Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore

Belinda Yuena, , Wong Nyuk Hienb
a b

Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore Received 7 April 2004; received in revised form 11 August 2004; accepted 12 August 2004 Available online 14 October 2004

Abstract Using data from the high-rise, high-density city of Singapore, this paper examines residents perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore. In particular, it discusses: To what extent is the roof gardens being used? Why do local residents visit roof gardens? What benets do local residents perceive? The discussion has implications for the potential of rooftop greening, a new but increasingly common addition of open space in todays growing urban areas. With the continuing trend towards urbanization and taller buildings, rooftop spaces stand to offer residents doorstep green oasis in the skyline of high-rise buildings. 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Urban greening; Roof gardens; Residents perceptions; Singapore

1. Introduction With international focus on sustainable development, interest in the role of open space in the urban environment has increased in recent decades (Gehl and Gemzoe, 2001; Hollis and Fulton, 2002). Policies for creating and preserving open space are increasingly implemented at a variety of urban densities and spatial scales. Many cities across America have created green networks, green belts and programs to protect open space and restore connections to nature (Gustanski and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6874 3418; fax: +65 6451 3989. E-mail address: rstbyuen@nus.edu.sg (B. Yuen).

Squires, 2000; Pendall et al., 2002). In Britain, the Urban Task Force on urban renaissance under Lord Rogers has highlighted the need to provide new open space systems and better access to existing open spaces in the face of the continuing trend towards urbanization (Rogers and Urban Task Force, 1999). The search for new open spaces in todays growing urban areas has caused some cities to look skywards and create a network of skyrise or rooftop greenery. While the phenomenon may be relatively less established in North America, many cities across Europe (especially in Germany, France, Austria, Norway and Switzerland) and Asia have started to green the roofs of buildings. By 1996, one in ten at roofs in Ger-

0169-2046/$20.00 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.001

264

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

man cities was greened while 70% of at roofed inner city buildings in Swiss cities are reported to have roof gardens (Kuhn, 1996; Peck et al., 1999). In Asia, roof gardens are assiduously promoted in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Tokyo government, for example, has passed a decree in April 2000 requiring all new buildings with a oor area of 1000 m2 or larger to plant trees (namely, conifers and cedars) on rooftops (Environment Preservation Bureau Tokyo Metropolitan City, 1999). In Singapore, rooftop greening has gained the support of the government. As announced by the Prime Minister in June 2001, To demonstrate the Governments commitment to high-rise greenery, the public sector will take the lead in implementing sky deck greenery in our public housing estates and public buildings (Singapore Government Press Release, Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, 26 June 2001). These gardens are usually provided with paving, seating and deep layers of substrates for garden landscaping. Incorporated into the building and its architecture, roof gardens are designed to be accessible to the people. Are they? Some such as Ong (2003, p. 201) have begun to question their role in the urban environment, Is a roof garden equivalent to a similar sized garden on the ground? Is a high-rise building enwrapped by greenery on its roof as well as facades as effective as a mature tree of similar size? Their presence adds to the concern to provide evidence of the use and role of roof gardens in the pattern of urban living. As Rogers and Urban Task Force (1999) remind in the challenge facing British open space planning, Public spaces work best when they establish a direct relationship between the space and the people who live and work around it. (p. 57). While research on urban parks exists, much less attention is being paid to the small-scale green areas that are close to where people live and work. This paper takes a closer look at one such area, the roof gardens, its usage and potential, through a case study of its development in Singapore. Our intention is to contribute to the evolving theoretical and empirical discussions on this subject as we seek to understand residentsperception of roof gardens, uncovering the individuals motive to visit and experience, teasing apart the roof gardens experience in practice and putting forward recommendations for future planning of this open space form in the specic case study context. At rst

glance, this may seem a parochial issue but increasingly under the pressure of urbanization, cities have to explore forms of urban greening beyond ground level in the new urban concentrations of high-rise buildings.

2. Greening the sky In many cities in the western world, there exists a park tradition which in the words of Olmsted is to provide natural, verdant and sylvan scenery for the refreshment of town-strained men, women and children (cited in Olmsted and Kimball, 1970, p. 523). The repertory of forms is largely ground or street level gardens, greenways, parks and open space systems (Cranz, 1982; Floyd, 1991). However, with the continuing trend towards urbanization internationally (nearly half of the worlds population is living in urban areas) and the rapid construction of ever taller residential buildings in cities (London, Singapore and many other cities are building 50-storey housing to meet housing needs), urban greenery beyond the ground level cannot be overlooked. Thompson (2002) in reviewing what should be demanded from urban open space in the 21st century has shown the need for new patterns of open space networks within our changing urban fabric. One aspect of the changing urban form as seen in many American cities is the growth of urban decentralization and development of relatively dense suburban clusters of commercial and residential activities (usually townhouses and apartment blocks rather than lowdensity single-family housing that have prevailed for much of the mid-20th century). In most situations, the old central business districts are themselves being revitalized and redeveloped with tall buildings for mixed use: ofce, entertainment, retail and residential functions (Attoe and Logan, 1989; Lang, 1994). With the urban form changes, the character and form of open space, as Price (1987) and more recently, Rogers and Urban Task Force (1999) argue, is changing also. Take the case of Portland, Oregon, for example. As Price (1987) traces, the change has resulted in a larger framework of open spaces that encompasses more than individual parks and includes old and new downtown squares, in-city and city fringe greenery of riverfront promenades and nature reserves, street level and in-

