Public Commons

Blog: Marina's Blog

While hunting city archives trying to Josh Lerner's report (http://www.linesofflight.net/work/building_a_democratic_city.pdf) I found report about from 2010 called Park Uses and Features: Branding and Community Participation

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-27866.pdf

This report written by The Ryerson Parks and Recreation Consultants (rParc) outlines a plan remarkably similar to the Ward 18 Conservancy plan, going as far as to propose governance for Dufferin Grove specifically, on page 12. It can serve as an excellent way to start a discussion on the natural path neighbourhood parks administration ought to follow. There are other models and other city parks discussed for anyone who cares to read the whole report.

The Parks Service Plan referred to below in the report is discussed on CELOS site with respect to how this fits in with Elinor Ostrom's work already, and found here celos.ca

The Report I am examining here begins by stating:

The purpose of this report is threefold. First, to provide comments and recommendations on the parks classification system outlined in the draft Parks Service Plan. Second, to explain how citizens can become more engaged in each type of park. Finally, this report contains recommendations as to how the City’s park promotion and public information strategy can be improved in a manner that is informed by this new classification system.

I examined the report, did some clicking to visit pages and links on CELOS sites, as well as search on Participatory democracy and compared the ideas outlined in the report with Elinor Ostrum’s view of citizen engagement. In Ostrum's view users are stewards of common-pool resources. I found two distinct philosophies coexisting in this report, which seem quite antithetical to one another.

On one side we have the notion of citizens as consumers, so the lexeme drawn upon is marketing. Somebody has a need, and somebody fills the need. We promote parks, as a product filling a need. This in fact is word for word almost what this report says on page 26 

Social marketing theory is grounded in the belief that people will adopt new ideas if they feel that they provide additional value to their current lifestyle. One of the principles of the theory is to clearly identify a consumer need and then promote a product or service that satisfies that need (Meiscke, 2007). This theory is often used by government organizations and community groups to promote social goals, such as public health. This type of marketing strategy emerged in the 1980’s when the Government of Australia promoted a “SunSmart” campaign, which informed the public of the link between the sun and skin cancer (Andreasen, 1995). In this regard, rParc recommends that the City of Toronto consider parks a clear consumer need, and to promote the City’s parks as the product that satisfies this demand.

On the other side of the spectrum is the notion that resources like parks should be run by the users and stakeholders. The lines separating staff and park patrons are fuzzy in this scenario. The report uses the word stakeholders in a different context than Elinor Ostrom because it refers to stakeholders as different from members of the public who use the resource(the park). Puzzling is this reports use of the word participatory below (pages 20-21)

As Lawson notes, community gardens are important in that they are spaces which are created by the users and help planners pay particular attention to the needs of specific social groups and neighbourhoods. Ultimately aspects of this theory can be applied to the creation of a participatory approach for the City of Toronto Parks system, such as the notion of user created spaces that promote public participation, encouraging civil pride and developing an ongoing system of engagement between community members and the local government throughout the planning process.

Of course a spectrum is a simplistic analysis that doesn’t really capture nuances, so it isn't a useful to create a spectrum of definitions or practices.

Really what these definitions show is that there are multiple perspectives possible in how we view resources and among these is the notion that people need an “impartial” overseer who hold in the public interest a “trust” and the other is the notion of the trust or conservancy being jointly administered by all stakeholders. The other notion is that marketing principles have a place in selling civics, rather than engagement of the community. The notion of the stakeholder being staff, “experts” and of course also the users. In a city such as Toronto the users are citizens whose taxes support public parks as hubs for the community both those who directly benefit by active usage and those who benefit indirectly by having safe space to gather used by their neighbours generating a lively safe pleasant neighbourhood. http://www.celos.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=OstromWorkbook.Policy-makingPrinciples

Note, that the contact information given in this report, on page 12, lists Peter Leiss from the Parks Department as the Park Supervisor, rather than somebody from Recreation.

Would he know that we lend out basketballs or when the food cart runs? His city email address and telephone number appear in the line above the non-official City of Toronto website address maintained by CELOS for Dufferin Grove, http://www.dufferinpark.ca, the direct email address onsite staff respond to mail@dufferinpark.ca and his telephone number appears above the one answered by onsite Recreation Staff( 416-392-0913) which can tell the caller how to borrow a basketball.

