Playground Litter
4.4.2 Atmosphere
In contrast to the above discussion, in many instances, the use of an alternative leisure space was not premised on a physical limit to affordance. Instead, many participant accounts suggested that substitution of use was promoted where concerns compromised the sense of safety engendered by case study spaces. Teenagers and ASB were a focus for these
sentiments amongst participants, with respondents suggesting that the presence of “rough looking” young people made the park “not the kind of place you want to hang around in” (PRS085). For some, less extreme aspects of avoidance were sufficient to mitigate this sense of threat. As highlighted by Excerpt 4.21, for instance, spatial avoidance was evident in relation to children’s playgrounds where young people were perceived to have appropriated these spaces.
Excerpt 4.21
“yobs drinking and swearing in the playground– spoils it for taking small children”
Female, 55-64, Manston
As highlighted by Kirsty, in Excerpt 4.22, some participants also responded to this perceived threat through temporal avoidance. The presence of teenagers was connected with the early evening and there was therefore evidence that, rather than limit their use completely, some participants elected to not make use of the spaces at this time of day. Clearly, however, this was a more problematic strategy for those who worked full-time. For some, diminished levels of lighting also worsened this sense of intimidation in winter months and, where this was the case, the desire to substitute the use of case study spaces with that of another leisure arena appeared enhanced. One participant suggested in relation to Manston Park, for instance, that they would rather “walk locally where there are less "youths”” (MRS110) in the winter.
Excerpt 4.22
“there’s a particular group of 10 youngish people […] if you just like walking your dog or your kids round it spoils it a bit[…] there’s certain times of day where it’s worse, sort of teatime-ish so you can sort of avoid it if you want to”
Kirsty, 25-34, Pudsey
In some instances, a sense of intimidation or fear also led individuals to make use of more private arenas instead of case study spaces. As evident in Excerpt 4.23, this was particularly prevalent in relation to a fear of dogs, where individuals noted their own cynophobia or that of
116 their family necessitated the use of their street or private garden where this issue would not arise.
Excerpt 4.23
“I have two boys aged 7+9 - unfortunately they are both scared of dogs. When they were smaller we were in the park weekly but as this fear has developed our use of the park has dropped. They play out a lot and play football - but use the alley at the back of our street which is dog free.”
Female, 45-54, Manston
Nevertheless, in all accounts of substitution, a process of ‘weighing up’ was clear and, while thresholds of tolerance were evident, as noted in Excerpt 4.24, these negative aspects were evaluated by participants in conjunction with the aspects of accessibility and affordance, discussed above. Negativity can therefore be considered a further constraint on the direct use value derived from community parks. However, access to other leisure facilities is variable and substitution can only occur on this basis where direct use is derived out of desire rather than need. The green spaces presented by participants as alternatives to Manston Park and Pudsey Park, such as Temple Newsam and Roundhay Parks, were often more difficult to access and, thus, while, for those with access to private transport, concerns may drive the use of an alternative leisure space, for those with more restricted transport options, thresholds for negativity appeared higher.
Excerpt 4.24
“when it comes down to it you have a choice to make. Wouldn’t you take a short drive but go to a place where it’s patrolled over one that is nearer by that doesn’t offer the same level of security?”
V a lu in g th e Use o f Co m m u n ity P a rks 1 1 7
Figure 4.7 – Behaviour map of visitors to Pudsey Park during a brass band concert
118
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter has provided a clear rationale to question the emphasis on direct use prevalent in existing conceptions of urban park value. Here, two aspects (drivers for use and negativity) have been stressed as significant limitations on the use of case study spaces. For the majority, the use of community parks was noted as premised on need rather than choice and thus, health and community benefits were much less prominent motivating factors than expected. Instead, use was associated with very specific user groups, such as dog owners and young families and, despite some incongruence between perceived and actual use for some of the groups identified, preceding analysis has lent some credence to these claims, denoting factors, such as distance and dog-walking, as highly significant predictors of more frequent use within case study datasets. In participant accounts, need was noted to relate to two main factors: accessibility and affordance, with discussions of accessibility placing emphasis on proximity and cost and references to affordance centred on the open space or natural aspects of case study spaces.Negative perceptions around dogs and antisocial behaviour were then stressed as further limits to use as the spatial and temporal avoidance employed by participants to combat these concerns was highlighted.
Throughout the above discussion, direct use value has also been highlighted as contextualised, with spatial comparison noted as playing an integral part in driving or impeding use. Here, it was highlighted, for instance, that the aspects of accessibility and affordance discussed above were readily assessed in comparative terms, with participants judging whether to use case study spaces on the basis of other leisure facilities available to them, such as larger parks or private gardens. Here, the significance of negativity, as a prior omission in discussions of value, came to the fore as negative elements were noted as representing important thresholds for substitution where aspects of affordance were undermined or a sense of safety was
compromised. Taken together, the above discussions of need and spatial comparison clearly highlight the limits to direct use value, however, they also raise questions as to whether existing understandings of value are complete. There is little understanding, for instance, as to the temporal continuity of this aspect and how current levels of use may influence future patronisation of the spaces. Questions can further be raised as to how use connects to other values and whether limited use may alter perceptions of the usefulness of community parks and constrain levels of non-use values such as philanthropy. Temporal values and the connection between use and non-use values are explored in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.
119