Multi-stakeholder perspectives on approaches for addressing the incidence of urban public open space encroachment: The case of Freedom Square, Bloemfontein

Several studies have investigated the extinction of urban public open spaces in South Africa. However, a fixation by such studies on well-established primary cities has been noticed, whilst limited attention has been paid to emerging major cities. In addition, findings from these studies have resulted from the perspectives of either planning entities’ representatives or representatives of the communities associated with open space encroachment. This implies the absence of a systemic and multi-stakeholder engagement. This article contributes towards bridging these observed gaps through the elicitation of multi-stakeholder perspectives on the enablers of urban public open space encroachment in major cities, using a Mangaung Metropolitan exemplar. Adopting a qualitative case study research design, data were gathered using semi-structured interviews and focus-group interviews. Participants were purposively recruited from Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality planning department and community members residing in Freedom Square township, Bloemfontein. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. Significant enablers identified include low levels of sustainability literacy, low levels of citizen participation in the planning process, and planners’ inability to manage extant value conflicts. The findings from this study contribute to a broader study that seeks to develop an urban open space planning and management framework for forestalling the incidence of encroachment in major cities. Accordingly, this study’s findings have practical implications for relevant planning stakeholders who are keen on curbing the incidence of urban open space encroachment in South African townships.


INTRODUCTION
Open spaces have been described as "any unbuilt land within the boundary or designated envelope of a village, town or city which provides, or has the potential to provide, environmental, social and/ or economic benefits to communities, whether direct or indirect" (Kit Campbell Associates, 2001: 62). This definition highlights the relationship between urban public open spaces (UPOS) and sustainable neighbourhoods, especially as it relates to the social, ecological and economic roles of such spaces in structuring sustainable neighbourhoods, whilst sustaining the character of cities or communities. The environmental benefits and opportunities of UPOS focus on three main components, namely maintenance of biodiversity through the conservation and enhancement of urban habitats; landscape and cultural heritage; reduction of pollution; moderation of extreme temperatures and contribution to cost-effective sustainable urban drainage systems, and provision for sustainable management practices (Swanwick, Dunnett & Woolley, 2003: 104;Wooley, 2003: 49). In addition, UPOS contribute to habitat protection, lower air-pollution levels, flooding alleviation, and water management. To justify the economic sustainability of UPOS, Cilliers, Timmermans, Van den Goorbergh, and Slijkhuis (2015: 215) state that UPOS make cities attractive, enhance tourist spending, and attract external visitors and investment.
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2005: 9) postulates that the aforementioned aspects enhance neighbourhood identity and sense of belonging; attraction of an economically active workforce and businesses for investment purposes; creation of job opportunities, recreation and enjoyments as well as cultural festivities that attract visitors, and have a positive impact on the value of the surrounding properties. Scholars such as Zhou and Rana (2011: 175) and Bromell and Hyland (2007: 13) maintain that UPOS provide social benefits to the citizens, and promote social inclusion, integration and interaction, recreational opportunities, social cohesion, and identity. There is significant environmental awareness and education regarding the value and usefulness of these spaces (CABE Space, 2005: 9;Wakaba, 2016: 26). Li, Sun, Li, Hao, Li, Qian, Liu and Sun (2016: 1) affirm the integral role of UPOS within urban environments through fostering resilience. However, these spaces are becoming extinct, due to rapid urbanisation, poor sustenance and management, poor enforcement of land-use regimes, and a low level of prioritisation. This reality is affecting the spatial patterns of urban land, thereby making it difficult for planners to achieve sustainable neighbourhoods (Toba, 2020: 446). In addition, urbanisation has been identified as a major contributor to UPOS extinction (UN-Habitat, 2016). Li et al. (2016: 2) and Mensah (2014: 6) reiterate that some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia have lost open spaces, due to rapid urbanisation. Poor sustenance and poor management of UPOS have created a gap for encroachment. This challenge persists in a number of African countries (Mensah, 2014: 6).
Whilst limited studies have sought to investigate the nexus between UPOS planning and management and encroachment in developing country contexts, particularly within South Africa, fewer studies have sought to explore the incidence of this phenomenon in townships around major cities (McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010: 244-248;Shackleton & Blair, 2013: 104-112). Further to the scant attention accorded to UPOS in these contexts, the paucity of studies is seeking to elicit multi-stakeholder perspectives towards the identification of enablers of UPOS encroachment. In Shackleton and Blair (2013: 104-112), Willemse (2018: 915-934), and Busayo, Kalumba and Orimoloye (2019: 1-9), respondents comprised households dwelling in urban areas where these parks are situated. This article, through its findings, contributes towards filling these gaps. It elicits the views of the planners at local government level within the township context, using the Freedom Square township exemplar within the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and relevant community stakeholders in the factors enabling the encroachment of UPOS in their locality. It is expected that the identification of these factors from a multi-stakeholder perspective will facilitate the development of an inclusive strategy for curbing the rising incidence of UPOS encroachment, thus allowing the community to derive the benefits associated with sustainable neighbourhoods. This assumption is premised on the criticality of user perceptions concerning the utility of open spaces to their sustenance thereof (Abbasi, Alalouch & Bramley, 2016: 194).