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

265

the-sky spaces of pedestrian malls, atriums and roof gardens. In Singapore, the pressure of urbanization has provided impetus for intense urban concentrations and the skyscraper to be the most ubiquitous development type (Wong and Yeh, 1985; Perry et al., 1997). Singapore is an epitome of a fast growing city or as Koolhaas and Mau (1995) describe, a built answer to the shift from country to city which was thought, 30 years ago, to force Asia to construct in 20 years the same amount of urban substance as the whole of Western Europe (p. 1017). In the city center, the tallest commercial buildings rise to more than 60 stories. In the residential arena, the majority (90%) of the 3.4 million resident population lives in high-rise apartments: 84% in publicly built housing and 6% in private apartments and condominiums. Under the countrys latest long term Concept Plan 2001, more are expected to live on higher oors as the population grows to a projected 5.5 million in 4050 years time. The private and public housing sectors have respectively announced plans to build higher than the present tallest 30-storey residential blocks (to 40- and 50-storey). Despite the trend towards more urban-style development, the focus is not just on urban development but also a quality urban environment. Consideration of quality of life has become salient as globalization gathers momentum in Singapore (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 1991). Much has been said elsewhere about open space contributions to urban quality of life (for example, Rogers and Urban Task Force, 1999; Partners for Livable Communities, 2000; Van Kamp et al., 2003). Research across different disciplines has shown that greenery directly benets the urban environment and makes the city livable. The arguments are familiar: trees and vegetation may improve urban climate by reducing carbon dioxide and cooling the heat island (Dwyer et al., 1992). Other researchers, including Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and Ulrich and Simons (1991) have drawn attention to the human benets. In particular, the work of Ulrich (1984) is widely cited as illustrating the restorative health benets that window view greenery can have on patient recovery. To Miller (1986) and others such as Thompson (2002), the desire for contact with nature will only increase as people become more urban in their way of living. As Miller (1986, p. 18) elaborates, Most of their lives are spent in urban areas at urban tasks, but they renew themselves spiritu-

ally through periodic contact with nature. In Knopfs (1987) analysis, there are four broad dimensions to this contact: nature as restorer, as competence builder, as symbol and as diversion. The challenge to planners is how to increase access to greenery in the urban area as buildings go taller and pressure on urban land increases. Research on the use of urban parks veries that the majority of users are visitors on foot (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Godbey et al., 1992). These ndings broadly support the earlier postulation of Alexander et al. (1977) that people will visit urban greenery on a regular basis if it is within 35 min walk of their home/work place. In Singapore, accessibility is a prime consideration and its planners are putting forth an even greener Singapore with a greater variety of parks and open spaces and target of 0.75 ha of parkland per 1000 population (currently 0.6 ha) in their vision to create a dynamic, distinctive and delightful world class city in the 21st century (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001). The main strategies of urban greening include: having more parks and gardens including gardens in the sky; safeguarding the natural heritage; and making the parks and gardens more accessible. The approach is to provide seamless greenery through a network of park connectors and opportunities for greenery to occur beyond ground level. Essentially nature trails with resting places, jogging and cycling tracks, the park connectors will connect all parks and nature areas to form a continuous corridor. As summarized by Oi (1998, p. 31), One of the main objectives of the connectors is to develop a network of connecting parks so that the parklands in Singapore are made more accessible to the public. As land in Singapore becomes more expensive and scarce it will be increasingly difcult to obtain large tracts of land for park developments. Park Connectors, by optimising drainage reserves and other compatible land uses, will be one of the most cost effective methods of providing recreational venues. Another major objective is to provide natural corridors within urbanised areas through which birds can move from one natural reserve or refuge to another thus aiding their search for food and breeding sites.

266

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

Fig. 1. Pedestrian overhead bridge is provided with planter boxes to add color to roadside greenery.

Since the early 1990s, 40 km of park connectors has been built. This will be increased to 120 km and when fully completed, Singapore will be converted into a total playground (Lee and Chua, 1992; Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2002). Opportunity for additional greenery is not limited to the spatial level but increasingly extended skywards with the buildings to include the vertical dimension. A key aspect of Singapores skyrise greenery is the greening of building surfaces and roofs. Flyover, overhead pedestrian bridges, retaining walls and other concrete urban structures are increasingly covered with creepers such as Ficus pumila and climbers (Fig. 1). The guiding principle, as the Singapore National Parks Board, the state authority responsible for Singapores garden city development, shares in its Annual Report 2000, is not only to green the land (and provide more new parks, enlarged and improved favorite parks, extended network of park connectors to link park to park and roadside greenery) but also to move the greenery vertically skywards to rooftops and closer to individual homes in the tall apartment blocks. Since the late 1990s, Singapores national planning authority (Urban Redevelopment Authority) has actively facilitated the usage of unused at roofs as roof gardens. It has reviewed development control guidelines to exclude the space used for skybridges, sky terraces and communal open pavilions in roof gardens from overall gross oor area computations and relaxed development parameters to promote greater exibility

