

21

Garden

79

People attach many diverse affordances and meanings to the private domestic garden. Table 4 shows all the affordances and meanings mentioned for the private domestic garden. Clearly one affordance stands out; more than half of all respondents want a garden for being outside. Gardening is mentioned as an affordance by 16% of the respondents, while the affordances freedom and playground come third in terms of relative frequency. Remarkably, gardening has been mentioned relatively little, compared with other research on the affordances of private domestic gardens (Meesters and Coolen, 2008b; Gross and Lane, 2007). In general gardening is linked to positive meanings, such as getting in contact with nature and relaxation. Besides the satisfaction of gardening and its positive contribution to psychological wellbeing, it can also be stressful. The garden needs to be kept up to make it look nice for the neighbors or gardening projects that did not turn out as planned (Bhatti and Chutch, 2004). Even though many people enjoy gardening, also a large portion experience gardening as a chore. The most important meaning that people attach to the private garden is peace and quiet. Other relatively important meanings are activities, enjoying life and hobby. So, the garden is an outdoor place for a whole range of activities, mostly leisure activities.



Table 4. Relative frequencies of affordances and meanings of the private garden (n = 90) Affordance

Meaning

52

8

-

33

Freedom

10

7

Gardening

16

-

Activities

-

13

Privacy

4

7

Enjoying life

-

11

Playground

10

-

Nature

8

2

Hobby

-

10

Recreation

-

7

Health

-

2

Being outside Peace and quiet

The relationships between the affordances and meanings of the private domestic garden are represented in the meaning network that is depicted in figure 2. Clearly, the affordance being outside is not only the most mentioned one, but also takes a central position in the network. It is linked to many meanings. The link that dominates the network is the one between being outside and peace and quiet, which means that people want to be outside to find peace and quiet. Since privacy is also a meaning related to being outside, this seems to indicate that people want to be outside undisturbed (c.f. Bernardini and Irvine, 2007). Other relatively important links in the network are being outside – hobby, gardening – enjoying life, gardening – being outside, and being outside – freedom. The meanings enjoying life and being outside attached to the affordance gardening indicate that the respondents in our sample seem to attach positive meanings to gardening. This is in line with our explanation, given above, for the relative unpopularity of the affordance gardening. Apparently, respondents who consider gardening as an affordance of the private garden really do like gardening! In fact, some people who prefer a balcony do so because it still affords sitting outside, but it needs considerable less time and effort to maintain. In the meaning network of the garden the affordance playground does not have a prominent place, which may be caused by the relatively old age of our respondents. Other research shows that for households with young children an important affordance of the garden is a playground. It provides a safe place where young children can play and learn under supervision of their parents (Meesters and Coolen, 2008b). To sum up, people attach several affordances and meanings to the private domestic garden. Given the type of affordances and meanings that are most frequently mentioned, the concept of the living garden as an extension to the house (Grampp, 1990) seems to be appropriate for the Netherlands. The affordances and meanings vary from leisure pastimes like being outside and hobby to recreation and children playing (the garden as a playground). In fact, many of the affordances and meanings of the garden are also important affordances and meanings of the living room. In the living room these are leisure pastimes (relaxing, hobby), children playing and peace and quiet (Meesters and Coolen, 2008a). So we may conclude that the garden is not only an enclosed extension to the dwelling, but it also seems to be, like the living room, an essential setting of the dwelling.



Figure 2. Meaning network of the private domestic garden (numbers indicate frequencies)

Affordances and Meanings of Public Green Space Most people prefer to have several small public green spaces in their dwelling environment (see table 5). Still, one third of all respondents prefer a centrally located big park. Hardly any of the respondents prefers to have little green space in their residential environment. There are no differences in the preference for public green space among age, household and income groups. However, immigrants prefer relatively more often one centrally located big park, whereas native Dutch respondents prefer several smaller public green spaces. Bernardini and Irvine (2007) found similar preferences in the UK. Most people prefer to have several small public green place in the dwelling environment. The use of parks seems to be affected by ethno-cultural features. British seem to keep more to themselves, whereas Asian-British people use public parks more often (Bernardini and Irvine, 2007).

Table 5. Preference for public green space (n = 120) Relative frequency One centrally located big park

33

Several smaller public green places

65

Little green space

2

Having a park, a grassplot or other green areas close by the dwelling contributes positively to the livability of the neighborhood. It also contributes to a sense of nature. Both affordances have been mentioned by more than one fifth of the respondents (see table 6). But also, it invites people to go outside, to reside in their residential environment, as is shown by the affordance being outside. People



feel that green public spaces contribute to a pleasant residential environment, shown by the affordance enjoying life. Furthermore it provides space, an important affordance in the generally high density residential environments in the Netherlands. Children can play outside. Public green space affords a sense of freedom and an opportunity to meet others, reflected by the affordance social contacts. Finally public green space affords peace and quiet and one can walk the dog.

