Care of the Park: Community Stewardship for an Olmsted Park

CARE OF THE PARK:

COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP FOR AN OLMSTED PARK Rutgers University George H. Cook Honors Thesis Written & Illustrated by Devin Fields

Care of the Park: Community Stewardship for an Olmsted Park By Devin Fields 19’

A thesis submitted to the Honors Committee of the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University in fulfillment of the requirements of the George H. Cook Scholars Program.

Written under the direction of:

Meredith Taylor Richard Alomar

Department of Landscape Architecture

New Brunswick, New Jersey

March, 2019

i

Care of the Park: Community Stewardship for an Olmsted Park I have reviewed the project conducted by Devin Fields and endorse its consideration for the George H. Cook Scholar award.

__________________________________ Meredith Taylor, Project Advisor Office of Agriculture and Urban Programs

_________________________________ Richard Alomar, Reader Department of Landscape Architecture

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this time to thank my thesis advisor, Meredith Taylor, for being such a dedicated advisor and presenting me with the idea this thesis covers. This thesis tackles aspects of open space I never knew existed, in an area like Newark which I have studied and interacted with for years. She has done an amazing job keeping me focused, timely, organized, and motivated.

This thesis would also not be where it is today without my reader and professor, Richard Alomar. Without his mantra of “just write�, I would be trying to tackle a million things at once. He has kept me focused and diligent, which gave me the determination to see this to the end. Thanks also go to Holly Nelson, my professor who has always cheered me on and saw my potential ever since I met in her office to discuss studying landscape architecture. She has pushed me to become someone I am truly proud of.

I would also like to thank the many professors and students that have helped me with this thesis. The interactions and ideas I have gained from you are the reason why this thesis is where it is today.

Finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend Kaytlin for all the love and support she has given me before and during the writing of this thesis. It truly has meant a lot to me.

I hope this thesis sheds much-needed light on an open space that needs care, a city that has endless potential, and a university that can be at the forefront of progress and innovation.

iii

ABSTRACT The Branch Brook Park Alliance was formed in 1999 by residents of Newark to develop plans to improve the park after decades of social and financial neglect. In partnership with the County of Essex, the group’s mandate to oversee planning, design and implementation of improvements was fulfilled with the creation of the Cultural Landscape Report (Rhodeside & Harwell, “Cultural Landscape Report, Treatment, and Management Plan for Branch Brook Park”). After completing its mandate, the Alliance focused on outreach to other groups, agencies and organizations to establish a stewardship program for the park. “Care of the Park”, a legacy program of the Branch Brook Park Alliance, provides basic horticultural training and encourages members of the community to volunteer their time to help take care of the park.

We propose that a Rutgers Newark Living Labs program can assume a partial stewardship role along with the volunteers selected under the established program. Living labs are productive, educational and interactive projects implemented in the landscape. Rutgers Newark can organize this program with its city business and community stakeholders and provide community leadership, educational programs and engagement, research opportunities and the capacity to evaluate and plan the park’s future, all while keeping with Frederick Law Olmsted’s vision of parks as urban spaces that improve the physical and mental health of its citizens.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

INTRODUCTION

4

BRANCH BROOK PARK IN CONTEXT

12 18 22 v

BRANCH BROOK PARK TODAY

A SUSTAINABLE PARK STEWARDSHIP MODEL BRANCH BROOK PARK & RUTGERS NEWARK: A RELATIONSHIP WORTH EXPLORING

SUSTAINABLE PARKS AND LIVING LABS: A SPECIFIC MODEL FOR BRANCH BROOK PARK

30

A REVIEW OF LIVING LABS

33

THE NEWARK LIVING LABS NETWORK

42

CONCLUSION

48

APPENDIX

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

66

vi vi

BRANCH BROOK PARK IN 1898

BRANCH BROOK PARK NOW

1

INTRODUCTION Branch Brook Park is a 3.5-mile-long brush stroke of natural landscape surrounded by urban development and is often referred to as the “Crown Jewel” of Newark and the Essex County Parks System. The original design of the park was developed by Frederick Law Olmsted in 1867 to “bridge the gap between city and nature” (Wagner 1). The park was completed by his nephew and son, John Charles Olmsted and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr in 1898. Branch Brook Park became the first county park within the nation’s first county park system. The history of the park, from design to completion; from Crown Jewel to neglected open space to revitalized park, reflects the immediate social and economic context of Newark as well as the transformation of parks all over the country as they adapt to changing circumstances in urban settings.

The current need to continue park stewardship after the completion of a 15-year restoration provides an opportunity to review the principles that established the park, see how those principles were adapted over time to address the park’s changing needs and from that foundation, propose ways in which the Alliance and Essex County can support shared stewardship of the park along with other groups, organizations or institutions in the City of Newark.

Footbridge over lake in the southern end of Branch Brook Park

2

3

BRANCH BROOK PARK IN CONTEXT When the Branch Brook Park Alliance was formed in 1999, infrastructure and facilities in the park were seriously degraded. The grand boathouse, built by Rossiter and Wright during the park’s original construction, was deemed unsafe and replaced. The park was used as a temporary shelter ground for the National Guard during the riots of 1967. (“About Us”). The sequence of events that led to the park’s deterioration; shifting economic markets, urban renewal, suburbanization, and defunding of public works to name a few, were like those that led to the deterioration of many large parks throughout major cities across the United States. Manhattan’s Central Park, also designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, saw its decay during the mid-20th century. The park was littered with trash and decaying infrastructure and was left unmaintained by the New York City Parks Department for two decades (“Park History”). Like Branch Brook Park, Central Park gained a private steward to help revitalize the park in its time of need (“Park History”). However, Branch Brook Park’s private steward, the Branch Brook Park Alliance, was developed to put forth a restoration plan and later disband.

The two are comparable in that Branch Brook Park and Central Park were planned, designed and constructed based on a similar set of principles; the idea that parks in cities provided residents with nature, social interaction and a physically healthy experience.

THE EVOLUTION OF BRANCH BROOK PARK Branch Brook Park’s history is closely tied to the culture of American life, the prevailing social ideas and the land policies that have shaped many of the large urban parks designed over the past 150 years. In tracing the connections between Branch Brook Park, the socio-economic changes in Newark, the response to change and the historic conditions that prevailed across urban cities in America, we can understand what the next step in park stewardship can be and how it can be structured.

Aerial Photo of Branch Brook Park Source: ArcMap World Imagery, ESRI

The design and use of the park have followed the same evolution as other parks in urban cities. Its initial design in 1898 follows the same philosophy as Central Park, along with many other parks around this time. Galen Cranz’s The Politics of Park Design (1982) describes the evolution of parks in the United States and her classifica4

REFORM PARK (1900-1930)

PLEASURE GROUND (1850-1900)

RECREATIONAL FACILITY (1930-1965)

OPEN SPACE SYSTEM (1965-2000)

5

tions for Pleasure Ground (1850-1900), Reform Park (1900-1930), Recreational Facility (1930-1965) and Open Space System (1965-?) can be used to trace the historic timeline of the park.

The early urban park movement in the U.S. was based on the romantic notion that nature and natural scenery had the power to uplift and restore the human spirit. This ideal arises in reaction to the effects of industrial capitalism prevalent in the 1840s and 1850s.

This was very much the ideals that guided Olmsted in the design of Central, Prospect and Branch Brook Parks. Each of these parks meant to provide a place where all social classes could interact, particularly immigrants new to the country, and provide a piece of the country in the everyday life of the city. Taking into consideration these ideals, parks where designed to create a clear separation between city and park and allude to pastoral landscapes prevalent in Europe. The actual park elements and programs also aspired to middle class ideas and even though the park was open to all, certain things like alcohol consumption, raucous music, and dancing associated with immigrants were not allowed.

A painting of Branch Brook Park in 1910 Source: DaisyField.com New Jersey Postcards

At its development in the late 19th century to the early 20th century, Branch Brook Park follows the characteristics of the Pleasure Ground Park (1850-1900). Olmsted’s design for the park was a romantic design, one that believed nature would liven up the morale of the working-class community in Newark, especially because of Newark’s industrial prowess (Wagner 24). Olmsted wanted all social classes to come together and interact, with long allees of trees creating long promenades for socialization. The park’s original design lacked a lot of the infrastructure it now has, because the Pleasure Ground park was anti-infrastructure, feeling that the city had enough, so an urban oasis would provide nature instead. As time passed, parks that mimicked nature were criticized by citizens living in tenement housing due to their lack of recreational space. Considering the roaring 20’s and soon after the Depression, the Reform Park movement called for parks to be more than just a getaway, but something practical to the urban citizen, where “recreational needs should be met daily…rather than on occasional outings” (26).

