1. General information
Location and description of the intervention
City or FUA
Budapest
Region
Europe
Native title of the NBS intervention
Teleki tér Közösségi Park
Short description of the intervention
The square is located in the most stigmatized area of Budapest, in the 8th district. The project was part of the third phase of the socially sensitive urban regeneration programme of the neighbourhood, the so-called Magdolna Quarter Programme III. Within the renovation of the park, 12,000 plants were planted and 8,125 square metres of grassland was created, which has its own irrigation system. During the rehabilitation, the green area was expanded to one hectare. The park was renovated with the involvement of local people. The local participants later established an association that provides them a legal framework for taking care of the park. The aim of the project was to strengthen social cohesion, sense of security, and to ensure the sustainability of the newly renovated park. (Reference 3)
Address

Budapest
Teleki László Square
1086
Hungary

Area boundary
POINT (19.085 47.49463)
POINT (19.08609 47.49371)
POINT (19.08606 47.49331)
POINT (19.08258 47.49362)
NBS area image
Source of NBS area image
It's a screenshot of a satellite image of Teleki Square on Google maps
Total area
15000.00m²
NBS area
10000.00m²
Type of area before implementation of the NBS
Timeline of intervention
Start date of the intervention (planning process)
2012
Start date of intervention (implementation process)
2013
End date of the intervention
2014
Present stage of the intervention
Goals of the intervention
The main goals of the project include:
- increasing social cohesion among the residents of the neighbourhood;
- strengthening local civil society;
- creating a healthier and more attractive environment to live in;
- promoting environmental consciousness;
- fostering responsibility for the environment;
- attracting higher value-added enterprises;
- changing the negative image of the neighbourhood (Reference 1).
Quantitative targets
unknown
Monitoring indicators defined
unknown
Implementation activities
Workshops were organized, where the local people could decide about what the new park should look like. At the workshops, a real community was formed and the lay participants established an association for managing the park and organizing programs in it. The association is active in the local public sphere and it considers itself as being responsible for protecting the quality of the newly renovated public space (Reference 3). As part of the renovation, 12,000 plants were planted and 8,125 square metres of grassland was created, which has its own irrigation system. During the rehabilitation, the green area was expanded to one hectare.
NBS domain and interventions
Ecological domain(s) where the NBS intervention(s) is/are implemented
Parks and urban forests
Pocket parks/neighbourhood green spaces
Vegetation Type
Please specify how many trees were planted
Within the renovation of the park, 12,000 plants were planted and 8,125 square metres of grassland was created.
Services
Expected ecosystem services delivered
Regulating services
Carbon storage/sequestration
Cultural services
Aesthetic appreciation
Recreation
Social and community interactions
Scale
Spatial scale
Micro-scale: District/neighbourhood level
Beneficiaries
Governance
Non-government actors
Citizens or community groups
Please specify the roles of the specific government and non-government actor groups involved in the initiative
The local government is in charge of the management of the park and it agreed with the association about the rules to use the park. The association can decide about the design features of the park. Furthermore, it can organize programs there, however, only with the approval of the local government (Reference 4).
Key actors - initiating organization
Key actors - Other stakeholders involved (besides initiating actors)
EU body
Local government/municipality
Non-government organisation/civil society
Citizens or community group
Policy drivers
NBS intervention implemented in response to an Regional Directive/Strategy
Yes
Please specify the "Regional Directive/Strategy"
The project was implemented with the support of the ERDF and in line with the EU territorial cohesion objectives (Reference 8).
NBS intervention implemented in response to a national regulations/strategy/plan
Yes
Please specify the national regulations/strategy/plan
The project was implemented under the 2007-2013 National Strategic Reference Framework of Hungary (The New Hungary Development Plan) that aims to provide direction for the use of the EU Cohesion and Structural Funds. (Reference 8)
NBS intervention implemented in response to a local regulation/strategy/plan
Yes
Please specify the "local regulation/strategy/plan"
It was an important part of the third phase of the social urban regeneration programme of the district, the Magdolna Quarter Programme III (Reference 1).
