Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2015.43.1.108

The Policy of Park Asset Transfers in England: A Move toward Community Ownership and Park Management  

Kim, Yeun-Kum (Wul Landscape Architecture Office)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture / v.43, no.1, 2015 , pp. 108-119 More about this Journal
Abstract
Recently, the ways in which individual communities own and manage parks have been both discussed and realized in America and England. Some benefits of these asset transfers are that local governments can reduce the financial cost of management as well as improve the service of the parks. In addition, communities can develop these parks as unique assets. Ultimately, this is a new understanding of parks as community commons. This study examines the policy of park asset transfers to communities in England. These transfers, which involve reallocating land and building management and/or ownership from the public sector to a community group, are part of a policy agenda known as "Big Society", which aims to create a "small government" within a "big society". The agenda is pursued by both the English Conservative and Unionist Party governments. Eight case studies of community park asset transfers in England were examined in this study, under three categories-transfer process, partnership among stakeholders, and financial structure-and synthesized along three issues-financial contribution, level of public transparency, and closeness of the relationship between park and community. In some cases, new community groups were created specifically to receive park assets, while in other communities, existing groups became the park trustees. For most parks, community groups raise park maintenance funding through diverse methods; however, these groups are often not entirely financially independent from local government. Thus, many park trustees have already created, or are planning to create, other assets from which parks can benefit. Second, some efforts for public transparency include trusts that are registered as charities, of which their public nature is admitted officially. These trusts resolve important decisions through boards of trustees, in an effort to promote income-generating business while not excluding users. Ultimately, a close relationship between park and community empowers the community to participate in managing and maintaining the park; in turn, the park's capacities are improved. Current struggles include the many limits involved in communities accepting ownership and management of a park, and a lack of local government experience regarding public-private management and maintenance of a public asset. This study, however, details interesting policy implications for Korean community involvement as well as diverse financial methods to facilitate park management.
Keywords
Partnership; Community Stakeholder; Park Service; Park Asset Transfer;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Asset Transfer Unit and CABE Space(2010) Community-led spaces: A guide for local authorities and community groups.
2 Blackmar, E.(2005) Appropriating "the Commons": The Tragedy of Property Rights Discourse". In S. Low and N. Smith, eds., The Politics of Public Space. New York: Routledge. pp. 49-80.
3 Bollier, D. and S. Helfrich(2013) Introduction : The Commons as a Transformative Vision. in D. Bollier and S. Helfrich, eds., The Wealth of the Common. Amherst: Levellers Press. pp. 8-19.
4 CABE Space(2009) Making the Invisible Visible : the real value of park assets.
5 Cameron, D.(2006) Modern Conservation. Speech at Demos, London 30 January.
6 Companies(Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, s. 26(1).
7 Companies(Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, s. 26(2).
8 Eizenberg, E.(2012) The changing meaning of community space: Two models of NGO management of community gardens in New York city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36(1): 106-120.   DOI
9 Han, S.-I.(2010) Social enterprise and community development. Creation & Journal 3(1): 223-246.
10 Hoe, J.(2013) Community 'owned' public space: Seattle's alternatives to POPS. Sustainable Urban Regeneration 25(2013_01): 74-77.
11 Jang, N.-J., J. Kim, and J.-A. Hwang(2011) A Study on the Urban Park Management System with Special Use Permits in Seoul. Seoul Development Institute.
12 Kayden, J.(2000) Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
13 Kim, W-J.(2007) Plan to Create Neighborhood Green Spaces with Citizen Participation. Seoul Development Institute.
14 Kim, Y.-G. and J.-M. Choi(2012) The implications and characteristics of the policies for park and green spaces in England. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 40(2): 86-96.   DOI
15 Kim. Y.-G. and M. Roe(2008) The role of friends groups in the development and management of parks. Landscape Review 12(2): 32-49.
16 The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture and Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements(2011) A Strategic Study of the Construction and Management of Urban Parks for Green Growth. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
17 Kretzmann, J. P. and J. L. Mcknight(1993) Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets.
18 Lee, H.-S.(2011) An international comparative study on the legislative system related to social enterprise. Social Enterprise Studies 4(2): 50-87.
19 Lim, S.-S. and J.-H. Park(2014) A Study on the Introduction of Laws for Financial Stability of Local Government. Korea Institute of Local Finance.
20 Locality, The Social Investment Business and Local Government(2012) Understanding Community Asset Transfer.
21 Natural England(2013) Bankside Open Spaces Trust - Green Infrastructure Case Study: Turning Small Green Spaces into Productive Community Hubs.
22 Nemeth, J. and S. Schmidt(2011) The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38(1): 5-23.   DOI
23 ODPM(2006) Communities Taking Control: Final Report of the Crosssector Work Group on Community Ownership andManagement of Assets.
24 Quirk, B.(2007) Making Assets Work: The Quirk Review of Community Management and Ownership of Public Assets. London: Communities and Local Government.
25 Office for Civil Society(2010) Building a Stronger Civil Society.
26 Park, K-W.(1995) Construction and administration methods for the 21st century. A Study on Korean Public Administration 4(2): 5-20.
27 Poklembova, V., T. Kluvankova-Oravska, and M. Finka(2012) Challenge of new commons-urban public spaces. Proceedings of The 1st Global Thematic IASC Conference on the Knowledge Commons. Louvainla-Neuve, Belgium.
28 Social Enterprise Coalition(2005) Keeping It Legal: A Guide to Legal Forms for Social Enterprises.
29 SQW(2011) Final Evaluation of the Asset Transfer Unit: Car Parks and Castles: Giving Communities the Keys.
30 Woo, Y.-H.(2008) A comparative study on the relevance of the public management model in Korea. The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies 12(2): 249-273.
31 Yoo, B.-S.(2012) The similar welfare politics and community vision of the third way and big society. Space & Environment 22(1): 43-78.
32 http://blog.green-space.org.uk
33 http://heeleypark.org
34 http://opencharities.org/charities/1085454
35 https://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Publications/cc35.aspx
36 http://www.futurecommunities.net
37 http://www.londongardenstrust.org
38 http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/
39 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/series/privatising-the-outdoors-whoowns-our-public-space