The critique of the Pleasure Park era was that they did not serve the needs of the local community, specifically the working-class immigrants living far from the large urban parks. The response in the era of the Reform Park was to emphasize that community recreational need should be met at nearby parks, rather than with occasional strolls through the city’s big parks. This movement also advocated for playgrounds with special play equipment for children. This approach greatly increased the programmatic needs of a park and by focusing on proximity rather that size, it could focus on the needs of a

Branch Brook Park Ice Skating Rink in the 1960s Source: Topsimages.com

6

Early 1900s

to

Construction of the park is completed in south to north and is split into the Southern, Middle, and Northern divisions.

1906

Mid 1900s

Morris Canal was abandoned and the Newark City Subway, not Newark Light Rail, brings public transit stops to the park.

1927

1928

Caroline Bamberger Fuid donates 2,000 Japanese flowering cherry trees, which become a distinctive feature for the park.

specific neighborhood. The expanded program also included an increase in user groups, so the courtly strolling of middle-class residents in Pleasure Parks gave way to a more active and physical engagement between groups and individual men, women and children. In the specific case of larger parks, like Branch Brook Park and Central Park it was fairly simple for designers to create new specific-use spaces in an existing park because the existing park spaces were not programed, and the parks could be seen not as unfit, but underutilized.

In 1906, a concrete boat landing was constructed on the lake side. This was “ideal for boat launching, one of the many educational activities of the [Essex County] Park Commission’s social programs” (Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated 41). Concerts were programmed into the developed Concert Hall, and in 1923, the number of concerts expanded to include the Newark Philharmonic; barbershop quartets and harmonic groups popular during the Great Depression era (41). In 1927, Caroline Bamberger donated 2,000 Japanese flowering cherry trees to the park. These trees created a beautiful scenery in the park that would go on to create the Cherry Blossom Festival, 7

1930s

A grand boathouse was designed by F.A. Wright is added to the southern end of the lake.

Critique of Pleasure Ground parks for more recreation amenities.

1898

Originally the Blue Jay Swamp, the park is now formed into a naturalistic park with few structures, curving paths, and water bodies.

Early 1900s

Using the original design of the park drafted by Fredrick Law Olmsted, the Olmsted Brothers develop the parks design.

1960s

Civil unrest brewed in the city. Housing standards were low, social and racial discrimmination was high.

1967

Historic preservation advocate Kathleen Galop starts the Newark Cherry Blossom Festival, an annual festival that now brings thousands of visitors a year.

1976 Branch Brook Park is in disarray and needs maintenance. Recreation needs settled, and government sees parks as a system.

More parks built to fit the recreational needs of the citizens. BBP sees less visitors and less demands.

1956 to 1957

Riots explode in the city totaling in 26 deaths and roughly 1,000 injured. The middle class leaves the city, removing industrial jobs and leaving people unemployed. The park sees less and less visitors.

1970s

More than 3,000 people attend the Annual Fall Chrysanthemum Show in the park. The next year, the Fuid Collection of cherry blossoms brings 500,000 visitors.

The Branch Brook Park Alliance is established. With the help of Rhodeside and Harwell, a Cultural Landscape Report is begun to take inventory and supply the park with the help it needs.

1980s

1999 to 2001

Grassroots movements begin, and the Friends of Branch Brook Park successfully place the park on hte New Jersey State Register of Historic Places. Eventually, the park lands on the National Register as well.

Newark’s largest annual tourist attraction. Ten years after the planting of the cherries, the park’s grounds served as a “tent city to World War II recruits, as well as a landing strip for airplanes of the USPS” (Branch Brook Park: Restoring the Park 57). Branch Brook Park became more than an urban oasis, it became a practical open space that was utilized by all for recreation, pleasure, and refuge.

As the 20th century progressed, a variety of other types of parks emerged. Neighborhood, regional, state and national parks reduced the importance of central-city parks like Branch Brook. The reduction in importance relieved the large urban parks of having to meet every metropolitan need. The Recreation Facility era develops under this backdrop. During this period, public facilities for active recreation were developed at a greater rate and extent than ever before. The main distinction was not in the number and types of facilities constructed, but in that the approach was not influenced by the civic social philosophy that guided the romantic parks or the reform-era playground movement. Rather, parks and recreation officials viewed facilities like ball fields, playgrounds, pools and 8

beaches as public services that were demanded by a growing middle-class population. The era was marked by growing budgetary support for acquiring land to build more parks.

The National Guard on Springfield Avenue in Newark on July 14, 1967 Source: Don Charles Hogan, the NYTimes

Newark residents used the park less for socialization and getting away from urban life, and more as an extension of urban life. The open fields were converted to playfields, the tennis center, now known as the Althea Gibson Tennis Center, was built in 1929 and slowly became an essential part of recreational life in the park (Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated 250). In 1937, the Visitor’s Center was built for the Essex County Department of Parks as a gateway to the park. The Center had a meeting room, pool hall, restrooms, and a senior center (267). These changes, adaptations and new construction fit within the Recreation Facility stage of American park evolution. The practical and straight forward approach to just build more on existing open space helped create an extension to residents and urban life. There were senior centers, pool halls, and meeting rooms all over the city, but integrating them into the design of the park was a characteristic of park evolution during this era (Wagner 30).

The enthusiasm for building more recreational parks diminished during the mid-60’s partially for economic reasons, as park construction and land acquisition tied to urban renewal lost public and government support. The civil unrest in the 1960s, seen across the county, and specifically in Newark also fueled the disinvestment in urban centers.

In 1965, riots broke out in Newark. The citizens were responding to housing foreclosures, job loses, and economic deterioration throughout the city, along with instances of racism and police brutality. The riots lasted a few days and totaled 26 deaths and 1,100 injured. Working class Newark wanted parks to be places of refuge from urban life, however, instead of the Pleasure Ground’s idea of refuge from the industrial working lifestyle, this idea was more about refuge from the threats their urban life was pushing upon them (33). The decay and divestment in city were reflected in the park as well. Middle-class residents fled to the suburbs, Branch Brook Park seemed unsafe and its infrastructure, quality, safety, and usage deteriorated.

Burning businesses doused by firefighters Source: Associated Press, the NYTimes

9

In addition, new thinking on city planning and development saw parks as part of a larger system of open spaces that included street, empty lots and other unbuilt spaces. This new approach, the Open Space System, meant to see open spaces as a true experience of urban life rather that an escape from the city, essentially making the park and the city one. This era also ushered in direct community participation in the planning, design and inclusion of active recreation and community events, like festi-

vals and concerts. In the case of Branch Brook Park, this was the time when the tennis courts and the visitor center were constructed (32).

Planners also believed that a new philosophy and approach toward urban parks would provide residents and policy makers with new opportunities for urban park revitalization. These hopes fell short when funding for large urban parks diminished, but the lack of funding saw the creation of public-private partnerships that managed and funded urban parks to stop their decline.

In 1976, the historic preservation advocate Kathleen Galop spearheaded the first Newark Cherry Blossom Festival, which helped bring tourism into the city, stimulating the economy and giving Newark a resource to brighten its now dark reputation (Branch Brook Park: Restoring the Park 57). In 1980, the newly established Friends of Branch Brook Park placed the park on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places (57).

This is essential because it opens the park up to the rest of the state, if not the rest of the country. In the 1990s, grassroots movements around the city were formed. One of which was the Concerned Citizens of Forest Hill. Their goal was to turn the tide of decline in the park and revitalize this important recreational and cultural resource for the community. This brings Branch Brook Park’s history to its most essential point, the development of the Branch Brook Park Alliance. In 1999, the BBPA was formed by multiple Newark residents. As a non-profit partner to Essex County, BBPA’s goal was to raise funds for the first comprehensive restoration since the park’s completion in 1898. Headed by Barbara Bell Coleman and Patricia E. Ryan, the Alliance became a critically important partner to the County, and Branch Brook Park’s most visible steward because of their contribution and motivation to restore the “Crown Jewel” of Newark to its former glory, with modern updates.