Mandatory or voluntary intervention
Mandatory (based on policy)
Intervention is mandatory
Enablers
Presence of specific city-level GI/NBS vision/strategy/plan - mentioned in connection to the project
Unknown
Presence of specific city-level GI/NBS section/part in a more general plan - mentioned in connection to the project
Yes
Please specify the general plan with GI/NBS section
The social urban regeneration programme of the district, the Magdolna Quarter Programme III involves concepts about the redevelopment and the improvement of the green infrastructure of the district (Reference 1).
If there is a relevant strategy or plan, please specify the theme / type of the plan.
Presence of city network or regional partnerships focused on NBS - mentioned in connection to the project
Unknown
Presence of GI / NBS research project - mentioned in connection to the project
Unknown
Subsidies/investment for GI / NBS in the city - mentioned in connection to the project
Unknown
Co-finance for NBS
No
Co-financing governance arrangements
Unknown
Was this co-governance arrangement already in place, or was it set up specifically for this NBS?
Financing
What is/was the Cost/Budget (EUR) of the NBS or green infrastructure elements?
453,000
What are the total amount of expected annual maintenance costs?
Unknown
What is the expected annual maintenance costs of the NBS or GI elements?
Unknown
Please specify cost savings
Unknown
Please specify total cost (EUR)
The project cost 160 million HUF, that is approximately 505 000 EUR in 2017 and 453 000 in 2020 (Reference 3).
Source(s) of funding
Non-financial contribution
Unknown
Business models
Which of the involved actors was motivated by this model?
Please specify social innovation
The project is one of the first participatory landscape design project of Hungary and thus after the implementation it was often termed as "best practice" (Reference 2). It was a stated goal of the Magdolna Quarter Programme III to change experiences and share the best practices of the projects with in yearly conferences with professional circles including professionals and policy makers of the EU, the representatives of the Government, and regional and municipal decision makers (Reference 1, 39-40).
Please specify system innovation
The project could increase the "sense of ownership", that is the responsibility of the local people toward their environment.
Please specify novelty level of the innovation
- Green Keys (Urban Green as Keys for Sustainable Cities) - RÉV 8 together with MTA [Hungarian Academy of Science] had a pilot project for urban green development with public participation in the nearby Mátyás Square as a partner institution of an international EU-funded project
- REGENERA Program (Urban Regeneration in Europe): between 2006 and 2007 the RÉV 9 was participated in the international experience changing program of European Cities
- Urbact I.: Cross Thematic Working Group
- Neighbouhood Housing Models (Reference 1, 50)
Please specify Replicability/Transferability
The participatory design of the Teleki Square started to be considered as a best practice and model to follow by local governments.
Impacts, benefits
Description of environmental benefits
A green park was created in a place which was formerly a derelict, crime ridden area. The unmanaged, small green area of the park was turned into one hectare of well-managed green space, thus increasing the green space areas available for locals. (Reference 3)
Economic impacts
Description of economic benefits
Unknown
Description of social and cultural benefits
The strict measures enforced by guards pushed crime out of the park. (Reference 6) Before the intervention, the area was in a bad condition and supported no green surfaces (Reference 10). Today, many people visit the park every day for leisure. The NGO that manages the park also frequently organizes concerts and other programmes in the park to provide more opportunities for social interaction. In Hungary, Teleki Square is the first Hungarian example of community-based planning, as it created the first platform for locals to get directly involved in the management of public urban green spaces. (Reference 9)
" The gentrification of the Magdolna Quarter is being built in power fields like the participatory design" (Reference 5) According to that thesis, the ongoing gentrification of the quarter has been accelerated by the project, but the impacts are not yet quantifiable.
Type of reported impacts
Indicators
Unknown
Analysis of specific impact categories
Job creation: The NBS created ...
Environmental justice: The implementation of the NBS project resulted in ...
Negative impacts: Did the project cause any problems or concerns?
Yes
Please specify the negative impacts
Because such strict measures were imposed to prevent crime, marginalized groups such as homeless people now have even less access to green space as before. (Reference 6) The gates of the park are closed after 8pm, no alcohol may be consumed in the park, and the park is constantly being monitored by guards. The benches are created in a way that prevents anyone from sleeping on it.
