- Email: [email protected]
Public policy and park development in Singapore
Public policy and park development in Singapore
G.L. Ooi
The provision of open space and parks has become an important feature of the urban planning process in the city-state of Singapore. This article reviews the contribution of public land use development planning policies and the role of government agencies In the planning and development of parks. It also examines the rationale behind the policy of institutionalizing the provision of parks in land use policies. Constraints faced in park development, together with their impact on users, are looked at. The article focuses on a survey of public housing residents regarding their use of neigbourhood parks. The author is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, Hon Sui Sen Memorial Library Building, Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 0511.
64
In the last three decades Singapore has been transformed from a country largely dependent on its entrepot trade to one of the four newly industrializing economies of Asia (together with Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea). Singapore’s per capita GNP in 1989 was S$17 010. The physical development of this city-state has been dominated by the goals of economic growth which have emphasized industrialization and, more recently, financial and other services. Given the land scarcity, there has been an emphasis on high-rise and high-density developments - not only in the Central Area where businesses are concentrated, but also in the public housing estates which currently accommodate 88% of the Singaporean population. The total land area of the city-state is 626.4 km2 and its population totalled 2.69 million in mid-1989. Since the 1960s land use planning and land and building developments have been an integral part of the national effort to solve the severe economic and social problems which confronted the newly independent nation. High unemployment, housing shortages and deterioration, and severe congestion in the Central Area were just some of the major problems facing the government. Rapid urban growth with minimal controls had contributed to many of these problems. Changes in the last three decades therefore reflect not only the processes of urbanization and industrialization, but also the prominent role which the state has played in the physical development of Singapore. Through the Master Concept Plan and a series of other plans, the state has carefully regulated land use development over the past 30 years. The changes in the spatial organization of Singapore have mainly focused on redistributing the major land uses, such as industry and residential areas. These changes were initiated in the mid-1960s and consolidated in the 1970s and 198Os, and coincided with the bid to alter the nation’s economic base to one of m~~nufacturing and the provision of services. It is significant that land use policies have given as much emphasis to the allocation of land for open space as to commerce and economic use. With the pressing economic and social problems of the 1960s priority might well have been given to the redevelopment of the Central Area and development of housing, transport and industry. IIowever, equal
0264-8377/92/010064-l
2 0 1992 Bu~e~o~h-Heinemann
Ltd
Public policy and park development
‘S.H.K. Yeh, ‘The idea of the Garden City’, in KS. Sandhu and P. Wheatley, eds, Management of Success: fhe Moulding of Modern Singapore, Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore, 1989, pp 813-832; V. Savage, ‘Singapore’s garden city: landscape reality, national symbol, neo-utopian ideal’, Solidarity, forthcoming. ‘Master Plan, Report of Survey, 1955.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
in Singapore
emphasis has been given to land provision for open space and recreation, the planning and development of which have been an intrinsic feature in the physical development of Singapore. This article focuses on an analysis of the land use development planning process which has contributed to the ‘greening’ of the city-state of Singapore. The provision of open space as an integral part of land use planning in this land-scarce city-state has only been possible through a variety of strategies. Redevelopment permitted the provision of open space in the Central Area of the city-state, while high-rise and highdensity residential developments together with land reclamation enabled its provision outside of the Central Area. Part of the outcome of the planning strategies employed has also been the provision of multipurpose parks and open spaces, together with a considerable variety in size, location and type. The success of this planning and land use allocation approach to the provision of open space is evaluated. While the original concept of garden cities as mooted by Ebenezer Howard in 1898 bears little resemblance to the ‘garden city’ development in Singapore, the ‘greening’ of this city has been an intrinsic feature of its land use planning and development policies over the past three decades.’ Indeed the importance of open space to the urban populace was recognized at the outset when the Master Plan was first drawn up to guide land use development policy in the city-state.2 The Master Concept Plan and its five-year revisions contain prescriptions for land use development in terms of plot ratio, density ratio and ‘zone’ designation. The impact of development planning on the provision of open space and parks in the city-state can be seen in the overall increase in land use for open space and recreation as well as the hierarchy of parks which has evolved. Before the drawing up of the Master Plan, urban congestion was such a problem that it was difficult to provide adequate open space - let alone parks - in the city, especially the Central Area. The difference in provision before and after the implementation of the Master Plan is examined. The importance of open space to urban residents is also examined. Results of a survey on the use of neighbourhood parks by public housing residents is presented for this purpose. Judging by the popularity of the neighbourhood parks among the residents surveyed, the land use planning and development rationale behind the allocation of scarce city land for the development of parks has not been misplaced. The results of the survey, however, highlight the constraints imposed on the provision of neighbourhood parks due to the competing demand on land and the emphasis on maximizing the use of land. Post-construction evaluation, such as the surveys discussed, is therefore essential for an understanding of the implications arising from wider development and planning policies in the provision of urban facilities such as parks. In short, in a study on the results of policies advocating the provision of parks it is important to establish the outcome not only in terms of the number and types of parks provided but also their levels of use by people for whom the parks were planned in the first place.
Contemporary
research issues on park development
The research which has been conducted on parks has mainly focused on three major areas, all of which deal in some way with the question of the
65
Public policy
and park deveiopmejzi
in Singapore
3G.F. Chadwick, The Park and the Town, $c$litectural Press, London, UK, 1966, p 4D.J. Molnar and A.J. Rutledge, Anatomy of a Park, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1986. 51bid, p 23. ‘M.J. Christianssen, Park Planning Handbook, John Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1977. ‘A.K. Wong and G.L. Ooi, ‘Spatial reorganisation’, in Sandhu and Wheatley, op cit. Ref 1, pp 788-812. *H.Y. Lim and K-H. Lim, ‘Resettlement: policy, process and impact‘, in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh, eds, Housing a Nation, Maruzen, Singapore, 1985, pp 305-334.
66
costs of providing open space in cities (in terms of land and other resources) and the outcome of the decisions to provide such facilities. First, there have been planning considerations, foremost of which is the balance between the money and human value aspects of the provision of parks in cities. Then there has been concern with the approaches used in evaluating the effectiveness of parks and, finally, user responses and expectations of parks. A common concern in these three main areas of research is the emphasis on the evaluation of parks by those people who ultimately use them. Such a concern can be attributed to the recognition of the impact of wider development planning poIicies on the provision of parks and their use by people. According to Chadwick, ‘there seems to be general agreement that a complete system of parks and other open areas is an essential part of the urban structure and many ideal town patterns have contained such systems, varying in intention, although often used to separate zones of differing uses . . .‘3 It was also observed that the conception of parks had changed with changing ideas of urban patterns. While the idea of open areas for public use, like the town square, are deeply rooted, the public park is a Victorian creation to improve physical conditions in the wake of the industrial revolution in the UK and the growth of the industrial town. The large public parks of today have evolved from the small open spaces adjoining private homes. The lack of post-construction evaluation of park development in the USA has been lamented.4 Evaluation of the purposes of parks and the people’s needs was stressed because broad assumptions about recreational use were no longer seen to be enough. Evidence has been cited to show that spin-offs like improved security, reduced vandalism and user satisfaction could be reaped from paying more attention to learning about people’s needs and catering for them: ‘clearly, parks for the economically deprived may require different elements than parks serving the more secure middle class . . And likewise, parks in neighborhoods with substantial teen populations should have facilities which are different from sites in neighborhoods which are overflowing with tots or unmarried young adults or senior citizens.‘” More directly relevant to the Singaporean case has been the recent emphasis on increasing the productivity of land, which has led to the exploration of the multiple-use concept for parks. Christianssen goes to the extent of asserting that a park is a miniature community, with all of a community’s characteristic complexities.’ While the importance of providing parks and the necessity to evaluate their impact are widely recognized, it is equally clear that the concerns behind the stress on evaluation can be far-ranging. Nonetheless it is possible to sum up these concerns as being related to their meeting the needs of users for whom the parks have been provided.