Table 6. Relative frequencies of affordances and meanings of public green space (n = 109) Affordance

Meaning

Livable

28

16

Nature

28

15

Being outside

15

20

Enjoying life

5

17

Space

6

9

Playground

8

5

Freedom

2

9

Social contacts

2

7

Peace and quiet

4

4

Walk the dog

3

-

Figure 3 shows that the most mentioned affordances livable, nature and being outside are all linked in a reciprocal manner. So, for some people nature affords livability, whereas for others livability affords nature. So there is no strict hierarchy in these affordances of the public green space. The term livability is somewhat ambiguous because it is such a comprehensive term. We understand it as having a positive connotation, referring to a pleasant residential environment. The centrality of the affordance livability clearly shows how important green public space is for the well-being of residents. And vice versa, if not well managed or absent it can be a serious threat to people’s experience of a pleasant residential environment. Both the affordance and meaning nature is relative more prominent in the meaning structure for public green space than it is in the meaning structure of the private domestic garden. Like private green space, public green affords a playground for children. In contrast to private green space, the affordance playground is linked to social contacts. This seems to indicate that children can play together with their friends (from the neighborhood) and parents who might supervise them can meet other parents. So, public green spaces may have different affordances for different people. For instance, Bélanger (forthcoming) found that a neighborhood park is used differently and by different people during the day: office people use the park to go out and eat their lunch at lunchtime, while in the afternoon elderly people meet there for a drink. To sum up, people prefer to live close by green public space because it contributes positively to the livability of the dwelling environment, it provides a place to be outside, including a playground for children, and to meet others. Another important affordance of public green space is its positive contribution to a sense of nature.



Figure 3. Meaning network of public green space (numbers indicate frequencies)

Comparing the Meanings of Public and Private Green Space The previous analyses showed that both the private domestic garden and public green space are important settings of the dwelling and dwelling environment for the inhabitant. We now compare the affordances and meanings of the private domestic garden and public green space in order to be able to evaluate to what extent pubic green space can be a substitute for the private domestic garden. Figure 4 contains all affordances of both private and public green space; the affordances playground, being outside and nature are afforded by both the private domestic garden and public green space. Playground is an almost equally important affordance for both private and public green space. Being outside is dominantly afforded by the garden, while nature is mainly afforded by public green space. Besides these shared affordances the private domestic garden and public green space also have unique affordances. Gardening, freedom and privacy are only afforded by the garden. Gardening is by necessity unique for the garden, since it cannot be afforded by any other setting of the dwelling. The unique affordances freedom and privacy seem to refer to the ability to be outside unobserved by others (non household members) as well as being able to control the space (c.f. Bernardine and Irvine, 2007). The single most important unique affordance of public green space is livability. Since most respondents prefer to have several smaller green plots in the dwelling environment, they apparently feel that these contribute positively to their well-being as is also suggested by such affordances as space, enjoying life and finding peace and quiet. In order to further explore the similarities and difference between the private garden and public green space the meanings of the shared affordances for both settings are shown in figure 5. The first thing we notice in this figure is that none of the meanings of the three common affordances are shared. The meanings of the affordance being outside for public green space are nature and livable, while for the private garden they are peace and quiet, hobby, privacy, freedom and recreation. The meanings of nature are enjoying life, livable, being outside and playground, and are only attached to public green space. For public green space the affordance playground has the meanings being outside and social contact, while the meaning activities are attached to it in the private garden.



Figure 4. Affordances of the private domestic garden and public green space (numbers indicate frequencies)

Figure 5. The meanings of three shared affordances of the private garden (squares) and public green space (triangles) (numbers indicate frequencies)



The picture that emerges from this comparison of affordances and meanings of the private garden and public green space further supports the views about the role of these settings that emerged in the previous sections. The private domestic garden seems to be the place for leisurely pastime. As such it forms an integral setting of the dwelling that affords being outside in a private, peaceful and quiet setting and where one has the freedom to do as one likes. In many ways it may be considered as an outdoor extension to the living room, which is used as such when the weather allows it. Public green space, in the form of several smaller green spaces instead of one larger park, is considered by our respondents as an integral part of the dwelling environment that contributes to the livability of the dwelling environment and as such it seems to invite people to be outside, among others to experience nature. The experience of nature is for our respondents much more related to public green space than to the private garden. This is in contrast with many studies on the garden in which nature takes up a very prominent position (e.g. Francis and Hester, 1990; Bhatti, 1999). The unique combinations of affordances and meanings of private and public green space are important for all, regardless of whether people prefer a private domestic garden or not (cf. Bernardini and Irvine, 2007). This finding is very much in line with the results of a study by Boumeester et al. (2009) about urban living, in which it was also found that people want both private and public green space in their dwelling and dwelling environment.