COVID-19 pandemic
Unknown as of July 2020
Methods of impact monitoring
Process of recording NBS impacts
Methods used to evaluate the impacts of NBS
Evidence for use of assessment
Presence of an assessment, evaluation and/or monitoring process
Yes
Presence of indicators used in reporting
Yes
Presence of monitoring/evaluation reports
Yes
Availability of a web-based monitoring tool
No evidence in public records
Impact assessment mechanism
Name of any specific impact assessment tools
Direct Observation and Interviews, Media Analysis, Discourse Analysis
(An MA research project at the CEU assessed the social impacts of the intervention by analyzing the discourses around the project. For this, direct observation was used, media articles and the records of the municipal council's meetings were analyzed and interviews were conducted with local people who participated in the project, the landscape architects, RÉV 8 and local people who didn't participate in the design process (Reference 5)).
Use of GIS in mapping impacts
No evidence in public records
Citizen involvement
Citizens involvement in assessment/evaluation
Yes
Mode(s) of citizen involvement in evaluation/assessment
Citizens involvement in the analysis of the assessment/evaluation
Unknown
Follow-up to the evaluation / assessment
Unknown
References
Documents relevant to the intervention
Attachment Size
Reference 1: Magdolna Quarter Programme III, Volume 4 (1.86 MB) 1.86 MB
List of references
1. RÉV8. (2012). Magdolna Negyed Program: Integrált Szociális Városrehabilitációs Program, Volume 4. Budapest: Józsefvárosi Önkormányzat. Available at: https://jozsefvaros.hu/dokumentumok/021_magdolna_negyed_program_iii.pdf [Accessed: 17.06.2020]
2. Majorné Venn. M. (2014). "Creating Partnership in Teleki Square". Urbact. [Blog] Available at: http://www.blog.urbact.eu/2014/10/creating-partnerships-on-teleki-square/. [Accessed: 19.06.2020].
3. Józsefváros.hu. (2014). "Szép parkkal és szoborcsoporttal gazdagodott a kerület". Józsefváros. [online] Available at: http://jozsefvaros.hu/hir/2046/Szep_parkkal_es_szoborcsoporttal_gazdagodott_a_kerulet/. [Accessed: 19.06.2020].
4. Balazs, R. D. and D. Zein (2017). Social Cohesion in Spatial Division: The Contradictive Character of Participatory Planning. In: Albrecht P. and B. Nisha, eds., Public Space Design and Social Cohesion: a Comparative Perspective between the Western World and Global South. London:Routledge. Manuscript submitted for publication. Available at: https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/RevisedStrategy_en.pdf [Accessed: 17.06.2020]
5. Balazs, R. (2017). Interpretations and clashes around a participatory design project: The Teleki Square Community Park. MA thesis. Central European University. Available at: http://www.etd.ceu.edu/2017/balazs_rebeka.pdf [Accessed: 17.06.2020]
6. Tosics, I. (2015). Participation or Inclusion? Urbact. [Blog] Available at: https://urbact.eu/participation-or-inclusion [Accessed: 17.06.2020].
7. Epiteszforum.hu (2015). Teleki Square Community Park. [image] [website not available in 2020].
8. Rev8.hu. (2017). Magdolna Negyed Program III. [online] Available at: http://rev8.hu/lezart-projektek/magdolna-negyed-program-iii-budapest-magdolna-quarter-program-3/. [Under development in June 2020].
9. Benkő, M. and Germán, T. (2016), Crime prevention aspects of public space renewal in Budapest, Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 191-209. Available at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JPMD-09-2015-0034/full/html [Accessed: 12.07.2020]
10. Boros, L. Fabula, Sz. Horváth, D. Kovács, Z. (2016) , Urban diversity and the production of public space in Budapest. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 209-224. Available at: http://publicatio.bibl.u-szeged.hu/18597/2/Boros_et_al-2016-HunGeoBull.pdf [Accessed: 12.07.2020]