Spatial redistribution
of land use
The major spatial redistribution of land use in post-independence Singapore has been discussed elsewhere.7 Briefly, it has involved the redistribution of residential, industrial and small-scale commercial land use from the congested Central Area to the suburbs. Various public policies and property taxation regulations have been enacted to achieve this, eg the resettlement and retirement of small-scale retailing activities from the Central Area.s Another example is the Land Acquisition Act
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Public policy
and park
development
in Singapore
Table 1. Distribution of population by census area, 1970-80.
Census area
1970
1980
1970-80 % change
Central city area City periphery Suburbs Outlying areas
226 811 598 437
149 899 720 643
-33.9 10.9 20.4 47.1
Number of persons
Source: Census of Population 1980, Department of Statistics, Singapore, 1980.
884 449 346 828
895 769 343 911
which gave government agencies powers of acquiring land for public purposes. Between 1949 and 1984 five government agencies acquired a total of 81 243 ha (30.2% of the total land area in Singapore).” Property taxes in the Central Area gave concessionary rates to commercial properties and not industrial ones as part of the land use redistribution policy to encourage the latter to move to estates which had been developed for industry in the suburbs.“’ To stabilize and gradually reduce the proportion of the population residing in the Central Area, public housing was developed in the suburbs. These estates have been planned with a more or less comprehensive range of facilities to meet the basic needs of residents. Today 88% of the population in Singapore resides in high-rise and high-density public housing estates which have been developed all over the city-state. The impact of spatial reorganization on the distribution of land use has been significant (see Table 1). The results of land use development planning have therefore been to free land for redevelopment in the Central Area as well as allow the implementation of new planning standards for a different kind of spatial order in the city-state of Singapore. In this spatial order, open space and parks have become more significant, both in terms of the overall standards of provision and the evolution of a hierarchy of open space and parks which are relatively well distributed throughout the city.
Developments
and improvements
in provision of open space
The purpose of providing parks in Singapore was made clear in the 1975 Revised Master Plan, Report of Survey. Open space in the heavily urbanized communities is seen to fulfil two functions - the provision of recreational areas and the ventilation of built-up areas. Incidental to these functions is the aim of varying and enhancing the urban landscape. The importance of providing open space had been earlier recognized in the Master Plan, Report of Survey, of 19.55. The report outlined the need for an increase in the provision of space per head of the population, particularly in the Central Area: is the shortage that there seems no alternative to allowing the use by the general public, outside of school hours, of part or all of the school playing fields existing or proposed to be provided in the Central Area The standard of 0.4 ha of open space per 1000 population, divided between general and precinctual requirements is not, in our opinion, totally inadequate for the needs of the future population and must be supplemented by a further 0.4 ha per 1000 persons of parks and playing fields elsewhere, perhaps on the fringe of the Urban Area.” So severe
‘L. Low, ‘The political economy of the built environment’, Solidarity, forthcoming. “W.S. Lim and P. Motha, Land Policy in Singapore, Design Partnership, Singapore, 1979. “Master Plan, op tit, Ref 2, p 4.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
While the necessity of improving the provision of parks and such open space was generally recognized, there was less agreement on the approach to allocating land for such purposes. The proposal above for including school playing fields among public parks for use after school
67
Public poticy and purk development
in Sing apore
hours was opposed by the City Architect and Building Surveyor. In essence there were differing views on the sizes of the plots to be provided, which are reflected in the following: While there has not been unanimity, because some members are convinced of the efficacy of small plots of open space, we consider that, in general, open spaces in precincts should not be dissipated in very small parcels, and that every effort should be made to provide lots of 0.4 ha or more capable of being developed into smal! parks of maximum use to the local people. Moreover. it is important that open space in precincts should he sited in relation to the people it is intended to serve.”
“Ibid, pp 3-4. 13Master Plan, 1955. 14W Neville, ‘The distribution of population in the post-war period’, J.B. Ooi and H.D. Chiang, modern Singapore, Universi~ of Singapore Press, Singapore, 1960, pp 5% 68. ‘5Master Plan, Report of Study Groups and Working Parties, 1955, p 1.
68
At the outset, therefore, the desirability of various targets had been stated. First, the standards of provision of open space had to be improved. In 1955 there were only 98.4 ha of open space for a population of 700 000 people, or about 0.14 ha for every 1000 persons. The recoInmended standard was 1.8 ha per 1000 persons. This open space was to be divided into 0.6 ha of public parks, 0.4 ha of school playing fields and 0.8 ha of public recreation grounds. Since it would have been virtually impossible to provide such standards in the Central Area alone, the proposal was to apply the standard over the entire city-state. At the same time, a desirable size of 0.4 ha for a park was also explained. Second, the officials working on the Master Plan had also emphasized that the parks were to be located near to the people they were meant to serve. Both tasks were tackled by the public sector, and the achievements of the development planning policies are discussed here. The massive spatial redistribution of major land uses from the Central Area to the suburbs released space for redevelopment and provision of parks within the city’s centre. Planning standards implemented in new towns and public housing estates developed throughout the city-state also provided for parks. These efforts have improved the standards in the provision of open space. At the same time, the aim of providing parks near to the people using them has been approached through the provision of a hierarchy of parks with different functions and sizes. A comparison of land use distribution under the British colonial administration and that which has evolved since independence illustrates precisely how land use planning policy in the last three decades has contributed towards the development of open space in Singapore. In Table 2, which illustrates the distribution of land among varying land uses, it is clear that three decades ago there was hardly any land available for open space and recreation. This was understandable considering that in the mid-1950s more than a third of the population was reported to be living in a stretch of coastline 6.4 km by 1.6 km where the city’s business centre was located.” A detailed survey in 1953 found that maximum gross residential densities in individual blocks exceeded 640 000 persons per 2.6 km’, or 1000 per 0.4 ha, in areas where usually only one or two floors were residential.‘” Tn the Master Plan, Reports of Study Groups and Working Parties, the observation was that ‘salvaged from the haphazard development of the area are sites for schools, hospitals, police stations, clinics, other community services and open space, all in greater or lesser degree inadequate in relation to the population they serve’.” Since the mid-1950s land use development planning has resulted in a twofoid increase in the area of land which has been allocated to open space like parks and has also provided a hierarchy of parks of different
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Public Table 2. Land use on Singapore
policy
and park
development
in Singapore
main island, 1967. Location Central area (%)
Land use Residential Industry Commercial Transport Utili~es/~mmunications institutions Military Recreation Cemeteries Quarrying and mining Water catchment and nature reserves Vacant buildings and buildings under construction Agriculture Vacant land and other undeveloped land
Town area (%)
10.8 3.6 24.9 22.8 1.2 11.5 1.7 8.5 0.5
35.6 2.1 55
10.6
2.1 5.6 0.8 2.6 10.6 1.3 1.1 0.7 6.2 1.5 26.3
29.3
26.1
14163.5
100.0 40 762.8
100.0
168
100.0 12 837.7
Source: Land and Building Use: Report of Survey, Planning Department,
Total area Ha 7 487.4 728.7 1 130.4 3 049.4 438.1 424.7 5 745.3 708.9 619.4 386.6 3 338.5 817.8 14 288.3
IO 5.4 8.5 3.4 2.7 0.1 _ 3.3 3.8
100.0 724.7
W
7.0 1.0 0.6 3.4 0.7 1.6 11.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 8.2 0.9 33.8
I 1.8
3.9 _
Total % Total ha
Rural area W)
Ministry of National Development,
13.8
1.3
54 325.1
Singapore,
1968.
sizes and functions (see Figure 1). Between 1967 and 1982 the area of land allocated to open space more than doubled. The roles played by varying government agencies in the planning and developtnent of parks have also resulted in improvements in the spatial distribution of these facilities. A premium has been placed on good land use planning in the limited land area, and the creation of additional land where possible.” Between 1976 and 1985 a massive reclamation project was undertaken on the east coast of the city-state. Part of this reclaimed land has actually been developed into a regional park. The allocation of the scarce land resource to open space is significant. Pragmatism has, however, characterized the nation’s leadership and bureaucracy, and the importance
Wong, ‘The transformation of the physical environment’, in Sandhu and Wheatley, op tit, Ref 1, pp 771-787. ‘sP P
1982
1967 Transport
Industrial 5.9%
4.9%
ommercial
1.4%
Wooded areas/ swamps/ water areas 10.4%
Open space 3.0%
Figure 1. Land use distribution,
1967
and
1982.