in the design of sky gardens (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2003). In the words of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (2003, p. 2), In the next phase of making Singapore a City in the Garden, moving greenery upwards into the sky and closer to homes is the way to go. The motivation for skyrise greenery may be traced to the growing interest in the environmental benets of roof gardens including rainwater harvesting and savings in energy consumption. These are important considerations in Singapores resource management especially when it has to import much of its energy and fresh water (The Straits Times, 4 July 2001). According to Look Japan (2000), the temperature in Tokyo could be lowered by 0.110.84 C if 50% of all available rooftop space were planted with greenery. This would lead to a savings of approximately 100 million yen per day in the citys electricity bill. In addition, other city studies have contended that roof gardens offer usable spaces (Willmert, 2000), screen rooftop services and provide visual relief from dense urbanity (Dwyer et al., 1994; Johnston and Newton, 1996). Faced with the high premium of open space at street level, roof gardens present the advantage of convenient alternative green spaces in high-rise living. However, persuasions of signicance and provision would not necessarily lead to usage. As Jacobs (1961, p. 100) perceptively observed, people do not use open space just because it is there and because city planners or designers wish they would. Currently there is no legislation in Singapore requiring roof gardens to be constructed on new developments. There is seeming reluctance among local building professionals to include green roof in their projects. The main reasons include not just the lack of technical know-how but also concern over a lack of appreciation of the benets and performance of green roofs. Put simply, many building professionals are reluctant to include roof gardens for fear that these gardens may end up as redundant spaces unappreciated and unused by the residents. The general response from our recent survey of architects and developers indicates that the future development and incorporation of roof gardens would depend largely on whether the end-users would appreciate it (Wong, 2002). Thus, it is not just a matter of academic interest if we can clarify residents perceptions and usage of roof gardens. It would be unavailing for any legislation if the general public is not receptive to roof gardens. Even though who uses urban

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

267

open spaces and why is a topic that has received wide research attention in the recreation literature, little is known about roof gardens usage (National Research Council of Canada, 2000). Being a new development in Singapore no prior analysis has been made on roof gardens. This paper draws from a larger rst study into rooftop gardens in Singapore to understand their effects and usefulness (Wong, 2002). In the study, technical (thermal measurement, energy simulation and building life cycle cost) and people (public attitude and usage rate) issues were explored. The main interest driving the people analysis was to document the usage rate of rooftop gardens and residents perception of the facilities and design desired in the roof gardens to develop design guidelines relating to the effective design and implementation of roof gardens. This paper shares the ndings from sampled residents living in Choa Chu Kang new town, a new generation public housing town, to the following issues: To what extent is the roof gardens being used? Why do local residents visit roof gardens? What benets do local residents perceive? The discussion has implications for the potential of rooftop greening and planning in tune with public needs and expectations.

3. Understanding community perception Understanding the residents perception of roof gardens is critical to arriving at design criteria that are based on how these spaces are really used and experienced by the people. It is an approach well grounded in the line of research of geography, environmental psychology and urban design that supports the building of cities where people desire to dwell (Lynch, 1960; Relph, 1976; Ittelson, 1978; Lang, 1994). Relph (1976), for example, has called for an approach to urban planning that is wholly self conscious. . . that is responsive to local structures of meaning and experience. . . that takes its inspiration from the existential signicance of place. . . As Whyte (1988) contends, people are the most potent feature of open spaces. They choose spaces that promise the most benets to them. Implicit in this approach is the notion that perception precedes action. The term perception is used here in the general sense of how things are seen

(Rapoport, 1977). It reects motives, preferences and attitude to space. Survey work was carried out during SeptemberOctober 2001 in the new town of Choa Chu Kang. Choa Chu Kang new town is a new generation 1990s public housing town in Singapore. Located in the northwest of Singapore, Choa Chu Kang new town has a land area of 583 ha, of which 307 ha is for residential development. Typical of public housing towns, the gross plot ratio for residential development is 3.04.5. At the time of study, the resident population was about 128,400 in 38,126 dwelling units (Housing and Development Board Annual Report, 2000/2001). When completely developed, Choa Chu Kang town will have a total of 62,000 dwelling units. Public housing towns form the main residential areas in Singapore where 84% of the 3.4 million resident population lives. With a population of 200,000300,000 each, Singapores public housing towns are typically organized within the framework of neighborhoods and precincts and provided with a spatial hierarchy of cradle-to-grave facilities including parks. There is no fee to usage of the parks. There are also no gates, security guards or other mechanisms to prevent outsiders from entering the town, neighborhoods and parks. Open space and sports facilities generally take up about 4% (approximately 36 ha) of new town land. The new town open space hierarchy typically includes one town garden (about 5 ha), several neighborhood parks (one per neighborhood, each of 11.5 ha serving about 50006000 dwelling units), precinct gardens (0.2 ha, one per 10002000 dwelling units) and green connector (generally provided along drainage reserve), all of which are ground level public spaces where the largest of these spaces offer the most facilities. Over the years, public housing towns have evolved to emphasize quality living (Perry et al., 1997; Housing and Development Board Annual Report, 2002/2003). In more recent developments like Choa Chu Kang new town, in addition to the street level open spaces, the rooftop spaces of multi-storey car park buildings (these buildings have at roofs) are increasingly landscaped into roof gardens (Fig. 2). Typically these are intensive roof gardens occupying the roof space (an area of approximately 550 m2 ). The car parks (4-storey high) are generally the lowest block in the precinct. They are public buildings

268

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

Fig. 2. Multi-storey car park buildings in public housing towns are often built with a at roof to offer opportunities for greening.

