IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0278747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transforming brownfields into urban greenspaces: A working process for stakeholder analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Shaswati Chowdhury
  • Jaan-Henrik Kain
  • Marco Adelfio
  • Yevheniya Volchko
  • Jenny Norrman

Abstract

Urban greenspaces (UGS) provide a range of ecosystem services and are instrumental in ensuring the liveability of cities. Whilst incorporating UGS in increasingly denser cities is a challenge to planners, brownfields form a latent resource with the potential of being converted into UGS. Transformation of brownfields to greenspaces, however, requires engagement of a variety of stakeholders, from providers to users. The overall aim of this study was to support effective and realistic realisations of UGS in the context of urban brownfields’ regeneration and stakeholder engagement. A working process was developed to: 1) integrate methods relevant for UGS realisation for a) identification and categorising of relevant stakeholders, b) mapping their interests and resources, c) identifying various challenges, and d) matching those challenges with the mapped resources over the timeline of UGS development; and 2) apply these methods to assess relevance and shortcomings. The methods were applied to a study site in Sweden, and data was collected using a questionnaire survey. The survey received 31 responses and the respondents’ comments indicated that the combination of several uses, especially integrated with an urban park, is preferable. Visualisation was an important component for data analysis: stakeholder categorisation was effectively visualised using a Venn diagram, and the needed mobilisation of resources among stakeholders to manage identified challenges was visualised using a timeline. The analysis demonstrates the need for collaboration between stakeholders to achieve an effective realisation of UGS and how multiple methods can be used in concert to map stakeholders, preferences, challenges, and resources for a particular site. The application at a study site provided site-specific data but the developed stakeholder categorisation, and the method for matching identified challenges with the stakeholders’ resources using a timeline, can be generalised to applications at other sites.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaswati Chowdhury & Jaan-Henrik Kain & Marco Adelfio & Yevheniya Volchko & Jenny Norrman, 2023. "Transforming brownfields into urban greenspaces: A working process for stakeholder analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278747
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278747
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278747&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0278747?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hossein Azadi & Peter Ho & Erni Hafni & Kiumars Zarafshani & Frank Witlox, 2011. "Multi-stakeholder involvement and urban green space performance," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(6), pages 785-811.
    2. Marie Davidová & Kateřina Zímová, 2021. "COLreg: The Tokenised Cross-Species Multicentred Regenerative Region Co-Creation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Jost Wilker & Karsten Rusche & Christine Rymsa-Fitschen, 2016. "Improving Participation in Green Infrastructure Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 229-249, May.
    4. Johan Colding & Åsa Gren & Stephan Barthel, 2020. "The Incremental Demise of Urban Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Hailu, Reta & Tolossa, Degefa, 2020. "Multi-stakeholder platforms: Institutional options to achieve water security in the awash basin of Ethiopia," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    3. Mihai-Razvan Niță & Ana-Maria Anghel & Cristina Bănescu & Ana-Maria Munteanu & Sabina-Stella Pesamosca & Mihuț Zețu & Ana-Maria Popa, 2018. "Are Romanian urban strategies planning for green?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 158-173, January.
    4. Jeonghee Choi & Gunwoo Kim, 2022. "History of Seoul’s Parks and Green Space Policies: Focusing on Policy Changes in Urban Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-28, March.
    5. Angioletta Voghera & Benedetta Giudice, 2019. "Evaluating and Planning Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Perspective for Sustainability and Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Carolina Yacamán Ochoa & Daniel Ferrer Jiménez & Rafael Mata Olmo, 2020. "Green Infrastructure Planning in Metropolitan Regions to Improve the Connectivity of Agricultural Landscapes and Food Security," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, October.
    7. John R. Taylor & Mamatha Hanumappa & Lara Miller & Brendan Shane & Matthew L. Richardson, 2021. "Facilitating Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Planning in Washington, DC through a Tableau Interface," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Johan Colding & Karl Samuelsson & Lars Marcus & Åsa Gren & Ann Legeby & Meta Berghauser Pont & Stephan Barthel, 2022. "Frontiers in Social–Ecological Urbanism," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Renato Monteiro & José C. Ferreira & Paula Antunes, 2020. "Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: An Integrated Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Konrad Nübel & Michael Max Bühler & Thorsten Jelinek, 2021. "Federated Digital Platforms: Value Chain Integration for Sustainable Infrastructure Planning and Delivery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    11. Greg D. Simpson & Jackie Parker, 2018. "Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability," Data, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, November.
    12. Roberto Falanga & Jessica Verheij & Olivia Bina, 2021. "Green(er) Cities and Their Citizens: Insights from the Participatory Budget of Lisbon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Jörg Priess & Luis Valença Pinto & Ieva Misiune & Julia Palliwoda, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    14. Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    15. Adriano Bressane & Rogério Galante Negri & Irineu de Brito Junior & Liliam César de Castro Medeiros & Isabela Lopes Lima Araújo & Mirela Beatriz Silva & Amanda Louisi dos Santos Galvão & Graziele Cora, 2022. "Association between Contact with Nature and Anxiety, Stress and Depression Symptoms: A Primary Survey in Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-10, August.
    16. Marcin Feltynowski & Jakub Kronenberg, 2020. "Urban Green Spaces—An Underestimated Resource in Third-Tier Towns in Poland," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Hernandez, Edward Russel & Sy, Patricia Breanne & Cirunay, Michelle T. & Batac, Rene C., 2024. "Power-law distributions of urban tree cover," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 643(C).
    18. Bo Li & Yue Wang & Tong Wang & Xiaoman He & Jan K. Kazak, 2022. "Scenario Analysis for Resilient Urban Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    19. Nordström, Jonas & Hammarlund, Cecilia, 2021. "You win some, you lose some - compensating the loss of green space in cities taking heterogeneous population characteristics into consideration," AgriFood-WP 2021:3, Lund University, AgriFood Economics Centre.
    20. Peter Brokking & Ulla Mörtberg & Berit Balfors, 2021. "Municipal Practices for Integrated Planning of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Development in the Stockholm Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.