Source: Land and Building Use: Report of Survey, Planning Department,
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Ministry of National Development,
Singapore,
1982, p 8
69
Public policy and park developmen
in Singapore Table 3. Standards
Source: T. Tan et al, ‘Physical planning and design’, in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh, eds, Housing a Nation, Maruzen, Singapore, 1985, pp 56-112.
17Yeh, op tit, Ref 1. ‘81bid. ’ ‘Ibid.
70
of park provision by HDB.
Type of park
Area (ha)
Planning standards
Town parks Neighbourhood Precinct parks
5.0-10.0 1 .&1.5 0.2
1 per New Town 1 per neighbourhood 1 to 3000 dwelling units
parks
given to the development of a garden city reflects a highly rational decision. Among the first tasks of the newly independent government in Singapore was the setting up of a Parks and Trees Division in 1965. At the same time, the Garden City Action Committee comprising highlevel civil servants was formed to provide policies on the greening of the city-state and to coordinate the work of the government agencies involved with the physical development of Singapore -the Housing and Development Board (HDB) (which provides public housing), the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (in charge of Central Area redevelopment) and the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) (which developed the largest industrial estate in Singapore). These other statutory authorities plan and implement the development of their own parks and open space, while the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD), which grew out of the Parks and Trees Division, is responsible for the remaining areas in the city-state. The earlier policies concentrated on activities such as the planting of trees along major roads and streets in the city.” Gradually the emphasis has shifted to the development of parks and the trend seems to be towards laying out better-designed and more spacious parks with more aesthetically conceived landscaping and functionally useful facilities.‘” The 1975 Parks and Trees Act requires, among other things, that plazas and other large concrete areas have 3(&40X green areas for tree and shrub planting, and the Parks and Trees Rules, S.63/1976, set standards for the planting, aeration and maintenance of trees. While each of the statutory boards plans and develops its own range of parks, they actually complement the work of the PRD. Such an approach to the development of parks essentially solves the problem concerning the sizes of parks to be provided (brought up earlier in the Master Plan, Report of Survey, in 1955). The HDB has developed both regional, town and neighbourhood parks in public housing estates and New Towns. The standards of provision of these parks are shown in Table 3. Meanwhile, through its Central Area Open Space Plan the URA has developed and maintained a hierarchy of open spaces including open green parks, theme parks and vest-pocket parks largely within the city centre. Besides the relatively larger national-level open spaces which serve the entire island, the URA has planned city or district parks of 5 of ha in size.‘” Each of these is meant to serve a neighbourhood 20 00&30 000 people. These district parks are complemented by local open spaces ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 ha. The local open spaces are located within walking distance of residents. High land costs within the Central Area constrain the development of parks and provision of open space, hence an important means of creating open space has been to develop small plazas and pedestrian areas. The URA also requires property developers to set aside a sum equivalent to 2% of the total building cost or a sum to be determined by the agency for landscaping purposes. Similarly, the JTC has developed its own parks in the Jurong
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Public policy and park development
in Singapore
area as well as providing open space in its other industrial estates. The planning and development, as well as the managements of parks has therefore become an important and well-entrenched aspect of the city-state’s land use development planning. In 1985 there were 32 parks in Singapore, ranging in size from 0.8 to 206 ha, with another six more in the construction or planning stage. The figures are impressive. City planners and the public sector have made tremendous strides in improving the standards of provision of open space. However, there are specific characteristics in the provision of parks that are unique to Singapore because of the limits on land supply and the emphasis on good planning. Planning effort is required to provide convenience and sufficient facilities in the parks so people would want to use them. This implies the allocation of land in locations where it is convenient for users in the context of the existing constraints on available land. Success notwithstanding, there are planning problems arising from the provision of parks in spite of the constraints on land, but resolution of these problems has repercussions on the satisfaction which users derive from parks. The outcome of the twin emphases on good land use planning and maximization of its use in the planning and development of parks can only be appreciated with a discussion of the results from surveys of users.
Convenience
“Revised Master Plan, Report of Survey 1980, Singapore Planning Department. *IT. Tan C.T. Loh, S.A. Tan, W.C. Lau and K. I&ok, ‘Physical planning and design’, in V-long and Yeh, op tit, Ref 8, pp 56-l 12.
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
as a factor in park development
Locating parks near to the people using them was a major task broached in development planning. A survey of park users in Singapore, cited in the 1980 Revised Master Plan Report, showed that 65% of the users were 30 years old and below.2” People from public housing estates made up 63% of the total number of park users. One park which was located in an HDB new town, Toa Payoh, ranked among the most popular of the parks. An important point highlighted by the study is that 41% of the park users walked to the parks, 28% had taken the bus and 25% the car. Although the report does not provide details of users’ evaluation, the mode of transport employed to reach the parks seems to reflect the importance of convenient locations. Evidence to support this point is found in a survey of public housing residents and their evaluation of neighbourhood parks. The decision by planners to provide neighbourhood parks in public housing estates effectively means that park facilities are now more conveniently located. This decision is akin to the PRD’s own provision of a range of neighbourhood and regional parks. Unlike the larger town parks provided by HDB, however, which serve the entire new town, each of the neighbourhood parks is located in the neighbourhood of 6000 dwelling units or public housing flats. At the time the study was undertaken in early 1988, 12 such neighbourhood parks had already been constructed. Each is different in terms of size and the recreational facilities provided. Sizes vary from 0.6 to 4 ha, compared with the larger town parks which range in size from 5 to 10 ha.2’ Neighbourhood park facilities also vary, as some parks are provided with park benches, open spaces and landscaping while others have an array of keep-fit corners, playgrounds, jogging tracks and open areas, Locations of neighbourhoods parks vary considerably within each neighbourhood. In some neighbourhoods the parks straddle major roadways and the housing estates they are meant to serve, in order to
Public policy and park development in Singapore Table 4. Level of use of parks and facilities. Facilities and activities
Residents involved (%)
Strolls Playground Jogging Keep-fit corners Hard court Tai Chi
87.9 47.5 42.0 29.7 8.3 7.2
act as buffers between residential and transport land uses. Other locational variations are characteristic, with neighbourhood parks located where land is available after the development of the estates. So the parks can be located at the fringes of neighbourhoods or strung out linearly and running through the neighbourhoods they are serving. There are also parks made up of two parcels of land that are physically separated by the housing estates which they are serving.