Fig. 4. Seats and shrubbery are some standard provision of roof gardens on multi-storey car park buildings.

open 24 h, well-lit at night and accessible to the public and residents of the surrounding taller housing blocks by staircases. Covered walkways provide allweather shelter from the car park blocks to the apartment buildings (Fig. 3). As with the other public open spaces in the new town, the roof gardens contain several publicly provided amenities: footpaths, benches, shelter/pergola, paving and largely manicured garden landscaping, for group or individual activities (Fig. 4). To enhance the internal validity of research ndings the mixed method qualitative/quantitative sequential design was used. First, focus group discussion and pilot

Fig. 3. Covered walkway provides linkage from the roof garden to the public housing apartment block.

depth interviews with residents were used to develop, pre-test and rene parts of the survey instrument. The group discussion was convened with the help of the local residents committee chairman. It primarily focused on having the small group of seven resident respondents who have all visited roof gardens to describe in detail their usage, perceived benets and attitude towards roof gardens provision including views on open space provision in the neighborhood. The discussion conducted in English was preceded by a walk through the nearby roof gardens and after the discussion the ground plane open spaces in the neighborhood. It was taped with the groups consent. The tape and notes taken during the discussion were later transcribed for analysis. Then, a household survey was conducted on a random stratied sample of 333 residents comprising households living near (<5 min walk) and away (20 min walk) from the roof gardens and closely reecting Singapores demographic prole (Table 1). Residents were interviewed in their homes. This survey method allowed the inclusion of infrequent, off-site and non-users who may otherwise have been missed in an on-site visitor survey. A structured interview format (included multiple choice, closed and open-ended questions) was used to guide the interview, each lasting about 3045 min. Even though perception is an exceedingly complex phenomenon, Shafer (1969) has demonstrated that the direct approach of asking a sample of people how they feel about the natural environment is one way to measure perception. Full details of the

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276 Table 1 Demographic characteristics of survey respondents Characteristics Choa Chu Kang new town (%)a Households living near roof garden (n = 186) Ethnicity Chinese Malay Indian Others Gender Male Female Age (years) 1624 2534 3554 5565
a b

269

Singapore (%)b Households living away from roof garden (n = 147) 83 11.6 4.1 1.3 49.6 50.4 21.1 29.9 44.9 3.4 76.8 13.9 7.9 1.4 49 51

79.5 15.7 4.3 0.5 42.4 57.6 9.1 31.7 55.4 3.8

Survey data. Census of Population 2000.

present study background and methodology are given in Wong (2002). In this paper, the data on the usage level and perceived benets will be presented.

4. Results and discussion Three perspectives have emerged from the analysis and interpretation of the data obtained: rst, a small proportion of respondents had visited the roof gardens at the present time; second, most would like to see more roof gardens provided; and third, they see several benets of roof gardens provision in their neighborhood and the city that have some implications for this landscape typology in open space planning. 4.1. Level of usage and awareness The survey revealed a generally low usage rate and high awareness level and willingness to use roof gardens. Only 1020% of respondents had visited roof gardens with higher visitation among those living near to a roof gardens (Table 2). Among the households living near the roof gardens, the older age group of 3554 years old (47.7%) had tended to visit the roof gardens. More than 70% of those respondents had family monthly incomes of S$

10004999 (median monthly household income from work was S$ 3607 in 2000) and 47.7% had gone to the roof gardens alone (the rest were with children). It was also found that more men (52.3%) had visited the roof gardens. When we examined the data from households living away from the roof gardens, we found that a slightly larger proportion (43.8%) of the visit was made by those in the younger age group, 2535 years old, 62.5% of respondents had family incomes of US$ 10004999. Male visitors again predominated (62.5%). While the proportion of single person visit remained high (43.8%), more (56.2%) had visited with their children. On the awareness and willingness to use roof gardens in their neighborhood, over 90% of those interviewed claimed to know of the existence of roof
Table 2 Usage of roof garden Respondents (n) Visited roof Not visited Do not know garden (%) roof garden where/what is a roof (%) garden (%) 76.9 73.7 5.4 2.7

All households 17.7 (333) Household living 23.6 near roof garden (186) Household living 10.5 away from roof garden (147)

81

8.5

270

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

gardens and over 84% responded yes to the question: would you use rooftop gardens if they are provided in your neighbourhood? (households living near roof gardens registered a percentile of 87 to yes). On closer analysis, we found that even though many may not have visited a roof garden, most sampled residents, 4065% of respondents, had regularly visited nearby parks other than roof gardens with another one-third going to other public parks. The park users were from all walks of profession, education, income, gender and age. The indication is that some parks attract much greater use than others. Not everyone is attracted to roof gardens, not that everyone should be. In a more recent study, Tan (2003/2004) reports the popularity of visiting shopping centers and cinemas as recreation choices in Singapore over parks and gardens. Other international studies relating to the use of public parks have stated the inuence of distance from home and between competing facilities (Mercer, 1977; Van Herzele, 2003), attraction of familiar places and amenity value (Burgess et al., 1988) and positive park image (Hayward and Weitzer, 1984; Grahn, 1991) in peoples use of parks. Part of the reason for the low utilization reported in the Choa Chu Kang case may be access and visibility which were mentioned as reasons why more use is not made of the roof gardens. Unlike ground level parks, access to roof gardens in the study site is at present through staircases only, which demands a certain level of physical tness and local knowledge of the location of those staircases. Part of the reason point to individual preferences as summed up by those respondents comments on why more roof gardens should not be supported: they are not practical, no one would go there. Roof gardens is too hot for comfort (Singapore located 1 N of the equator records day temperatures of high 2030 C) and nothing there fancies me were two major reasons found by Tan (2003/2004) on why residents in another public housing town did not visit the roof gardens. Burgess et al. (1988) and Grahn (1991) have argued that landscapes in the minds can inuence peoples choice of recreation places. Others such as Hayward and Weitzer (1984) have demonstrated that park image is a substantial and consistent predictor of an individuals decision to use a park. A positive image can lead to greater usage. If we assume for a moment that peoples behavior patterns may be related to what they perceive