The page devoted to Dufferin Grove Park does not distinguish between the onsite staff and offsite staff, nor who pays for or maintains email addresses, whether it is a partnership agreement, a Parks budget or a Recreation Budget. For the purposes of analysis here this distinction should be highlighted to understand the argument for a formal acknowledgement of the existence of a unique structure in Ward 18, that is essentially the Ward 18 Conservancy in practice if not in policy. The report mentions Friends of Dufferin Grove, but is vague who maintains the website and email for onsite staff. The fact that this report uses the Dufferin Case Study as a model for other parks makes the fact that Dufferin is not run like other parks confusing if it is held as a model for other parks.

The fact is that an organic "trust" or conservancy working group has sprung up as citizens(users) of what Ostrom calls a common pool resource, Dufferin Grove Park, have found methods to facilitate public enjoyment of the park, in partnership with onsite staff.

Park Supervisor The park supervisor is Peter Leiss and can be reached at telephone number 416-392-4758 or by email atpleiss@tornoto.ca. Dufferin Grove Park also has a website: www.dufferinpark.ca, a direct telephone number: 416-392-0913, and an email: mail@dufferinpark.ca.

The report is quick to point out that activity Dufferin Grove is transparent, and information is available, though in its jargon this is called branding or promotion.

The Friends of Dufferin Grove Park have created a website advertising the park and the activities taking place there. A monthly newsletter is also available online, which includes information regarding farmers markets, sports activities, and arts activities. The website is updated regularly and is a valuable promotional tool for the park. The City of Toronto website also offers information regarding activities at the park, most notably the organic farmers market.

Page 5 of the report notes various forms of civic engagement and discusses Vaughan, Ontario

"Vaughan has made allowances for certain community groups or community stakeholders to financially manage the park to have it function at its full potential, while also appointing park ambassadors and commissioners to oversee the maintenance of each park. Through innovative means, such as these two examples, civic engagement can be bolstered within parks."

But later in the report it is defined more clearly and the Vaughan case study is about garnering charitable donations for the civic government, rather than citizen engagement based on the rights of citizens to common resources that are bought with tax money. This is an important element in the Toronto model.

There is a chart found at the end of this report with the various models and our park Dufferin Grove is mentioned as a neighbourhood park and one of the models that consultants define—a neighbourhood park. Notice that the report defines Dufferin Grove Park as being governed using a model that the Conservancy is currently proposing to formalize in its chart. The description of citizen engagement is here in the last column.

Park Type	Degree of Participation	Method(s) of Participation	Description
Park (High Park)	Consultation and Information	Consultation Meetings, Surveys, Internet Forums, Information Sessions, Information Documents	Citizens from across the city are given the opportunity to influence parks by having their opinions heard. However, ultimately the plan is created by a separate decision making body that is able to consider the interests of those unable to be represented in consultation forums. The citizens should be informed of the final park plan following its completion through information sessions and information distributed electronically as well as in print documents such as newspapers and flyers.
Destination Park (High Park)	Consultation and Information	Consultation Meetings, Surveys, Internet Forums, Information Sessions, Information Documents A taskforce of stakeholders representing all interest groups to inform decision making. Information sessions and documents inform the public.	Citizens from across the city are given the opportunity to influence parks by having their opinions heard. However, ultimately the plan is created by a separate decision making body that is able to consider the interests of those unable to be represented in consultation forums. The citizens should be informed of the final park plan following its completion through information sessions and information distributed electronically as well as in print documents such as newspapers and flyers.
District Park (Riverdale Park)	Placation and Information	A taskforce of stakeholders representing all interest groups to inform decision making. Information sessions and documents inform the public.	Local citizens and other park users from outside the local community are given the opportunity to influence parks directly. A taskforce will represent the interests of all stakeholders allowing citizens to contribute to park initiatives, programming, maintenance, and planning by communicating their values, opinions and concerns to the decision makers and planners. The decision makers will then create park plans incorporating citizen input in the design.
Community Park (Withrow Park)	Placation and Information	Taskforce of stakeholders representing all interest groups to inform decision making. Information sessions and documents inform the public.	Local citizens and other park users from outside the local community are given the opportunity to influence parks directly. A taskforce will represent the interests of all stakeholders allowing citizens to contribute to park initiatives, programming, maintenance, and planning by communicating their values, opinions and concerns to the decision makers and planners. The decision makers will then create park plans incorporating citizen input in the design. Citizens are informed of decisions through information sessions and the distribution of information online and in print.
Neighbourhood Park (Dufferin Grove Park)	Partnership/ Delegated Power	A decision making body comprised of citizens that create the park plan. Special tasks can be delegated to a citizen group for implementation.	Local citizens are given the ability to influence parks based on their values, opinions, and concerns. Local citizens’ interests should have a direct impact on parks, including programming, activities and maintenance. However, a representative of the city should help guide the planning process through consultation. Citizen groups should be delegated the responsibility of implementing specific tasks within the park.
Parkette Park (Sonyas Park)	Partnership/ Delegated Power	A decision making body comprised of citizens that create the park plan. Special tasks can be delegated to a citizen group for implementation.	Local citizens are given the ability to influence parks based on their values, opinions, and concerns. Local citizens’ interests should have a direct impact on parks, including programming, activities and maintenance. However, a representative of the city should help guide the planning process through consultation. Citizen groups should be delegated the responsibility of implementing specific tasks within the park.
Greenway (The Lower Don Trail)	Consultation and Information	Consultation Meetings, Surveys, Internet Forums, Information Sessions, Information Documents	Citizens from across the city are given the opportunity to influence parks by having their opinions heard. However, ultimately the plan is created by a separate decision making body that is able to consider the interests of those unable to be represented in consultation forums. The citizens should be informed of the final park plan following its completion through information sessions and information distributed electronically as well as in print documents such as newspapers and flyers.