Household survey This section discusses the findings of a random sample survey of 400 households conducted in four neighbourhoods, each of which has a neighbourhood park. These parks had been completed between the end of 1983 and 1986. They were selected for study because they represented a cross-section of the neighbourhood parks, in terms of size, range of facilities, location and the time in use. Three aspects of the study are discussed: the level of use and the recreational facilities provided; the social variables accounting for variations in use and facilities; and the residents’ views on possible improvements to planning and maintenance. The use of neighbourhood
parks
The survey of households showed that ncighbourhood parks were popular with public housing residents. Overall, the study found that 53% of the residents had been to their neighbourhood park. A comparison among the four parks showed that the level of use varied - it was highest in one of the larger of the four parks (3.79 ha) where 78% of the residents used the park and facilities provided; and was lower in the smallest of the four parks (0.6 ha), which had a limited range of park facilities (a factor which might account for the lower usage). Residents who used the park went frequently. A majority of them, 56%, visited the park daily or at least once a week. The convenient location of the neighbourhood park would account for the high frequency of use. This was supported by the finding that practically all the park users (99.5%) walked to their neighbourhood park. The major proportion of the park users also lived 200 m or less from the neighbourhood parks. Among the residents who were living more than 200 m away from a nejghbourhood park, only 23% used the park. In comparison, 71% the residents who lived 200 m or less from their neighbourhood park used it. Frequency of use was also affected by distance from the park. Among users who lived less than 200 m away from the park, 60% went to the park at least once a week compared to 32% from among the residents who were living more than 200 m away. Park users frequent the neighbourhood parks mostly for strolls (see Table 4). A comparatively large proportion also jog in these parks. The relatively lower figures for those using other facilities (such as the hard courts and keep-fit corners) is due to the fact that not all of the four parks surveyed have these facilities. Many users are also likely to make multipurpose trips, with 48% of the households bringing their children to the playgrounds and also strolling in the neighbourhood parks. Variations
The highest
72
in the use of neighbourhood
proportions
of park
users
parks
were
residents
LAND USE POLICY
from five-room
January
1992
Public policy and park development Table 5. Average household type, 1985.
incomes by flat
Flat type
Average household income (SS)
1 room 2 room 3 room 4 room 5 room Executive
693 934 1 323 1 837 2 482 2 693
Source: K.P. Lim, H.P. Moey, K. Kwok, K.T. Gau, K.H. Lim, S. Seow and G.C. Lee, ‘HDB and its residents’, in Wong and Yeh, op tit, see text, Ref 8, p 383.
in Singapore
and executive flats (larger and more expensive) - 90% of households in executive apartments used the parks, and 80% of five-room households. As household incomes are higher among those in the larger flats (see Table 5), this means that park facilities are likely to become more important with increasing income levels. One resident felt that the neighbourhood parks made public housing estates look less like HDB estates, ie public housing. The landscaping provided in these parks resembles the landscaping which would usually be provided in private condominiums. In his paper on the idea of the garden city, Yeh has noted that the Parks and Trees Act of 1975 requires that landscaping and tree planting up to certain standards be part of any proposed development and these are subject to the control of the PRD and the Public Works Department.** Not surprisingly, the households in the larger flats were found to be more likely to opt for flats located near to a park. While 74% of all the residents would opt for flats located near to a park, the proportion was highest among the executive flat households (90%). Among the fiveroom households, 84”/0 would opt to be located near to a park. The neighbourhood park users were composed of equal proportions of residents who were employed, housewives and retirees. Housewives and retirees made up 43% of neighbourhood park users while wageearning or self-employed residents comprised 56%. The level of use of the neighbourhood parks also varies among the different age groups - 61% of residents aged 3&39 years old used the parks, and 57% of those 60 years of age and older. Among the residents above 20 years old, the level of use was relatively similar. These age variations can be explained by the purposes of the trips made to the parks (see Figure 2).
Non-users
22Yeh,
op cif,
Ref
Among the residents who had not used the neighbourhood parks at the time of the study, a large proportion had no time to go as they were either busy with work or housework. A number were unaware of the provision of the neighbourhood parks. The remaining residents either found the park too far away and inconvenient to get to or preferred to go elsewhere. About a third of these residents went to the larger regional parks, often located in sites with attractions such as the sea.
1.
Strolls
90 60 70 60 8
50 I
Tai Chi Playground Jogging
Figure 2
Use of parks and facilities by residents’ age.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
u
20-29
30-39
40-49 Age
50-59
60andabove
(years)
73
Public policy and park development
in Singapore
Since these regional parks are usually located further from the residents, visits are infrequent. One half of this group of residents visited the parks once a month while the rest only made trips occasionally. The infrequent trips can be explained by the lower convenience. Residents going to the regional parks also preferred them because of the natural attractions they offered. Residents’ evaluation of neighbourhood
parks
A majority of the residents liked the neighbourhood parks because of their facilities. In the parks where fewer facilities were provided, residents have suggested the addition of a playground and such features. The smallest of the four neighbourhood parks studied had minima1 facilities largely because of its size and planned purpose - it was meant to be mainly a landscaped open arca. Some public housing residents liked everything about their neighbourhood parks and thought that the greenery and landscaping improved the environment as well as providing a good view and place to relax. Others found their neighbourhood park convenient and a good place for children, besides being a neighbourhood landmark. Residents’ expectations of the standards of management and maintenance of the neighbourhood parks were high. There was a demand that the parks be litter free, the trash bins emptied regularly and the grass kept short. Residents were also perturbed by the pets and cyclists allowed in the neighbourhood parks which they felt were incompatible with the use of these parks by young children and the cldcrly. In the parks where keep-fit corners had been provided together with playgrounds and hard courts, residents were concerned with the spacing between these different facilities. The matter is related to the sizes of the parks, and thus the land available. Residents perceived that the activities accommodated by each of these facilities appealed to users of different age groups. It was suggested that more attention be given to the siting of these different facilities. Residents also proposed that better playgrounds be provided as well as improvement in the spacing of the play equipment. Other improvements suggested included more flowering shrubs in addition to the greenery already provided and better lighting. The latter is related to the main types of park users - largely the residents with young families who are concerned about security. Residents liked the convenience of living near to neighourhood parks, and having a place to relax, see neighbours, have a view and open space. However, they disliked the noise and loss of privacy. The challenge to planners seems to be to provide parks which arc conveniently located but which do not present problems with noise and loss of privacy for residents.
Conclusion Notwithstanding the importance of maximizing the use of land and the scarcity of land, the provision of open space and parks has been emphasized in Singapore’s land use development planning. This article has highlighted the public sector agencies’ SUCCESSwith increasing the area allocated to open space and parks and the development of a hierarchy of parks in order to locate parks as closely to users as possible. Surveys to evaluate users’ responses have shown that parks (including
74
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
Public policy and park development in Singapore
neighbourhood parks) and the recreational facilities provided are highly used by public housing residents. Among the four parks included in the survey, the largest one proved most popular, mainly due to its size, location and facilities, as well as its standard of maintenance. The level of use of the parks differed among residents from the various flat types and age groups. Use was highest among residents in the larger flats and also the residents with young families (who were particular about cleanliness and security). Evidence from the survey pointed to the increasing importance of providing more parks among the people. Furthermore, the more popular parks were those catering to a wide variety of activities, although the design of the parks would have to consider factors related to the safety of users, especially children. Planners of parks in land-scarce cities like Singapore have to consider numerous constraints in their provision of open space. Their challenge is to reconcile convenient locations and some residents’ desire for privacy and quiet with the provision of parks large enough to accommodate the demands of residents of a wide range of age groups. The increase in the standards and the hierarchy of parks are evidence of the success of planners in facing their challenge. Users’ evaluation, however, highlights areas where more planning effort can be concentrated to ameliorate the impact of wider land use development planning policies on the provision of parks.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
75
G.L. Ooi
The provision of open space and parks has become an important feature of the urban planning process in the city-state of Singapore. This article reviews the contribution of public land use development planning policies and the role of government agencies In the planning and development of parks. It also examines the rationale behind the policy of institutionalizing the provision of parks in land use policies. Constraints faced in park development, together with their impact on users, are looked at. The article focuses on a survey of public housing residents regarding their use of neigbourhood parks. The author is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, Hon Sui Sen Memorial Library Building, Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 0511.