Criticality of urban public open spaces in engendering sustainable neighbourhoods
Urban public open spaces (UPOS) are indeed integral parts of sustainable neighbourhoods and do contribute to the sustenance of such neighbourhoods (Stessens, Khan, Huysmans & Canters, 2017: 329;Nochian, Tahir, Maulan & Rakhshandehroo, 2015: 29). They are known to promote physical activity, psychological well-being and health, improve the urban living environments, maintain biodiversity, and promote sustainable development (McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010: 248;Meyer, 2011: 12;Nochian et al., 2015: 29). UPOS have been associated with various uses such as parks, gardens, sports fields, cemeteries, and golf courses (Stessens et al., 2017: 329), streets and squares, city parks, festival prayer grounds, playgrounds, spaces within residential areas, as well as shopping malls and entertainment complexes (Mandeli, 2019: 1). Based on the foregoing, the contributions of UPOS towards achieving sustainable neighbourhood through space management, space function, and sustainable landscape (Herzele & Wiedemann, 2003: 111;Al-Hagla, 2008: 3;Liu, Zhang & Zhang, 2020: 2) are easily discerned. Whereas space management refers to aspects such as sustainable lifestyle, community participation, sense of space, and resource management, the space function focuses on car reliance and the need to travel, while a sustainable landscape promotes self-sustaining and regulatory systems (Al-Hagla, 2008: 3). All these aspects are essential requirements for the development of a sustainable neighbourhood.
Having established the significance of UPOS in the propagation of sustainable neighbourhoods and improved liveability for citizens, the increasing disappearance of such spaces is cause for concern. The disappearance of UPOS in developing countries remains worrisome and has necessitated investigation by academic scholars working within such contexts (McConnachie & Shackleton, 2010: 244;Mehta, 2014: 53;Nochian et al., 2015: 32 Besides this, the distinction in perception regarding the utility of such spaces between developed and developing country divide has been known to influence the attitude and perspectives of planning practitioners within these contexts towards UPOS planning and management (Shackleton & Blair, 2013: 104-112 Freeman (1984: 46) defined 'stakeholder' as "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives". According to Walker, Bourne and Rowlinson (2008: 73), the term 'stakeholder' refers to "individuals or groups who have an interest or some aspect of rights or ownership in the project, and can contribute to, or be impacted by either the work or the outcomes of the project". To delineate the 'urban stakeholder' from the conventional definition, Campbell (2016: 41) described this stakeholder category as referring to "a group of individuals with different backgrounds, roles and expertise who represent different aspects of the urban complexity". Urban stakeholders are categorised into two broad classifications. The first category of urban stakeholders consists of those who are involved in the delivery of projects. This category consists of experts such as planners, project managers, developers, investors, environmentalists, and human settlement practitioners. Campbell (2016: 41) maintains that the group of individuals who may be affected directly or indirectly by a project belong in the second category. The users of urban land (urban public open spaces), property owners and community members encroaching on open spaces belong to the latter category. All these individuals have a common interest in planning practice, or even in the creation of sustainable communities.