in an environment, even though the number involved is quite small, the implication derived from our nding would seem to suggest that roof gardens at the present time may not occupy a particularly vital part of most respondents perceived recreation space. 4.2. A sense of motive and purpose Usage amount by itself is often limited in information about the qualitative aspects of why people visit the roof gardens and the benets of provision. Our central assertion is that the value and benets of roof gardens must grow out of an understanding of why people go to such spaces and what they mean to their users over time. Information on peoples motives to visit reects the demands and needs they expect to be fullled (Burgess et al., 1988; Carr et al., 1992). From users reasons for visiting the particular roof gardens, it appears that respondents were attracted to roof gardens for a variety of purposes. As summarized in Table 3, to take the children out was a frequently mentioned motive to visit the roof gardens. For those living near the roof gardens, to get some exercise presented another principal reason of visit while the reason to nd peace and quiet ranks high among those living away from a roof gardens. To nd peace and quiet signies personal benets and as Burgess et al. (1988), Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and many others have argued express the desire for escape or to take a break from the noise and stress of urban living. The search for peace is one of the more striking conclusions in Walpoles (2000) nding on British park users where many of the survey respondents reported visiting the public park for privacy now often unavailable in the media-dominated homes. The value of park as retreat is one that has traditionally been advanced as an argument in support of public garden provision in the city (Olmsted and Kimball, 1973). The other popular attraction is the affordance of opportunities for physical activity and usage of the facilities provided. In this perspective, the roof gardens offers a place to go to rather than a place to get away from. It is seen as a place for recreation, a setting for social and physical activity, specically for exercise among those living near a roof gardens. The convenience of proximal facility seems to be a strong primer for active use of roof gardens. Some users may seek specic activities (such as to exercise or to sit in the garden) hoping or

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276 Table 3 Reasons for visiting roof garden Reason for visit To take the children out To get some exercise Because friends were visiting To nd peace and quietness To enjoy the company of others To get out of the house Other reasons e.g. to smoke, happen to be there Do not know
a

271

Households with visit to roof garden (n = 58) (%) 29.3 20.7 13.8 12.1 8.6 6.9 6.9 1.7

Household living near roof garden (n = 43)a (%) 32.6 27.9 18.5 7 7 2.3 4.7 0

Household living away from roof garden (n = 15)a (%) 20 0 0 26.7 13.3 20 13.3 6.7

n includes only households who had visited roof gardens.

certain that particular provision will be available in the place. Evidence of the functionality element appears yet again in respondents articulations of the benets they think the provision of roof gardens will bring to them and their family/colleagues and the several suggestions respondents offered to improve the usage of roof spaces. Emphasis is on place usage: 65% of respondents mentioned usage of the roof gardens as a setting for activities as a benet of its provision. They suggested using the rooftop space for exercise routines and landscaping and would like to see more amenity facilities such as barbeque pit, sale of drinks and snack area provided in roof gardens (these are presently not provided). Currently, outdoor exercise equipment is generally only provided in the larger neighborhood and town parks. These data seem to illustrate that activity resources and facility development may attract a certain amount of usage. It is tempting to suggest that planners seeking to increase the usage of roof gardens should consider adding facilities. However, it is important to note that these data represent associations only, not demand and it must be tempered with a review of the entire open space system including the intended purpose of roof gardens. The ndings have indicated that the roof garden is but one in a range of open spaces visited. Just what form (and how useful) this open space should take present the challenge. The various reasons for visits point to the variety of functions that roof gardens can serve. Burgess et al. (1988) in their study of the popular meanings of urban green in the UK have suggested that what people seek in urban green spaces is a diversity of

park facilities and qualities that in turn encourage many activities. Interestingly, even as they would like to see more facilities provided in the roof gardens, several respondents especially those from the small group discussion were quick to caution that the roof gardens should be made unique and different from the other ground plane parks and gardens. Roof gardens are not needed in every block for fear of losing the sense of uniqueness. In addition, they suggested such enhancement as including garden statues, water features and special plants as possible points of distinction. These suggestions act to create focal points and a greater denition of community connectedness to the space. A sense of place identity seems important. Acknowledging the suggestions highlights a dilemma in roof gardens planning: in the face of ever limited resources and varying suggestions, what should actually be provided and whose wants should be satised? The expressed desire for place identity and uniqueness underscores yet the dynamism and challenge in roof gardens planning that recognizes the different needs and aspirations of multiple users and interest groups. It reects a timeless constant in open space provision that has preoccupied many writers (for example, Jacobs, 1961; Cranz, 1982; Cooper-Marcus and Francis, 1998). Theorists such as Carr et al. (1992) have urged planners to think about open space in terms of creating benets and cultivating meaning for their users and responsiveness to the users needs, their lifestyle and socio-cultural conditions. Central to the consideration is the fundamental question of relevance: the garden has to be relevant to the people. A roof garden