A Newark home in the 1970s Source: Connie Hansen and Russell Peacock as Guzman, stocklandmartellblog.com

The cherry blossoms that bloom in the park Source: Steve Latimer

10

11

BRANCH BROOK PARK TODAY Each of these four eras of urban parks describe the approach and attitude towards park planning and design for a specific generation of people and conditions. Currently Branch Brook Park, as well as other large urban parks in the United States, are confronted with a new set of social issues based on our way of life and the role of parks in society. Park planners, local governments, policy makers and the public are reevaluating conventional ideas about parks and open space, turning away from older models that viewed the role of parks in our cities as either aesthetic or programmatic to one that includes social issues as part of an integrated ecological system. This reevaluation places Branch Brook Park in a new era in urban park evolution, what John Wagner describes as the Sustainable Park (Wagner 34).

A view of Jerome D. Greco Field

This Sustainable or Ecological Park addresses the contemporary social perspectives on environmental issues. It refers to tangible natural resources like trees, water and open spaces, and social and cultural aspects, like the use of public-private partnerships to help communities directly support urban parks (Wagner 34). Many of the characteristics of the Sustainable Park are like the nineteenth-century idea that inspired Branch Brook Park as bringing nature to the city to help clean and cool the air.

However, like all parks of that era, aesthetic considerations outweighed ecological functions. The Sustainable Park model proved to be a viable model to restore many nineteenth century parks like Central Park and Prospect Park in New York City.

In 2001, the Branch Brook Park Alliance teamed up with Rhodeside & Harwell to create a Cultural Landscape Report, Treatment and Management Plan to begin restoration for the park (“History�). Private industries, such as Prudential Financial, have become involved in helping finance events throughout the park, and make the park more interactive with the citizens of Newark. Over the next decade, ball fields are restored, plants are replanted and inventoried, new programming fills the park with new users, and new recreation structures go up throughout the park (Branch Brook Park: Restoring the Park 58). By 2014, the Branch Brook Park Alliance was close to completing its mission to restore and revitalize the park. The challenge they faced was how to enter the next phase in the park’s evolution. Unlike the Central Park Conservancy, and other permanent non-profit conservancies of Olmsted parks, the Branch Brook Park

A rest area surrounded by a garden in the Southern Division of the park

12

SUSTAINABLE PARK (2000-CURRENT)

13

Cherry Blossom Galas are started, sponsered

by Prudential Financial; a public-private partnership that becomes essential to Branch Brook Park’s revitalization.

2002

Essex County and the Branch Brook Park Alliance join forces to take care of the park.

2003

New construction and programming comes to the park. The New Jersey Symphony Orchestra, along with picnicking and annual fireworks help to reactivate the park.

2004

Through the help of private donors, non-profits such as the Open Space Trust Fund, and corporations such as Prudential, and Robert Wood Johnson, Branch Brook comes back to its former glory.

2005-2010

Multiple pieces of infrastructure, such as athletic fields and rest areas, are rehabilitated. The cherry tree collection is restored, spreading throughout the park.

2011

2012-PRESENT

The Branch Brook Park Alliance starts the Care of the Park stewardship program. The Alliance shifts to conservancy status, works to help finish the 15-year restoration plan, and find a new steward for the park.

Alliance was not intended to be a perpetually operating organization. The Alliance’s Care of the Park program was envisioned as a community stewardship program reliant primarily on the efforts of volunteers in a supportive role to the Essex County Department of Parks. This gives the citizens of Newark a sense of ownership in the park and provides more hands to take care of the park, so the Essex County Department of Parks is not overwhelmed.

A problem with using volunteerism to supplement maintenance within a park is that volunteered work is not, by definition, mandatory. The volunteers are not getting paid and therefore do not have a monetary incentive to spend their day working in the park. To supplement the volunteered help, a group, business, or organization should lend their manpower, resources and ideas to give Branch Brook Park the attention it needs. This group can undertake the work that cannot be done by local volunteers, such as planning, programming, and solving

14

intensive problems with the park. This joint interaction, defined as co-creation, is a way of tackling the challenges of managing a large-scale park while also providing the people involved with various benefits

Park volunteers Source: Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy

15

16

A SUSTAINABLE PARK STEWARDSHIP MODEL CENTRAL PARK: A PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP MODEL EXAMPLE Central Park was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux in 1858, during the Pleasure Ground era of park development. The design intention, just like Branch Brook Park, was to be an escape from the congestion and pace of the city. The Mall and the Bethesda Terrace were infrastructure pieces designed as places of socialization. The design also encourages spaces for cultural expression, live performances, organizing and protests, and areas for recreating. (“About Us”, Central Park Conservancy).

The Central Park Conservancy is a private, non-profit organization that was formed in 1980 by a group of citizens looking to improve the park. Much like Branch Brook Park and other large urban parks and park districts, economic decline and the rise of other social problems forced many municipal governments to reprioritize the use of public funds. Spending was shifted away from parks, recreation, and cultural activities towards areas deemed more critical. Because of this, the condition within urban parks declined. In response, shared stewardship models helped carry a burden that municipalities could no longer shoulder alone. For Branch Brook Park, the Alliance became that steward. However, these concerned citizens never intended to be like the Conservancy, which is responsible for Central Park’s $80 million annual budget.

The Alliance, in partnership with the County of Essex came together to jump start the revitalization of the park. Transitioning to ‘Care of the Park’ allows citizens of Newark along with other institutional anchor organizations to continue stewardship of Branch Brook Park into the future. The Care of the Park program is formed on the idea that stewardship of the park can (and should) be shared by the community and other local institutions, without the need for a perpetually operating non-profit conservancy organization.

The Central Park Conservancy Logo Source: The Central Park Conservancy Website

The Mall in Central Park Source: shozgirl, centralpark.com

The planning, design and history of Branch Brook Park is connected to, but differs significantly from other urban city parks of the Pleasure Park and subsequent eras. The Branch Brook Park Alliance viewed its mandate as temporary, unlike the Central Park Conservancy. They implemented the legacy volunteer stewardship program Care of the Park with the goal of recruiting Newark residents to volunteer time to carry out park priorities for planning and maintenance. The program, while well planned, is 18

limited by the number of available volunteers and the large park area required to be maintained. To fulfill the sustainable park objectives and a viable stewardship model, the park requires, in addition to the Essex County Parks Department, a stable community partner, group or institution that has the resources to educate and provide community outreach, recruit, and train volunteers who will help maintain the park.

Bird’s eye view of Central Park Source: iStock, foxnews.com

19

SUSTAINABLE PARK OBJECTIVES

Increases the ecological performance of a park; including the use of native plants, the restoration of natural systems, wildlife habitat, integration of appropriate technologies and infrastructure, recycling and sustainable construction and maintenance practices.

Maintains an economically viable structure to achieve ecological performance; using public-private partnerships and community stewardship to directly support the development and maintenance of an urban park.

Educates residents, exposing them to new ideas and attitudes about ecology and the urban landscape. The use of community-based stewardship programs provides a way for urban residents to learn about ecological processes in the urban landscape and how they play a role in their preservation or restoration.

Integrates the park to the larger urban region and help resolve urban problems beyond the boundaries of the park.

20

An birds-eye view of the Rutgers Newark campus Source: cappex.com

21

BRANCH BROOK PARK & RUTGERS NEWARK: A RELATIONSHIP WORTH EXPLORING Rutgers Newark was formed in 1936 as a conglomerate of five educational institutions.

Currently, the university has more than 12,000 students, 500 faculty and in 2015, was named the most diverse national campus by U.S. News & World Report (“History”).

Rutgers Newark has the distinct goal to “prepare students for the world as it will be; to produce scholarship that makes a difference in our city, state, nation, and world” (“History”). The university’s location defines what the university stands for and makes it a place for diverse talent in both fields of study and cultural backgrounds. Rutgers Newark is a reasonable choice to assist in the stewardship of Branch Brook Park. Their focus on diversity and education for all no matter their culture, ethnicity, gender, or religious background speaks to the principles that informed the design of Branch Brook Park; a place where all can come to socialize, learn, play, and live a healthy lifestyle for both body and mind.

Rutgers Newark has defined 8 strategic priorities in its 2014 Strategic Plan. Priorities 5 and 6 focus on expanding their influence beyond campus grounds, interacting with the city and its citizens to better engage and influence the world in some way (Strategic Plan 2014 5-6). The university’s chancellor, Nancy Cantor, has made it a goal to focus on the students and faculty who exist in the institution, and on the people and the city of Newark. These priorities, along with its proximity to the park, make Rutgers Newark a desirable partner with the Essex County Department of Parks to help oversee and monitor the park’s ecological performance, solicit and administer funding, plan events and educational activities, and integrate park stewardship with other urban regional parks. The university has a great many assets that would be valuable and are currently in practice at the park. Several university professors use the park for research, outdoor classroom activities under the Living Labs program. These living labs act as stewardship projects, touching on sustainability issues in the park, planning ideas, programming events, ethnographic studies, and various other projects.