Value conflicts of urban stakeholders on urban public open space
Urban stakeholders involved in planning projects display different values and perceptions regarding the usefulness and values of UPOS. According to De Groot (2006:177), these values are based on ecological sustainability, equity, cultural perceptions, and cost-effectiveness.
In addition, Carmona, De Magalhães and Edwards (2002: 147) suggest that urban stakeholder perceptions range between economic, social, and environmental values. For urban planners, the main concern lies in achieving the creation of sustainable communities while meeting the demands for recreational space and environmental quality (Campbell, 2016: 16). In terms of the economic value, investors and developers are mainly concerned about securing investment. UPOS make cities attractive and enhance tourist spending, thereby engendering economic growth. Furthermore, ecologists and conservationists aim at conserving open space, thereby protecting the existing natural values. This refers to the demandand-supply approach (Maruani & Amit-Cohen, 2007: 4). The demand approach puts emphasis on the satisfaction of communal needs, whereas the supply approach focuses on the conservation of the natural environment.
However, community members concern themselves with safety and security, increased cultural and social vitality, better quality of life that include better and improved health, more inclusive open spaces, sense of place, and accessible environments (Carmona et al., 2002: 167 processes remained crucial to curbing encroachment. Furthermore, such inclusion of, and interaction between stakeholders increases the sense of place and ownership among community members. Without such levels of ownership among the community members, attracting their commitment to the management of such UPOS will prove an arduous task (Mashalaba, 2013: 98). In addition, such engagement with the community enables the identification and incorporation of cultural attributes in the planning, design and management of UPOS (Mwaniki, 2019(Mwaniki, : 1587(Mwaniki, -1599Woolley, 2003: 31;Özgüner, 2011: 600). Therefore, it is imperative that the perspectives of these stakeholders be elicited towards enabling, identifying, and managing their diverse values concerning the utility of UPOS.  (Sinxadi & Campbell, 2020). The difference in values has brought practical and theoretical difficulties upon the planners. Even though the municipal Council took a resolution in 1998 indicating that families who occupy urban land illegally, which was hitherto not earmarked for residential purposes, will not be accommodated in terms of town planning, surveying and provision of services, certain open spaces in Mangaung townships were rezoned from "Public Open Space" to "Residential". This affected the spatial patterns of urban land within the municipality as the encroachment on UPOS became common practice in Mangaung townships (Figure 1).

RESEARCH METHOD
A qualitative case study research design was adopted for this study. Scholars such as Creswell and Poth (2018: 96) and Gay, Mills and Airasian (2011: 446) allude to the utility of the case study research design in availing the researcher with unbridled opportunities to explore a bounded system and to collect thoroughly detailed, in-depth, contextual data pertaining to the phenomenon being investigated. The case study research design also allows the researcher to deploy various tools for the purposes of data collection and analysis within the bounded system (Yin, 2011: 130

Sampling
Data were collected through a mix of semi-structured interviews and focus-group interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016: 114).
Whereas the former was used for collecting data from a purposively selected sample of 10 planners working in the local government department, the latter was utilised for data collection from a purposively selected sample of 10 community Figure 1). representatives dwelling in residential neighbourhoods within the selected cases or in proximity to these cases (see Table 1). Purposive sampling, as applied to qualitative research, involves the selection of participants who are deemed able to contribute to the phenomenon being investigated, due to their possession of relevant knowledge or experience (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015: 332). Furthermore, this sampling method allows the researcher to rely on his/ her own experience or previous research in selecting the sample and, in most cases, the researcher is familiar with the study area and the participants (Wagner, Kawulich & Garner, 2012: 93). Semi-structured interviews avail researchers with the flexibility to explore the complexity of the research problem from the interviewee's perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016: 110). Open-ended questions were employed to elicit answers from interviewees. Central to the interviews was the need to establish the intrinsic values, which the planning professionals working within the study context brought to bear during decisionmaking processes pertaining to UPOS planning and management within the study area. (2009: 344) have buttressed the potency of focus-group discussion in facilitating the elicitation of group beliefs and perceptions in qualitative research. In this study, the focus-group discussion session was used to engage community representatives in terms of their perceptions concerning the enablers of UPOS encroachment. The focus-group discussion protocol was designed accordingly and included discussion points pertaining to the perceptions of participants regarding the value and usefulness of urban public open spaces.

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill
The lead author had worked as a town planner at the municipality and the study area formed part of a project with which she had previously been involved. The familiarity with the context contributed immensely towards the ease of participant recruitment. Ward councillors were engaged as gatekeepers for the study area. The author conducted focus groups at Atang Primary School in Freedom Square township with the previously described sample.
The sample population selected for both the semi-structured interviews and the focus-group discussion sessions was considered information rich, as it included town planning professionals, human settlements and parks and cemeteries professionals, ward councillors, residents of Freedom Square occupying urban open spaces, and those staying in the vicinity of the encroachedupon urban open spaces.