272

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

that is deemed irrelevant is unlikely to be well used and cherished by the community. 4.3. A glimpse of relevance Even though roof gardens may not feature strongly in the usage arena, there appears to be a general sense of support for roof gardens provision. When asked, Do you think we should provide more rooftop gardens in Singapore? about 80% of the respondents voted for more roof gardens provision. It is possible that some respondents may have been inclined to indicate yes as they were not asked to bear the provision costs. However, review of their responses and articulations to other questions, in particular, their usage and reason for provision, would seem to purport that bias was negligible. Respondents were asked to share their personal thoughts in a follow-up open-ended question of why they support or do not support more roof gardens provision in Singapore. The replies were content analyzed, similar thoughts and words were sorted and grouped under same representative themes and then independently veried to unpack the focus of individual attention. As summarized in Table 4, the main reasons point to considerations of aesthetics: to beautify the environment and personal usage for leisure and relaxation. The responses present a glimpse of the relevance of roof gardens in the participant residents life. The roof gardens experience of offering relief to the urban patterns and near to home space for leisure and recreation resurfaced. Many, especially those living near the roof gardens, appreciated the roof gardens as a space where
Table 4 Reason for more roof garden provision Reason for more roof garden provision Leisure and relaxation Beautify the environment Greenery and nature Better air quality Saving and better utilization of space Better living environment Entertainment and exercise Socialization and neighborly relations Accessibility and Convenience Reduce temperature Other reasons e.g. no particular reason, safety
a

they can bring their children to play, entertain visiting friends, hold block parties or just be alone. The sense of a place to go has been found among the most important benets of open spaces in cities (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Walpole, 2000). A lady from the small group discussion shared her joy of being able to spend some quiet solitary moments in the nearby roof gardens (it is perhaps relevant to mention that the average public at size in Singapore is 90 m2 for a four-room at (three bedrooms) and 110 m2 for a ve-room at (four bedrooms); it is not uncommon for household to live under the extended family structure). She joined other respondents who were mothers with young children to suggest that roof gardens should be provided with more plants that would become the honeypot of insects (such as buttery and caterpillar) where their children could observe nature at close range and develop an interest in nature that may otherwise be lost in the congestion of urban life. They were keen to see more nature and less concrete in the garden. Besides personal benets, several respondents also cited wider city benets to support the provision of roof gardens. These were largely related to the general urban function and aesthetics of the town: beautify the environment, better air quality (this quality seemed especially appreciated among those living near roof gardens), greenery and nature views, land optimization and better utilization of otherwise unutilized space. They form a part of the perceived relevance of roof gardens that goes beyond those derived from the earlier reported usage rate. Respondents were also asked if they see any problem(s) with rooftop gardens pro-

Household living near roof garden (n = 158)a (%) 23.4 16.5 12.0 7.6 5.1 4.4 3.2 2.5 1.3 0.6 23.4

Household living away from roof garden (n = 114)a (%) 16.7 21.9 10.5 0.9 22.8 5.3 1.8 0 2.6 0.9 16.7

n includes only households who gave reasons for more rooftop garden provision.

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

273

vision in Singapore. The majority of the respondents (6170%, the higher gure was from those living away from a roof gardens) did not have a problem with roof gardens provision in Singapore. A small minority (812%) highlighted concern over issues of maintenance (whose responsibility) and insects especially mosquitoes (45%). Safety consideration was another worry highlighted by some 79% of respondents. It was cited by about a third of those households living near a roof gardens who did not support this provision as a reason for not welcoming more roof gardens in Singapore (interestingly, all those families had not visited the roof gardens in the vicinity of their ats). This very much reects peoples perception of the level of risk rather than any true measure of actual risk. Public perception of urban safety is an important pre-requisite for peoples use of the place and may not be neglected (Lang, 1994). Relating to park settings, several researchers including Burgess et al. (1988), Nasar and Jones (1997) and Madge (1997) have reminded that fears of danger especially to the person can restrict park usage.

5. Conclusion As with many other cities keen on maintaining their connections to nature, Singapore has in recent years expanded its urban greening in the vertical dimension to include rooftop gardens as the citys buildings become taller. While a great deal more empirical work has been done on roof gardens in western countries, there is limited study of this landscape typology in Singapore. This paper attempts to address the absence of information by presenting a perspective of the sampled residents perceptions and usage of roof gardens in a typical new generation public housing town. Knowing peoples perceptions would be useful for the present and future planning of these gardens particularly since there are plans to proliferate such spaces. On a wider context, the search for the publics voice is an essential strategy of sustainable city development (Wakely and You, 2001). It is hard based upon a single case study and small data set, to make universal conclusions about roof gardens in the city. It seems probable that the ndings are unique to Singapore, reecting local residents perceptions of urban greenery formed over years of experience