64
In the last three decades Singapore has been transformed from a country largely dependent on its entrepot trade to one of the four newly industrializing economies of Asia (together with Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea). Singapore’s per capita GNP in 1989 was S$17 010. The physical development of this city-state has been dominated by the goals of economic growth which have emphasized industrialization and, more recently, financial and other services. Given the land scarcity, there has been an emphasis on high-rise and high-density developments - not only in the Central Area where businesses are concentrated, but also in the public housing estates which currently accommodate 88% of the Singaporean population. The total land area of the city-state is 626.4 km2 and its population totalled 2.69 million in mid-1989. Since the 1960s land use planning and land and building developments have been an integral part of the national effort to solve the severe economic and social problems which confronted the newly independent nation. High unemployment, housing shortages and deterioration, and severe congestion in the Central Area were just some of the major problems facing the government. Rapid urban growth with minimal controls had contributed to many of these problems. Changes in the last three decades therefore reflect not only the processes of urbanization and industrialization, but also the prominent role which the state has played in the physical development of Singapore. Through the Master Concept Plan and a series of other plans, the state has carefully regulated land use development over the past 30 years. The changes in the spatial organization of Singapore have mainly focused on redistributing the major land uses, such as industry and residential areas. These changes were initiated in the mid-1960s and consolidated in the 1970s and 198Os, and coincided with the bid to alter the nation’s economic base to one of m~~nufacturing and the provision of services. It is significant that land use policies have given as much emphasis to the allocation of land for open space as to commerce and economic use. With the pressing economic and social problems of the 1960s priority might well have been given to the redevelopment of the Central Area and development of housing, transport and industry. IIowever, equal
0264-8377/92/010064-l
2 0 1992 Bu~e~o~h-Heinemann
Ltd
Public policy and park development
‘S.H.K. Yeh, ‘The idea of the Garden City’, in KS. Sandhu and P. Wheatley, eds, Management of Success: fhe Moulding of Modern Singapore, Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore, 1989, pp 813-832; V. Savage, ‘Singapore’s garden city: landscape reality, national symbol, neo-utopian ideal’, Solidarity, forthcoming. ‘Master Plan, Report of Survey, 1955.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
in Singapore
emphasis has been given to land provision for open space and recreation, the planning and development of which have been an intrinsic feature in the physical development of Singapore. This article focuses on an analysis of the land use development planning process which has contributed to the ‘greening’ of the city-state of Singapore. The provision of open space as an integral part of land use planning in this land-scarce city-state has only been possible through a variety of strategies. Redevelopment permitted the provision of open space in the Central Area of the city-state, while high-rise and highdensity residential developments together with land reclamation enabled its provision outside of the Central Area. Part of the outcome of the planning strategies employed has also been the provision of multipurpose parks and open spaces, together with a considerable variety in size, location and type. The success of this planning and land use allocation approach to the provision of open space is evaluated. While the original concept of garden cities as mooted by Ebenezer Howard in 1898 bears little resemblance to the ‘garden city’ development in Singapore, the ‘greening’ of this city has been an intrinsic feature of its land use planning and development policies over the past three decades.’ Indeed the importance of open space to the urban populace was recognized at the outset when the Master Plan was first drawn up to guide land use development policy in the city-state.2 The Master Concept Plan and its five-year revisions contain prescriptions for land use development in terms of plot ratio, density ratio and ‘zone’ designation. The impact of development planning on the provision of open space and parks in the city-state can be seen in the overall increase in land use for open space and recreation as well as the hierarchy of parks which has evolved. Before the drawing up of the Master Plan, urban congestion was such a problem that it was difficult to provide adequate open space - let alone parks - in the city, especially the Central Area. The difference in provision before and after the implementation of the Master Plan is examined. The importance of open space to urban residents is also examined. Results of a survey on the use of neighbourhood parks by public housing residents is presented for this purpose. Judging by the popularity of the neighbourhood parks among the residents surveyed, the land use planning and development rationale behind the allocation of scarce city land for the development of parks has not been misplaced. The results of the survey, however, highlight the constraints imposed on the provision of neighbourhood parks due to the competing demand on land and the emphasis on maximizing the use of land. Post-construction evaluation, such as the surveys discussed, is therefore essential for an understanding of the implications arising from wider development and planning policies in the provision of urban facilities such as parks. In short, in a study on the results of policies advocating the provision of parks it is important to establish the outcome not only in terms of the number and types of parks provided but also their levels of use by people for whom the parks were planned in the first place.
Contemporary
research issues on park development
The research which has been conducted on parks has mainly focused on three major areas, all of which deal in some way with the question of the
65
Public policy
and park deveiopmejzi
in Singapore
3G.F. Chadwick, The Park and the Town, $c$litectural Press, London, UK, 1966, p 4D.J. Molnar and A.J. Rutledge, Anatomy of a Park, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1986. 51bid, p 23. ‘M.J. Christianssen, Park Planning Handbook, John Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1977. ‘A.K. Wong and G.L. Ooi, ‘Spatial reorganisation’, in Sandhu and Wheatley, op cit. Ref 1, pp 788-812. *H.Y. Lim and K-H. Lim, ‘Resettlement: policy, process and impact‘, in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh, eds, Housing a Nation, Maruzen, Singapore, 1985, pp 305-334.
66
costs of providing open space in cities (in terms of land and other resources) and the outcome of the decisions to provide such facilities. First, there have been planning considerations, foremost of which is the balance between the money and human value aspects of the provision of parks in cities. Then there has been concern with the approaches used in evaluating the effectiveness of parks and, finally, user responses and expectations of parks. A common concern in these three main areas of research is the emphasis on the evaluation of parks by those people who ultimately use them. Such a concern can be attributed to the recognition of the impact of wider development planning poIicies on the provision of parks and their use by people. According to Chadwick, ‘there seems to be general agreement that a complete system of parks and other open areas is an essential part of the urban structure and many ideal town patterns have contained such systems, varying in intention, although often used to separate zones of differing uses . . .‘3 It was also observed that the conception of parks had changed with changing ideas of urban patterns. While the idea of open areas for public use, like the town square, are deeply rooted, the public park is a Victorian creation to improve physical conditions in the wake of the industrial revolution in the UK and the growth of the industrial town. The large public parks of today have evolved from the small open spaces adjoining private homes. The lack of post-construction evaluation of park development in the USA has been lamented.4 Evaluation of the purposes of parks and the people’s needs was stressed because broad assumptions about recreational use were no longer seen to be enough. Evidence has been cited to show that spin-offs like improved security, reduced vandalism and user satisfaction could be reaped from paying more attention to learning about people’s needs and catering for them: ‘clearly, parks for the economically deprived may require different elements than parks serving the more secure middle class . . And likewise, parks in neighborhoods with substantial teen populations should have facilities which are different from sites in neighborhoods which are overflowing with tots or unmarried young adults or senior citizens.‘” More directly relevant to the Singaporean case has been the recent emphasis on increasing the productivity of land, which has led to the exploration of the multiple-use concept for parks. Christianssen goes to the extent of asserting that a park is a miniature community, with all of a community’s characteristic complexities.’ While the importance of providing parks and the necessity to evaluate their impact are widely recognized, it is equally clear that the concerns behind the stress on evaluation can be far-ranging. Nonetheless it is possible to sum up these concerns as being related to their meeting the needs of users for whom the parks have been provided.