Data collection
The municipal manager of MMM granted, by written consent, permission to interview the municipal officials involved in planning projects. Consent was also granted to access the necessary archival records from the employees of the Municipality. Municipality officials and other interviewees were interviewed for an average of 40 minutes at their offices between July and September 2019. Two weeks prior to the interviews, the interviewees were provided with a detailed background of the study. Questions posed were divided into three parts. The first part (questions 1-5) sought to explore the participants' understanding of urban public open space planning. The second part (questions 6-7) addressed the impact of community participation, while the final part (questions 8-10) sought to elicit their perceptions of probable challenges affecting UPOS management.

Data analysis
The author took notes during the interviews, whereas the focus group discussion session was recorded using an audio recorder, with the consent of the participants. These recordings were subsequently transcribed verbatim. The authors categorised various statements as contained in the interview and focus-group discussion transcripts independently according to a combination of pre-set and emergent themes after having read through the transcripts severally and compared notes on the similarities and dissimilarities. By so doing, authors engaged in multi-investigator triangulation (Patton, 1999:1193) as a means of verifying and validating the qualitative analysis process. The process adopted for data analysis is referred to as thematic analysis, a variant of the qualitative content analysis (Creswell, 2013: 185). In deciding on the appropriate pre-set themes to use, the authors initially relied on the study's theoretical construct and aim. This culminated in the choice of the main theme: enablers of UPOS encroachment in townships situated within major cities. Having arrived at a consensus on the main theme, the authors engaged with the transcripts with the objective of identifying the enablers, as mentioned by the participants.
In the aftermath of the identification of these enablers, the authors proceeded with the categorization of these enablers into sub-themes based on similarities. They also tried to identify any patterns in the data sets. For instance, they sought to establish if any of the identified enablers were peculiar to a certain urban stakeholder category. Based on the entire data set, these enablers were refined into five specific themes which are defined as: Location/access, Education/literacy, Maintenance, Value, and Culture.

FINDINGS
Findings from the semi-structured and focus-group interviews are the views elucidated by the planning professionals and the community representatives and are shown concurrently according to the final defined themes for the "enablers of Urban Public Open Space Encroachment in Townships situated in Major Cities".

Location/access
This theme captured the participants' general views on the location/access issues regarding UPOS. Access to UPOS is critical, because it is regarded as one of the challenges that users encounter, depending on its location. Evidence from the interviews indicates that planning of UPOS1 and UPOS2 was mainly done using the opportunistic model of planning. This led to non-functionality and thus encroachment of such spaces. Admittedly, there was consensus among interviewees that UPOS1 and UPOS2 were located in areas that were considered to be problematic and undevelopable during the planning phases. This creates problems of invasion for residential purposes, whilst limiting access for recreational purposes by intending persons. During the focus-group discussions, community members raised concerns about the threat constituted by such open spaces to their safety and security, due to the poor levels of maintenance and attendant state of disrepair evident in a UPOS. A similar sentiment was reported in Nasution and Zahrah (2014: 589). Accordingly, encroachment for residential purposes emerged as a credible option for ensuring that such spaces were not used by miscreants. These suggestions indicate the need for proper evaluation of decisions pertaining to the siting of these UPOS. CSIR (2005: 1) maintains that open spaces should be appropriately located and vegetated, sufficiently large and interconnected with sustainability function within a neighbourhood. They should also incorporate natural environments. There must be a balance between the natural and the built environments. In situating the UPOS within a settlement, care must be taken to ensure that access is prioritised. Access in this sense relates to the maximum distance that the users should travel for them to use these spaces. The farther away such space is, the greater the propensity for such areas to be encroached upon for residential purposes. To promote access, these UPOS must be connected to the parkways, where possible, and must promote multi-functionality and visual interest. Smaller UPOS can be located within easy walking distance, close to business and community facilities. Rahman and Zhang (2018: 3) outline the criteria of accessibility to UPOS and this includes linkages, walkability, connectedness, and convenience.