Planning and developing more living labs in Branch Brook Park attract the collective resources of 12,000 Newark students. Rutgers Newark gains a new educational venue with endless teaching potential.

22

Branch Brook Park provides Newark with essential social, economic, health, and environmental resources. These resources provide residents a place to enjoy nature, fresh air and exercise. The park also is part of the important ecological system that keeps the city and our planet healthy.

SOCIAL RESOURCES Cities like Newark, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. benefit from urban open space, as stated before. Newark has Branch Brook and Weequahic parks but does not have an extensive open space system to benefit all its residents as the other cities listed above (See Appendix F: Acres of Parkland per 1000 Residents in Selected High-Density Cities). These tables show that Newark underperforms in almost all categories for park funding and usage.

A view of the Senior Center in the park

The welcome center across from the Branch Brook Park Alliance office

23

Cities rely on physical infrastructure and access to urban open spaces like Branch Brook Park to assure societal wellbeing. Frederick Law Olmsted designed the park with the purpose of creating a democratic space that all people could come together and enjoy (“History�). Over the years the programmatic changes in the park, specifically the increased number of amenities (playgrounds, sports fields, pavilions, gardens and groves), have addressed the changes in community needs despite Newark’s focus on industrial and commercial development over the last 20 years. The programmatic adjustments and new amenities provide the residents with new reprogrammed spaces and provide the city with spaces cultural events, community farming, park education and public sports.

TABLE 1: PARK SPENDING PER RESIDENTS City

Population (2001)

Seattle

570,548

Dollars Spent per Residents (2001) $214

Washington D.C.

572,000

$155

New York

8,008,000

$54

Philadelphia

1,518,000

$50

Newark

274,000

$35

TABLE 2: ACRES OF PARKLAND PER 1000 RESIDENTS City

Population

Parkland (acres)

Washington D.C.

572,000

7,576

Acres per 1000 residents 13.2

Philadelphia

1,518,000

10,621

7.0

Camden

80,000

507

6.3

New York

8,008,000

36,646

4.6

Newark

274,000

803

2.9

Newark Riverfront Park Source: hectordesignservice.com

TABLE 3: PARKLAND AS PERCENT OF CITY AREA City

Area (acres)

Parkland (acres)

Percent Parkland

Washington D.C.

39,297

7,576

19.3%

New York

194,115

36,646

18.9%

Philadelphia

86,456

10,621

12.3%

Camden

5,632

507

9.0%

Newark

15,232

803

5.3%

Recreation in Weequahic Park, Newark’s second largest park Source: newarkhistory.com

24

PUBLIC HEALTH RESOURCES

Large playground in the Southern Division of the park

Green space in urban areas improves public health in many areas, from an improvement in mental health to lowering the risks of cancer. A review in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health states that an increase in green space in urban centers can positively affect birth outcomes, cancer, cardiovascular factors, mental health, metabolic factors, mortality, physical activity, respiratory factors, and violence (Kondo et al). After examining over 100 various studies conducted with various residents of urban centers, specific results of the relationship between public health and urban green space was found (see Appendix G). The various results of over 100 studies found a positive link between green space in urban neighborhoods and the public health of the residents of that neighborhood. Branch Brook Park, being Newark’s largest green space by area, provides the 270,000 residents with an essential resource for public health. It provides places to exercise, de-stress, meditate, and heal.

ECONOMIC RESOURCES Branch Brook Park’s Cherry Blossom Festival brings thousands of visitors a year to the park, in addition to the hundreds who visit daily (“Branch Brook Park”). The park continues to be the city’s largest tourist attraction even after the construction of the Prudential and Performing Arts Centers. Park funds from events in the park go to the County of Essex and stimulate the local economy (Saraev 18).

A fitness station along a path

A view of the Lower Broadway Neighborhood Source: Wes Masco

25

Investing in green space in urban areas increases property values (Saraev 8).

The North Ward of Newark is the wealthiest ward in the city, which stems from settlement history and its proximity to Branch Brook Park. According to the UK Forestry Commission, “investments in green space can increase the amount of productive land and/or productivity, and this may increase full-time equivalent jobs and gross value added in the locality” (Saraev 24). Investments by the Branch Brook Park Alliance created gardening space in the park for an elementary school adjacent to the park, and a hydroponic greenhouse the northern section of the park. The greenhouse is leased by Essex County to an urban farm business that trains and hires residents to grow fresh food. In leveraging funds for the reconstruction of the greenhouse, the Alliance turned a derelict structure into a revenue generating facility for Essex County, and helped to launch a small business that creates living wage jobs for residents and grows healthy, fresh produce.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THROUGH GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Branch Brook Park has a large water body called the Branch Brook Park Lake that provides a hospitable ecosystem for aquatic life and collects stormwater runoff. The park’s combination of water bodies and open green space helps manage runoff.

Stormwater management is needed in Newark because it is one of nine municipalities in the state of New Jersey that uses a combined sewer system. A combined system runs both stormwater and sewage. The Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) is the area where stormwater and sewage are released during times of flooding and high intensity storms. CSO’s are normally located at the edge of an adjacent water body.

In Newark they flow into the Passaic River. This pollutes the river, which is an EPA designated Superfund site. (“Health & Environment”).

Newark is 70% impervious surface, and according to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, is under a CSO Long-Term Control Plan due to its high rate of CSO overflow (“What We Do”). Many urban cities with similar conditions use green infrastructure as an alternate form of stormwater management. Branch Brook Park, a large green open space, provides an opportunity to connect green infrastructure systems in and outside of the park. The environmental benefits of clean air, wildlife habitat, and stormwater water infiltration are part of this green space, making it an important environmental resource.

The swale on the left side of the staircase collects water from the top and runs it directly to the plants at the bottom

One of many swales surrounding the roads throughout the park. The swales catch the water and run them directly into a drain

26

How CSO’s work Source: The U.S. EPA

Above is a dry and wet weather diagram on how CSO’s work in cities provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If a city such as Newark has a Combined Sewer Outfall (CSO) system, all runoff from the surface: rainwater, domestic, commercial and industrial waste runs into the same system. During a dry day, the sewage collected runs into the drainage system and directly to the water treatment center. During a wet day, the pipes can overflow due to these pipes collecting an excess of rainwater. This causes this sewage mixture to outfall into the nearest water body. This causes major pollution in the water body, and makes the water inhabitatable for both humans and wildlife.

27

28

29

SUSTAINABLE PARKS & LIVING LABS A SPECIFIC MODEL FOR BBP Living laboratories (also known as living labs) are defined as any landscape that can be used as a laboratory for educational, productive or interactive use (“About Living Labs”). Living labs can include a research component; from ecological research of the plant life on a college campus to the sociological research of people who utilize a park. Living Lab programs are popular with universities because they recognize that “their campuses offer an amenable real-world location in which to conduct applied research” (Evans et al.). Living labs are utilized in urban areas to test new technologies and to find new methods to combat climate change (Evans et al.). To better understand living labs, and the idea this thesis presents, these key terms can be defined: Sustainability - to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations (“Learn About Sustainability”) Stewardship - the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially: the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care (Merriam-Webster) Open Space - any open piece of land that is undeveloped (has no buildings or other built structures) and is accessible to the public. Open space provides recreational areas for residents and helps to enhance the beauty and environmental quality of neighborhoods (“What Is Open Space/Green Space?”)

Green Infrastructure - a cost-effective, resilient approach to managing wet weather impacts that provide many community benefits. Green infrastructure reduces and treats stormwater at its source while delivering environmental, social, and economic benefits (“What Are Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)?”)

30

THE 5 ELEMENTS OF LIVING LABS

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

students gain new skills and ideas from studying in the field instead of being inside a classroom.

INTERACTIVITY

students, faculty, and administrators interact with one another to make sure the labs run smoothly, assess the research being done, provide benefits for students during labs, and share ideas and work with one another.

CO-CREATION

students and faculty work with one or multiple non-academic stakeholders to achieve a goal. This goal is agreed upon by the participants, however, the benefits from the lab can be different for each participant.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

the local people of the surrounding community are involved in the lab in some way, either as subjects of study, volunteers, paid collaborators, or beneficiaries.

INNOVATION

31 31

to create something new by addressing the problem and forming a solution.

The purpose of living labs, specifically in an academic setting, is to create a hypothesis, and use the labs to find a solution, and possibly create a new idea or product along the way.

