ii A ‘Need’ for Particular Functional Features

The second aspect of ‘need’, discussed by participants as motivating the use of community parks, related to the functional features of case study spaces. The need expressed for

particular opportunities for activity has clear connections to theories of perception related to affordance theory. As noted in section 2.5.1.i, drawing on the work of Gibson (1979), authors such as Chemero (2003) and Heft (2010) have highlighted that people perceived their

environments in a relational and active sense rather than as purely visual stimuli. As Heft (2010:20) has suggested affordances are “all about action” and, in line with this, participant accounts suggest that opportunities for action form key drivers of direct use value. There were several incidences, for instance, in both datasets, where individuals made no use of their community parkbecause they saw the space was seen as offering no benefit to them. User groups’ need for a particular affordance can therefore be thought to drive use, where activities are not readily carried out in other leisure arenas. For some, this affordance need was met by particular facilities, such as play facilities, and playgrounds were represented one of the key aspects most liked in both case study spaces (see Figure 4.5a and 4.5b). However, for most part, where use was discussed as premised on a need for a particular affordance, this

discussion was more diffuse, as participants stressed the potential offered by the open space and nature present in the community parks in question. Each of these elements is discussed in turn below.

Open Space

Open space was viewed as a key characteristic of community parks in both case studies and, as highlighted in Figures 4.5a and 4.5b, this feature figured relatively highly amongst aspects most liked. This sense of openness was, however, noted as particularly necessary for certain user groups identified in section 4.3. Space was, for instance, considered especially crucial for dog owners enabling them to take their pets on a “good walk” (Katherine, 75-84, Pudsey) as

109 they were able to let their dog off the lead. Open space was also viewed as a particularly pivotal feature for children. The focus of attention on activities for children and young people is perhaps unsurprising given the important variability in affordance identified for these age groups by researchers such as Maikenen and Tyrvainen (2008). Nevertheless, this aspect was discussed by many participants as crucial for giving youngsters “space to run” (MRS043) and thus enabling a sense of freedom and allowing them to play. As noted in Chapter 2, this connection has also been underlined by affordance researchers such as Heft (2010) noting that, for children, open space does not merely offer them the potential to run but “entices” them to do so. This element of enticement was clear in discussion of the need for open space as it was closely associated with a sense of freedom, in line with Tuan’s (1977) conceptual understanding of place. As with aspects of accessibility, the influence of this facet of

affordance on promoting play was assessed through comparison with other leisure arenas and open space was discussed as particularly promoting use for ball games which could not be accommodated in private gardens (as highlighted in Excerpt 4.13).

Excerpt 4.13

“we moved here ‘cause we had 3 young boys who were too big to play football in the garden and they needed somewhere to go. They needed to let off steam”

Jane, 45-54, Manston

Participant comparisons with other public areas also contributed to a sense of open space being important for play. As highlighted by Excerpt 4.14, for instance, the open space in community parks was also associated with greater levels of safety as these spaces were emphasised as being “traffic free”. It should be noted, however, that community parks were not invariably considered safer than other public arenas and a number of other safety concerns, such as antisocial behaviour, were also raised, which are discussed in section 4.5. Nevertheless, the distance from traffic that open space provided in case study parks was discussed as a key driver of their use for play.

110 Excerpt 4.14

Manston Park is a really important resource for the people of Crossgates, providing a safe environment for children of all ages to enjoy in open space during 'down' time with family/friends

Female, 25-34, Manston

Nature

The second aspect of affordance stressed as promoting the use of community parks was the greenery present in these spaces and ‘Flowers and Trees’ featured as a further aspect of case study spaces most liked by respondents (see Figures 4.5a and 4.5b). Contact with nature was identified as a driver for use amongst both key user groups and the wider population as, in line with literature, this was commonly associated by participants with improved wellbeing (see Excerpt 4.15).

Excerpt 4.15

“Everyone needs time outside and away from hussle and bussle or noise from roads etc. a local park is very easy to get this peace and quiet we all need from time to time.”

Female, 45-54, Manston

As highlighted in Excerpt 4.16, in accordance with Tibbatts’ (2002) understanding, for children, this contact with nature was associated with the identification of an educational ‘need’, with contact with nature making young people “more respectful” of their environment.

Excerpt 4.16

“at least it gets them into somewhere where it’s nature-driven, it’s green, it’s nice an’ hopefully with ‘avin’ the park, these future adults will become better adults, more respectful of what’s around them, more nature-loving because of the park”

David, 55-64, Pudsey

In spite of this acknowledgement of the general importance of contact with nature, the need for nature was most readily expressed as a driver of use for those without private gardens. However, as highlighted in section 4.3, this relationship was not found to hold up on statistical exploration in the Pudsey Park dataset. Questions can therefore be raised as to the level of substitution available between private gardens and public parks. As highlighted in Chapter 2 (section 2.5.2.iv), authors such as Barbosa et al. (2007) have suggested that substitution of these resources can be questioned on social grounds. However, for participants, this

111 incomplete substitution extended to nature. For participants, the comparative quality of community parks and private gardens became the deciding factor for whether this served as a driver of use, rather than purely the presence of nature. For Emma, for instance, in Excerpt 4.17, the presence of natural features such as grass was considered pivotal in determining use due to a lack of this in her own private space.

Excerpt 4.17

“I don’t have much of a garden and I don’t really, there’s no grass and there’s nothing for them to play on and I don’t like to leave them to play out there so we go to the park and we say we’re goin’ on an adventure.”

Emma, 18-24, Manston

However, for others such as Neville (see Excerpt 4.18), who had a greater diversity of nature in their own private garden, contact with nature could not serve as a driver for use.

Excerpt 4.18

I have no need… I have my own park. Err.. I’ve a nice secluded private area. Nice lawns down there, private, good access, switch at the back of me puts a little fountain on in the…things here. Err the dickie birds come in droves. They’re there now… one is anyway

Neville, 75-84, Pudsey