Conclusion and Discussion The increasing tension between on the one hand the idea of compact, sustainable urban areas and the increasing demand for space in and around the dwelling on the other, places planners and developers for a difficult task. Several solutions have been put into practice. One of these is the substitution of public green spaces for private domestic gardens, which apparently are assumed to be substitutable for each other. In this paper we investigated the underlying motives for the preference for private domestic gardens and public green spaces in order to be able to evaluate whether these types of green spaces can be substitutes for each other. It provides insight into why the private domestic garden and a green dwelling environment are such important features in people’s housing preferences. Our results show that a large majority of people prefer a private domestic garden over a balcony, and at the same time also want public green space in their dwelling environment. The private domestic garden is unique for its combination of affordances and meanings such as being outside, privacy, freedom and gardening. Whereas public green space - mostly preferred as several smaller public green spaces – is unique for its positive contribution to the livability of the dwelling environment and to the experience of nature. Although some of the affordances and meanings are shared by the private garden and public green space, for instance being outside, it is the combination of affordances and meanings that makes them unique for one of both settings. So, we may conclude that the private domestic garden cannot simply be substituted by public green space in the Netherlands. Despite some similarities in affordances and meanings our results clearly show that the private domestic garden and public green space have unique combinations of affordances and meanings. A key aspect of public green space is its contribution to the livability of the dwelling environment and the experience of nature. A key feature of the private domestic garden is that it is considered as an outside extension of the privacy that is afforded by the dwelling. The results of this study give more insight into why there is a gap between consumers’ preferences for green, spacious living and the compact-city concept so often promoted by governmental policies. An important lesson learned from this study might be that policymakers would accept that urban living is not for everyone, which is also reflected by the fact that in a traditionally highly urbanized country as The Netherlands approximately 50% of the population does not live in cities. So, the focus in housing research and housing policy should not only be on how to implement the compact-city concept. Sustainable ‘suburban living’ also deserves attention and merits to be on the agendas of researchers and policymakers. The VROM-council came to a similar conclusion in a recent study on sustainable urban development: there is not one generic model for successful sustainable urban development. The city is part of a wider spatial system, defined by various functions such as dwelling, work and leisure. Focusing only on the city would neglect or even disrupt the link between the city and its surrounding environment (VROM-council, 2010).



The preference for a certain type of residential environment is the outcome of a decision making process on the household level. A group of households (dual earners with a balanced work-care relation) seem to prefer to live in the (compact) city (De Graaff and Karsten, 2007). It allows them to combine work and family duties better than in a green, suburban residential environment. So even though the results from our study show that the compact city is not for everyone, one might expect that in the future, with a possibly increasing labor participation of women and the up-rise of the ‘daddy-day’ this could become a larger group. Therefore, for sustainable urban development policymakers need a wider scope by linking the city and its surroundings. One important aspect in achieving this is by considering urban and suburban residential environmental quality not as separate but as interconnected qualities.