In case you miss the obvious this report is about citizen engagement on page 1 makes this clear

As Toronto already has an established citizen engagement method for the planning of new parks, this model builds on the input of citizens related to programming, maintenance, activities and initiatives within existing parks. As such, the term planning is referring to a wide range of park matters.

An interesting statement below sounds vaguely like Jutta Masons strategy in defining how Elinor Ostrum's principles can be used in park governance:

Various circumstances constrain citizen involvement in park planning matters. As the distance from the park increases, the level of citizen engagement should decrease as there is an increase in number and variety of citizen interests.

However, the differences are highlighted below:

As such, it is necessary for a separate decision maker, such as a professional planner or member of city staff, to make the final decisions. This party should keep in mind local interests as well as the interests of the population as a whole. This should include tourists and other groups who are unable to participate in the consultation process but may contribute to a city's economic prosperity.

In the model embraced by Elinor Ostrom 10 principles must be in place for good governance of the common pool resources and no. 4 is monitoring. There are "Monitors, who actively audit park conditions and appropriate behaviour, must be accountable to the park users or must be the park users." Rather than having planners or professionals hold users accountable to them, it should be these professionals who work for the users and citizens(http://celos.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=OstromWorkbook.ListOfPrinciples)

Sherry R. Arnstein ladder of citizen engagement, cited on the CELOS website already, here appears in the following excerpt as being important to the methodology of the consultants who authored the report:

To create a model for citizen engagement in Toronto’s parks, rParc has drawn upon literature which alludes to and directly credits the Ladder of Citizen Participation developed by Arnstein.

There is no mention of Elinor Ostrum's work in this report directly; although there is definitely a discussion in this report about "administering the commons" with stakeholders monitoring and making decisions appearing on pages 17, 18, and 19.

Here on page 17 we arrive at the oft-cited examples concerning Brazil, which seem to form a unifying theme for all those attempting to bring transparency and democracy into the public realm. Participatory budgeting and citizen engagement seems to have provided much fodder for discussion in this particular report, though there is a rather lovely dance around terminology which stops short of trying to name exactly who has what rights.

Here as Dufferin Grove Park users we can channel Elinor Ostrom and define parks as common pool resources and all users as stakeholders. The term stakeholder is used differently in this report people.