Spatial redistribution
of land use
The major spatial redistribution of land use in post-independence Singapore has been discussed elsewhere.7 Briefly, it has involved the redistribution of residential, industrial and small-scale commercial land use from the congested Central Area to the suburbs. Various public policies and property taxation regulations have been enacted to achieve this, eg the resettlement and retirement of small-scale retailing activities from the Central Area.s Another example is the Land Acquisition Act
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Public policy
and park
development
in Singapore
Table 1. Distribution of population by census area, 1970-80.
Census area
1970
1980
1970-80 % change
Central city area City periphery Suburbs Outlying areas
226 811 598 437
149 899 720 643
-33.9 10.9 20.4 47.1
Number of persons
Source: Census of Population 1980, Department of Statistics, Singapore, 1980.
884 449 346 828
895 769 343 911
which gave government agencies powers of acquiring land for public purposes. Between 1949 and 1984 five government agencies acquired a total of 81 243 ha (30.2% of the total land area in Singapore).” Property taxes in the Central Area gave concessionary rates to commercial properties and not industrial ones as part of the land use redistribution policy to encourage the latter to move to estates which had been developed for industry in the suburbs.“’ To stabilize and gradually reduce the proportion of the population residing in the Central Area, public housing was developed in the suburbs. These estates have been planned with a more or less comprehensive range of facilities to meet the basic needs of residents. Today 88% of the population in Singapore resides in high-rise and high-density public housing estates which have been developed all over the city-state. The impact of spatial reorganization on the distribution of land use has been significant (see Table 1). The results of land use development planning have therefore been to free land for redevelopment in the Central Area as well as allow the implementation of new planning standards for a different kind of spatial order in the city-state of Singapore. In this spatial order, open space and parks have become more significant, both in terms of the overall standards of provision and the evolution of a hierarchy of open space and parks which are relatively well distributed throughout the city.
Developments
and improvements
in provision of open space
The purpose of providing parks in Singapore was made clear in the 1975 Revised Master Plan, Report of Survey. Open space in the heavily urbanized communities is seen to fulfil two functions - the provision of recreational areas and the ventilation of built-up areas. Incidental to these functions is the aim of varying and enhancing the urban landscape. The importance of providing open space had been earlier recognized in the Master Plan, Report of Survey, of 19.55. The report outlined the need for an increase in the provision of space per head of the population, particularly in the Central Area: is the shortage that there seems no alternative to allowing the use by the general public, outside of school hours, of part or all of the school playing fields existing or proposed to be provided in the Central Area The standard of 0.4 ha of open space per 1000 population, divided between general and precinctual requirements is not, in our opinion, totally inadequate for the needs of the future population and must be supplemented by a further 0.4 ha per 1000 persons of parks and playing fields elsewhere, perhaps on the fringe of the Urban Area.” So severe
‘L. Low, ‘The political economy of the built environment’, Solidarity, forthcoming. “W.S. Lim and P. Motha, Land Policy in Singapore, Design Partnership, Singapore, 1979. “Master Plan, op tit, Ref 2, p 4.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
While the necessity of improving the provision of parks and such open space was generally recognized, there was less agreement on the approach to allocating land for such purposes. The proposal above for including school playing fields among public parks for use after school
67
Public poticy and purk development
in Sing apore
hours was opposed by the City Architect and Building Surveyor. In essence there were differing views on the sizes of the plots to be provided, which are reflected in the following: While there has not been unanimity, because some members are convinced of the efficacy of small plots of open space, we consider that, in general, open spaces in precincts should not be dissipated in very small parcels, and that every effort should be made to provide lots of 0.4 ha or more capable of being developed into smal! parks of maximum use to the local people. Moreover. it is important that open space in precincts should he sited in relation to the people it is intended to serve.”
“Ibid, pp 3-4. 13Master Plan, 1955. 14W Neville, ‘The distribution of population in the post-war period’, J.B. Ooi and H.D. Chiang, modern Singapore, Universi~ of Singapore Press, Singapore, 1960, pp 5% 68. ‘5Master Plan, Report of Study Groups and Working Parties, 1955, p 1.
68
At the outset, therefore, the desirability of various targets had been stated. First, the standards of provision of open space had to be improved. In 1955 there were only 98.4 ha of open space for a population of 700 000 people, or about 0.14 ha for every 1000 persons. The recoInmended standard was 1.8 ha per 1000 persons. This open space was to be divided into 0.6 ha of public parks, 0.4 ha of school playing fields and 0.8 ha of public recreation grounds. Since it would have been virtually impossible to provide such standards in the Central Area alone, the proposal was to apply the standard over the entire city-state. At the same time, a desirable size of 0.4 ha for a park was also explained. Second, the officials working on the Master Plan had also emphasized that the parks were to be located near to the people they were meant to serve. Both tasks were tackled by the public sector, and the achievements of the development planning policies are discussed here. The massive spatial redistribution of major land uses from the Central Area to the suburbs released space for redevelopment and provision of parks within the city’s centre. Planning standards implemented in new towns and public housing estates developed throughout the city-state also provided for parks. These efforts have improved the standards in the provision of open space. At the same time, the aim of providing parks near to the people using them has been approached through the provision of a hierarchy of parks with different functions and sizes. A comparison of land use distribution under the British colonial administration and that which has evolved since independence illustrates precisely how land use planning policy in the last three decades has contributed towards the development of open space in Singapore. In Table 2, which illustrates the distribution of land among varying land uses, it is clear that three decades ago there was hardly any land available for open space and recreation. This was understandable considering that in the mid-1950s more than a third of the population was reported to be living in a stretch of coastline 6.4 km by 1.6 km where the city’s business centre was located.” A detailed survey in 1953 found that maximum gross residential densities in individual blocks exceeded 640 000 persons per 2.6 km’, or 1000 per 0.4 ha, in areas where usually only one or two floors were residential.‘” Tn the Master Plan, Reports of Study Groups and Working Parties, the observation was that ‘salvaged from the haphazard development of the area are sites for schools, hospitals, police stations, clinics, other community services and open space, all in greater or lesser degree inadequate in relation to the population they serve’.” Since the mid-1950s land use development planning has resulted in a twofoid increase in the area of land which has been allocated to open space like parks and has also provided a hierarchy of parks of different
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Public Table 2. Land use on Singapore
policy
and park
development
in Singapore
main island, 1967. Location Central area (%)
Land use Residential Industry Commercial Transport Utili~es/~mmunications institutions Military Recreation Cemeteries Quarrying and mining Water catchment and nature reserves Vacant buildings and buildings under construction Agriculture Vacant land and other undeveloped land
Town area (%)
10.8 3.6 24.9 22.8 1.2 11.5 1.7 8.5 0.5
35.6 2.1 55
10.6
2.1 5.6 0.8 2.6 10.6 1.3 1.1 0.7 6.2 1.5 26.3
29.3
26.1
14163.5
100.0 40 762.8
100.0
168
100.0 12 837.7
Source: Land and Building Use: Report of Survey, Planning Department,
Total area Ha 7 487.4 728.7 1 130.4 3 049.4 438.1 424.7 5 745.3 708.9 619.4 386.6 3 338.5 817.8 14 288.3
IO 5.4 8.5 3.4 2.7 0.1 _ 3.3 3.8
100.0 724.7
W
7.0 1.0 0.6 3.4 0.7 1.6 11.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 8.2 0.9 33.8
I 1.8
3.9 _
Total % Total ha
Rural area W)
Ministry of National Development,
13.8
1.3
54 325.1
Singapore,
1968.
sizes and functions (see Figure 1). Between 1967 and 1982 the area of land allocated to open space more than doubled. The roles played by varying government agencies in the planning and developtnent of parks have also resulted in improvements in the spatial distribution of these facilities. A premium has been placed on good land use planning in the limited land area, and the creation of additional land where possible.” Between 1976 and 1985 a massive reclamation project was undertaken on the east coast of the city-state. Part of this reclaimed land has actually been developed into a regional park. The allocation of the scarce land resource to open space is significant. Pragmatism has, however, characterized the nation’s leadership and bureaucracy, and the importance
Wong, ‘The transformation of the physical environment’, in Sandhu and Wheatley, op tit, Ref 1, pp 771-787. ‘sP P
1982
1967 Transport
Industrial 5.9%
4.9%
ommercial
1.4%
Wooded areas/ swamps/ water areas 10.4%
Open space 3.0%
Figure 1. Land use distribution,
1967
and
1982.