References Bernardini, C. and Irvine, K.N. (2007), The ‘nature’ of urban sustainability: private or public green spaces, in: Kungolas, A., Brebbia, C.A., Beriatos, E. (eds.), Sustainable development and planning III (volume 2), WIT Press, pp. 661-674. Belanger, H., “It’s not for us”: Physical and social transformations in a working class neighbourhood (fortcoming). Bhatti, M. (1999), The meaning of gardens in an age of risk, in: Chapman, T. and Hockey, J., Ideal homes: social change and domestic life, Routledge, London, pp. 181-194. Bhatti, M. and Church, A. (2004), Home, the culture of nature and meanings of gardens in late modernity, Housing Studies, 19, pp. 37-51. Boumeester H.J.F.M., Lamain C.J.M., Mariën A.A.A., Rietdijk N. and Nuss F.A.H. (2006) Huizenkopers in profiel; Onderzoek naar wensen van potentiële huizenkopers, NVB, Voorburg. Boumeester H.J.F.M., Dol K. and Meesters J. (2009) Stedelijk wonen: een brug tussen wens en werkelijkheid. Een onderzoek naar woonwensen en woonproducten bij binnenstedelijk bouwen, NVB, Voorburg. Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M. and Limb, M. (1988), People, parks and the urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city, Urban Studies, 25, pp. 455-473. Chemero, A. (2003), An outline of a theory of affordances, Ecological Psychology, 15, pp. 181-195. Coolen, H. (2006), The meaning of dwellings: an ecological perspective, Housing, Theory and Society, 23, pp. 185, 201. Coolen, H. (2008), The Meaning of Dwelling Features: Conceptual and methodological issues, IOS Press, Amsterdam. Coolen, H. and Hoekstra, J. (2001), Values as determinants of preferences for housing features, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, pp. 285-306. Coolen, H. and Meesters, J., House, home, and dwelling (forthcoming) De Graaff, L. and Karsten, L. (2007) Woonmilieuvoorkeuren van de creatieve klasse (Residential environment preferences of the creative class), Agora, 2007-2, pp. 41-44. Dowling, R. (2008) Accommodating open plan: children, clutter, and containment in suburban houses in Sydney, Australia, Environment and Planning A, 40, pp. 536-549. Francis, M. (1990), The everyday and the personal: six garden stories, in: Francis, M. and Hester, R.T. (eds.) (1990), The meaning of gardens, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 206-216. Francis, M. and Hester, R.T. (eds.) (1990), The meaning of gardens, MIT Press, Cambridge. Geurs, K.T. and Van Wee, B. (2006) Ex-post Evaluation of Thirty Years of Compact Urban Development in the Netherlands, Urban Studies, 43, pp.139-160.


WS-18: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GREEN AND OPEN SPACES OF HOME Grampp, C. (1990), Social meanings of residential gardens, in: Francis, M. and Hester, R.T. (Eds.), The Meaning of Gardens, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 178-184. Gross, H. and Lane, N. (2007), Landscapes of the lifespan: exploring accounts of own gardens and gardening, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, pp. 225-241. Gunther, B. (2000), Psychology of the home, Whurr, London. Heins, S. (2002), Rurale woonmilieus in stad en land. Plattelandsbeelden, vraag en aanbod van rurale woonmilieus, Eburon, Delft. Jansen, S., Coolen, H. and Goetgeluk, R., Methodology for Research into housing preferences and choices (forthcoming). Meesters, J. and Coolen, H. (2008a), The living room as a place to be, paper presented at the Norwegian Geographical Society Conference, March 27-28, Trondheim, Norway. Meesters, J and Coolen, H. (2008b), The garden as a meaningful setting, paper presented at the European Network for Housing Research Conference, July 6-8, Dublin, Ireland. Moore, J. (2000), Placing home in context, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, pp. 207-217. Pincetl, S. and Gearin, E. (2005, The reinvention of public green space, Urban Geography, 26, pp. 365-384. Rapoport, A. (1969), House form and culture, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Rapoport, A. (1981), Identity and environment: a cross-cultural perspective, in: Duncan, J.S. (ed.), Housing and Identity; cross-cultural perspectives, Croom-Helms, London. Rapoport, A. (1988), Levels of meaning in the built environment, in: Poyatos, F. (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication, C.J. Hogrefe, Toronto, pp. 317-336. Rapoport, A. (1990), The meaning of the built environment, University of Arizona Press, Tucson (second edition). Rapoport, A. (1995), A critical look at the concept ‘Home’, in: Benjamin, D.N.A. and Stea, D. (eds.), The home: words, interpretations, meanings, and environments, Aldershot, Avebury, pp. 25-52. Rapoport, A. (2000), Theory, culture and housing, Housing, Theory and Society, 17, pp. 145-165. Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988), Laddering theory, method, analyses, and interpretation, Journal of Advertising Research, 28, pp. 11-31. Rossi, P.H. (1955), Why families move, Free Press, Glencoe. Sime, J. (1993), What makes a house a home: the garden?, in: Bulos, M. and Reymur, N. (eds.), Housing: design, research, education, Aldershot, Avebury, pp. 239-254. Van Dam, F., Heins, S. and Elbersen, B.S. (2002), Lay discourses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living. Some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in the Netherlands, Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp. 461-476. Van der Valk A. (2002), The Dutch planning experience, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, pp. 201-210. VROM-council (2010), Duurzame verstedelijking (Sustainable urbanisation), OBT, The Hague. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social network analysis. Methods and applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