Below is the article summary and protected areas are often referred to as conservancies, which is contrasted with the example in Finland.  The authors dissect the Brazilian example outlined in an article written by Mannigel, about parks and public engagement and a Finish example:

The different levels are as follows (Mannigel, 2008, p. 500):

• Level A - almost no public participation in the managing of parks occurs when an institution separate from the community such as the planning department, is responsible for the management of the park.
• Level B – some public participation occurs when information is sent to local stakeholders by the institution responsible for the management of the park.
• Level C – more participation occurs when local stakeholders seek out information from the institution responsible for the managing of the park.
• Level D – even more participation occurs when the institution managing the park actively consults and exchanges views and opinions with public stakeholders regarding issues of the management of the park.
• Level E – yet more occurs when local stakeholders are able to take part in the decision making process of the management of the park through negotiation with the institution responsible for the management.
• Level F – still more participation occurs when a formalized decision-making structure, such as a managing council, is created, to involve both local stakeholders and the outside institution responsible for the management of the park. They then share the responsibility of the management of the park.
• Level G – the greatest level of participation occurs when local stakeholders take over the primary responsibility of the management of the park.

Here on page 17 are the Brazil examples and a discussion of what the writers of this report viewed as important to park governance. I omitted most of the discussion focusing on specific parks as it is not germane to understanding this theory and the recommendations that emerge from this discussion about parks, to examine all the applications of the ladder as it is being defined. The article discusses the national parks in Finland where the public did not actively participate because they were not able to provide authentic opportunities through the Finnish Administration of Forests, is responsible for the administration and management of all the country’s national parks. There is a puzzling use of the word stakeholder for anyone would think that a user of a public park or a citizen would be a stakeholder. Clearly in this sentence from the report “First, local citizens, stakeholders and others, such as park users, should be involved in the park’s planning process” there is a choice to think of local citizens apart from stakeholders. Regardless of how information is disseminated or the level of participation allowed if stakeholders and park users are not seen as different factionsof the same group then there is certainly less opportunity for those with a vested interest as users in the park to find avenues to express their wishes or to take on stewardship roles.

Returning to numbers 2 and 3 of Elinor Ostrum’s principles, then we see the differences in starting with different definitions and expectations for citizens, users and employees.   Remember,

2. User rules match local circumstances Rules about using a park must relate to local conditions in the individual parks, including the particular park requirements, regarding labor, material, and/or money. 3. Collective-choice arrangements Most of the people affected by the rules must be able to participate in modifying the operational rules. This includes the on-site staff at the individual parks. Their participation should be weighted according to the amount of time they work at the particular park.

If we start with the premise that Ostrum's view of stakeholders of the commons being capable we can read the excerpt from the report cited above critically. Are the owners of public lands the public or the government bodies who hold land tenure in "trust". Who makes the decisions and gathers the data and holds the purse strings?

Although it also purports to take equity into account.. Edella Schlager and Elinor Ostrom identify five major bundles of rights that are most relevant for the use of common-pool resources: access, extraction, management, exclusion, and alienation. This is my attempt to decipher the "hoarding" of information or the obfuscation attempts which make access to financial records or budget information difficult and for stakeholders attempting participation as the article defines cited earlier in this discssion it in levels e, f, and g. It is difficult for these users of common pool resources such as Dufferin Grove to make decisions.

Level E – yet more occurs when local stakeholders are able to take part in the decision making through negotiation with the institution responsible for the management.

In the case of Dufferin Grove this would involve PFR(Parks, Forestry and Recreation). Level F defined above as a formalized decision-making structure, such as the Ward 18 Conservancy is created, to marry local stakeholders and the outside institution responsible PFR management ,so they can share the responsibility of the park management. Level G where the Ward 18 conservancy could employ some form of Participatory Budgeting provides the greatest level of participation occurs when local stakeholders take over the primary responsibility of the management of the park.

These are defined as below as they were quoted on the CELOS site, with the link above: Access: The right to enter e defined physical area and enjoy non-subtractive benefits (for example, hike, canoe, enjoy nature); Extraction: The right to obtain resource units or products of a resource system (for example, catch fish, divert water); Management: The right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource by making improvements; Exclusion: The right to determine who will have access rights and withdrawal rights, and how those rights may be transferred; and Alienation: The right to sell or lease management and exclusion rights. P.127: “A key finding from multiple studies is that no set of property rights work equivalently in all settings.”

The classification system provides seven park categories. In order to highlight the identifying features of each category, eight of Toronto’s park are profiled. To create a model for citizen engagement in Toronto’s parks, rParc has drawn upon literature including the Ladder of Citizen Participation developed by Sherry R. Arnstein. The degree and methods in which citizens can participate in the activities and development of their parks are explained for each park type.The proposed model is designed to meet concerns of both practicality and inclusiveness.