Source: Land and Building Use: Report of Survey, Planning Department,
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Ministry of National Development,
Singapore,
1982, p 8
69
Public policy and park developmen
in Singapore Table 3. Standards
Source: T. Tan et al, ‘Physical planning and design’, in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh, eds, Housing a Nation, Maruzen, Singapore, 1985, pp 56-112.
17Yeh, op tit, Ref 1. ‘81bid. ’ ‘Ibid.
70
of park provision by HDB.
Type of park
Area (ha)
Planning standards
Town parks Neighbourhood Precinct parks
5.0-10.0 1 .&1.5 0.2
1 per New Town 1 per neighbourhood 1 to 3000 dwelling units
parks
given to the development of a garden city reflects a highly rational decision. Among the first tasks of the newly independent government in Singapore was the setting up of a Parks and Trees Division in 1965. At the same time, the Garden City Action Committee comprising highlevel civil servants was formed to provide policies on the greening of the city-state and to coordinate the work of the government agencies involved with the physical development of Singapore -the Housing and Development Board (HDB) (which provides public housing), the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (in charge of Central Area redevelopment) and the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) (which developed the largest industrial estate in Singapore). These other statutory authorities plan and implement the development of their own parks and open space, while the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD), which grew out of the Parks and Trees Division, is responsible for the remaining areas in the city-state. The earlier policies concentrated on activities such as the planting of trees along major roads and streets in the city.” Gradually the emphasis has shifted to the development of parks and the trend seems to be towards laying out better-designed and more spacious parks with more aesthetically conceived landscaping and functionally useful facilities.‘” The 1975 Parks and Trees Act requires, among other things, that plazas and other large concrete areas have 3(&40X green areas for tree and shrub planting, and the Parks and Trees Rules, S.63/1976, set standards for the planting, aeration and maintenance of trees. While each of the statutory boards plans and develops its own range of parks, they actually complement the work of the PRD. Such an approach to the development of parks essentially solves the problem concerning the sizes of parks to be provided (brought up earlier in the Master Plan, Report of Survey, in 1955). The HDB has developed both regional, town and neighbourhood parks in public housing estates and New Towns. The standards of provision of these parks are shown in Table 3. Meanwhile, through its Central Area Open Space Plan the URA has developed and maintained a hierarchy of open spaces including open green parks, theme parks and vest-pocket parks largely within the city centre. Besides the relatively larger national-level open spaces which serve the entire island, the URA has planned city or district parks of 5 of ha in size.‘” Each of these is meant to serve a neighbourhood 20 00&30 000 people. These district parks are complemented by local open spaces ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 ha. The local open spaces are located within walking distance of residents. High land costs within the Central Area constrain the development of parks and provision of open space, hence an important means of creating open space has been to develop small plazas and pedestrian areas. The URA also requires property developers to set aside a sum equivalent to 2% of the total building cost or a sum to be determined by the agency for landscaping purposes. Similarly, the JTC has developed its own parks in the Jurong
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
Public policy and park development
in Singapore
area as well as providing open space in its other industrial estates. The planning and development, as well as the managements of parks has therefore become an important and well-entrenched aspect of the city-state’s land use development planning. In 1985 there were 32 parks in Singapore, ranging in size from 0.8 to 206 ha, with another six more in the construction or planning stage. The figures are impressive. City planners and the public sector have made tremendous strides in improving the standards of provision of open space. However, there are specific characteristics in the provision of parks that are unique to Singapore because of the limits on land supply and the emphasis on good planning. Planning effort is required to provide convenience and sufficient facilities in the parks so people would want to use them. This implies the allocation of land in locations where it is convenient for users in the context of the existing constraints on available land. Success notwithstanding, there are planning problems arising from the provision of parks in spite of the constraints on land, but resolution of these problems has repercussions on the satisfaction which users derive from parks. The outcome of the twin emphases on good land use planning and maximization of its use in the planning and development of parks can only be appreciated with a discussion of the results from surveys of users.
Convenience
“Revised Master Plan, Report of Survey 1980, Singapore Planning Department. *IT. Tan C.T. Loh, S.A. Tan, W.C. Lau and K. I&ok, ‘Physical planning and design’, in V-long and Yeh, op tit, Ref 8, pp 56-l 12.
LAND USE POLICY
January 1992
as a factor in park development
Locating parks near to the people using them was a major task broached in development planning. A survey of park users in Singapore, cited in the 1980 Revised Master Plan Report, showed that 65% of the users were 30 years old and below.2” People from public housing estates made up 63% of the total number of park users. One park which was located in an HDB new town, Toa Payoh, ranked among the most popular of the parks. An important point highlighted by the study is that 41% of the park users walked to the parks, 28% had taken the bus and 25% the car. Although the report does not provide details of users’ evaluation, the mode of transport employed to reach the parks seems to reflect the importance of convenient locations. Evidence to support this point is found in a survey of public housing residents and their evaluation of neighbourhood parks. The decision by planners to provide neighbourhood parks in public housing estates effectively means that park facilities are now more conveniently located. This decision is akin to the PRD’s own provision of a range of neighbourhood and regional parks. Unlike the larger town parks provided by HDB, however, which serve the entire new town, each of the neighbourhood parks is located in the neighbourhood of 6000 dwelling units or public housing flats. At the time the study was undertaken in early 1988, 12 such neighbourhood parks had already been constructed. Each is different in terms of size and the recreational facilities provided. Sizes vary from 0.6 to 4 ha, compared with the larger town parks which range in size from 5 to 10 ha.2’ Neighbourhood park facilities also vary, as some parks are provided with park benches, open spaces and landscaping while others have an array of keep-fit corners, playgrounds, jogging tracks and open areas, Locations of neighbourhoods parks vary considerably within each neighbourhood. In some neighbourhoods the parks straddle major roadways and the housing estates they are meant to serve, in order to
Public policy and park development in Singapore Table 4. Level of use of parks and facilities. Facilities and activities
Residents involved (%)
Strolls Playground Jogging Keep-fit corners Hard court Tai Chi
87.9 47.5 42.0 29.7 8.3 7.2
act as buffers between residential and transport land uses. Other locational variations are characteristic, with neighbourhood parks located where land is available after the development of the estates. So the parks can be located at the fringes of neighbourhoods or strung out linearly and running through the neighbourhoods they are serving. There are also parks made up of two parcels of land that are physically separated by the housing estates which they are serving.