Living labs are characterized by 5 elements that, in any combination, change a simple project into a living lab. These elements were developed by reviewing other cases of living labs and examining their like characteristics. Thesis elements were defined throughout these case studies and were integral parts of the success of their specific living labs.

On school campuses, living labs supply students with a connection to applied research, through experiential learning. This benefits students with “enriched opportunities for critical thinking, linking knowledge to action, and enhancing inter-personal communication, teamwork, and professional skills� and provides a body of work useful for their future connections and employment opportunities (Daneri et al.). For faculty, living labs provide an opportunity for more projects and more space to partake in these projects. Living labs can be integrated into the syllabus of a class and help tackle existing or new projects planned by the instructor. To do this, the instructor can recognize the learning goals they have for their students and match the goals with a living lab (Cohen et al. 14). For administrators, living labs provide the university with more opportunities for connecting with the surrounding public, such as community members, community groups, businesses, corporations, etc. (8). An example of a beneficial interaction is St. Clair County Community College and Siemens. They have worked together for more than ten years and built a campus sustainability initiative.

Siemens supplies the campus with renovations and retrofits to their infrastructure, add courses on energy analysis of commercial buildings and facility management, and supply educational opportunities for students (18).

To better understand campus living labs, fourteen case studies were analyzed to review the effect living labs have on students, faculty, non-academic stakeholders, and the community. These case studies share these things in common: they show that living labs can be used on college campuses and beyond, they acquire global attention, and that living labs are a valuable tool in higher education. Within these fourteen case studies, I analyzed how these five elements make up living labs and describe which element(s) they utilize.

32

A REVIEW OF LIVING LABS EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING Installing a Living Lab Pedagogy at Georgia Piedmont Technical College The Sustainability Education and Economic Development Center (SEED) developed a report that describes the eight elements to building a living lab. Each element is connected by the aspect of experiential learning, where students gain “better retention of concepts, improved communication, and team-building skills, applied and independent learning, and improved analytical skills” (Cohen et al. 11). After picking specific courses to integrate living labs, students gain specific skills and benefits from certain labs. For Georgia Piedmont Technical College, the students took on responsibilities of accounting, air-conditioning, building automation, drafting, engineering, and green technologies all at a real-world scale (16). These responsibilities are only seen out in the field, not in the classroom.

Educational Design at Portland State University This college course states that students benefit from living labs because they can gain internships, employment, and resume building opportunities. The professors define educational design as “sustainability projects given to a student by cities, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other institutions, and are a way of practicing real-life problems with students and have them interact with their environment” (see Appendix B) (Beaudoin et al.).

The Malmo Innovation Platform The Malmo Innovation Platform in Malmo, Sweden focused on how masters’ students in this project developed skills and abilities to deal with complex sustainability and environmental challenges. They used the term experiential education: where educators engage with learners in an experience and continuously reflect upon it (McCormick et al. 45). Then, the faculty studied the masters’ students’ work while defining their learning environments, processes, and study approaches (47). This data was then used to understand how students gained knowledge from their work, and particular skills they would not normally learn in the classroom alone.

33

Living Labs at the University of Manchester The goal of this case study was to create a system of living labs as the University of Manchester. The research conducted by the university shows that although these living lab projects are not mandatory, student volunteerism is high because they want to challenge themselves and know they will learn more from this experience than they would in the classroom (Evans et al. 4). The University of Manchester wants these labs to be a joint creation effort between outside stakeholders and students. Both of which are excited to work with one another because students gain real-life experience and possible employment opportunities, while stakeholders gain possible employees, product-testing, and new ideas they can take home with them (3).

Student Experience of Co-Creation at the University of Tokyo The University of Tokyo created a living lab to tackle large-scale problems plaguing a nearby town. Students, faculty, a corporation, and the city all worked together on this project to combat the challenges of urban decay, population aging, and climate change (Trencher et al. 58). The work done by students was studied by faculty and understood how each student gained new knowledge and skills. This project-specific gave students a “bird’s eye view of structure and functioning of large-scale research projects, in addition to understanding into the complexities involved in co-creating knowledge and societal transformations towards sustainability” (61).

Landscape as a Platform for Education for Sustainability in the Higher Education Sector This article shows projects from both The City University of NY and St. Olaf College.

Both have introduced experiential learning programs to specifically encourage students to engage closely with the landscape. At St. Olaf, the course “Campus Ecology” uses the college campus to study the complexities of the natural and cultural world (Whitbread 26).

INTERACTIVITY Implementation Model at Arizona State University This model focuses on interactivity between students, faculty, and the school as a whole (see Appendix A). It discusses keeping communication between students and faculty as key to creating a working network, contact between faculty/staff/administrators gives a safety net to the institution and building connections between living lab groups to help brainstorm ideas and keep things cohesive and fresh (Bentzin et al.)

34

Interactivity for Students and Faculty at Princeton University and University of Minnesota Both universities have online hubs where students, faculty, and other visitors can look up existing labs, research their own independent study ideas, and interact with the existing labs to learn more and possibly get involved. (“What is Campus as Lab “).

The University of Minnesota has an interactive map that geographically locates all labs under the university, either on campus grounds or beyond, and gives the user a chance to learn more and possibly get involved in existing living labs (see Appendix C) (“Living Lab”).

CO-CREATION European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) The ENoLL focuses on co-creation, or the act of multiple parties (all over the world in this case) coming together to find solutions to problems, innovate new ideas, or just do general research on things that should be studied. The ENoLL sees living labs as highly-versatile tools for all people to fulfill all types of goals as a joint effort. Labs from around the world in multiple countries join the network to gain more acknowledgment, funding, and to spread the word of the progress being made (see Appendix D) (“About Us.”).

Co-Creation, Living Labs, and the City of Rotterdam A set of 6 urban-context living labs were started by various sources in the city of Rotterdam. These labs focused on the importance of running a living lab. Co-creation broadens collaboration, engagement, and empowers citizens (Puerari et al. 2). With co-creation in living labs, there are endless possibilities of producing solutions and common goods expand and develop through knowledge-processes, all while increasing the sense of ownership.

Making a Difference by Marking the Difference: Constituting In-between Spaces for Sustainability Learning This article gives a different, yet complimentary look to co-creation as joint transdisciplinary research where people, groups, businesses, etc. of different disciplines work together to achieve a certain goal. These different people work together on living labs that are labeled by the writer as “in-between spaces” or places that do not belong to one particular person (Vilsmaier et al. 1).

35

INNOVATION “Outside the Classroom” Living Labs at Ohio State University Ohio State has two living labs, the Stone Laboratory, and the Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park. The goal of these living labs is innovation through co-creation, where students, faculty, and outside researchers are using existing locations with problems like the Great Lakes and an existing wetland park and are studying them to find solutions to existing problems. This is extremely similar in setting as Branch Brook Park because the existing wetland park is a large public park in the city and is being used by Ohio State for living lab research over many years (“Living Laboratories”).

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Cultivating Resilience: Urban Stewardship as a Means to Improving Health and Well-being This is a report done by the US Forest Service Northeast Research Division that talks about people coming together to create something better for both themselves and their community. The GreenThumb program, and everything it went through gained the US Forest Service great quotes and data on why people partake in community gardening (see Appendix E). Most interviewees had reasonings that at first seem selfish, but actually, benefit the entire neighborhood (Svendsen 11).

ALL 5 ELEMENTS The Oberlin Project at Oberlin College This case study is the perfect combination of all 5 elements of what makes up a living lab. The project utilizes experiential learning as faculty study the learning methods students are partaking in to see how students benefit from living lab learning (Daneri et al. 14). The interactivity between students and the faculty is essential to the success of this project because they are the mediators between students and stakeholders (16).

The aspect of community engagement is written in their six goals because they want to create sustainability education community members can get involved in, learn, and eventually teach others and practice themselves (15). There is a large focus on co-creation in this project as they feel the relationship between faculty and students is vital to the project’s success. Their goals cannot be obtained without the collaboration of 36

stakeholders. For example, A Green Arts District of new green buildings cannot be made without the collaboration of developers in that area. The authors believe the connection between stakeholders and students provides enriched opportunities for critical thinking, linking knowledge to action, and enhancing interpersonal communication, teamwork, and professional skills (15). Innovation takes the essential goal of this project, specifically in the realm of sustainability. The development of a Green Arts District, transforming the local economy with new business ventures, changing the climate status in the city from neutral to positive, and repeating this process across different regions across the US is a lot of problems being solved. They want to create a 20,000-acre greenbelt to supply forestry, biofuel and agricultural products to the area. They also want to create a sustainability education alliance with local schools and colleges (15-20).

