Working out What Works: The Role of Tacit Knowledge Where Urban Greenspace Research, Policy and Practice Intersect

Abstract

Policymakers and practitioners working in urban greenspace management want to know what kind of interventions are effective in promoting mental wellbeing. In practice, however, they rely on multiple forms of knowledge, often in unwritten form. This paper considers how such knowledge is interpreted and used by a range of stakeholders to identify greenspace interventions to support residents’ health and wellbeing in one UK city. It examines the interface between academic research, policy and practice, drawing on the findings of a three-year study in Sheffield, UK. The Improving Wellbeing through the Urban Nature project investigated the links between ‘urban nature’ and mental health. One strand of the research sought to influence policy and practice, and this article presents findings and reflects on some of the processes of this exercise. It highlights the role of tacit knowledge in practice and its influence on practitioners’ choice of greenspace interventions and the challenges in drawing on such knowledge to influence policy. The findings affirm practice-based knowledge as socially situated, interpretively fashioned and politically weighted. This paper concludes by demonstrating the importance of considering the local context when devising policy prescriptions for greenspace provision and management.

Integration of knowledge systems in urban farming initiatives: insight from Taipei Garden City

“…(Dunlop 2012 ; Bendt et al 2013 ) What spaces does the community operate in? (Finewood 2016 ; Dobson and Dempsey 2019 ; Lo and Chen 2019 ) • Both physical and online spaces are important sites for forming and sustaining the community’s sense of identity • Influence in both policy committees and ‘on the ground’ in the physical environment is important for a community to assert identity and credibility 2. Common underpinning knowledge systems How are international experiences 'provincialised’?…”

“…Dennis and James ( 2017 ) identify the key actors in communities driving forward nature-based approaches to sustainability as local residents, community groups and schools, rather than technical ‘experts’. Dobson and Dempsey ( 2019 : 4) are thus critical of the idea that epistemic communities alone spread knowledge, arguing that “understandings of ‘what works’ may have few connections with the academic evidence base. Practitioners seldom have the privileges or time to access academic research, while policymakers are more often informed by ‘grey’ literature […] and by the practice-based knowledge.” …”

“…The second community characteristic is complementary underpinning knowledge systems , encompassing both the common causal belief and shared notions of validity from epistemic communities; and joint enterprise from communities of practice. Whilst epistemic communities working at the science–policy interface tend to favour ‘science’ as a base for their endeavour (Gough and Shackley 2001 ), local, tacit and experiential knowledges have been demonstrated to be critical in a greenspace context (Dobson and Dempsey 2019 ). Elements to assess are thus: (a) how techno-scientific knowledge is used to guide policy and practice within the community; (b) what the roles are for local, traditional and experiential knowledge systems in informing practice; and (c) how these different knowledge systems are weighed up and co-exist.…”

“…This reflects the common policy enterprise of epistemic communities and the shared practice of communities of practice. Elements to evaluate are (a) a shared understanding within the community of ‘what works’ (Dobson and Dempsey 2019 ) (or ‘what would work’) when it comes to practical interventions; (b) what the policy actions and levers are to make this happen, given the detailed policy recommendations that Lovell and MacKenzie ( 2011 ) see as arising from the community’s beliefs; and (c) how ‘success’ is defined by the community.…”

Green Public Areas and Urban Open Spaces Management: New GreenCAL Tool Algorithms and Circular Economy Implications

“…In recent years, one of the most relevant problems of public administrations related to the management of green areas is the knowledge of the natural capital of public properties, the census of their position, and their extension and use by the population; these factors directly influence the costs necessary to provide maintenance and services for different age groups of users [31]. Clean and safe parks and public gardens are the main objective of all administrations, but the impact of injustices due to increasing or decreasing quality of life and housing cost in some parts of cities compared to others is underestimated [32]; for this reason, the maintenance of public parks has relevant urban and socio-environmental implications [33][34][35][36]. Poor maintenance or abandonment of UOS can lead to the development of unhealthy and dangerous environments for users, generating processes of degradation and accumulation of waste that induce a strongly negative sentiment in the population.…”