Education/literacy
This theme captured the planners' and residents' existing literacy levels on sustainable development of UPOS. Naess (2001: 506) indicates that a neighbourhood must ensure that the residents have their vital needs met in a sustainable way and it must not conflict with sustainable development expected at a global level. In planning for sustainable neighbourhoods, the level of sustainability education/literacy possessed by relevant stakeholders must be considered, especially prior to and during community participation workshops. Cohen et al. (2015: 8710) allude that planners have been challenged by community members with low sustainability literacy levels regarding what is expected to deliver sustainable neighbourhoods. Planners also need to have an in-depth understanding of the value of UPOS in terms of its sustainability. This will improve their appreciation of the levels of sustainability ethos to incorporate into sustainable neighbourhoods during the planning phases.
Furthermore, such appreciation will be evident in the nature of the UPOS being delivered within their planning contexts. With the gradual disappearance of UPOS in Mangaung townships, the sustainable literacy levels of planners and residents becomes questionable. Likewise, when community representatives were asked similar questions, they displayed low levels of sustainability literacy, feigning ignorance about the consequences of unsustainable neighbourhoods. Their interests bordered on the shortage of affordable housing, as they expressed their preference for residential dwellings instead of having open spaces for recreational purposes.
"We understand the meaning and the importance of parks and we need them in our community, but we need a place to stay" -CM2.
Residents in UPOS1 and UPOS2 showcased their lack of understanding of the usefulness of UPOS but indicated their willingness to be educated on this.
"We need more educational awareness on the benefits of parks so that we can be able to manage them. We have seen a park in Kagisanong that is well maintained, fenced and secure … we also want that in our area" -CM1.
Within UPOS3, residents were engaged in an Adopt-a-Park process, thereby serving as an indication of their awareness about the utility of UPOS in their vicinity. The participants indicated that they maintained the recreational park as a voluntary initiative to foster a sustainable neighbourhood. Therefore, it is evident that residents from UPOS possessed a greater degree of sustainability literacy when compared to their fellow participants. As custodians of planning projects, planners must play a lead role in ensuring that the key objectives of planning are achieved. Planners must promote community sustainability as part of planning education. This can be achieved when there is balance between environmental, economic, and social values through the prioritisation of context-reflective trade-offs among the three dimensions. However, the success of such endeavour will be predicated on these professionals' level of sustainability literacy. The Adopt-a-Park process was raised as an option for better maintenance of the UPOS. This has been successful in UPOS3, where the volunteers to the process were assisted by the municipality in the form of issuing the equipment for managing the recreational park. Surprisingly, community members of UPOS1 and UPOS2 commented that the state of the UPOS within their neighbourhood was a major concern, as compared to UPOS3, which is secure and well-managed. They are willing to be educated on how to value and manage the open spaces that are still vacant in their community. The existence of such levels of willingness has been highlighted in a similar study (Abbasi et al., 2016: 204).

Value
This theme captured the participants' existing opinions regarding the value conflicts on the UPOS utility to the community. Carmona et al. (2002: 147)  UPOS3 is used for recreational purposes by the community. Interviewees agreed that this was one of the successful recreational parks in Mangaung townships that had been adopted and maintained by the community members.

Culture
This theme captured the participants' existing views on the lack of accommodation of cultural/ contextual peculiarities of the community in the design of UPOS. UPOS have a cultural component that is usually connected to the prevailing contextual social and environmental values. Different approaches to planning, design and management of UPOS are used to promote ethnicity. These include "symbolic reference, experiential reference and facility provision, with the proviso that the approach taken should respond to the local community, the site and the context" (Woolley, 2003: 31). Furthermore, these approaches play a crucial role for people from different cultural backgrounds. UPOS must also respond to the needs of the diverse cultural groups and their cultural contexts. The cultural aspects for UPOS influence the perceptions and preferences of the users (Özgüner, 2011: 600 Such collaboration has been deemed important for fostering the successful delivery of urban open spaces (Mwaniki, 2019(Mwaniki, : 1587(Mwaniki, -1599. Most of the planning projects are outsourced to planning consultants who are not knowledgeable about the project area. Evidence gathered from the focus groups shows that community members from UPOS1 and UPOS2 were not involved in planning and design of planning project. From the foregoing, this challenge is linked to non-participatory level where the community does not have a voice. Professionals involved in the planning and design of UPOS1 and UPOS2 were, therefore, criticised by the community, because they did not consider the needs and preferences of the residents. One of the participants (CM2) enthused: "Even with just public meetings, sometimes we are side-lined and be told that the meeting is only for people staying in Freedom Square and this is confusing because we are part of this area but we are living in shacks".
However, this perspective was countered by an interviewee who indicated that the participation of community members in most instances was non-productive. According to this interviewee (H2), Residents from UPOS3 formed part of the planning and design of the recreational park. The interviewees indicated that this was a project that had been identified by the community as an Integrated Development Planning. The preferences and expectations of the community were reached.
In summary, the enablers for UPOS encroachment can be listed as the lack of access, low levels of sustainability literacy, poor maintenance of the sites, poor management of the extant value conflicts between the community and the planning professionals, and the non-accommodation of cultural/ contextual peculiarities of the community during the planning and design phases of the UPOS lifecycle.