HOW DO THESE ELEMENTS FIT INTO A COLLEGE CURRICULUM? After reviewing how living labs work in urban contexts and college institutions around the world, we can better understand how living labs can work at Rutgers Newark. The figure on the next page shows a flow diagram on how a regular course curriculum is run and how the five elements of living labs can fit into each step. With this, living labs can become a natural part of any college course.

Living labs can be integrated into any course, from environmental sciences to theater.

It includes taking an ordinary in-class project and adding an aspect of co-creation.

Can other parties be involved in this lab? Can other faculty members and their research get involved? Then, you decide where the project (or lab) will take place. A campus grounds has multiple underutilized areas, but so does the surrounding city or town. Finally, you assess the outcome. If students learned something new, then the students gained experiential learning. If this project provided new data, solved a problem, or just created something new, then this is a case of innovation. And if this project helped better the community, then then this is a case of community engagement. What happens in the classroom can involve more than just students and can provide them with more than just recycled data. Getting the community involved and providing something, no matter how small, is essential to the living lab method. A living lab can be a simple one-day project, or a semester-long lab. Either way, it benefits all who are involved, and requires many more elements than you may think.

37

Pair class project with underutilized area.

Outside stakeholders?

On-campus?

The community?

Off-campus?

Did students learning something new?

Is there new information gathered?

Innovation

Other faculty?

Solve a problem by creating new solutions

Experiential Learning

Create project goal within a certain course.

Will it involve:

Interactivity

Co-creation

FIGURE 1: CREATING A LIVING LAB WITHIN AN ACADEMIC COURSE

Did you better the community?

Community Engagement

38

RUTGERS NEW BRUNSWICK: A LIVING LABS SHOWCASE Rutgers New Brunswick, a forty-five-minute drive from Rutgers Newark, is the original Rutgers University campus founded ten years before the American Revolution. Much like Rutgers Newark, it is located within a vibrant city with a highly diverse population and a conglomerate of schools teaching various topics to attentive students. More importantly, Rutgers New Brunswick has their own living lab network that consists of various places around the four-campuses that make up the university.

Managed by the Office of Agriculture and Urban Programs and supervised by Professor Christina Kaunzinger, the living labs at Rutgers New Brunswick consist of ecology labs that study plant ecology and parasite ecology, agricultural labs that study food growth and nutrition, animal research labs that gain a hands-on experience raising, studying, and caring for horses, cows, sheep and many other animals, and community labs such as the New Brunswick Community Farmers Market that brings fresh fruit, vegetables, and prepared food to the students of Rutgers and the local New Brunswick community (“Cook/Douglass Living Laboratories�). The five elements of living labs are apparent in the Rutgers New Brunswick labs, and are all collected, managed, and interacted on the Rutgers Living Labs website.

A map of the existing locations of Living Labs on the Cook/Douglass Campus of Rutgers New Brunswick Source: Theresa Hyslop, livinglabs.rutgers.edu

39

Rutgers New Brunswick is the point of reference for Rutgers Newark because the context is similar, the lab ideas are beneficial, and the faculty interact consistently and can share data that can be used in Branch Brook Park and at Rutgers Newark. The existence of the living labs at Rutgers New Brunswick shows that it is possible to have a network of living labs at Rutgers Newark that tackle multiple ideas and is managed correctly.

40

A view of Market Street in Newark Source: Brasileiros em Newark, facebook.com

41

THE NEWARK LIVING LABS NETWORK The Rutgers Newark Living Labs Program at Branch Brook Park can develop long term and temporary labs throughout the park where students and teachers can interact to solve problems, collect data, and provide information for the school and the park.

Information that can be provided through these labs are educational information on green infrastructure, history of the park, social data on park users, and many other ways of studying the park. The phasing plan that follows shows how to develop a simple living lab in the park into a network of labs.

PHASE 1: ENGAGE STUDENTS AND FACULTY TO BEGIN LIVING LABS Building a Living Lab program requires a place in the academic structure at Rutgers Newark. It requires the identification of suitable undergraduate and graduate courses that would benefit from a living lab project in their curriculum (see Appendix B). The program will initially promote student experiential learning and use that as an incentive for a faculty member to develop a living lab on-campus or in the park. According to the SEED Center, this is the first element of the eight elements of building a living lab: engage the right campus participants (Cohen et al 9). The goal is not to create anything new, but to integrate living labs into existing courses and amplify existing projects. For example, Dr. Jessica Ware, a professor at Rutgers Newark, already runs a research project in Branch Brook Park studying microorganisms in the water bodies.

Professor Claus Holzapfel is another faculty member who runs a living lab. His lab, titled “Wild Campus” took two small green spaces on campus and converted them into wildlife habitats (Holzapfel). Rutgers Newark now has a useable living lab on the campus landscape. Contacting both professors shows that living labs are already present in Newark.

Implementing a living lab is as simple as changing syllabi specific courses from an inclass project, to an on-campus, or off-campus project. The time span for this phase is only two to three months and would work best during Winter or Summer Semesters before regular Fall and Spring Semester classes begin.

The Newark Living Lab Network logo

A view of the “Wild Campus” living lab on Rutgers Newark’s campus

42

A contact list for undergraduate courses at Rutgers Newark

43

PHASE 2: BUILDING A LIVING LAB NETWORK THROUGH MARKETING The transition between a few living labs and a full network will take between one and five years. In order to form a Living Lab Network, existing living labs need to be clearly identified as such. Signs should be displayed around these living lab areas, highlighting Rutgers Newark and the network. This idea focuses on the element of community outreach. If community members pass by a sign next to work being done in the park, they learn about the work and how to get involved. Key terms such as: Living Labs, Sustainability, Network, Experiential Learning, Community Engagement, Green Space/Open Space all should be mentioned on these signs consistently. This instills the idea of living labs to all community members.

A Rutgers-run website can be created to facilitate interactivity between students, faculty, stakeholders, and community. This website will describe the network, what living labs are, and how to get involved through interactive tabs, maps, and diagrams. I created a Facebook page for a Newark Living Labs Network (https://www.facebook. com/RUNewarkLL ) to spread the word about current living labs (see Appendix H).

This idea stems from examples from Princeton University and the University of Minnesota’s living lab websites where learning, understanding, and involvement is accessed through the internet.

A view of the University of Minnesota’s Living Laboratory signage Source: University of Minnesota

PHASE 3: GAIN OUTSIDE ATTENTION AND FUNDING As the network grows, attention from businesses, community groups, state and federal agencies, and private stakeholders will also grow. This is crucial in the formation of the Living Lab Network because it creates the element of co-creation. With the outreach technique from Phase 2, important stakeholders that can supply funds to the network will understand the purpose of living labs, see their influence, and will want to engage in research. Businesses will want to involve themselves because of the promotion of experiential learning for students. This provides students with more real-life skills and makes them better prepared for internships and jobs. Community groups and state/federal agencies will see the significance in sustainability living labs will bring, especially to a highly impervious city like Newark. Along with this funding comes more resources and materials, such as lab materials, funding for trips around the city, and various other things Rutgers Newark may need.

44

PHASE 4: SPREAD LIVING LAB NETWORK INTO OUTSIDE COMMUNITY This phase solidifies Rutgers Newark as a steward in Branch Brook Park. Various players from Rutgers Newark can be involved in the process in pursuit of various incentives. These players and incentives are as follows:

Prudential Financial, headquartered in Newark, has provided the Alliance with a large amount of funding over the years Source: Derek Jensen via Glassdoor

•

Students for credits, volunteer hours, internships, and career building

•

Student groups for community engagement and resume building

•

Community members for keeping Branch Brook Park clean and useable while utilizing valuable research done by students

•

Faculty and staff for interacting with the landscape and providing academic research to solve real life problems

Portland State University’s Educational Design provides real life resources for students to gain the above benefits. Ohio State researches and provides solutions for the Great Lakes and the Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, both of which are open spaces for public use, but do much more for the public than provide a park to use (Beaudoin et al, “Living Laboratories”). These labs provide innovative ideas to old and new problems, which is something that is needed in Branch Brook Park but can only be done by an educational institution like Rutgers Newark.

These two examples show how living labs affect their surrounding communities. All the participants of living labs have an incentive to research for, promote, or fund them.