within their particular high-rise, high density urban situation. However, reecting on the emerging patterns, it does seem possible to suggest some conclusive comments that might point to the usage and potential of roof gardens in Singapore and the urban setting. The rst relates to usage level. Our ndings indicate that the majority of respondents had not visited a roof garden even though one might be provided in the vicinity of their neighborhood. A gap seems to exist between respondents awareness and usage of gardens presenting an alert for closer analysis of residents needs, interests and knowledge of roof gardens to avoid an important but often overlooked phenomenon in urban park provision: non-use. Jacobs (1961) in her benchmark study of American cities has cautioned that proliferation of open spaces in the neighborhood do not necessarily guarantee usage. It reminds an important rst principle of park planning: open spaces that do not meet peoples needs or that serve no important functions for people are destined to be underutilized and by the use criterion, unsuccessful (Burgess et al., 1988). The second relates to perceptions that may offer glimpses of facilitation to greater usage. The present study claries some of the perceptions that people have of roof gardens which may directly affect how they interact with those spaces. Our ndings indicate that respondents are generally supportive of the provision of roof gardens. The reasons given broadly support other studies that argue for home range location of greenery in the city (for example, Alexander et al., 1977; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). High on the perceived benets of roof gardens is the aesthetic pleasure and affordance of opportunities for childrens play, recreation and retreat for peace and quiet moments amidst dense urbanity. These are also the most important motives for visiting roof gardens among those who visited. In Singapore as also the case in many other cities, not all residents will have the means and time to travel to faraway places for leisure and recreation. Our data indicated that among those living near the roof gardens the older age group and those with lower family income had tended to visit the garden. Just as peoples needs and activities (such as to be alone, to exercise, to take the children out) may draw them to roof gardens, their concerns (e.g. over safety) may act as inhibitions which in the extreme may result in diminished garden use. If not addressed, the concerns may work to reinforce a persons ambivalence

274

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276

about the gardens that may seriously limit their role and contribution to the quality of life. As Hayward and Weitzer (1984, p. 261) explain, with no current park use, there is no opportunity to reinforce the positive benets of the experience, and the inertia of non-use continues. There are many ways to encourage usage. In addition to physical improvement of access and layout (e.g. introduce more pedestrian-friendly and visible access), there may be greater community involvement such as allocating a part of the garden for neighbors and elderly to plant trees and vegetables (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). In some of Singapores public housing towns, parts of the ground level parks have in recent years been adopted and planted by the residents under a community adopt-a-park program. Similar community involvement could be extended to the rooftop spaces. Informing and involving the residents is the road to connecting people to the roof gardens, which in Carr et al. (1992) hypothesized model of public space meanings would be equivalent to encouraging the development of its relevance. Relevance is an important pre-requisite of usage. The third relates to the role of roof gardens. Unlike ground plane parks, roof gardens admittedly take people away from the public realm of the street into a more secluded community setting. But for those living in increasingly tall buildings (30- and more storey) our argument is that roof gardens may yet offer doorstep recreation spaces and contacts with nature in the verticality. Roof gardens present possibilities for carrying the notions of nature and open space further in tall building development. Firstly, at the macro urban pattern level, the competition and demand for urban land for open space has been such that it is likely to become even more critical as urban populations increase. To illustrate, Singapore planners have in their long-range planning estimated that another 14,000 ha of land will be needed for housing and industry when its population reaches 5.5 million (it only has 12,000 ha of developable land).The consequential impact is (re)newed pressure to innovate and (re)develop existing open spaces. There is a clear thread in the urban literature of the pressure on open space (Dower, 1963; Nesbit, 1980). Secondly, at the local neighborhood level, the social and spatial implications of dense urbanity is as mentioned earlier that while some may have the means to travel to places away from the city, many more (such as the elderly, the young, the lower income and others

who are less mobile) will require provision nearer to home. Reports such as Rogers and Urban Task Force (1999) have drawn attention to the ageing demographic trend in the western world and the increasing demands for the old and those with mobility problems to be provided with better access to open spaces. Singapore too is faced with an ageing demographic trend that raises issues of provision and accessibility to appropriate, local open spaces in the high-rise living milieu. As Yeang (1999, pp. 106107) forebodes, Ultimately the new vertical city must seek to re-create up in the sky as much as possible those conditions that we nd existent in the ground place. For instance, these include the re-creation of the continuity of spaces and circulation found at the ground plane, the provision of immediate access to the natural environment and open spaces, etc. With cities growing outwards and upwards in the face of increasing urban growth, growing population and competing demand on urban land, the roof garden is poised to take on a new premium in the urban landscape.

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and contributions of colleagues in the Singapore Housing and Development Board, Singapore National Parks Board, National University of Singapore, our students and research assistants to the research project: Study of Rooftop Gardens in Singapore. The project was funded by the National Parks Board, Singapore.