The article uses Arnsteins Ladder

Determining the appropriate level for citizen engagement in any policy decision making paradigm is adaunting task. There are a number of concerns to be addressed regarding not only the level of citizenengagement necessary to achieve optimal performance but also the level of control that citizens shouldbe delegated. Sherry R. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation outlined in her article A Ladder of Citizen Participation has acted as a method of evaluating levels of citizen engagement since its ormulation in 1969. In this article Arnstein has created a visual representation of an appropriate breakdown of not only the level of citizen participation required, but the amount of power delegated to citizens at each level. As citizen engagement moves higher up the ladder there is not only more citizen engagement but responsibilities and control in decision making by citizens is also increased. The Ladder itself consists of eight levels of citizen participation ranging from, lowest to highest (Arnstein,1969, p. 218-223):

1. Manipulation - The bottom rung of the ladder. An illusionary and distorted form of participation where people are placed in advisory committees or advisory boards in order to educate them or generate support.

2. Therapy – A dishonest form of participation where administrators assume that powerlessness is the same as mental illness. When involving citizens in planning the administrators subject the participants to a form of clinical group therapy to cure them of their pathology rather than changing the problems that create it.

3. Informing – A top down form of participation where there is no opportunity for feedback or power for negotiation. Although citizens are informed of their rights, responsibilities, and options. When this opportunity is provided late in the planning stages there is little chance for citizens to influence the program designed for their benefit.

4. Consultation – A form of participation where attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings, and public hearings are used but offers no guarantee that their ideas and concerns will be taken into account unless paired with other modes of participation. In this form of participation, participants are viewed as statistical abstractions and can be used as proof that the powerholders have involved people.

5. Placation – A form of participation where citizens begin to have a little more influence, although it is a strategy that employs methods of hand picking participants where people who disagree can easily be outvoted or ignored.

6. Partnership – A form of participation where power is redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders and an agreement is reached to share planning

The paper actually cites aTrust which promotes parks

A group called the London Parks & Gardens Trust is active in providing public information about parks, as well as increasing awareness of the need to preserve parks and open spaces. Although the London Parks & Gardens Trust operates as a separate non-profit organization they appear to have a strong working relationship with the London government and Parks authority (London Parks & Gardens Trust,

There is more here about trusts and conservancies, for the National Trust in England see. This Trust is http://publiccommons.ca/public/uploads/TheNationalTrust.pdf

So, we are left with some questions about what terms mean.  What does this report mean by marketing parks, or by citizen engagement? In a document that cites this report, called a Decision Document , entitled Parks and Environment Committee Wednesday, March 10, 2010 Expert Panel Discussion on a Park Vision, chair Paula Fletcher

The following was moved by Councillor Vaughan:

That the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be requested to report to the Parks and Environment Committee, during this process, on the possibility of using the local levy provisions of the City of Toronto Act to create Parks Improvement Associations (PIAs), and to bring forward other ideas that might facilitate community partnerships aimed at assisting neighbourhoods as they participate in the design, maintenance and programming of local parks. (http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pe/decisions/2010-03-10-pe29-dd.htm)

I we go to e-laws, its really easy to find the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A to track down the definition of Levies as envisioned by Councillor Vaughan

(4)For each year a city by-law under this section remains in force, the City shall, except as otherwise authorized by regulation, levy a special local municipality levy under section 277 on the rateable property in the area designated in clause (1) (c) to raise the costs determined in clause (1) (e). 2006, c.11, Sched. A, s. 287(4).

If we keep reading we see that there is definitely grounds to support a proposal to use tax money to fund the work of community groups who would be principles in park management. From the e-laws we can find the definition of a municipal levy referred to by Councillor Vaughan.

277.(1)“special local municipality levy” means, where the City is authorized under a provision of any Act, other than this section, or under a regulation under section 287 or any other Act to raise an amount for any purpose on less than all the rateable property in the City, the amount the City decided to raise in its budget for the year under section 228 for that purpose on less than all the rateable property. (“impôt extraordinaire local”) 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s.277(1).

There are certainly pieces in this report that fit nicely with the work CELOS has done on community engagement, defining the common-pool resources, and an acknowledgement of how Dufferin operates is implicit in the text as a community run endeavour. There is certainly two different perspectives here on how to view the public as consumers of parks or as citizens, users and stewards.