With these incentives, stewardship is formed by the number of people involved in the research and development of Branch Brook Park. If enough faculty, students, groups, and community members involve themselves in living labs that take place in Branch Brook Park, there could be more solutions solved and more support for the park than there has ever been since its birth in the late 1800s.

The Newark Homeless Outreach providing free haircuts to the homeless in Military Park Source: Bridges Outreach via Patch.com

45

46

47

CONCLUSION DISCUSSING THE IDEAS Will Rutgers Newark be the only steward for Branch Brook Park and supply it with everything it needs?

This project proposed a Rutgers Newark Living Labs program to assist in the stewardship of Branch Brook Park. The program assumes that the Essex County Department of Parks will continue to be the primary steward of the park, responsible for maintenance workers, sanitation workers, gardeners, and marketing. In addition to Essex County, local volunteers will lend a hand in the maintenance and general care of the park. Rutgers Newark’s role will be to implement a Living Labs program that connects faculty, students and residents to the park. In that capacity, it will also provide the park with the proper resources to maintain it’s social, economic, environmental and health benefits.

Admittedly, this program is informal, and its permanency does not match up with the current privately-owned stewardship model that is in place for Branch Brook Park’s counterparts. However, achieving permanency with a community stewardship model is achievable. Essex County is the permanent steward of Branch Brook Park. They will indefinitely hire people to maintain the park, program events, and provide funding.

The purpose of the community volunteers and Rutgers Newark is to be the support that the nation’s oldest county parks system needs, and to provide resources not accessible to the county. The people of Newark can supply their variable time to volunteer and can provide insight to the county about the park that is only available to the residents. Simultaneously, Rutgers Newark can provide intellectuals of all degrees to develop solutions for the park’s ever-growing problems. The best part is: this is at no cost to the county. The students involved are partaking in these living labs for a grade to better their education moving forward. The faculty that are running the labs and providing more research power are paid by Rutgers Newark. The volunteers working at differing shifts every day are doing the work for free because they want their open space to be as beautiful, resourceful, and safe as it currently is. This cuts down costs, saving the county from another multi-year restoration plan costing millions of dollars 48

and from an annual budget like Central Park’s (totaling around $80 million).

Will the Care of the Park program be dissolved once Rutgers Newark takes over?

The Care of the Park program is based on the idea that a public open space should be taken care of by the public. Unlike Central Park and its Conservancy model that assumes stewardship of park, providing manpower, funding, event planning and design, the Branch Brook Park stewardship model is based on a network of affiliated stewards to assume responsibility. The interaction between the park and the people of Newark is essential in its success. Therefore, the Care of the Park program will continue along with Rutgers Newark’s Living Lab Program, and other organizations interested in park stewardship.

How Will the Effectiveness of this Community Stewardship Model be Assessed Over Time?

Rutgers Newark will play a large role in measuring the effectiveness of the community stewardship model. Working closely with Essex County, students and faculty from Rutgers Newark can make annual reports on the status of the park, such as infrastructure, vegetation, roadways, and so on. This keeps tabs on the park and prevents the need for a major restoration plan. A class at Rutgers Newark can even be formed to do this task annually, proposing possible design strategies or planning strategies to manage some of the problems that have formed in the park within the last year. The beauty of living labs is that they are highly versatile. They can solve anywhere from the smallest issue to the largest disaster. Branch Brook Park will see many of both indefinitely, and with each steward playing a different role in its care, it will receive the correct funding, programming, maintenance, and managing that it requires.

Is the Newark Living Labs Network exclusive to Rutgers Newark and Branch Brook Park?

49

The Newark Living Labs Network’s name stems from the idea that this network will grow past both the campus and the park grounds. Living labs all over the world are being used to solve issues and collect data in many urban areas. The idea of living labs is perfect for the college campus, but its fundamental elements are integral for a proper city to run. People need to learn, interact, co-create, engage, and innovate.

Without these elements, a city is stagnant. Students and faculty from Rutgers, private stakeholders from businesses around the city, and community groups and individuals should come together to form a network that grows throughout the city. This way, the people who live and the people who work in Newark work together to create a successful metropolitan city that solves its own problems and sustains itself.

THE SUSTAINABLE PARK’S FUTURE Branch Brook Park is an integral part of Newark’s history and a priceless resource to its residents. From its beginnings as the Pleasure Ground park, to its current status as a Sustainable Park, it continues to embody Frederick Law Olmsted’s initial goal: to provide the citizens of Newark with a place of socialization, peace, and refuge.

The principle characteristics of a Sustainable Park: increased ecological performance, maintenance of an economically viable structure using public-private partnerships and community stewardship, education of residents and integration to the larger urban region are aligned with the proposed Living Labs program and network.

Branch Brook Park will continue be an ecological and economic resource to the city and will provide the citizens of its urban context with not only a large open space, but a place of innovation. In the years to come, Branch Brook Park will be maintained primarily by the Essex County Department of Parks with volunteers from the neighboring communities. The Branch Brook Park Alliance, after completion of the Cultural Landscape Report and creation of Care of the Park program, has put forward a new model for collaborative park stewardship. The Rutgers Newark Living Labs Program can be a part of the Branch Brook Park collaborative stewardship initiative and sustainable park model.

Branch Brook Park has moved in tandem with the city of Newark. Currently, the city’s population has stabilized, business has moved back into the city, and housing is being built for those who need it. This happens with changes in political leadership in many departments, along with the co-creation of ideas between government employees, community members, and private stakeholders. Like living labs, multiple parties working together for a common goal is how ideas flourish. The interaction between a public research university, a public park, and the surrounding community and businesses will create a sustainable park that will serve the city of Newark and its people.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS I proposed that a Rutgers Newark Living Labs program could assume a partial stewardship role at Branch Brook Park, after the completion of the Branch Brook Park Alliance commitment. This proposal is feasible, principally because Branch Brook Park, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, has followed a similar historic, social and economic trajectory as other large urban parks that have maintained relevance over time.

The park has evolved from a pleasure park to a sustainable park, adapting over time

50

to meet, with varying levels of success, prevailing social and economic changes.

Sustainable parks, like Branch Brook, maintain their importance as relevant urban open spaces by focusing on ecological services, integration of programs and maintenance, public engagement and education and by establishing a network of stakeholders to support stewardship and funding. The work done to date by the Branch Brook Park Alliance, as demonstrated in the park comprehensive report (Rhodeside & Harwell, “Cultural Landscape Report, Treatment, and Management Plan for Branch Brook Park�), creates a similar framework, with the distinction relaying on volunteers and ancillary stewardship programs not directly supported by a primary park-wide organization like a nonprofit or conservancy.

This framework allows the opportunity to address stewardship in sustainable parks with the living labs model, where aspects of sustainability, like focusing on ecological systems, education, outreach and stewardship are addressed through a university sponsored program. Living labs focus on experiential learning, interactivity, co-creation, community engagement and innovation tie in with the goals of sustainable parks in general and Branch Brook Park specifically. A Living Labs program initiated, managed and sponsored through Rutgers Newark connects a relevant city institution to the park and continues the historic, social and economic ties between Newark and Branch Brook Park.

51

52

53

APPENDIX APPENDIX A: MODEL FOR LIVING LAB USE AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

54

APPENDIX B: MODEL CREATED BY THE LLL WORKSHOP AT PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY TO UNDERSTAND REAL LIFE SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEMS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON ALL PARTICIPANTS

55

APPENDIX C: THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LIVING LAB MAP THAT PROVIDES ANY VISITOR TO SEE ELIGIBLE, CONDITIONAL, AND UNAVAILABLE SPACES FOR LIVING LABS

56

APPENDIX D: EUROPEAN NETWORK OF LIVING LABS MAP OF LIVING LABS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

57

APPENDIX E: QUOTES FROM CULTIVATING RESILIENCE: URBAN STEWARDSHIP AS A MEANS TO IMPROVING HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

These quotes are answers to how residents of NYC feel about their local community gardens: “With respect for each other, we created this place together. Now we take care of the garden and have fun with the kids. They can learn about the pleasure of having a place and being together.”

“We enjoy being in the park and giving something back to others in our community. Sometimes people just come and have lunch — that’s such a gift. Soon the schools will be back in session and they come in. It’s helped to beautify this community.”

“I like to see things grow. Everything comes down to quality of life — clean air, local schools — we try to make it look like Central Park for the kids as they walk to school” “It’s like home, it’s everyone’s backyard.”