Household survey This section discusses the findings of a random sample survey of 400 households conducted in four neighbourhoods, each of which has a neighbourhood park. These parks had been completed between the end of 1983 and 1986. They were selected for study because they represented a cross-section of the neighbourhood parks, in terms of size, range of facilities, location and the time in use. Three aspects of the study are discussed: the level of use and the recreational facilities provided; the social variables accounting for variations in use and facilities; and the residents’ views on possible improvements to planning and maintenance. The use of neighbourhood
parks
The survey of households showed that ncighbourhood parks were popular with public housing residents. Overall, the study found that 53% of the residents had been to their neighbourhood park. A comparison among the four parks showed that the level of use varied - it was highest in one of the larger of the four parks (3.79 ha) where 78% of the residents used the park and facilities provided; and was lower in the smallest of the four parks (0.6 ha), which had a limited range of park facilities (a factor which might account for the lower usage). Residents who used the park went frequently. A majority of them, 56%, visited the park daily or at least once a week. The convenient location of the neighbourhood park would account for the high frequency of use. This was supported by the finding that practically all the park users (99.5%) walked to their neighbourhood park. The major proportion of the park users also lived 200 m or less from the neighbourhood parks. Among the residents who were living more than 200 m away from a nejghbourhood park, only 23% used the park. In comparison, 71% the residents who lived 200 m or less from their neighbourhood park used it. Frequency of use was also affected by distance from the park. Among users who lived less than 200 m away from the park, 60% went to the park at least once a week compared to 32% from among the residents who were living more than 200 m away. Park users frequent the neighbourhood parks mostly for strolls (see Table 4). A comparatively large proportion also jog in these parks. The relatively lower figures for those using other facilities (such as the hard courts and keep-fit corners) is due to the fact that not all of the four parks surveyed have these facilities. Many users are also likely to make multipurpose trips, with 48% of the households bringing their children to the playgrounds and also strolling in the neighbourhood parks. Variations
The highest
72
in the use of neighbourhood
proportions
of park
users
parks
were
residents
LAND USE POLICY
from five-room
January
1992
Public policy and park development Table 5. Average household type, 1985.
incomes by flat
Flat type
Average household income (SS)
1 room 2 room 3 room 4 room 5 room Executive
693 934 1 323 1 837 2 482 2 693
Source: K.P. Lim, H.P. Moey, K. Kwok, K.T. Gau, K.H. Lim, S. Seow and G.C. Lee, ‘HDB and its residents’, in Wong and Yeh, op tit, see text, Ref 8, p 383.
in Singapore
and executive flats (larger and more expensive) - 90% of households in executive apartments used the parks, and 80% of five-room households. As household incomes are higher among those in the larger flats (see Table 5), this means that park facilities are likely to become more important with increasing income levels. One resident felt that the neighbourhood parks made public housing estates look less like HDB estates, ie public housing. The landscaping provided in these parks resembles the landscaping which would usually be provided in private condominiums. In his paper on the idea of the garden city, Yeh has noted that the Parks and Trees Act of 1975 requires that landscaping and tree planting up to certain standards be part of any proposed development and these are subject to the control of the PRD and the Public Works Department.** Not surprisingly, the households in the larger flats were found to be more likely to opt for flats located near to a park. While 74% of all the residents would opt for flats located near to a park, the proportion was highest among the executive flat households (90%). Among the fiveroom households, 84”/0 would opt to be located near to a park. The neighbourhood park users were composed of equal proportions of residents who were employed, housewives and retirees. Housewives and retirees made up 43% of neighbourhood park users while wageearning or self-employed residents comprised 56%. The level of use of the neighbourhood parks also varies among the different age groups - 61% of residents aged 3&39 years old used the parks, and 57% of those 60 years of age and older. Among the residents above 20 years old, the level of use was relatively similar. These age variations can be explained by the purposes of the trips made to the parks (see Figure 2).
Non-users
22Yeh,
op cif,
Ref
Among the residents who had not used the neighbourhood parks at the time of the study, a large proportion had no time to go as they were either busy with work or housework. A number were unaware of the provision of the neighbourhood parks. The remaining residents either found the park too far away and inconvenient to get to or preferred to go elsewhere. About a third of these residents went to the larger regional parks, often located in sites with attractions such as the sea.
1.
Strolls
90 60 70 60 8
50 I
Tai Chi Playground Jogging
Figure 2
Use of parks and facilities by residents’ age.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
u
20-29
30-39
40-49 Age
50-59
60andabove
(years)
73
Public policy and park development
in Singapore
Since these regional parks are usually located further from the residents, visits are infrequent. One half of this group of residents visited the parks once a month while the rest only made trips occasionally. The infrequent trips can be explained by the lower convenience. Residents going to the regional parks also preferred them because of the natural attractions they offered. Residents’ evaluation of neighbourhood
parks
A majority of the residents liked the neighbourhood parks because of their facilities. In the parks where fewer facilities were provided, residents have suggested the addition of a playground and such features. The smallest of the four neighbourhood parks studied had minima1 facilities largely because of its size and planned purpose - it was meant to be mainly a landscaped open arca. Some public housing residents liked everything about their neighbourhood parks and thought that the greenery and landscaping improved the environment as well as providing a good view and place to relax. Others found their neighbourhood park convenient and a good place for children, besides being a neighbourhood landmark. Residents’ expectations of the standards of management and maintenance of the neighbourhood parks were high. There was a demand that the parks be litter free, the trash bins emptied regularly and the grass kept short. Residents were also perturbed by the pets and cyclists allowed in the neighbourhood parks which they felt were incompatible with the use of these parks by young children and the cldcrly. In the parks where keep-fit corners had been provided together with playgrounds and hard courts, residents were concerned with the spacing between these different facilities. The matter is related to the sizes of the parks, and thus the land available. Residents perceived that the activities accommodated by each of these facilities appealed to users of different age groups. It was suggested that more attention be given to the siting of these different facilities. Residents also proposed that better playgrounds be provided as well as improvement in the spacing of the play equipment. Other improvements suggested included more flowering shrubs in addition to the greenery already provided and better lighting. The latter is related to the main types of park users - largely the residents with young families who are concerned about security. Residents liked the convenience of living near to neighourhood parks, and having a place to relax, see neighbours, have a view and open space. However, they disliked the noise and loss of privacy. The challenge to planners seems to be to provide parks which arc conveniently located but which do not present problems with noise and loss of privacy for residents.
Conclusion Notwithstanding the importance of maximizing the use of land and the scarcity of land, the provision of open space and parks has been emphasized in Singapore’s land use development planning. This article has highlighted the public sector agencies’ SUCCESSwith increasing the area allocated to open space and parks and the development of a hierarchy of parks in order to locate parks as closely to users as possible. Surveys to evaluate users’ responses have shown that parks (including
74
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
Public policy and park development in Singapore
neighbourhood parks) and the recreational facilities provided are highly used by public housing residents. Among the four parks included in the survey, the largest one proved most popular, mainly due to its size, location and facilities, as well as its standard of maintenance. The level of use of the parks differed among residents from the various flat types and age groups. Use was highest among residents in the larger flats and also the residents with young families (who were particular about cleanliness and security). Evidence from the survey pointed to the increasing importance of providing more parks among the people. Furthermore, the more popular parks were those catering to a wide variety of activities, although the design of the parks would have to consider factors related to the safety of users, especially children. Planners of parks in land-scarce cities like Singapore have to consider numerous constraints in their provision of open space. Their challenge is to reconcile convenient locations and some residents’ desire for privacy and quiet with the provision of parks large enough to accommodate the demands of residents of a wide range of age groups. The increase in the standards and the hierarchy of parks are evidence of the success of planners in facing their challenge. Users’ evaluation, however, highlights areas where more planning effort can be concentrated to ameliorate the impact of wider land use development planning policies on the provision of parks.
LAND USE POLICY
January
1992
75