References
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., 1977. A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press, New York. Attoe, W., Logan, D., 1989. American Urban Architecture: Catalysts in the Design of Cities. University of California Press, Berkeley. Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., Limb, M., 1988. People, parks and the urban green. Urban Stud. 25, 455473. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G., Stone, A.M., 1992. Public Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cooper-Marcus, C., Francis, C., 1998. People Places. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Cranz, G., 1982. The Politics of Park Design. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276 Dower, M., 1963. Fourth wave. Architect. J. 141 (3), 122190. Dwyer, J.F., McPherson, E.G., Shroeder, H.W., Rowntree, R.A., 1992. Assessing the benets and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboricult. 18, 227234. Dwyer, J.F., Shroeder, H.W., Gobster, P.H., 1994. The deep signicance of urban trees and forests. In: Platt, R.H., Rowntree, R.A., Muick, P.C. (Eds.), The Ecological City. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. Environment Preservation Bureau Tokyo Metropolitan City, 1999. Garden-Planning in Buildings, Amendments to the Regulations regarding Garden-Planning in Buildings, Tokyo Metropolitan City. Floyd, J., 2000. Open space. In: Paper Presented at the Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation Melbourne 1991 Annual National Conference, Melbourne, Melbourne Water, pp. 5/15/13. Gehl, J., Gemzoe, L., 2001. New City Spaces. The Danish Architectural Press, Copenhagen. Godbey, G., Graefe, A., James, S.W., 1992. The Benets of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study of the Perception of the American Public, Leisure Studies Program, Pennsylvania State University for the National Recreation and Park Association. Grahn, P., 1991. Landscapes in our minds: peoples choice of recreation places in towns. Landscape Res. 16, 1119. Gustanski, J.A., Squires, R.H. (Eds.), 2000. Protecting the Land: Conservation Easements Past, Present and Future. Island Press, Washington, DC. Hayward, G., Weitzer, W.H., 1984. The publics image of urban parks. Urban Ecol. 8, 243268. Housing and Development Board (HDB). Annual Report 2000/2001; 2002/2003, Housing and Development Board, Singapore. Hollis, L.E., Fulton, W., 2002. Open space protection: conservation meets growth management. Discussion Paper. Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/hollisfultonopenspace.htm. Ittelson, W.H., 1978. Environmental perception and urban experience. Environ. Behav. 10, 193214. Jacobs, J., 1961. The Life and Death of Great American City. Vintage Books, New York. Johnston, J., Newton, J., 1996. Building Green. The London Ecology Unit, London. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Knopfs, R.C., 1987. Human behavior, cognition and affect in the natural environment. In: Stokols, D., Altman, I. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Wiley, New York. Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., 1995. Small, Medium, Large Extra-Large. The Monacelli Press, New York. Kuhn, M., 1996. Roof greening, Eco Architecture 2, OAA. Lang, J., 1994. Urban Design: The American Experience. Wiley, New York. Lee, S.K., Chua, S.E., 1992. More than a Garden City, Parks and Recreation Department. Ministry of National Development, Singapore.

275

Look Japan, 2000. Greening the Cities: Japan Pioneers in Energy Conservation, vol. 46, No. 535. Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA. Madge, C., 1997. Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 88 (3), 237250. Mercer, D. (Ed.), 1977. Leisure and Recreation in Australia. Sorrett Publishing, Melbourne. Miller, R.W., 1986. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Nasar, J.L., Jones, K., 1997. Landscapes of fear and stress. Environ. Behav. 29, 291323. National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, 2000. Greening our roofs: IRC seeks partners to study benets and durability of rooftop gardens. Construct. Innovat. 5 (1). Nesbit, R., 1980. History of the Idea of Progress. Basic Books, New York. Oi, K.H., 1998. Park connectors. In: Yuen, B. (Ed.), Planning Singapore. Singapore Institute of Planners, Singapore. Olmsted Jr., F.L., Kimball, T.H. (Eds.), 1970. Frederick Law Olmsted, Landscape Architect. Benjamin Blon, New York, pp. 18221903. Ong, B.L., 2003. Green plot ratio: an ecological measure for architecture and urban planning. Landscape Urban Plan. 63, 197211. Partners for Livable Communities, 2000. The Livable City: Revitalizing Urban Communities. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Peck, S., Callaghan, C., Peck and Associates, Bass, B., Kuhn, M., 1999. Greenbacks from Green Roofs: Forging a New Industry in Canada, Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa. Pendall, R., Martin, J. Fulton, W., 2002. Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United States. Discussion Paper. Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/pendallfultoncontainment.pdf. Perry, M., Kong, L., Yeoh, B., 1997. Singapore: A Developmental City State. Wiley, Chichester. Price, L.W. (Ed.), 1987. Portlands Changing Landscape. Department of Geography, Portland State University and the Association of American Geographers, Portland. Rapoport, A., 1977. Human Aspects of Urban Form. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Relph, E., 1976. Place and Placelessness. Pion, London. Rogers, R., Urban Task Force, 1999. Towards an Urban Renaissance. Final Report of the Urban Task Force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. Shafer, E.L., 1969. Perception of natural environments. Environ. Behav. Tan, L.T., 2003/2004. Receptivity towards roof gardens among HDB residents: a case study of a roof gardens at punggol elds. BSc (Real Estate) Dissertation. Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore. Thompson, C.W., 2002. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape Urban Plan. 900, 114.

276

B. Yuen, W. Nyuk Hien / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 263276 conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape Urban Plan. 65, 518. Wakely, P., You, N., 2001. Implementing the Habitat Agenda: In Search of Urban Sustainability. University College London, London. Walpole, K., 2000. Regaining an interior world. Landscape Des. 289, 2022. Whyte, E., 1988. The City: Rediscovering The Centre. Doubleday, New York. Willmert, T., 2000. The grass is greener on the topside with these innovative roong systems. Architect. Rec. 188 (10), 182. Wong, A., Yeh, S.H.K., 1985. Housing a Nation. Maruzen Asia, Singapore. Wong, N.H., 2002. Study of Rooftop Gardens in Singapore. National University of Singapore, Singapore. Yeang, K., 1999. Planning the sustainable city as the vertical-cityin-the-sky. In: Foo, A.F., Yuen, B. (Eds.), Sustainable Cities in the 21st Century. National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may inuence recovery from surgery. Science 224, 420421. Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 201230. Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, 1991. Living The Next Lap. Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, 2001. Concept Plan. Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, 2002. Skyline. Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, 2003. Skyline. Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. Van Herzele, A., 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape Urban Plan. 63, 109126. Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., de Hollander, A., 2003. Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a