58

APPENDIX F: THE NEWARK LIVING LABS NETWORK FACEBOOK PAGE

59

APPENDIX G: OPEN SPACE’S EFFECT ON INDIVIDUALS BASED ON ~100 VARIOUS STUDIES

Public Health Factor Birth Outcomes

Result of Study Positive effects from residential greenness for mothers with low education levels, mothers that live in low-income neighborhoods, or for Hispanic mothers

Cancer

Increased residential greenness is associated with a lower risk of cancer

Cardiovascular

Increased risk of fatal and non-fatal CVD for people (especially men) that lived further away from green spaces and increased risk of non-fatal CVD among non-park users A decrease in high-cholesterol of residents that live near cleaned and green vacant lots

Mental Health

Exposure of urban nature improves multiple measures of cognitive function or development, including attentional capacity and working memory If residents relocate to an area that has more green space, mental health increases Improved mood or emotion after nature exposure compared to exposure from the built environment Higher biodiversity increases well being Perceptions of greenery improvements are associated with a decrease in depressive symptoms among adults Improvements in self-reported stress among residents (especially women) when exposed to natural urban settings Increasing exposure to green space is associated with improved social outcomes 60

Public Health Factor Metabolic

Result of Study Higher residential green space is associated with lower Body-Mass Index (BMI) levels The growth of BMI after 18 years old for both men and women lowers when in close proximity to green space

Mortality

Self-reported park users, compared to non-park users, are less likely to be obese (BMI greater than or equal to 30) Close proximity to green space or gardens lowers mortality rates The lower hazard ratio for stroke mortality among patients with higher green space exposure

Physical Activity

The odds of cardiovascular mortality are higher among individuals living in zip codes with low amounts of green space The amount of time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) versus not is higher when surrounded by green space

Respiratory

As pollution decreases from the development of more green space, there is a decrease in the risk of allergic rhinitis and eye and nose symptoms

Violence

Reduced gun violence near greened vacant land compared to blighted vacant land Reduced narcotics possession arrest around greened sites compared to other built sites Residents who live near greened vacant lots feel safer compared to residents living near lots that were left vacant Being under tree cover reduces odds of gun assault Increased exposure to green space is associated with reduced aggressive behaviors

61

APPENDIX H: BROCHURE FOR LIVING LABS NETWORK

62

63

64

65

BIBLIOGRAPHY “About Living Laboratories.” Office of Agricultural and Urban Programs, Rutgers University, http://livinglabs.rutgers.edu/about_whatarelivinglabs.html “About Us.” The Official Website of Central Park NYC, Central Park Conservancy, 2018, www.centralparknyc.org/about/.

“About Us.” European Network of Living Labs, European Network of Living Labs, 2018, enoll.org/about-us/.

“Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO).” Freshwater Wetlands Program, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 2005, www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/48595.html.

“Cook/Douglass Living Laboratories.” Cook/Douglass Living Labs, Rutgers University, 2015, livinglabs.rutgers.edu/existing_cookdouglass.html.

“Democratic Public Space.” CMG Landscape Architecture, 24 Aug. 2017, www.cmgsite.com/democratic-public-space/.

“History.” Care of the Park | Branch Brook Park Alliance, Branch Brook Park Alliance, 2010, www.branchbrookpark.org/about-us/history.html.

“History.” History | Branch Brook Park Alliance, Branch Brook Park Alliance, 2013, www. branchbrookpark.org/about-us/history.html.

“Learn About Sustainability.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 18 Oct. 2016, www.epa.gov/sustainability/learn-about-sustainability#what.

“Living Lab.” It All Adds Up, University of Minnesota, 7 July 2016, italladdsup.umn. edu/content/living-lab.

“Living Laboratories.” Environmental Sciences Network at Ohio State, Ohio State University, 3 July 2014, esn.osu.edu/living-laboratories.

“Park History.” The Official Website of Central Park NYC, Central Park Conservancy, 2018, www.centralparknyc.org/visit/park-history.html.

66

“Urban Planning and the Importance of Green Space in Cities to Human and Environmental Health.” Healthy Parks Healthy People Central, 2019, www.hphpcentral.com/ article/urban-planning-and-the-importance-of-green-space-in-cities-to-human-andenvironmental-health.

“What Are Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)? | Urban Environmental Program in New England.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 10 Apr. 2017, www3.epa.gov/ region1/eco/uep/cso.html.

“What Is Campus as Lab?” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, 2017, sustain.princeton.edu/lab/about.

“What Is Open Space/Green Space? | Urban Environmental Program in New England.”

EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 10 Apr. 2017, www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/ uep/openspace.html.

“What We Do.” Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, State of New Jersey, 2018, www. nj.gov/pvsc/what/njcso/.

Alliance, Branch Brook Park. About Us. 2013. Web. 5 May 2018.

Beaudoin, Fletcher, and Katja Brundiers. “LLL: Guiding Criteria for Projects.” Portland State University, 2013.

Bentzin, Bonny, and Arianne Peterson. “Turning a University/College Campus into a Living Sustainability Laboratory.” Global Institute of Sustainability | Arizona State University, 2018.

Beveridge, Charles E. “Frederick Law Olmsted Sr.” National Association for Olmsted Parks, 2000, www.olmsted.org/the-olmsted-legacy/frederick-law-olmsted-sr.

Boehm, Jessica Walker. “New Jersey Cultivates Urban Agriculture.” Farm Flavor, Journal Communications, Inc., 29 Aug. 2016, www.farmflavor.com/new-jersey/new-jersey-cultivates-urban-agriculture/.

Branch Brook Park: Restoring the Park, Renewing Our Spirit: an Executive Summary of the Cultural Landscape Report. Branch Brook Park Alliance, 2015.

Cohen, Todd, and Brian Lovell. “The Campus as a Living Laboratory.” SEED, 22 July 2013. Print.

67

Evans, James, et al. “Living Labs and Co-Production: University Campuses as Platforms for Sustainability Science.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol.

16, 2015, pp. 1–6., doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005.

Kondo, Michelle, et al. “Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 15, no. 3, 2018, p.

445., doi:10.3390/ijerph15030445.

Mccormick, Kes, and Bernadett Kiss. “Learning through Renovations for Urban Sustainability: the Case of the Malmö Innovation Platform.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 16, 2015, pp. 44–50., doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.011.

Prahalad, C.k., and Venkat Ramaswamy. “Co-Creation Experiences: The next Practice in Value Creation.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 18, no. 3, 2004, pp. 5–14., doi:10.1002/dir.20015.

Puerari, Emma, et al. “Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs.” Sustainability, vol.

10, no. 6, 2018, p. 1893., doi:10.3390/su10061893.

Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated, et al. Cultural Landscape Report, Treatment, and Management Plan for Branch Brook Park. vol. 2, Branch Brook Park Alliance, 2002, pp.

1–99, Cultural Landscape Report, Treatment, and Management Plan for Branch Brook Park.

Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated, et al. Cultural Landscape Report, Treatment, and Management Plan for Branch Brook Park. vol. 4, Branch Brook Park Alliance, 2005, pp. 1–267, Cultural Landscape Report, Treatment, and Management Plan for Branch Brook Park.

Saraev, Vadim. Economic Benefits of Greenspace A Critical Assessment of Evidence of Net Economic Benefits. Forestry Commission, 2012, pp. 1–38, Economic Benefits of Greenspace A Critical Assessment of Evidence of Net Economic Benefits.

Strategic Plan 2014. Rutgers University-Newark, 2014, pp. 1–40, Strategic Plan 2014 Svendsen, Erika S. Cultivating Resilience: Urban Stewardship as a Means to Improving Health and Well-Being. U.S. Forest Service, 2009, pp. 1–30, Cultivating Resilience: Urban Stewardship as a Means to Improving Health and Well-Being.

68

Trencher, Gregory, et al. “The Role of Students in the Co-Creation of Transformational Knowledge and Sustainability Experiments: Experiences from Sweden, Japan and the USA.” Engaging Stakeholders in Education for Sustainable Development at University Level World Sustainability Series, 2016, pp. 191–215., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-267340_13.

Vilsmaier, Ulli, and Daniel J Lang. “Making a Difference by Marking the Difference: Constituting in-between Spaces for Sustainability Learning.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 16, 2015, pp. 51–55., doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.019.

Wagner, John Loren. “Evolution of a Sustainable Park: Forest Park, St. Louis, Missouri.”

Saint Louis University, ProQuest, 2013, pp. 1–187.

Whitbread, Helen. “The Water Lily and the Cyber Cow, Landscape as a Platform for Education for Sustainability in the Higher Education Sector.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 16, 2015, pp. 22–28., doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.003.

69